Independently My wife and others have reviewed the letters from Senior attorney G of July 1, 2013 and Senior attorney G’s outrageous statement that Adam Stern had been appointed as GAL for Gloria Sykes.    Senior Attorney G was at all times well aware that he statement was untrue and intended to intimidate Ms. Sykes.   It took Senior Attorney G 17 days to draft a patently frugal with the truth reply.  The exchange of communications between Ms. Sykes and the IARDC confirm in my opinion (First Amendment Rights) that IARDC is in ‘bad faith!’   The IARDC can demonstrate any ‘good faith’ by in candor and good faith join in the call for an HONEST, intelligent, complete and comprehensive investigation of the ‘elder cleansing’ cases starting with the Sykes case.   I’ve had to add the word Intelligent as I read the transcript concerning Adam Stern’s method of investigation.   Subpoenas and extensive questioning of Farenga, Stern’s wife, mother, and assorted relatives met the standard of comprehensive.    An examination of the records of Chase, Devon, Bank of America, Foster, Fifth Third will meet the definition of complete.    Honest in my opinion exercising my First Amendment Rights is a word that is foreign to the miscreants and their supporters –  this e-mail would never have been sent if I had any confidence that the aforesaid persons understood the word.

I would like to share with you Judy’s thoughts.   (see below)

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “jdit@aol.com” <jdit@aol.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 8:01 PM
Subject: Fwd: Final: July 1

—–Original Message—–
From: j. d. <jdit@aol.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; Judy Ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2013 7:48 pm
Subject: Final: July 1

Dear Ken,

The explicit reason Ms. G gave for not investigating the allegations of 
A.S. misconduct was that the person making the allegations was under the 
guardianship of A.S.

That was actionable because 1) Ms. G.  did not make an investigation of 
the person making the allegation that A.S.had acted against the law. She 
either relied on her faulty memory and never bothered to recheck her 
memory,
                                                     she acted knowing 
that she was making a devastatingly serious allegation in derogation of 
the civil rights of a person with no unusual status or she simply made 
up a serious defamatory statement.
                                                     She has admitted 
that her letter was never checked for accuracy before being placed in 
the U.S. mail.
                                              2) reliance on her memory 
is not an acceptable excuse as she sent out that letter in the official 
capacity as a senior attorney.  She has no right to rely upon her memory 
for such a serious matter.
                                              3) this reliance on a 
faulty memory (assuming that she was not intentionally doing a vicious 
act) was then used as the excuse not to comply with the duty of her 
office, which was to investigate the action of an allegedly (and       
                                                   to the best of MY 
knowledge)  non-duly appointed Guardian ad Litem.

Ms. G. showed favoritism toward A.S. following the previous PATTERN 
evinced throughout all proceedings, including the letter from Guardian 
Ad Litem C.F. to ARDC Leah Black, which was acted upon whereas numerous 
sworn affidavits were simply ignored.  Guardian Ad Litem A.S. got the 
benefit of the doubt, while the complaint against him was dismissed by a 
Senior Attorney who never bothered to check her assumption that a ward 
of A .S. was complaining about his activities. In so doing ,she put onto 
a computer which has daily back up, a defamatory derogation of a person 
who is perfectly functional, in writing, saving and printing this 
letter.  This information could adversely affect GS's ability to borrow 
money, get a job and live the life to which she, as a citizen, is 
entitled . Ms G took a full three weeks to correct the record, after 
having been threatened with law suit by her victim and complaint to the 
ARDC by the intended recipient of her letter.  I do not believe that she 
as yet even vouchsafed the courtesy of an apology to her VICTIM.

Since I was personally present at the June 25 hearing at which the 
plenary guardian under oath admitted to carelessness which resulted in 
the significant and long term waste of the  M.S. estate, which A. S. was 
ostensibly appointed to protect against plenary guardian abuse, I cannot 
understand how Ms. G can continue to countenance the disrespect of A.S. 
for his office.  Other actions taken by A.S. at said hearing were in 
derogation of the rights of other seniors closely related to M.S. to see 
their sister on a regular and unfettered basis and even to know where 
she is residing in derogation of state law. Furthermore, a personal 
friend of M.S. of many decades, also a senior, was denied her right to 
enjoy the company of her friend for absolutely no  reason. Furthermore, 
evidently, A.S. provided affidavits to Judge Stuart under the highly 
unusual situation that the pro-se Defendendant G.S. was not afforded 
access prior to or in the consultations resulting in the above orders.  
These affidavits MAY have been obtained by suborning perjury by A.S., as 
the very people mentioned in the said affidavits were present in the 
courtroom, available for questioning under oath, the pro-se plaintiff 
objecting from the visitor's gallery as she had been barred from the 
bench, and the people who had accompanied her; while the affidavits 
provided stated facts contrary to those to which the persons in question 
would have sworn under oath were contrary to fact and there appears to 
be questions as to whether they were anonymous.  A.S. was fully aware 
that the three persons named in this affidavit were present and should 
have been questioned before the simple human right of his ward was 
denied.   The result of these affidavits is that NO ONE other than the 
GAL's and the Plenary Guardian (and presumably the judge, if she cares, 
even knows whether M.S., the ward is alive or dead.  No independent 
doctor or police official can ascertain whether she is being treated 
with any degree of human decency, although the lack of simple human 
decency in isolating M.S. from every personal friend and every family 
member other than the plenary guardian beggars the imagination!  These 
affidavits accused the three people present of actions which, since the 
police were called, investigated and declined to press charges, were not 
sustainable!

Sincerely,

Judith Ditkowsky