From Atty Ken Ditkowsky – Amu’s presumptions contrary to the Rule of Law

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 3, 2013 6:11 AM
To: JoAnne M Denison , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Cc: Atty Amu ‘Lanu — honest atty oppressed by ARDC
Subject: Re: objections to ARDC

I welcome all efforts that foster and promote the ‘core’ values of America.   I learned a long time ago that all the brains did not go in my head.
My objection was based upon Mr. Amu’s e-mail that I responded to yesterday morning.   An effective defense has to be based upon knowledge of the subject matter and the law.   A defense has to be based upon knowing and understanding the cases and the effect – and most importantly understanding the First Principles of America Law.
The National Socialist credo of the IARDC exhibited in decision in Mr. Amu’s case is most troubling.  It was not troubling that they found the facts to be contrary to Mr. Amu’s version, but, it was horrible that they ignored the ‘standard of proof’ and created presumptions that were contrary to law.   Like it or not this outrage was and is only the tip of the iceberg.
The ‘core’ values of American democracy are found in the ‘Bill of Rights’ – the First ten amendments to the Constitution and repeated in Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution.   The fact that the hearing panel repudiated the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in their condescending writing is my focus and the reason that I wrote the Attorney General of the United States to demand an investigation of the obvious racial nexus of the decision.  Wherefore does any State of Illinois institution treat another citizen as a second class citizen!   Wherefore does any State of Illinois institution deny another citizen his/her First Amendment Rights.
A little over a half century ago in Germany people who exhibited similar disrespect for the equality and rights of man plunged the world in war over this very issue.  The Amu decision by the hearing panel of the IARDC demonstrates that Mr. Larkin and his minions have learned absolutely nothing!   42 USCA 1983 has been violated and we all have to call upon the Attorney General of the United States to investigate and punish this outrage.
Ken Ditkowsky
and:
The Illinois Registration and Discipline Commission attorneys should quite definitely file their annual statements of economic interest and should be like Caesar’s wife.   The Commission should demonstrate respect for individual rights and in particular respect for Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the public policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5.
 
I am concerned that the Amu case, and in particular the treatment that he received, and the words and phrases of the Hearing Board decision are manifestations of a basis having a racial nexus or worse.   I do not believe that it makes any difference whatsoever if Amu’s critical comments concerning the judges engaged in his cases is true or false.   They are absolutely privileged.  More importantly the IARDC was not provided jurisdiction to interfere or impede Amu’s free speech.
If you get into the nitty gritty of whether or not Amu is accurate, justified, or ***** the important issue gets side-tracked.    Side-tracking the wrongful conduct of government entities is the method by which despots are able to remain in power and continue to prey on the public.
It is too easy to divert the attention of the public by taking one or more of Amu’s statements out of context render it intemperate or nutzy and the criminal violations of 42 USCA 1981 – 1983 fall by the wayside.   This is exactly what the hearing panel and the IARDC attorneys appear to have attempted so that they could use color of statute to deny him his rights as a citizen.   DO NOT FALL INTO THIS TRAP.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From Joanne;
And think about all of this logically.  Mr. Amu received very unusual, not ordinary decisions:  the court ruled there was no effective service when in fact it was undisputed a gas station attendant working for Defendant gas station received a copy of a summons and complaint from a process server in one case and in another, the Mega Corp defendant took from August to December to file a reponse, the judge gave Mega Corp all that time which they effectively used to file a 113 page motion to dismiss.  The judge then turned around and told Mr. Amu he had only 7 days to answer and not the more typical 21 to 28 days to answer!
Of course Mr. Amu fully and promptly informed his clients this was highly unusual and he could opine as much as he wanted to about what was actually going on behind the scenes. His clients were not stupid, they knew there was something fishy afoot in Law Division.
Attys have to be honest to their clients.  And Mr. Amu then filed an appropriate pleading based upon his opinions and thoughts.  Pleadings are 100% protected speech.  If the court wants to discipline an attorney, it has Rule 137 sanctions.  The ARDC was not there, they were not involved.  The judge controls his or her own courtroom.
The judge dismissed these cases and they were over.  Mr. Amu published his thoughts and opinions on his blog.  At that point in time, they become political speech, and political speech is one of the types of speech which should receive the highest protection under the US constitution.  The judge is a political, elected figure, or the appointee of a political, elected figure. The comments, as they are recent, are also newsworthy and consist of a collection of thoughts and opinions of an attorney who worked on a case.  The public has a right to know those as long as the atty is willing to disseminate those on a blog.
So, all in all, the most salient portions of why Mr. Amu was also railroaded and his case is outrageous is:
1) pleadings are protected 100% by the first amendment to vigorously represent a client, and if the atty suspects something fishy, he can opine on that in a pleading;
2) newsworthy exception.  Mr. Amu and his clients may freely publish their thoughts about their recently dismissed case without interference or thought police involvement
3) opinions  exception.  Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
4) opinions concerning a political, elected official. These should be afforded the highest protection because they ensure an open, free and democratic society.  One that is strong and impervious to anarchy because it is transparent, honest, open and ethical and the people are satisfied this is true.
5) famous figure.  Since judges are elected and are well known in their relevant court system among attorneys and the litigants, they arise to being famous in that relevant marketplace and criticisms can flow freely.
If any one can think of other exceptions why this speech should have been afford the highest protections allowable, plmk.
take care
joanne

15 thoughts on “From Atty Ken Ditkowsky – Amu’s presumptions contrary to the Rule of Law

  1. From the ARDC opinion, Mr. Amu’s position seemed to be that the fact he received an adverse decision was conclusive proof the Judge was racist and/ or corrupt (or both, depending on his ‘theory’ of the case). Making such allegations without proof should be and is sanctionable conduct.

    • Brilliant idea, Jacob! The only problem is, in 1950, the US Supreme Court said that is not the law and that is not the standard for attorney speech.
      The law (in a nutshell): 1) The speech of a lawyer in filing a any pleading in court is 100% protected so that he or she may be honest with his or her client regarding what went on in court and the lawyer might represent the client vigorously to the fullest metes and bounds the law permits, which is pretty darned broad, if you must ask. If the rules say you always get discovery and the judge denies all discovery making a lame excuse, you have a duty to tell your client this is highly unusual and may amount to corruption. Anything else is legal malpractice. 2) you should report the conduct to the authorities, in this case, the Judicial Inquiry Board. The only problem with the Ill. JIB is that I’ve heard they’ve not disciplined a judge in years or nearly that because there is currently in fighting on the board. Why the Ill. Sup. Ct. does not step forward and fix that, I have no idea. 3) Once you are outside that court room and you want to write a blog post about “highly unusual activities before judge X” you are free to do so. You think Judge X was a racist, let the public know. You think Judge X was corrupt because your client was railroaded and all discovery prior to the hearing was denied, let the public know. Why let some poor dopey black atty and his black client not get ride of judge X before he tosses them out of court? We can say what we want on Yelp. Maybe attys need Yelp for court? Great idea, Jacob, maybe you can petition Judge Timothy C Evans for that one.
      We live in a free and open democracy. It is this trending and the public outcry that FINALLY got us an investigation in Greylord. But how many letters, phone calls and faxes did that take before a deeply entrenched and covered up system was kicked in the teeth.
      If you take the position that “judges are always right, judge X never had a bad idea, judge X is always Mary Poppins” and no one can think, say or do anything else, then YOU engage in regulating speech and thought and that’s not what this country is all about.
      Suggested reading: In re Sawyer (google “in re sawyer hawaii supreme court case) and my personal favorite, Citizen’s United, SCOTUS 2010.
      These cases make it clear that disciplinary boards may not regulate the speech of attorneys in pleadings and outside the courtroom and on blogs where they tell the truth–their truth.
      As a result of Citizens United, and leading up to it are: Alvarez (falsely claiming a medal of valor to get chicks to bed), Brown (selling violent/porn movies to children in Cal. is allowed), Nelson 7th circuit (painting a former Mayor in women’s undies, bra, panties, garter, is free speech), New York Times (the standard the IARDC uses means you can place an ad saying MLK’s house was blown up ten times, when in fact it was two), and there is the virtual child porn case (I should know this) and the squish videos (small animal violence allowed in porn).
      Please go back and re read the cases, or get some case synopses.

      Lawyers get to talk about corruption and suspected corruption and report on it. Greylord went on for decades before it was stopped because LAWYERS did not speak out. What Ken, I and Amu are uncovering in the records right now is Greylord to the nth degree. Just wait. It will blow your mind out.

      I thank you for your question tho. But without “suspecting” and publishing, without trending and publishing so honest lawyers can get together, the problems do not stop.

      How do you know anyway that Mr. Amu is not a hero?

      What happened to Daniel Ellsburg?

      Why was WikiLeaks so bad when all it does is publish old trash talk?

      And finally, why did it take so long for the feds to indict 117 sitting judges and lawyers in Greylord, and 17 judges went to club fed med, and then another 47 lawyers also joined them there. The rest died, retired or turned in their licenses. And those who were involved said that was the tip of corruption in Chicago but they couldn’t empty out the judicial seats.

      Again, thanks for asking.

      JoAnne

      • This blog repeatedly cites Graylord, as if that episode (as corrupt and horrible as it was) somehow makes any accusation against the judiciary acceptable. It doesn’t. And you aren’t wearing a wire and accumulating evidence- you’re just suggesting that courts must be corrupt because they’ve ruled against you.

        You also don’t seem to understand what the first amendment protects. If you want to publish a blog or stand on a street corner and shout about how Judge X is corrupt/ racist/ sexist/ an ‘ethnic cleansor’ (your name which is appalling and an insult to individuals actually being killed for their beliefs), then you are free to do so. However, as an attorney, you have an ethical duty to be honest in your pleadings, and Mr. Emu was at least reckless in his disregard for the truth.

      • No, I am basing it upon the wording of the Sawyer case which says that an attorney may freely criticize a judge, a judge’s decision and a law. Amazingly, the IARDC says that decision was because Hawaii was a territory at the time. But the decision makes it clear BECAUSE Hawaii was a territory it was under the control of the Bill of Rights and Atty Sawyer held each and every one of those rights–including the right to be critical of a court, a judge, a law, a decision.

        The reality is, I recall a time in 1970 when my friends with straght A’s and a master’s degree in engineering either could not find a job or were only offered a job as a secretary in an engineering department. that’s right, I’m that old. Everyone said it was because “women weren’t good enough in engineering” to get any better than that. In 1972 the EEOC came along and large corps were held to STATISTICS or they would get burned. Suddenly women and blacks were hot commodities in engineering AND ACTUALLY GOT JOBS. I was one of those and very, very grateful having learned from the tales of woe of my sisters.

        You have no proof that Mr. Amu was “reckless in his disregard for the truth”. I’m telling you that you have no idea what you are talking about. If it weren’t for Mr. Amu and some other attorneys coming forward, I would not be on the path I am tracking where and how the corruption now occurs in Cook County and across the nation.

        We live in a free and democratic society. If you don’t like it here, there is Russia and the DPKR where they tell you what to think and say. I think you are better suited to those countries.

        Go back and look at US history. In circa 1776 we were beaten, tortured and hanged for saying the Emperor has no clothes, in this case the ARDC, believe it or not has no clothes. King George was ruthless, systematic and greedy, supporting taxation to England well beyond anything coming back to the US and the US revolted and shot the red coats, for many things, inter alia, their resistance to honest and truthful speech, satire and polemic against England.

        And here we sit today with the IARDC playing King George and the hoi poli told to kow tow to a pattern of speech, repression and ignorance.

        Mr. Amu was there. He saw the nuances, he recognized the speech patterns of “you’re not good enough” for this court. Shut up and go away, and take your stinky African immigrant eating stinky crappy foods people with you.

        He could see it. He could sense it. It’s the negativity and tension in the air. It’s the aura that you know is greedy and evil.

        Ever been around a person that psychologically sucks you dry? I have and it happens in court all far too often.

        If Mr. Amu says he was treated unfairly and poorly and the judge was biased, I want to know that. Yelp does it. Atty blogs should do it too. I don’t want to be in front of a judge that has a stinky aura and rules repeatedly against my side of the story. I’m entitled to that information as a member of the public.

        And btw, judges are elected and political figures, therefore they have NEARLY NO RIGHT to sue or claim tears and peed up twisted panties over being highly scrutinized.

        I’m a lawyer and have been so for over 25 years. I can tell you 1) you can’t insult a lawyer, it’s impossible and 2) lawyers only get mad and indignant when they get paid to do so and olnly on purpose. The public has no sympathy for lawyers and I get that. It’s part of the profession.

        Otherwise Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan and Britny Spears could sue the world. You want that? If judges could sue because they peed their panties, then so should PH and LL. I’m just saying

        JoAnne

        Case quotes on this subject:

        a basic First Amendment principle that “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (citing West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), and Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)). “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994); see Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 2288, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012) (“The government may not … compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves.”
        Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2327, 186 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2013)

    • Subject: Re: [MaryGSykes.com] Please moderate: “From Atty Ken Ditkowsky – Amu’s presumptions contrary to the Rule of Law”

      please post as my comment.
      The decision of the hearing board, whether favorable to Mr. Amu or against him is racist. It is racist because of the demeaning manner in which it is written and the fact that it varies so significantly with the Standard that the public has a right to expect from people who are employed by the State of Illinois.
      starting at square one. The hearing board is fully aware of the Supreme Court cases that bar any governmental agency (including the Supreme court of Illinois) to censor of otherwise interfere with free speech of citizens. The hearing board was and is fully aware of Public Policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5. The hearing board is fully aware that it had no jurisdiction – due to the First Amendment and ARticle 1 of the Illinois Constitution, and it is aware that no one has to kiss the GM of the IARDC. Being respectful is enough!
      Why is the IARDC so disrespectful and so unprofessional? As the only distinguishing factor is the color of Mr. Amu’s skin just the Federal Government use of the criterion of what is racial and what is not we have a right to come to the same conclusion.

      Ken Ditkowsky
      http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

  2. I’m a lawyer too (you can look me up on ardc’s website as I’m posting under my name). I’m currently a soldier in the Army, so I don’t need to be told that I’m better suited to live Russia or North Korea.

    Look, you aren’t a martyr or a rebel. This ‘elder cleansing’ phrase you stumbled upon is horribly insulting to people actually being killed for their religion, ethnicity, etc. Your mom is fine. She lives with your sister, whom you can’t seem to work with unless lawyers and the courts are involved. You should be embarrassed that your family squabble is a matter of public record.

    You’ve made a number of statements on your blog regarding the corruption of Judges. If you can prove those statements, more power to you. If you can’t, then you should be disciplined.

    • My mom lives with my sister? Look it up. My mother died October 2011 and I don’t even have a sister. Of course, my mom IS in a much better place and you’re right there–she’s fine. Boy, this shows you REALLY don’t read anything, you have already made up your mind there is no corruption and you’re far, far away from the reality of being in the trenches practicing law in the Chicago Court system.
      BUT did you realize what you just did? YOU just made false statements on my blog and therefore I should tell the IARDC to sanction YOU for doing that and further abusing elderly probate victims. Now, how does the shoe feel being worn on the other foot? Mary’s sisters would NOT be happy with your comments and under your standards, they would have the right to report it and pull your law license for saying their mom is fine and living with “my sister”, which is not true and they are being isolated from her, which is a form of elder abuse. They would eagerly go testify against you and your false statements (I am Mary’s daughter and Mary is fine) With all due respect, please try reading the blog.
      And no, nursing homes are the WORST place you can put an elder in Illinois. If you want, either get a copy of Against Her Will by John Howard Wyman or I will send you one for free, but please get informed of the elder abuse situation in Illinois. This woman suffered near daily beatings and sexual abuse. I can tell you I am in the trenches and I frequently hear and see abuse to patients in nursing homes. If you complain, they black ball you in the system, boot the senior and the state generally denies the abuse, even with pictures.
      If you are a lawyer, and you can’t read and cite caselaw, and you don’t know basic Constitutional principles, and you can’t read a basic blog and know what is going on, then I’m glad you’re in the Army (I assume JAG core) engaging 90% in prosecuting soldiers for drug crimes. I hear the drugs overseas are much better and much cheaper and guilt is presumed 99% of the time, so you don’t have to think when you go to work. Sorry for the soldiers, they probably need drug rehab and counseling, and not punishment, but that’s a whole other story.
      Again, READ the Sawyer case, the Gillepsie case, Citizen’s United, etc. The law is NOT on your presumptive side. To make matters worse, if you counseled a lawyer client that they have to fall on a sword because it it is the burden of the lawyer/respondent to prove innocence, you would be liable for malpractice. Let the insurance company effectively take your license, you home and property, that will be YOUR issue for not reading the case law, 42 USC 1983, the Sodini case, etc.
      I am fairly shocked you don’t know about Con Law 101 or have thoroughly forgotten it and don’t like to read long, boring SCOTUS cases. And I assume you have Westlaw, Lexis/Nexus and/or Fastcase so you can read all the cases. You should have at least looked up Wiki on Free Speech SCOTUS cases.
      I don’t understand. You have READ Mr. Amu’s case to some extent here and on the website and you don’t find corruption in: 1) a gas station attendant was served which is permitted under Illinois law, but the judge kicked the case for jurisdiction only; 2) SOL was July, Defendants were properly served one month later in August (timely), Defendants hem and haw about filing appearances and responding to complaint. finally Dec 1 they agree to a briefing schedule, present a 133 page motion to dismiss and the Judge says plaintiff has one week to respond (21 to 28 days) is typical, or I’ll kick your case, and she does. But none of that is corruption to you, right? I have some Florida swamp land I can sell you. Right next to Disney cheap in Tampa and they’re expanding in a few months.
      This blog reports on a number of cases and you clearly don’t have the fact of Mrs. Sykes clear (I am not her lawyer or Gloria’s lawyer, etc. I am her BLOGGER–not involved with the case. I stand as a journalist to the two), Mr. Amu is getting screwed over and you don’t seem to care.
      Honestly, for a lawyer that has no financial involvement in these cases of no jurisdiction and theft: Tyler, Gore, Bedin, Wyman, etc., you’re not even keeping the basic facts straight yet you have a firm opinion of no corruption. Mary Poppins syndrome?
      Have you even READ the Citizens United case or seen the movie Hillary to see the full metes and bounds of the law? What about Alvarez, New York Times, Brown, Nelson, etc.? Have you read them, studied the language, the legal standards for free speech. I don’t see you citing those cases, I see you citing Mr. JAG for authority. Brilliant.
      You are in the armed forces, but don’t know if you’re drilled or punched–which is typical. They have clearly institutionalized you, the frontal lobes are anesthetized and when you’re ready to practice law, they will tell you what you need to know and when– you’re clearly in the Army/JAG.
      That won’t fly in ND Ill district court. You’ll get sanctioned. You must cite cases in briefs and the case citations must be accurate and not lies.
      I’m just noticing, that all.
      I appreciate your writing though. I think you have a lot–a whole lot to learn from this blog. Keep on reading. I will help you. I help everyone, even DP’d lawyers like you.
      Mrs. Sykes is NOT okay. She is living in a place NOT in her advance directives, CT has tried to dump her at least once in a nursing home where we all went to see her and take video. She was soooo happy to see Gloria after 2.5 years she cried and hugged and held onto her for 30 minutes. It was touching. She wanted to go home with Gloria. She was not happy that CT sold her home, took the money to ostensibly pay for the nursing home. She asked Gloria when she could leave so they could “start over.” Gloria had to tell her CT was in charge and she won’t allow that. THEN AS had that video destroyed, even tho that’s illegal, together with the Naperville police.
      Where IS your sense of justice? Of kindness and caring for elders? Tens of thousands of dollars fall off accountings yearly, millions are missing from inventories, all documented with bank statements, but the GAL’s, certain probate attorneys and courts all look the other way. I get at least one new report per week, all across the country. It’s an epidemic.
      And you say I am lying. Go read the other probate blogs. They are ablaze with utterly horrific stories.
      Then, please make your decision.
      Thanks and have a good day
      Joanne
      PS–why don’t you quit the Army, come work for me, we won’t make much money but we can clean up the court system in Chicago. You’re needed here. Not running off prosecuting drug offenses in some foreign land when seniors here are in dire need of protection.
      PSS–I am NOT a probate victim either. I am a blogger to the people I have mentioned. Do you write to the lawyers at the Chicago Trib and Chicago SunTimes and ask them to prove completely every statement in the news articles for their papers? Of course not. But I tell you I know these people that I blog for and my blog is far, far more accurate than the Chicago Trib or the Chicago Suntimes. I actually read all the pleadings. Go watch the Hillary case. Catch the at least 6 lawyers in the movie (did you know Ann Coulter was a lawyer? go write to discipline her for being scathing about other lawyers and SCOTUS), and note while the US Supremes said the movie was clearly “pejorative” they did not say find all the lawyers involved in the movie and discipline them, now did they? How is my blog any different. I am not related to any of Sykes, Bedin, Tyler, Drabik, Gore, etc. nor other cases that I blog about. I am not personally a probate victim either. On 90% of them I have had no legal involvement other than to write a few form or rote pleadings which have been published. 98% of my time for the blog is unpaid. Once in a while, someone will send me a small donation out of the blue. Probate Sharks, NASGA and other blogs work on donations and the owners are not paid either. I have only appeared on Wyman to contest jursidiction and that is up on appeal. The court ruined the life of John Howard Wyman and his mother. Go read the book, then comment. Again, I will send you one for free.

  3. I’m enlisted, I’m not a JAG. I’m sorry I misunderstood your situation- I thought you were the daughter involved in the case that dominates this blog. I was wrong and I apologize for the error.

    I’ve been in the trenches at 26th and Cal- I’ve done rapes, robberies, and murders. It’s a different world from the Daley Center.

    • It’s okay that you are a casual viewer to the blog and didn’t quite catch that. I’m also glad you now realize how important it is that we all have free speech and can discuss everything freely on the internet, even if we get a few points wrong. (New York Times v. Sullivan case)
      I’m not sure to be happy that I’m portraying the desperation of these situations so well people think each case is mine, or if I’m too involved, which I guess is okay because I’m only a blogger and there are many, many cases of injustice I pick up from the blog, or if I’m not making it clear enough that these are cases I only blog about, I’m not part of their family, nor am I anyone’s lawyer, except for providing suggestions and ghost writing some portions or suggestions for these clients.
      In any case, you seem like a nice guy so the army is wasting a good JAG. I don’t get that.
      I still think you’re needed back in Chicago to fight all of this, I really could use some help, and it seems like a waste of a law degree and bar admission.
      I’m not sure I could do 26th and Cal. My background is large litigation and patents, trademarks and copyrights.
      I simply find the Lord of the Flies approach to SOME case in SOME portions of the Daley center to be utterly fascinating. Law school never told me all this was going on unfettered and with full force and effect. Cases without jurisdiction, chunks of money, property and cash falling off accountings and inventories. The family screams bloody murder, and attys and courts look the other way. My only question is, why?
      Send me your address and I’ll send you John Howard Wyman’s book about his mother’s case. The book is 4 stars on Amazon and an eye opener.
      Good luck in the infantry and be sure to write a tell all book when done.
      thanks for your posts.
      JoAnne

      • I’ll admit, I’m a bit of a criminal law snob. Until you’ve discussed a plea with a client who’s talking to you through bars while some other inmate is using the toilet 10 feet away, you haven’t been ‘in the trenches.’

        I think large patent litigation would be fascinating. I just never got there- I became an ASA downstate after a year doing criminal defense in Cook County.

        The gold coins that the blog and the litigation references repeatedly- why do you think they exist? You think the GAL pocketed estate assets and paid off the Judge? I just don’t see where there is any proof of that.

      • I got you on the being a criminal snob! What a life. I have watched “Orange is the new Black” but I know it’s only women’s prison and I know that’s sanitized. Guess I should read the book, but I hear 26th and Cal is really on the edge and over the top of the top.
        The bag of gold coins is an amazing part of the Sykes case. Gloria complained bitterly about how once CT got appointed Plenary Guardian CT went and drilled out a safe deposit box without a court order and no formalities–and she said CT got family valuables from the box and never inventoried them. Gloria and Mary had a joint safe deposit box at Pullman and the coins were in there. Typically you would need a Citation to Discovery Asset, and a Citation to Recover Assets, Gloria would have to be served and given notice to appear for a hearing and she could then brief the issue and then a hearing would happen.
        Not in this court. CT just went and drilled out the box without a court order and no one questioned it. Gloria complained bitterly and the GAL’s denied everything to the court. That was April 2010. CT was appointed without proper notice and service upon Mary in Dec 7 2009. Mary’s sisters were furious because they were never notified. The statute says they get 14 days notice and read In Re Sodini which says this is jurisdictional.
        Fast forward. Gloria visits with Mary. Mary leans over and whispers to her, you have to help me, go find Ken DIT KOW SKI. Gloria knew this was Mary’s old attorney, but she forgot his name, how to spell it, and the guy was older than dirt last time Mary used him, so she was worried he died or retired. No worries, she found Ken in his new office and told him Mary had been railroaded without notice to her sisters and without having been served. Ken gets on the scene in April 2010 and starts his investigation by writing and talking to everyone, one of which was Mary’s doctors, Dr. Patel who had refused to sign the CCP211 form declaring Mary incompetent. He knew better and Mary didn’t want it and he refused. CT had asked for it.
        Ken tries to investigate but gets a call from AS demanding firmly Ken is not to investigate Sykes and if he does, he will see to it Ken is disbarred. Click. Ken’s wife is with him in Ken’s study at the time of the call and she is appalled. Ken pursues his Rule 11/Rule 127 investigation to file an appearance. Next thing he knows he is haled before Judge Connors who assesses sanctions against him in the amount of $5,000 for the “extra attys fees he caused” I guess by making AS and CF cry. I have no idea. Ken takes it up on appeal and he wins, and the Ill. App. Ct says there was no jurisdiction, Ken had not filed an appearance so the sanctions are void. The App. Ct. rules that judges can’t just pull attys into their court rooms and sanction them, the atty has to file an appearance first.
        No matter with that, Ken keeps on talking about the gold coins and calling for an investigation and emailing and writing the US atty and the state’s atty day after day, or whenever someone bugs him about the goings on in Sykes. The ARDC files a complaint against him.
        But the upshot is, Ken knew Mary and Charles Sykes. They came to him for estate planning. They told him of the gold coins and how they went to coin shops (Archie’s in the neighborhood) and chicago gold coin auctions. Relatives (sisters Yolanda and her daughter) and close family friends Scott and his mom (Mary’s best friend since grammar school) verified the same and many said they had seen the bag and yes, they were aware that Charles and his nephew Al Biddy collected a particular type of gold coin–double flying eagles $20 in mint or near mint condition from the turn of the century. You can catch those on ebay and they’re about $35,000 to $50,000 each. there was a bag with about 100 of them in there. So the value I am told is about a million, but it plenty of money for Mary and Gloria and Gloria was supposed to get them when Mary died. Al Biddy left instructions to his mother to have Mary come over and get his when he died, and Mary did that and clean out his house and sold it.
        I checked out the coin story, Ken did the same and besides his business records for estate planning for Mary should have force and effect.
        So what do the GAL’s do? I sit in court blogging and they repeatedly tell the court they investigated it and Gloria is dreaming. Judge says “oh” and goes no further. Gloria always shouts it’s a lie and court tells her to shut up.
        The blog does NOT accuse anyone nor does it point fingers. What it does is CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION. Which never happens.
        But the Sykes case is most fun to watch.
        At Ken’s trial AS (one of the GAL’s) testifed 1) he investigated the gold coins, asked the family and everyone said there were none (despite the fact, Ken and I ask and everyone confirms the bag of gold coins– Gloria, Yolanda, Kathie, Scott and Delores), 2) next he says on the stand he served subpoenas on the bank and on everyone involved. In a few months, Gloria is appealing and we get the complete Record on Appeal. No subpoenas, no return of service, no cert. of compliance of with any subpoena. AS says he subpoenaed the bank and they had nothing. BUT we check with Pullman in Texas and they say they keep the signature sheet for who signs in and out of the safe deposit areas forever. There is also video footage of the area to get into and out of the vault area. Come and subpoena it, they say. AS should have subpoenaed Archie’s coins where many coins were bought, and also the major gold coin dealers. Nothing. But he says on the stand he did it.
        Do we point fingers? Heck no. Why would we have to do that anyway? It’s like a circus in there. Come on, an atty couldn’t get a better real live show than this crazy court room.
        Do I make fun of AS, CF, CT like they’re the three stooges? You betcha.
        Fun and games on the 18th floor. And no one’s in control and no one’s found the coins, but I bet they’re not hard to find. Give me the same data base the PI’s use with banking records and all, and I bet I can find them in minutes. Minutes.
        Personally, I could care less about the conjecture who took them and who sold them and who distributed them to whom. It really would spoil all the fun, now wouldn’t it. That’s really a job for the reader and not the blogger. And as I pointed out to SO, how does she know it isn’t other people that are doing this and the lawyers in the courtroom aren’t being manipulated or pushed by outside forces? We know there is fraud, theft, embezzlement. The question is like the Clue game. Who and why. But in this case, the criminals could be OUTSIDE the courtroom, now could they not? And the lawyers could have been told to shut up or else. No one knows because there’s been no investigation.

  4. Ok, I hate to again sound like a criminal law snob, but watching ‘Orange is the New Black’ (which is an enjoyable show) does not put you anywhere near actually doing criminal law. Discuss a plea in a Maywood holding cell with a client threatening to kill you and the deputy too fat to make it to the holding cell door- ok, now you’re getting warmer.

    I’ve read Sodini. Your concern about notice seems to be somewhat disingenuous.

    Ms. Toerpe seems to be doing her job as the appointed guardian. I guess I don’t get why you think there is corruption involved with her acting on behalf of her mother.

    • Other than the fact Mary was never served, the sisters were not notified and her declarations have been published, and when we went to see Mary she was dumped in a nursing home, her partial was missing, her teeth were filthy and her gums were swollen, her hearing aides were not in, and she desperately wanted to go home with Gloria. That’s not to mention the gold coins falling off the inventory and the safe deposit box (which was in Gloria’s and Mary’s name) falling off the inventory. And there more, much more. See the Table of Torts.
      Yeah, other than all of those issues, CT is doing her job.
      I think she is doing her job in a way, she is making blogging about the case oodles of fun.
      She is not going to win guardian of the year or daughter of the year anytime soon, that’s all I’m saying.
      And I think I said that and agreed with you that Orange is the New Black is fun, but doesn’t anywhere near represent prison, even club fed med.
      have a good evening. If you think CT is doing a great job, then we are worlds apart on this one.
      And I assume you will agree with isolating Alice Gore for 6 months and when her family finally got to see her, all 15 gold teeth had been pulled, and she was left with only 3. I bet you think that’s okay too. What would a 99 year old woman need with all her teeth, right?
      Other great comments from OPG attys you will agree with: some people just continue on in their communities for far too long when they’re not fit to live with society and they belong in a nursing home where they won’t be a burden.
      For certain, old people are a burden and we have to hide them away.

      • She is not related to me. She is Gloria’s sister. Gloria was an excellent caretaker of her mother for 10+ years and actually bought a home behind her mother to take care of her after Mary’s husband Charles died. The deal was, Mary could live in her home until she died, which is what Charles, Mary and Gloria wanted, and Gloria would live in the “back of the lot” house until Mary got on in years, and then Gloria would live in the 2 flat with her until Mary passed over. In 2009, Carolyn swiped $4,000 out of Mary’s accounts and Mary was livid because she was still walking to the bank, the doctor, the grocers–wherever she wanted and she was still driving to early 2009. Mary went to the bank, discussed the matter with her niece there and the banker. The banker subsequently recommended Mary file for an Order of Protection and she did that. I know Mary went downtown to do that, I do no know who went with her or if anyone went with her at all. When Carolyn found out, she was livid and retaliated with a Petition for Guardianship and had the case transferred to probate. Other than Gloria, none of the family really knew what was going on. The elderly sisters (Josephine and Yolanda) who were entitled to notice under Sodini, never received notice and were furious when they found out later Carolyn was Mary’s guardian. (See deposition of Yolanda Bakken).

        My suggestion is that if you really want to understand the entire case, go read the depositions of myself and Gloria, Yolanda, Scott and Kathie. That will tell you pretty much the entire gruesome story. Then please make up your mind and post. If you can’t find them on the blog, I will email them to you directly. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s