From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 20, 2013 1:55 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Subject: Re: Fw: Notice of hearing to be given by mail or in person
JoAnne,
Hindsight is always 100%. However, sometimes less is more, and an attorney witness has to be treated very carefully. For instance, as Stern was estranged from reality and he was talking nonsense and saying things that everyone knew or should know – including the IARDC panel – were absurd.
As an example: a subpoena of the Bank as to the contents of a safety deposit box is about as useless as a subpoena directed to the President. Neither the president has any knowledge of the contents of Gloria’s and Mary’s safety deposit box. Had he interviewed Gloria or one of the close relatives who actually knew what was in the box, his testimony had meaning. (As Mary was railroaded into an incompetency proceeding and Stern testified that he could not claim she told him what was in the box).
However, as he was divorced from the facts and was competing for a Nobel prize in fiction, he could have testified that indeed Carolyn had found an inventory in the box. (Which was true) He then could have testified that he saw it (which may or may not have been true). He reviewed it (which may or may not be true) and determined that in his opinion there was nothing of value therein. This statement is a little tricky but has been employed in the elder cleansing (elder abuse/financial exploitation) on a regular basis. Mr. Stern would then suggest that he had no present recollection of what, if anything, this particular inventory stated, except that he remembered he had seen it.
Oh – you say – there were gold coins, uncirculated Au double eagles!
Today as I was coming back from Court today, I heard a financial analysis say that Au to him was without value as it could not be ‘spent’ at the grocery store. The chairman of the hearing panel was not friendly and therefore you would be cut off very quickly and the last word for a panel that could find that three people had knowledge of a fact without any testimony from any of the three people of their knowledge (past, prior, or current) would be left with Adam Stern’s testimony that the inventory list he observed *****.
If as we believe there is a cottage industry in relation to these elder cleansing cases I would not be surprised if Stern/Farenga/Schmiedel did indeed see the inventory and we all parties to the non-inventory of the Au coins. We cannot prove what Stern remembered or did not remember and it is sure fire certainty that the inventory in the box was destroyed and the copy, if any, in Mary’s papers has been sequestered and destroyed as well.
This is the reason that we need an investigation by competent law enforcement. It is a crime to lie to a Federal officer – but you, I and the panel members are not Federal officers. In a Federal prosecution Farenga/Stern/Schmiedel will have an incentive to be accurate, but, before a friendly fact finder – no way! Witnesses who have a tendency to be inventive are dangerous. Lawyers are particularly dangerous when they are caught in a situation that might have serious adverse legal consequences if the truth comes out! This is the reason these lawyers are spending so much effort to prevent an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation.
Ken Ditkowsky
From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Notice of hearing to be given by mail or in person
read the statutes together. Mary HAD TO GET WRITTEN NOTICE of time, date and place of hearing because that is on the form Notice of Rights which is required to be served.
I agree with the TRO. But when the hearing must be14 days out, PHONE NOTICE DOES NOT NEED TO BE GIVEN. There is a procedure for a temp guardianship.
Plus everything served must have a certificate of service filed with it.
I do NOT agree that the Ct of Appeals OR SCOI would agree that oral notice to relatives would suffice. Plus, the oral notice would have to be “in person” which is NOT a phone conversation. In person means someone is standing right there saying it.
Singing telegram, do you think that’s was AS was thinking about on the stand.
And in our world, where the tribunal refuses to even allow Google sharing for document discovery, it would be most interesting for AS to say it is okay to phone it in, Skype it, email it, fax it or even tweet it. That aint’ gonna happen.
His testimony was pure and utter BS and I would have ripped it apart.
joanne
MaryGSykes.com 