From Rosann Miller–fighting for justice for her father in Ohio–Writ of Habeus Corpus

As some of you are already aware, far too many seniors are being isolated and probate attorneys and GAL’s etc. bar beloved family members from wards and alleged wards all to frequently, isolating them.

Rosann Miller has not seen her father in some time, Clair Miller was abused by her brother and arrested.  The house was found filthy and in disrepair.  Funds are missing from the estate, of course.

Read on below regarding another fight for justice in Ohio:

Substantial Constitutional Question or Why it’s of Public or Great General Interest

White Collar Public Corruption from Elder Murder, Abuse and Fraud

Logan County Probate and the 3rd Appellant Court’s decision (see Ohio Supreme Court cases 2009-1456 & 2010-1147) have rewritten the Legislative and Ohio Supreme Court LAWS governing adult Guardianships using discretionary interpretation better known as Judicial Tyranny. This will oust the credentialed experts to perform psychological evaluations for suspects charged of criminal crimes to determine the “insanity defense“ (McNaughton Rule) deciding competency to stand trial. These Judges used a MD, SW and GAL (who said Clair is okay) to override a PsyD, PhD and a Court Investigator (all mandated by the ORC and Rules of Superintendence) who found Clair Miller Mentally Impaired Incompetent (hereafter MII) necessitating a guardian. Also included is a City Municipal Prosecutor, Police Detective & Officer that testified Clair is not capable to testify on the witness stand (including the prosecution of his own wife’s case) or has no understanding of his business affairs. This is either incompetence or corruption and blatantly is disrespect & professionally arrogant against Dr. Tennenbaum, PhD’s 12 page Assessment that screams volumes Clair can’t answer ANYTHING. Dr. Tilley, PsyD. Psychological Evaluation adamantly diagnosed Clair is MII because of DEMENTIA not bereavement or a dysfunctional family. There is NO SUCH THING. Their Statement of Expert Evaluations & the Court Investigator Report checked MII, needs a Guardian & can NOT handle Finances or Person. This is NOT the definition “of sound mind or memory and free from undue influence or restraint” pursuant to O.R.C. 2111.01(D).

* Since the 3rd District and Judge Walters are affirming Judge Brady’s guardianship/estate rulings of “not incompetent“, the missing $177k becomes a mute point and it’s how they commit “White Collar Public Corruption“ because Clair doesn‘t realize the error. GAL Traul submitted this erroneous inventory on Nov 9, 2009 even though he knows the crime they are committing.

* The 3rd District said (Pg 5) Ann “previously cared for him” and if she is gone doesn’t he need someone for that now? Who do you know that has someone “personally care” for them if they are competent? It’s obvious Ann is gone given Clair’s medical, personal & business affairs are seriously falling apart and nobody denies he is being abused. This is insulting and disrespectful to my Mother and his wife.

* On (Pg 14) Those assets aren’t being used for Clair they are used to pay the suspect of Ann’s death who has remained in the house since & the system who applauds this. That is well noted through out Dr. Tennenbaum’s Assessment, which Brady was withholding from Public Record and we had to fight for up to the Ohio Supreme Court level. (2009-0313)

Logan County Prosecutor Heaton is Brady’s legal counsel before the Ohio Supreme Court and many times called the guardianship case “ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION” (Public Records Writ case 2009-0313) when they are NOT supposed to be adversarial but rem proceedings but Ann’s death sits in the prosecutor’s office. So will he work harder for his Judge or Ann given her case needs to stay under the rug to loot? This is blatantly a conflict of interest given Brady approved $177k missing from the Miller estate, paying James (the suspect) $200 PER WEEK since Nov 2007 and Walters gave Clair almost $9k Feb 2010 which Clair testified on May 4, 2010 under oath, he doesn’t have any knowledge of or his financial business accounts. Where is it going?

Ann’s death has been swept under a rug by the Executive Branch to aid the Judicial Branch to extort from a MII man who can’t even use a phone book, using him like a bumbling fool. I ask where is the First Branch of government in all this who set those ORC laws funded by tax dollars? If Judicial can override and make law from the bench we don’t need a Legislative branch.

Brady has violated:

Due Process of Law – On May 1, 2007 Brady was going to appoint a guardian of Clair if Rosanna would agree to an outside family member, which translates to one of his buddies. She said absolutely NOT and proceeded to uphold and honor her parents legal documents.

On July 10, 2007 Brady said 3 times this case would be decided by the weeks end

What and how many Codes, Laws, Rules, etc did he take an oath to honor and uphold, which gave him the power to address or rule on all the JE Orders, Motions, Briefs, etc. that he has ignored? Brady and the courts have manipulated the laws to languish the guardianship case for the fake appearance of “complicated” to make the events mirror their desires for monetary gain. When court cases can be “languished’ to steal from the MII, racking up costs and charges to litigants who prove their case by “clear and convincing evidence” undeniably screams “BIASED AND PREJUDICE” (hateful, spiteful, discriminating, retaliation, dishonorable, etc.)

ORC 2111.01(D)2111.022111.0312111.04(D)2111.142111.141

Superintendence of Rules 66 Guardianship

In Camera” = a Judge interjecting himself instead of using the ORC laws which were set in place for the Judge to gather evidence so as to remain impartial “In re: Guardianship of Lauder (2003 Ohio App. 10 Dist.), 2003 WL 194760. An in camera interview of the proposed ward flies in the face of this law and constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Probate Court. (ref. OSC 2010-1147 July 1, 2010 pg 17.)

Ann’s “Executor” (that Brady ordered) is diagnosed Mentally Impaired Incompetent and can “NOT witness in her murder”! There is an existing document the executor will pay his son if he is convicted for her death! If Clair can’t witness in her murder case how can he be her executor?

http://www.apa.org/topics/alzheimers/testing.aspx

“According to the Amsterdam researchers, for instance, the commonly used Mini Mental Status Exam is not as effective as other tests………“ But Brady used the MMSE to override a PsyD. Psychological Evaluation and a PhD Psychological Assessment because these two professional credentials in the field of psychology wouldn’t help Brady steal Clair and Ann’s estate.

The Judges rulings are contradictory to the outline and direction under this act.

JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF CAPACITY OF OLDER ADULTS IN GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS.

http://www.apa.org/pi/aging/resources/guides/judges-diminished.pdf

(http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/fnact99/1990s/ugppa97.htm)

This is authored by the American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging, American Psychological Association & National College of Probate Judges

Please see Page 3, column 4. Make Determination – “Analyze evidence in relation to the elements of STATE LAW” (This assures “discretionary” retaliation stays out of decisions)

Page 4, #2. Cognitive Functioning Component – “1997 Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (UGPPA) defines an incapacitated person as an individual who….is unable to receive and evaluate information or make or communicate decisions to such an extent that the individual lacks the ability to meet essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care, even with appropriate technological assistance”. Please take note of Jury Instructions on Pg 61.

After you read the EXP EVALS and May 4, 2010 hearing transcript, does this describe my Dad?

It’s offensive that Brady accused Rosanna of “alleging there was an investigation” of my Mother’s death in his 9/2/2009 decision or that Heaton, who holds my Ann’s case, would submit something this shameful before the Ohio Supreme Court. Maybe if they had REAL investigations, instead of down at the donut shop as Brady is insinuating, Jim might be in jail for his crime now. This statement is located in OSC case 2009-1456 (at the end).

And as the 3rd district reiterated this line from Brady’s 9/2/09 guardianship decision “it is the duty of the Court to protect the rights of individuals and within the least restrictive alternative possible” –

The People’s” Interpretive Discretionary Translation =

It is the duty of the Court to protect the rights of individuals (convicted criminal Tindell boy) and within the least restrictive alternative possible (to roam the streets freely to harm citizens and kill Mrs. Green) or

It is the duty of the Court to protect the rights of the individuals (convicted abusive Robinson parents) and within the least restrictive alternative possible (to remain with their children to kill them or beat 11 month old Dana past the point of repair) or

And since Judges were wrong about the “Tindall boy, Robinson parents, Writ for Public Records, etc.“ proves they are also wrong about:

It is the duty of the Court to protect the rights of the individuals (diagnosed Mentally Impaired Incompetent Clair) and within the least restrictive alternative possible (rule him not incompetent, leaving him controlled and isolated, which leaves him UNPROTECTED to be abused by manipulation and intimidation for exploitation by “the suspect and the courts”. Clair doesn’t know where his financial or personal affairs are or what is going on around him, since his “previous caretaker” has been sent to her grave).

That these crimes are fueled and allowed to continue by our government mocks and laughs about our laws implemented under the ruse of for the “safety, health and welfare” of the people and in the “best interest of the citizens”. Rather the government is serving “their selves“, killing the people.

Rosanna Miller

10469 Westfall Rd.

Amanda, Oh 43102

740-969-2468

“How Soon ‘Not Now’ Becomes Never … Martin Luther

Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one”.

 THE END **********************************************

Blessings and Prayers to those without loved ones over the holidays

Dear Readers;

While we all now know that it is a federal crime to hide a senior or isolate them, I hear of far too many cases employing this tactic.  My heart goes out to the loved ones that can’t find their senior, that when they call up, the location of the senior is denied, and the phone is hung up on them.

It is wrong, morally and ethically to hide a senior from friends, family and those concerned with the welfare of the senior.  It is equally wrong, if you are a GAL or Plenary Guardian to secret a senior away from former friends and family, to hang up on a loved one that calls to say “Merry Christmas”.  It is wrong to deny them access at all reasonable times, to the senior that wants to see them.

Every day I hear more and more stories of these tragedies.  It would be most welcome if the Illinois legislature could see fit to pass a law that wrongfully denying a senior access to their children is a crime and a tort.  Unless the child has a Protective Order entered against him or her, they should be allowed to see mom or dad at least once per week for a couple of hours.  These are “loss of cosortium/companioship” statutes that have already been passed in 13 states due to this problem.

Another problem I am seeing in Probate Court is the court granting or the lawyers agreeing that certain lawyers only get paid 10% or 20% of their fees, while others are paid 90% or more.  Often it appears one lawyer does all the work, but is not “part of the club” and the judge either rules, or the other attorneys agree that one lawyer gets paid far, far less.  Now, normally this would not be a problem, but when that lawyer can’t even pay rent or staff, it is a huge problem because it creates many problems with rent, utilities and staffing for protecting a senior.

And finally, if you are a court victim, I know that you have been through a lot.  I believe we have already discussed on this blog the issue of PTLD.  There is an excellent youtube.com video on it, if anyone can find it for me again, I will post.  PTLD leaves many court victims in an excited and emotional but illogical state.  It is explained this way:  you go to place A once per month.  Every time you go to place A, someone takes a 2 by 4 and whacks you in the knees, or across the back.  So everytime you have to go to place A, for a few days before, and a few days after, you get yourself into a highly excitable and agitated state because you know the experience will be excruciatingly unpleasant.  You can’t think and can’t sleep.

BUT, if you talk to any lawyer, they will tell you the best face to have when you are in court is a poker face.  When you have to say something unpleasant about the opposing party, look down at the floor. 

One huge problem I do see in divorce and probate cases is the mud slinging of “alcoholism/drug addition”.  For some reason, opposing counsel loves to mud sling these terms.  The only way to stop this is to have your client go to an independent doctor/drug testing clinic and get a blood or blood and hair test and the next time opposing counsel starts up, have it ready to file with the court as a “Notice of Evaluation.” 

Stops OC cold and makes him look like the liar he is.

Accordingly, if your client is accusing someone of being an addict, make sure there is proof before you toss that one around in court.  It’s fraught with trouble and can easily backfire.

Again, my thoughts and prayers at this time are with those court victims where there is no jurisdiction, where they cannot see or call or even reliably drop off a card or present to a loved one. 

Let’s all pray for truth and justice to be done each and every day.

And if you get a chance, please check out our sister site:  http://www.justice4every1.com which I plan to incorporate an NFP on Jan 1, 2014 to start the new year.  You can make a non 501-c-3 donation by paypal to fairjustice4every1@gmail.com or via our website, just mark the payment donation and it will get to the new NFP. 

JoAnne

A very telling letter from Adam Stern to Kathie Bakken

And in the continuing saga of “I’m punishing you because you took the wrong side”– which has nothing to do with federal laws that say you cannot keep Mary, an alleged disabled from friends and family she formerly knew and wants to see–AS “punishes” Kathie and Yolanda Bakken.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwb3gycnFJOWIzeGc/edit?usp=sharing

Now in this email, AS continues the very out there idea that “Gloria financially abused Mary”, which is absolutely ludicrous on a wide range of levels 1) Gloria did not get $1.3 million from a lumberman’s lawsuit for damage to Gloria’s home.  After attorneys fees, expert fees and other fees, the award was much lower and meant to repair Gloria’s home.  Gloria’s home has never been repaired; 2) Gloria was an excellent caretaker of Mary for 10+ years and made sure the mortgages on both their homes were paid during that entire time, despite the fact that Mary had only $2,000 in income per month; yet Mary ate the finest foods, traveled with Gloria and wore designer clothes. Mary’s home was 6014 N Avondale and Gloria’s was 6016.  Gloria paid all expenses and utilities on 6016 and owned the property inside and the insurance policy.  Only she had the right to make a claim and collect proceeds. Mary’s had her own home and own personal property in it and her own homeowner’s insurance.  Mary’s name was added to Gloria’s home as a testamentary convenience.

You will note that AS does NOT explain all of that. He clearly skips a few steps.

Most recently, due to the condition of Gloria’s home and the fact that it had not been repaired (the settlement money was for repairs to the home, which the court has not seen fit to do), the mortgages on Gloria’s home, it was determined by the court’s own evaluator that the home could not be sold or petitioned without incurring a loss. Did this mean the home was quit claimed back to Gloria promptly?  Heck no. When asked in the hallway outside of court, AS replied “he would have to study it.”

And this is how Probate works.

See below.  There are adequate videos already on Vimeo and on Gloria’s facebook showing that neither Yolanda or Kathie needs a supervisor at any visitation.  While AS says “he will do it” but CT “must be around” (why?), there is absolutely no video, no transcript, nothing indicating that either of Gloria, Kathie or Yolanda has acted improperly around Mary or that Mary does not want to see either of them.

So the big question is “why?”

No one so far has been able to answer the questions

1) where is the summons and complaint in the Sykes case giving the case jurisdiction?

2) why is Mary being isolated from the vast majority of her former family and friends?

3) why was Mary’s home sold at such a loss compared to other properties in Norwood Park and why did “Richard Mell, Jr.” sell it.  How did he get that job?

4) where is the $1 million in uninventoried gold and silver coins and why has that not been investigated by the Cook County authorities.

Inquiring minds want to know

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwb3gycnFJOWIzeGc/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

From Ken Ditkowsky, his final petition to SCOI

Dear Readers;

Ken has finally drafted his petition to SCOI.  The basis for the ARDC case against him is that AS and CF, the GAL’s in the Sykes case threatened to have him disciplined by the ARDC if he attempted to investigate the Sykes case further, or ask the authorities to investigate the Sykes case.

Apparently, AS and CF have the power and ability to tell another attorney NOT to take on a client, not to investigate a case that sorely needs investigating, and to ignore the pleas of friends and family that there are serious troubles in a case of apparent senior abuse and exploitation.

I believe this is clear from what Ken has written in his appeal to SCOI.

However, judging from public records that I have found on most of the justices in Illinois, and their past behavior of telling Gloria she had no appeal due to “law of the case” (a preposterous position since there simply is no jurisdiction in the Sykes case, and there is no jurisdiction in the Wyman case, both were summarily turned down on SCOI appeal), this does not look good for the ends of justice.

All Ken did was attempt to investigate.  He then reported the findings to me and many wanted this information published on my blogs–which are very popular blogs.  Many people are appalled that there is no jurisdiction in the Sykes case and $1 million is missing from the inventory.  Many people are equally appalled that there is no jurisdiction in the Wyman case and she was falsely imprisoned in one of Illinois’ worst nursing homes were she was beaten and sexually abused.

I wish I could say that this pattern is ending, but I have learned of more cases since then.  It truly is my opinion that all 3200 open guardianship cases in Cook County should be reviewed for glaring errors in jurisdiction and knowledge of the relatives, the inventories, etc.

See Ken’s Petition to SCOI and please pray for him:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwMTZlQm1BaDlNSE0/edit?usp=sharing

thanks

 

joanne

From Ken Ditkowsky, personally explaining filing his Petition to SCOI today

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Dec 28, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Jo Anne Denison , “lawrence@Lhyman.com”
Subject: Illinois Supreme Court

 It took Larry 3 attempts to get the procrustean rules of the Supreme Court right so that we could file our petition.   The Petition is now filed.     If the Supreme Court of Illinois will follow the Rule of Law as set out by their own ruling and the Supreme Court of the United States this is a cake=walk!    Unfortunately, in Peel it took an Appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  (That was the case in which a lawyer on his letterhead connoted that he had been awarded the designation as a ‘trial specialist!’  – the IARDC brought the proceedings against Attorney Peel as Peel was representing two other lawyers in proceedings brought to by the IARDC)
The first try failed because the Petition was more than 20 pages.   I was going to file a Motion to file  document in excess of 20 pages.    OK – it was easier and did not delay us by just reducing the number of pages.   New we needed a one page document – more like a duplication of the issues and prayer for relief.   This we did – it was  a piece of cake.   On the 3rd try everything got filed.    The 15 copies are now out!   12 to the Court and 3 to the IARDC.
Larry will furnish copies to everyone.
The argument is really quite simple.    Content related speech is protected speech pursuant to the Rule of Law as set forth by the United States Supreme court.    Thus, complaining of Greylord type corruption now going on in the field of Elder Cleansing cannot be punished by Mr. Larkin, his staff at the IADC and/or court appointed miscreants such as Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Miriam Solo. Peter Schmiedel.    (see 320 ILCS 20/4 granting immunity – which Larkin ignores, 735 ILCS 110/5 – which sets the policy of the State of Illinois – which Larkin ignores, 18 USCA 3,4 which require the reporting of felonies etc, 18 USCA 171 which effectively makes those who aid and abet criminal activity to be conspirators!      Of course as the mail is part and parcel of these proceedings 18 USCA 1341 is also violated.
N.B. Income tax evasion, theft by a fiduciary, et al are felonies!     As I have reported all these misdeeds to Mr. Larkin and the IARDC and they continue to ignore the reports (and reports totally consistent by citizens such as Scott Evans, Gloria Sykes, Katty Bakken, etc) aiding and abetting appears to be a mild term.    The July 1, 2013 letter from a senior attorney at the IARDC claiming that Adam Stern was the GAL for Gloria and therefore the IARDC could not investigate Stern is strong evidence of 18 USCA 171, especially 17 days later when the false assertion became a typo, but no investigation commenced!
What is most interesting is the fact that Mr. Larkin has not attempted to CYA.    As Carolyn has never denied the allegations made against her should give him pause!     The fact that Carolyn was reported to be insolvent prior to being wrongfully appointed as guardian and now is flaunting wealth from every pore should raise some law enforcement eyebrows!     In particular in light of 18 USCA 171 Larkin and the miscreants all know that anytime Mr. Holder decides each has ‘skin in the game!’    (When you add the prosecution of Ms. Denison in violation of 47 USCA 230 this is one puzzling case!)
Anyhow – on Monday I should have a workable draft of Count 1 of our 42 USCA 1983 claim for you and we can start adding the State Court counts!    The lack of jurisdiction for the miscreant’s actions wraps things up in a very nice package.    Before  a Jury there will be no informal assumptions.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

What happens when probate comes for Santa?

Dear Readers;

This is a very clever piece written by R.Bush (who is a wonderful writer) on his musings on probate court, the guardianship process and Kris Kringle.

Since it’s the third day of Christmas, I find it appropriate.

JoAnne

From Rudy Busy:

“What will we all do when the court appointed guardians, conservators, and trustees come for Santa Claus?

When the guardians come for Santa Claus, Santa Claus will be taken out of his igloo in handcuffs, he will be put on a diet, and given psychotropic drugs for his anxiety at the fact  Rudolph will have nobody to shine his nose, in London the rosy red cheeks of the little children will turn to dust, in the United States the flame will be out on the Statue of Liberty . . . and the United States government will release a press announcement stating it was done, “in his best interest,” and will officially declare yet another holiday, in place of Christmas, to celebrate more good work by the United States government.”
Rudy Bush (© 2013, copyright R Bush, all rights reserved)


My version of Santa and the 18th floor of the Daley center:
when they come for santa:

Dr. R  will stand outside his igloo and say he is a friend and just wants to talk to him.  When santa tells him to go away he is busy making presents for the kids and answering letters from around the world, Rabin will declare him delusional and paranoid. (LV case)  Santa will then be arrested and hauled away to a locked facility where he will be drugged so much he forgets to eat and wastes away. (AG case)

In the meantime, a court appointed GAL and probate attorney will take control of all the toys and the village.  Elves will be turned over to social services as deformed, disabled children and be put in group homes against their will and also will be drugged.  The state connected agency will then get $300k/year/elf to “care for special needs children” even though Mrs. Claus says she can take them in and has her RN degree with years of experience caring for elves.  (NV case)

Toys and village sold, no more need for debates over whether santa is real or not.

The Office of Public Guardain (TB) will declare “Santa existed for far too long in the community when he should have been institutionalized and those annoying myths killed years ago.”

And the government will declare another holiday celebrating those who “died for freedom” (like rape for love), where Christmas used to be.

Please do not forget Rosann Miller in Ohio

Here are the details on her case and her comments once again:

I think this quote should be on the NASGA website….. 
“Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in ANY war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?” Daniel Webster
“And the WAR can be against our domestic enemies and their need to steal our life, liberty and property.” Rosanna Miller

Praise to God/Patriotic to the Republic
Rosanna
740-969-2468
www.eldermurderabuseandexploitation.blogspot.com
note:  please see our sister site at http://www.justice4every1.com.  we are currently in need of donations for heat, rent and utilities, if it is possible.

From Gloria – no visit with her mother, and no progress on visits since 2009!

This is from Gloria on the first Day of Christmas, when she was denied access to her mother–yet again.

I have heard Judges Connors and Stuart over and over again tell the Plenary Guardian CT to make sure Gloria can see and talk to her mother.  But the only thing that happens is dozens of phone calls are made, emails sent and never answered either by PS or CT.

from Gloria:

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Sent: Dec 25, 2013 8:07 PM
To: kenneth ditkowsky
Cc: “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , “k_bakken@att.net” , scott evans , Elaine NAsga , LUCIUS VERENUS , Lucinda , Sue Fege , rudy bush , Annie NASGA , GLD , “K. Ditkowsky paralegal” , Judy Ditkowsky , Erma NASGA , barbara nasga , mila NASGA , Lu Nasga , Cook County States Attorney , “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” , Cook Sheriff , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Chicago Tribune , “fox2newsdesk@foxtv.com” , “foxbusiness_7D7B711AF105DCA67E779E75183D8E1D@newsletters.foxnews.com” , Jo Anne Denison , “ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net” , “ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net” , “ilrep49@sbcglobal.net” , “ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net” , “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” , “tips@cbschicago.com”
Subject: Re: SYKES – DENIED again to speak to my mother

But Ken if Toerpe and CompNy say the sky is made of green cheese then every Judge and law.enforcement agency believes the sky is indeed made of green cheese. When you or I or Kathy question whether the sky is made of green cheese then we are discredited and the Courts and law enforcement see you, me, Kathie as liars, sick people who are ignored.  All I wanted to do today was tell my mother how much I love her and to wish her good tidings. The call was that innocent. This is my mother who since 2009 has been denied association with me, Aunt Yo, Kathie, Scott, Doris, all her family and friends who Mother asked us for help and who refused to obey Toerpe’s demands. All of us including Mother is being punished by Toerpe because none of us agreed to the guardianship and have continued to stand up in every court and tell the truth: Carolyn Toerpe is a elder abuser, financial exploiter, a person of the lie who has joined forces with other elder and disabled persons abusers and financial exploiters. The officer who did the wellness check today told me that mother was well dressed and when he asked her if she was okay she said yes and told him hashed was hanging decorations and having a nice time.  I asked the officer if he was able to determine her mental state and he said he did not spend that much time with mother.  

Law enforcement refuses to do a thorough and proper investigation because they don’t have the understanding of how to do this: they have not been educated in the field of undue influence. Mother is so competent that since Toerpe has told her that she’ll return Mother to a nursing home if mother reaches out to me again: if mother tells any law enforcement the truth, et al!!! For years mothers stock answer was “they treat me like a queen” but today her response changed. today mother was just okay.

Toerpe has the home decorated to an extreme and like families of wealth: perfect! Toerpe has a delusion and created an illusion of a healthy loving family celebrating the holidays but that I am a “problem” and the “court has found” that I am the “abuser” and so I can have no contact with my mother.

Let me close with this question? Has anybody heard of a serial murderer or any criminal when approached by law enforcement saying, “Golly gee you got me. I did it. I killed or I raped so and so”? No, the first thing he or she says is, I didn’t do it!  Politicians open their mouths and we know that most of the time they are lying. But a court appointed guardian obviously if she, like Toerpe, says the sky is made of green cheese, it’s made of green cheese.

I just wanted to wish my mother a merry Christmas and my mother was denied the opportunity to speak to me, Kathie and all people who called Mother over the holidays. I guess Toerpe is the court and as she told mother on June 22, 2013 that mother will never see me again.. Mother will be denied association with me and all people she loves and trust because a named abuser to a petition for a protective order authored by Mother on June 9, 2009 whereby Mother wanted to stop Toerpe from taking control of her person and assets, has taken control of mothers assets and property and person…

and law enforcement doesn’t give a damn and all the protections set in stone are ignored.

I just wanted to say hello to my mother today  

Sent from my iPad

 

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Sent: Dec 25, 2013 8:07 PM
To: kenneth ditkowsky
Cc: “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , “k_bakken@att.net” , scott evans , Elaine NAsga , LUCIUS VERENUS , Lucinda , Sue Fege , rudy bush , Annie NASGA , GLD , “K. Ditkowsky paralegal” , Judy Ditkowsky , Erma NASGA , barbara nasga , mila NASGA , Lu Nasga , Cook County States Attorney , “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” , Cook Sheriff , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Chicago Tribune , “fox2newsdesk@foxtv.com” , “foxbusiness_7D7B711AF105DCA67E779E75183D8E1D@newsletters.foxnews.com” , Jo Anne Denison , “ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net” , “ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net” , “ilrep49@sbcglobal.net” , “ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net” , “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” , “tips@cbschicago.com”
Subject: Re: SYKES – DENIED again to speak to my mother

But Ken if Toerpe and CompNy say the sky is made of green cheese then every Judge and law.enforcement agency believes the sky is indeed made of green cheese. When you or I or Kathy question whether the sky is made of green cheese then we are discredited and the Courts and law enforcement see you, me, Kathie as liars, sick people who are ignored.  All I wanted to do today was tell my mother how much I love her and to wish her good tidings. The call was that innocent. This is my mother who since 2009 has been denied association with me, Aunt Yo, Kathie, Scott, Doris, all her family and friends who Mother asked us for help and who refused to obey Toerpe’s demands. All of us including Mother is being punished by Toerpe because none of us agreed to the guardianship and have continued to stand up in every court and tell the truth: Carolyn Toerpe is a elder abuser, financial exploiter, a person of the lie who has joined forces with other elder and disabled persons abusers and financial exploiters. The officer who did the wellness check today told me that mother was well dressed and when he asked her if she was okay she said yes and told him hashed was hanging decorations and having a nice time.  I asked the officer if he was able to determine her mental state and he said he did not spend that much time with mother.  

Law enforcement refuses to do a thorough and proper investigation because they don’t have the understanding of how to do this: they have not been educated in the field of undue influence. Mother is so competent that since Toerpe has told her that she’ll return Mother to a nursing home if mother reaches out to me again: if mother tells any law enforcement the truth, et al!!! For years mothers stock answer was “they treat me like a queen” but today her response changed. today mother was just okay.

Toerpe has the home decorated to an extreme and like families of wealth: perfect! Toerpe has a delusion and created an illusion of a healthy loving family celebrating the holidays but that I am a “problem” and the “court has found” that I am the “abuser” and so I can have no contact with my mother.

Let me close with this question? Has anybody heard of a serial murderer or any criminal when approached by law enforcement saying, “Golly gee you got me. I did it. I killed or I raped so and so”? No, the first thing he or she says is, I didn’t do it!  Politicians open their mouths and we know that most of the time they are lying. But a court appointed guardian obviously if she, like Toerpe, says the sky is made of green cheese, it’s made of green cheese.

I just wanted to wish my mother a merry Christmas and my mother was denied the opportunity to speak to me, Kathie and all people who called Mother over the holidays. I guess Toerpe is the court and as she told mother on June 22, 2013 that mother will never see me again.. Mother will be denied association with me and all people she loves and trust because a named abuser to a petition for a protective order authored by Mother on June 9, 2009 whereby Mother wanted to stop Toerpe from taking control of her person and assets, has taken control of mothers assets and property and person…

and law enforcement doesn’t give a damn and all the protections set in stone are ignored.

I just wanted to say hello to my mother today  

Sent from my iPad

 On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:09 PM, GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com> wrote:

    Had a wellness check today and indeed mom was at Toerpes. Toerpe told the police there’s an order and I can’t speak to me.

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Dec 25, 2013, at 12:49 PM, “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

>      Everyone is getting an opportunity to see the Illinois holocaust!    Illinois has wonderful laws that are well designed to protect the senior citizens from elder abuse, financial exploitation and all the elements of ‘elder cleansing.’  There is just one thing wrong – Our Illinois government just does not enforce the protections and therefore allows the cottage industry of elder cleansing to fester!  
>
>     As you heard PS tell the Judge –  Mary is making wonderful progress!    Indeed, now that her life savings are safety in the hands of the **** it appears from your description of today’s events the last stages of elder cleansing are being administered.    I hope that your sister pays the taxes on the booty!   When she was appointed guardian she was insolvent; however today she is reported to sport fine jewelry.    AS has a 60,000 Federal Tax Lien.    I guess that gives explanation as to the true answers to Larry’s cross examination.   It certainly provides an explanation as to why there is such an effort to shut up JoAnne and yours truly.
>
>     If the Naperville Police is uninterested in doing a wellness check, maybe the DuPage County Sherriff would be interested.    I’ve copied then on this e-mail, and your name is on it as well.   
>
>     Gloria – call all the hot line numbers and see if we can stir up a single public employee who is interesting in protecting a senior citizen on Christmas!     At one point in time before we became so politically correct half the Cook County Sheriff’s deputies and all of the DuPage County Sheriff’s deputies would be outraged the ‘elder cleansing’ of Mary Sykes.      The mining of the gold in Alice Gore’s teeth would have stirred a hue and cry so loud that even Mr. Larkin, Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga, et al would have had to join in the screams for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of this entire ‘elder cleansing’ affair!
>
>     I understand why we have taken ‘Christ’ out of Christmas and substituted a giant “A” on the Daley Center Plaza!    It fits!
>
>
>     Ken Ditkowsky
>     http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
>
>
>     On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 12:11 PM, GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>         I would love to announce and wish all a merry Chirstmas and happy holidays, but as you all know, my mother is being held holstage by a court appointed (by agreement) guardian, Carolyn Toerpe.  This morning I dialed 630-961-0826, Toerpe’s home phone number, and to my amazement, Fred Toerpe answered, “Hello”, (in a angry voice).  I responded, “Merry Christmas Fred. I’d like to speak to my mother”.  He said, also to my suprise, “Hold on”.  What wasn’t a suprise is that (wait, wait…) Fred hung up the phone.  I redialed, wanting to believe in the Christmast spirit, it was an accident, but as with all calls the little voice of the VM announced that no one was available to answer the phone, and that the ‘mail box is full’ so I couldn’t leave a message.
>
>         I’ve copied Carolyn Toerpe’s attorney advocates Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Peter Schmiedel, and Amanda Bryne on this email — along with law enforcement and other agencies designed to protect not only the elderly and disabled, but also ALL citizens of Illinois, because this conduct is NOT PROTECTED — either is the illegal and wrongful diagnosis labeling my mother in order to railroad her into a guardianship with the named abuser/respondend to a petition for a protective order, CArolyn Toerpe, the guardian. Then there is the 2012 testimony of Dr. Shaw, who Toerpe hired, who stated that in Oct. 2008, on the 17th of the month, mother was incompetent to sign one of the three legal documents she authored under the advisement of her three attorneys!!!!   The false statements in not only the Probate court, but the FED, Bankruptcy, U.S. District and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, gives great weight to my arguments which I will pursue, but who will stand up for my Mother?
>
>         Although Carolyn Toepe recently testified under oath that mother was living at the Toerpe home in Naperville, if true, it’s because no other independant living facility in the Naperville area would bend over and abide by Adam Stern’s and Toerpe’s demands.  A month or so ago, I called one said facility and asked for my mother and I was told to, wait, ‘One minute, hold on’.  Many minutes later I was told that there was no such person living there.  Hiding a senior is a felony.  Nevertheless, and even though attorneys Stern and Schmiedel LIED on June 25, 2013, to Judge Stuart, accusing me of abusing my mother on June 22, 2013 — when Stern and Schmiedel knew and know that the abuser is their client Carolyn Toerpe — and a person with clout got the Illinois Department on Health to ignore the affidavits of Evans, Dennison and myself as to what happened and protect the abuser, Toerpe, too — IS THE FINANCIAL EXPLOITER AND PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL AND MEDICAL ABUSER!!!!  Suffice, Sunrise Senior Living LLD was sanctioned in their participation of the horrid and overt abuse perpetrated by Toepre against my mother.  In sum, today’s message to all of you is that it’s time to open your eyes and do the right thing!  Please help my mother. Please let her return to the family and friends she loves and trusts and live out her life in love, peace, and able like all Americans to be free from hostage and abuse!
>
>         I’ve asked for another wellness check, but the Naperville Police refused to do their job again.  This could be and probably is, because STern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Bryne, Soehlig, and Toepre have succeeded in pursuading law enforcement and others, that I am the problem, an alchoholic who abuses perscription drugs, and a person who is also bi-polar and mentally ill!  Of course, Toerpe being a PhD and psychologist, as he testified to in Probate, is their authority.  (I’m certain, Dr. G. Shaw was able to give testimony too as to my mental health, although he’s never examined or truly met me, as he testified to Mother’s mental health was in 2008, in Nov. 2012!)  This harrassment and libel is not protected just because these attorneys and Toerpe, an officer of the Cour,t believe they are immune.  They are not.
>
>         Let us go over the past years.  Mother was never served notice or summons on the guardianship: Mother was living in Du Page County; Aunts Yo and Jo were never served notice or summons: I was never served notice or summons.  The appointment by agreement of guardian IS VOID as it was obtained by FRAUD as the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  Therefore, the Appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  There is no law of the case in case number 2009 P 4585.
>
>         Mother has repeatedly been unlawfully restrained  which is a violation of her Fourth Amendment and opens itself to liability: I too have been falsely imprisoned not only by Judge Stuart, but also by the Chicago PD and the Cook County Sheriff’s Department.  Although Mother can’t appeal or file a lawsuit against the perpetrators, I can file on my own behalf, (not mother’s) as I too have been unlawfully detained.  It’s called an unlawful detention claim under the Fourth Amendment and unlawful imprisonment under Illinois law. And where Stern, Farenga, Toerpe, Bryne, and Soehlig– and law enforcement want to believe that, for example, the Naperville Police are protected as qualified immunity, on June 22, 2013, the Naperville police violated clearly established statutory and constitutional rights which a reasonable person in their position would have been aware of. They unlawfully detained me, Dennison, Doris and Scott and my Mother!!!! Then the Naperville Police threatened Scott and JoAnne until each deleted the photographs and digital recordings of my Mother.  I was threatened, but was not asked to delete any digital recordings or photographs: the threats were that I’d be arrested unless I divulged certain information, such as how I learned where my mother was.  I began to call an attorney and the cop shut up, but continued to detain me until Carolyn Toerpe was able to remove mother from the facility even though Mother did not want to leave with Toerpe.  Mother’s roommate found me and told me what was going on and said that my Mother was “asking for me”.  The manager of the facility literally had this woman stopped from talking to me.  It was horrible, and the Police did nothing to protect her, either.
>
>         Since the violations of my constitutional and statutory rights have been violated since January 2008 and are on-going, and since attorneys Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, Bryne, and Soehlig are the authorities who, speaking to law enforcement, have encouraged the illegal conduct.
>
>         Nevertheless, I look forward to 2014 and will bring such a lawsuit against officers of the court, law enforcement and municipalities, et al, even if one or all of these agencies and people were to jump in today and stop the abuses perpetrated against my mother and me, and all people she loves and trusts.  Toerps may have been able to steal and convert all of my assets and legal documents which included police reports and digital recordings, (yes, I always was armed with a digital recorder), but what she didn’t realize is that there are more good cops than bad cops, and the good cops have been able to help me reproduce the police records and legal documents.  I did have many back up recordings of phone conversations between my mother and me which I shared with friends.
>
>         Why am I writing this on Christmas Day?  Beause all I wanted to do this morning was speak to my mother and wish my Mother a loving holiday hello:  as I know she would like to hear from me, too, and I was denied.  i was hung up on, and Fred telling me to hold on and then hanging up, is part of the fact of the on going abuse: my mother has been denied association with me or Aunt Yo, Kathie, Scott, Doris, et al, and I have been denied to speak to her on the telephone because each time we did speak in 2009 and 2010 MOTHER WAS COMPETENT, she asked me to find and retain Kenneth Ditkowsky, she asked me to contact the Elder abuse Squade with the States Attorneys office, she begged me for help, and in all cases the calls were either digitally recorded, or there were eye-witnesses to the calls, people who also spoke to my Mother.
>
>         Let us hever forget what my mother said to me on June 22, 2013 2h3n she saw me enter the Sunrise Senior Living facility:
>
>              “I knew you didn’t abandon me!  I know you would come and
>               save me.”
>
>         These words and phrases will haunt me the rest of my life and they should haunt all of you he believe Toerpe and Company’s LIES!
>
>         The conduct of attorneys Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, Soehlig, Bryne, the Cook County States ATtorneys office, the Naperville Police, the Chicago Police, and the Illinois Department on Aging, Illinois Department on Health, et al, is extreme and outrageous.  To protect a known elder abuser and financial expoiter is sad: to financially beneift from Mother’s estate through the ffraudt on he Court is a sin: that law enforcement believe attorneys Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, Soehlig, Bryne, et al is unconscionable, but the tort of IIED will address the ‘severe mental disturbances inflicted by intentional actions wholly lacking in social unity” against me, but who is willing to stand up and protect my mother, who too is suffering servere mental distrubances inflicted by intentional actions whole lacking in social unity, perpetrated by attorneys Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, Bryne, and Soehlig and fo-guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, against her???
>
>         I wish for these attorneys the same misery and fear my mother suffers becaue of them as I know that what goes around will come around: it may be the only justice my Mother finds.
>
>         Toerpe was able to sell my mother’s home, which was in a living revocable trust, for cash $238,000, at least $200,000 below market price.  Toerpe, did this without a Court order, just as she moved mother into a nursing home without a court order.  Toerpe vacated the Trust!!!  Toerpe did not inventory the assets of this sale: nor is there a record of the sale available at the recorder of deeds. This leads me to ask whether the sale was for more money ….  Toerpe also removed all of mother’s, father’s and a great deal of my property from 6014 that and didn’t inventory one piece of property that was removed and sold at an estate sale — or even if you want to believe Toerpe, donated to Am Vets, who has no record of said donations. Suffice…. can law enforcement see anything illegal with any of these actions?
>
>         I called 603-961-0826 about an hour ago to speak to my mother and wish her a loving hello, and was denied and law enforcement cannot see that this is classic elder abuse.  I begs the question of how far will Toerpe and Company go to protect ******?  How far will law enforcement agencies go to protect the abuser Carolyn Toerpe?
>
>         Who will protect my mother, Mary G. Sykes?  Who will protect her?
>
>         Here’s a picture of my mother and me on June 22, 2013.  She is very, very happy. See attachment.
>
>         Here’s a picture of my mother at Kristin’s elaborate wedding in June 2011.  See Attachments. She’s not happy, and why should she be?  Robert Toerpe, who works for the DuPage County Sheriff’s Department once called my mother and father filthy names, which caused even Carolyn and Fred Toerpe to not associate with him for YEAR!  Nevertheless,  Toepre told Judge Garber my mother was too incapacitated to be a witness in June, 2011.  Kristin paid off her $30,000 college loan around the same time: Toepre paid off her home of around $70,000.  Toerpe now wears a diamond watch and large diamond ring, and has been to an expensive salon for her hair and even her clothes are more expensive.  Further, Toerpe and her husband have once again remodeled their home, and did extensive and expensive landscaping in 2013.  That said, in 2012, Toerpe let mother have $50 to spend on herself and that is all that was spent on mother for clothes or education, or ***.  But Toerpe spent $150 of mother’s money on a wedding gift for Kristin.  Toerpe also didn’t pay mother’s mortgage and mother’s home went into foreclosure in March 2012.  (I got mother’s home out of foreclosure, which Toerpe inventoried that mother paid the mortgage in 2012!!! and Judge Stuart did not care…)  To wit,  I’ll bet you that Toerpe cannot produce one recent photograph of mother with Toerpe where mother is happy.  That too says a lot.
>
>
>
>         I WAS DENIED TO SPEAK WITH MY MOTHER, BUT WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT MY MOTHER HAS BEEN DENIED HER RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE WITH ME.
>
>
>
>
>         Gloria Jean Sykes
>         Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
>         BELIEVE (BeLive) LLC
>         773.910-3310(cell)
>          773-751-1310 (fax)
>         855-376-0040 (business)

From Ken Ditkowsky–his appeal to the Ill. Supreme Court

 
Exceptions to Review Board Report and Recommendations:
Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and for his Exceptions to Review Board Report and Recommendations states:
That the Review Board Report is deficient in that:
1)      320 ILCS 20/4 provides for Ditkowsky’s complete immunity (from Disciplinary proceedings) for complaints to Law enforcement concerning Elder Abuse, Financial Exploitation (Elder Cleansing).
2)      That these instant Commission proceedings are in contravention of this Court’s  decision in the case of  In re: Karavidas 2013 IL 1157l67[1] .
3)      The Policy of the State of Illinois pursuant to 735 ILCS 110/5 is violated by the prosecution of these proceedings and the Review Board report.   The Commission has no delegation of authority to vitiate the Policy of the State of Illinois.   (see Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution).
4)       That the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission lacks jurisdiction and a delegation to review, impede or otherwise interfere with First Amendment Rights of ‘political’ and/or ‘content’ related speech of Attorney Ditkowsky or any other person.  (see Alvarez 132 S. Ct 2537, Ashcroft 535 US 564, Brown 131 S. Ct 2729, Synder 131 S. Ct 876, Citizens United 558 US 310).[2]
5)      The Review Board did not require that the Commission plead and prove its case, or comport with the basic protections of due process required of all other government agencies and litigants, and to in particular plead and prove its claim case with evidence from persons who had actual knowledge of the facts.    (See Discovery responses of Commission – attached in Appendix).
6)      Review Board rejected the Rule of Law as set forth by this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Recommendations
1)      Dismiss Disciplinary proceedings promulgated by Commission against Attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky,
2)      Review proceedings by the Commission for violations of Rule 137.  (Based upon the Commission’s admissions)
3)      Order an Honest, Complete and Comprehensive Investigation of all the ‘elder cleansing’ cases starting with In re: Sykes 09 P 4585 (Cook County) and all similar cases.
4)      Provide such other and different relief as might be equitable and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,


[1] See 18 USCA 3,4, 371, 1983
[2] The Commission also lacks the authority to prevent or impede an attorney from performing his professional responsibilities pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

A reminder of the stated public polity of 47 USC 230–preserve and enhance free speech!

Dear All;

Ken wanted me to remind everyone and esp. the IARDC of the stated policy of 47 USC sec 230 and that is–to preserve and enhance free speech in the US.

I have to notice, often after I appear before a judge, some months later, someone will call or email me from one of the bar associations and ask me to rate the judge.  I have to note that I have rated about a dozen or so judges, but interestingly enough, it would none of them were the dishonest ones–the ones that ignore jurisdiction, summons and complaint, cut attorneys fees to keep an “outsider” out of the courtroom, a judge that sells a ward’s home for far less than market value and what is allowed–the usu. shennanagins.

I never get a ratings call on those judges.  I wonder if the bar associations have a “do not rate” list for the clout heavy judges.

I’m just noticing.  I bet Mr. Amu never got that call either.  What do you think Ken.

JoAnne

47 USC § 230:

(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

Please note that there is plenty of case law that says no court, hearing board or tribunal is to rule in any manner contrary to the stated policy of the Illinois or Federal legislature.

Yet, I have a Tribunal chair who says that he “might allowed me”  47 USC 230 as a defense to my blogging and Ken’s blogging and the posting of information, comments, fact and opinions by others.

Suppression of free speech is a very serious claim in the the US which should not be summarily dismissed or taken lightly.  The Record on Appeal of Sykes 09 P 4585 has been spread of record and on the internet and on this blog, and shows the severe deficiencies published and commented upon heretofore.  The depositions of the crucial witnesses involved–Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Yolanda Bakken and Kathie Bakken have been similarly spread of record.

And yet how does the IARDC tribunal respond?  Under heavy pressure from SO and MS, they pressure me to withdraw the truth from the record–those deposition transcripts and exhibits!  That must be the nadir of the legal profession for 2013. A new low, suppress the truth.

The ARDC has been now well informed of the case 1) Hunter v. VBS, where the attorney was allowed to publish a blog containing the truth or substantial truth, even if it embarrassed the client; 2) Citizens United which says the government cannot regulate political speech at all–it has no jurisdiction to do this; 3) Peel  which says that an attorney can truthfully advertise a speciality without interference from the Bar Assn and this is a first Amendment right and finally, the original SCOTUS case Sawyer which says that an attorney not appearing on a case or after his involvement on the case, can criticize a court, a decision, a judge, a statute or ruling under the First Amendment.  It would appear that the IARDC has whittled down its quotes in the opposite direction to only that an attorney cannot posthumously criticize a judge.  In Mr. Amu’s decision, they seemed to infer that even the best, most honorable witnesses attesting to inadherance of laws and regulations will not overcome the omnipotence of a judge.  They seem to take the strange position that a judge is perfect, a judge is infallible, a judge never has a bad idea or decision–in summary, the judges are cardinals and Timothy Evans is Pope.

We all know how well THAT works out.

Joke:  Why does the Pope believe he’s infallible?  Answer:  He never gets a wife!

But at the end of the day, when the public complains about overt and hidden corruption with the courts, the clout heavy attorneys, the high cost of corruption to us all, unless the PUBLIC demands that the IARDC follow the law, it will only be the fault of the public when honest, ethical attorneys are the scape goats of the system and no one comes to their rescue.

The public should read and understand these cases and teach them to their children and those of lesser understanding who think that a system where secret deals are made behind closed doors with the judges, attys freely wander into the judges’ private areas despite signs and despite a long standing prior court order, then the public has only itself to blame.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

JoAnne

From Atty Ken Ditkowsky–hope for the new year!

From Atty Ken Ditkowsky–hope for the new year!

 
Mr.  Amu:
 
This is going to be a better year.   I hope that you received a copy of document that we sent to the Supreme Court.    It has all the citations that you need to make your argument.
 
One of the things you should notice is the fact that Sawyer case = First the IARDC argued that Sawyer gave them the authority to regulate content (political) based speech; however, apparently their attorneys in addition to not reading the First Amendment failed to read the last paragraph of the case.    In your Review Board decision (and in mine) a new tact is taken.    Again drawing a distinction that is so absurd as to be intellectually dishonest they try to make a distinction between content related speech involving a legislative pronouncement and a legal proceeding.    There is no such distinction if the First Amendment is given credence.   The credence comes from reading Alvarez, Brown, Citizens United etc.    Of course Peel vs. IARDC was never mentioned by the IARDC.  
 
Peel dealt with the IARDC’s harassment of a lawyer who placed on his letterhead that the was trial specialist.  They applied the same standard with him that they seem to apply universally – i.e. the accused lawyer who takes advantage of his First Amendment speech  is wrong and even though they have to prove their claim by claim and convincing evidence – no evidence equals clear and convincing.
 
The Hunter vs. Virginia (bar) is also interesting as it is a recent pronouncement from the State court that they are going to give serious consideration to the United States Supreme Court.   This case is quoted in my document.    It is now very clear that Justice Black and Justice Douglas’ view of the Bill of Rights is accepted by the Court as what our core values ought to be.    The Dred Scott decision except in your case before the IARDC does not appear to accepted by the United supreme Court.   Buck vs. Bell has a bit more acceptance as lawyers in more jurisdictions than Illinois are treated to “two generations of idiots is enough” criterion.   Maybe the fact that you are African and representing some African American clients ****** 
 
Please do not delay in filing your petition before the Supreme Court.  You can rest assured that as you said things that the government reiterated in Greylord 1 and no one has contradicted you expect that the most procrustean approach will greet you.   You cannot exceed 20 pages.    Believe me keeping the ire down to those 20 pages is very difficult.  
 
What is most disturbing was you cannot walk down the halls of the courthouse without over-hearing one lawyer talking to another complaining of exactly the conduct that you are complaining.    Naturally no other lawyer  is going to come forth and testify that Judge x or Judge y did something that ought to be looked at by the JIB or the IARDC.    In my situation I have quoted from transcripts prepared by the official court reporter!    As Ms. Farenga in her smoking gun letter attaches a copy of the probate sharks blog = that was all that was necessary.  
 
In JoAnne’s and my situation we have 320 ILCS 20/4 to protect us!    Indeed 735 ILCS 110/5 states the public policy and there are dozens of cases that say that the Court will not rule contrary to the public policy!   
 
Merry Christmas!
 
 
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky
 
And I have to add, I believe over the last year, the IARDC has slowly come to realize, that if an attorney is not on a case, under the Sawyer case, the attorney has the right to criticize a law, a judge a statute, an opinion, a decision.  That right was established in 1950.  It seems that the only thing the IARDC is still clinging to is direct criticism of the judge herself, and then they strain to associate the decision, the opinion and the law interpreted by the judge as an assault on him or her–personally, when in fact it is all non commercial, work related speech, which is traditionally protected by the first amendment.
 
It is very odd how the IARDC seems to strain to bend over backward to say that my court observations, Ken’s court observations and even Mr. Amu’s amount to little more than personal attacks on the judges themselves, when nothing could be further from the truth.  I could care less what the judges do in their private lives.  I don’t care how they wear their hair, their clothes, what they do in their bedrooms, whether they knit or crochet or enjoy sports.
 
But what Ken and I do like to do is take a look at what is going on in particular cases–Sykes, Gore, Bedin, etc. where the parties are crying foul and see if what they are saying is true.
 
Ken and I and Mr. Amu all have opinions about that.  It would seem under the Sawyer and the Peel cases, the IARDC does not have jurisdiction to regulate or become involved in truth or substantial truth, and if the parties/litigants/public are crying foul, then outside attorneys can and should take a look at what is going on and comment and publish and bring any wrongful actions to light.
 
This is especially true in the cottage industry of GAL’s, child reps, the overly familiar attorney picking up business in the courtroom on a regular basis.  It often does not take long before someone is stepping over the line and finding nothing but a quagmire.  Been there, done seen that.
 
The real question is, whether the IARDC will allow honest attorneys to speak out, even in face of extreme pressure from the politicians to sweep certain unfavorable and inconvenient truths under the rug.
 
JoAnne

From Atty Ken Ditkowsky–hope for the new year!

Mr.  Amu:
 
This is going to be a better year.   I hope that you received a copy of document that we sent to the Supreme Court.    It has all the citations that you need to make your argument.
 
One of the things you should notice is the fact that Sawyer case = First the IARDC argued that Sawyer gave them the authority to regulate content (political) based speech; however, apparently their attorneys in addition to not reading the First Amendment failed to read the last paragraph of the case.    In your Review Board decision (and in mine) a new tact is taken.    Again drawing a distinction that is so absurd as to be intellectually dishonest they try to make a distinction between content related speech involving a legislative pronouncement and a legal proceeding.    There is no such distinction if the First Amendment is given credence.   The credence comes from reading Alvarez, Brown, Citizens United etc.    Of course Peel vs. IARDC was never mentioned by the IARDC.  
 
Peel dealt with the IARDC’s harassment of a lawyer who placed on his letterhead that the was trial specialist.  They applied the same standard with him that they seem to apply universally – i.e. the accused lawyer who takes advantage of his First Amendment speech  is wrong and even though they have to prove their claim by claim and convincing evidence – no evidence equals clear and convincing.
 
The Hunter vs. Virginia (bar) is also interesting as it is a recent pronouncement from the State court that they are going to give serious consideration to the United States Supreme Court.   This case is quoted in my document.    It is now very clear that Justice Black and Justice Douglas’ view of the Bill of Rights is accepted by the Court as what our core values ought to be.    The Dred Scott decision except in your case before the IARDC does not appear to accepted by the United supreme Court.   Buck vs. Bell has a bit more acceptance as lawyers in more jurisdictions than Illinois are treated to “two generations of idiots is enough” criterion.   Maybe the fact that you are African and representing some African American clients ****** 
 
Please do not delay in filing your petition before the Supreme Court.  You can rest assured that as you said things that the government reiterated in Greylord 1 and no one has contradicted you expect that the most procrustean approach will greet you.   You cannot exceed 20 pages.    Believe me keeping the ire down to those 20 pages is very difficult.  
 
What is most disturbing was you cannot walk down the halls of the courthouse without over-hearing one lawyer talking to another complaining of exactly the conduct that you are complaining.    Naturally no other lawyer  is going to come forth and testify that Judge x or Judge y did something that ought to be looked at by the JIB or the IARDC.    In my situation I have quoted from transcripts prepared by the official court reporter!    As Ms. Farenga in her smoking gun letter attaches a copy of the probate sharks blog = that was all that was necessary.  
 
In JoAnne’s and my situation we have 320 ILCS 20/4 to protect us!    Indeed 735 ILCS 110/5 states the public policy and there are dozens of cases that say that the Court will not rule contrary to the public policy!   
 
Merry Christmas!
 
 
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky
 
And I have to add, I believe over the last year, the IARDC has slowly come to realize, that if an attorney is not on a case, under the Sawyer case, the attorney has the right to criticize a law, a judge a statute, an opinion, a decision.  That right was established in 1950.  It seems that the only thing the IARDC is still clinging to is direct criticism of the judge herself, and then they strain to associate the decision, the opinion and the law interpreted by the judge as an assault on him or her–personally, when in fact it is all non commercial, work related speech, which is traditionally protected by the first amendment.
 
It is very odd how the IARDC seems to strain to bend over backward to say that my court observations, Ken’s court observations and even Mr. Amu’s amount to little more than personal attacks on the judges themselves, when nothing could be further from the truth.  I could care less what the judges do in their private lives.  I don’t care how they wear their hair, their clothes, what they do in their bedrooms, whether they knit or crochet or enjoy sports.
 
But what Ken and I do like to do is take a look at what is going on in particular cases–Sykes, Gore, Bedin, etc. where the parties are crying foul and see if what they are saying is true.
 
Ken and I and Mr. Amu all have opinions about that.  It would seem under the Sawyer and the Peel cases, the IARDC does not have jurisdiction to regulate or become involved in truth or substantial truth, and if the parties/litigants/public are crying foul, then outside attorneys can and should take a look at what is going on and comment and publish and bring any wrongful actions to light.
 
This is especially true in the cottage industry of GAL’s, child reps, the overly familiar attorney picking up business in the courtroom on a regular basis.  It often does not take long before someone is stepping over the line and finding nothing but a quagmire.  Been there, done seen that.
 
The real question is, whether the IARDC will allow honest attorneys to speak out, even in face of extreme pressure from the politicians to sweep certain unfavorable and inconvenient truths under the rug.
 
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky to Atty Lanre Amu–a better new year!

Mr.  Loanu:
 
This is going to be a better year.   I hope that you received a copy of document that we sent to the Supreme Court.    It has all the citations that you need to make your argument.
 
One of the things you should notice is the fact that Sawyer case = First the IARDC argued that Sawyer gave them the authority to regulate content (political) based speech; however, apparently their attorneys in addition to not reading the First Amendment failed to read the last paragraph of the case.    In your Review Board decision (and in mine) a new tact is taken.    Again drawing a distinction that is so absurd as to be intellectually dishonest they try to make a distinction between content related speech involving a legislative pronouncement and a legal proceeding.    There is no such distinction if the First Amendment is given credence.   The credence comes from reading Alvarez, Brown, Citizens United etc.    Of course Peel vs. IARDC was never mentioned by the IARDC.  
 
Peel dealt with the IARDC’s harassment of a lawyer who placed on his letterhead that the was trial specialist.  They applied the same standard with him that they seem to apply universally – i.e. the accused lawyer who takes advantage of his First Amendment speech  is wrong and even though they have to prove their claim by claim and convincing evidence – no evidence equals clear and convincing.
 
The Hunter vs. Virginia (bar) is also interesting as it is a recent pronouncement from the State court that they are going to give serious consideration to the United States Supreme Court.   This case is quoted in my document.    It is now very clear that Justice Black and Justice Douglas’ view of the Bill of Rights is accepted by the Court as what our core values ought to be.    The Dred Scott decision except in your case before the IARDC does not appear to accepted by the United supreme Court.   Buck vs. Bell has a bit more acceptance as lawyers in more jurisdictions than Illinois are treated to “two generations of idiots is enough” criterion.   Maybe the fact that you are African and representing some African American clients ****** 
 
Please do not delay in filing your petition before the Supreme Court.  You can rest assured that as you said things that the government reiterated in Greylord 1 and no one has contradicted you expect that the most procrustean approach will greet you.   You cannot exceed 20 pages.    Believe me keeping the ire down to those 20 pages is very difficult.  
 
What is most disturbing was you cannot walk down the halls of the courthouse without over-hearing one lawyer talking to another complaining of exactly the conduct that you are complaining.    Naturally no other lawyer  is going to come forth and testify that Judge x or Judge y did something that ought to be looked at by the JIB or the IARDC.    In my situation I have quoted from transcripts prepared by the official court reporter!    As Ms. Farenga in her smoking gun letter attaches a copy of the probate sharks blog = that was all that was necessary.  
 
In JoAnne’s and my situation we have 320 ILCS 20/4 to protect us!    Indeed 735 ILCS 110/5 states the public policy and there are dozens of cases that say that the Court will not rule contrary to the public policy!   
 
Merry Christmas!
 
 
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

From Gloria Sykes–finding some hope in the FED (evictions) section of the Daley center.

As I have noted before, it seems that on the 14th floor where FED law is practiced (forcibles or evictions), the judges mostly seem to know and understand what due process is, how a summons and complaint is necessary, how jurisdiction is not a technicality but is in fact a due process right.

So, from Gloria, here is here summary of 2 additional days of testimony before Judge Murray, who is a very good, honest, ethical judge on the 14th floor of the Daley center:

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Sent: Dec 18, 2013 12:53 PM
To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” , NASGA , Diane Nash , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , LUCIUS VERENUS , Judy Ditkowsky , “vahrh1135@aol.com” , Eric Holder , “ces@cspin.com” , Kathie Bakken , “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Chicago Tribune , matt senator kirk , rudy bush , “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , John Howard Wyman , states attorney , “chicago@ic.fbi.gov” , “chicagotonight@wttw.com” , Tim Lahrman NASGA , scott evans , Elaine NAsga , Lucinda , Sue Fege , Annie NASGA , GLD
Subject: RE: 18 USCA 4 Concealment of criminal activity

Dear All,

It’s been an exhausting two weeks of testimony in the FED court whereby Carolyn Toerpe, having been found in Contempt of Court for non-compliance of a court order on July 13, 2012, stood trial to show cause why she didn’t comply with the contempt order:  closing arguments were yesterday — they were brief.  The outcome was unexpected and not without Judge L. Murray asking both Toerpe’s attorney and me (pro se) a few direct questions.  In particular, I was asked about the layout of and access to the basement, attic, first and second floors of the home (6014): both Toerpe’s attorney Deborah Soehlig and I were asked about the initial complaint, which Toerpe didn’t have, and I didn’t have direct and immediate access to.  Judge Murray appeared very concerned about the final so called “agreed” order of possession being in proper form and content.  (I filed an appeal of which I argued the voidness of the so called “agreed” order of possession, and the Appellate Court, First District, dismissed it without cause or proper instructions pursuant Rule 23: to date, every appeal in the probate matter and the FED cause where jurisdictional issues are raised, and void orders noted, have been dismissed with prejudice.  Interesting huh?)  Nevertheless, Judge Murray asked if I wanted to file any transcripts and I said yes: Toerpe was asked too, and said, no.  I am also to copy any receipts of items that went missing while all of my property was under the control and possession of Carolyn Toerpe, and give to Toerpe.  Suffice, Judge Murray, stood steady regarding the laws and statues that he operates his courtroom, but also that of he Probate Division, to wit:

1)  Toerpe admitted that there was no court order to sell mother’s home or to sell mother’s property.  It was suggested that I, or any family — ‘interested person’ return to the Probate Court and report.

2)  Toerpe admitted she did not inventory the ‘cash sale’ of Mother’s home, reporting to Judge Murray that she did not have to because it is in a Trust.  Judge Murray stated clearly that she in fact has to, as the money is “assets of” Mother’s estate.  Again, it was suggested I or any interested person report this to the Probate Court.

3)  Judge Murray reminded Toerpe’s attorney Amanda Byrne that misrepresenting the facts to a Judge is serious and punishable: and if she had done that in his court ****.  This time Judge Murray said to me, “You have the record from this court.  Bring the transcripts to the Probate Court”.

4)  Judge Murray told me that if I have a final order from another court I should go to the bank and get the funds appropriated to me.  I told him the funds were already transferred and converted to an account in the name of The Estate of Mary G. Sykes with Judge Stuart prepared to rule on who the money belongs too (in spite of the final 2008 court order which was a 6 year litigation where I was the only contract holder of an insurance policy, and where I was the only person who filed a complaint).

In his repeated disbelief that the Probate court does not follow the rules, Judge Murray grew frustrated — my response, “Yes, your Honor, it’s difficult for any person to comprehend that what is allowed in probate is in fact, sanctioned by the Court.”

Let me repeat the testimony from Aunt Yo, who, even before I asked questions, was interrupted by attorney Deborah Jo Soehlig– (which Judge Murray responded, “How can you object when she (me) hasn’t even completed the question?”)  What Soehlig did was repeatedly cause distractions, interruptions, and  cost time. What should have been a two hour hearing, turned into a three hour proceeding with Toerpe, Soehlig and Byrne dashing out of the courtroom and no order entered!!  Yes, no order was entered, not even one stating that Judge Murray is taking everything under consideration and will allow for transcripts to be put in as evidence. But now I’m ahead of myself.

At a certain point I noted to the Court that Soehlig has repeatedly filed frivolous motions, which Judge Murray replied, “Then file a section 137 motion for sanctions.”  (I believe it was a 137…)  Nevertheless, Aunt Yo talked and gave testimony to Toerpe’s character, but more important, the pain and sorry she has because she cannot talk to or visit with my mother.

Scott, Kathie, and Brian also gave good testimony, although I was not allowed to bring in matters to impeach Toerpe that were unrelated to whether she purged herself of the contempt order.

Shaggy was in Court with me and had he not been present, I don’t think — no, I know I would not have been able to stick it out.  Every word that came out of Toerpe’s mouth, attorney Soehlig’s mouth, were LIES and I cannot handle being around People of the Lie or bullies, situations that cause the situational PTSD which I suffer.

Toerpe had no witnesses except for herself.

What I wanted to say to the Court was that Toerpe not only took or destroyed personal, professional and intellectual property, but she stole the most important person from my life, my Mother and best friend.  It is unimaginable strolling into the Holiday season for the fourth year in a row and not being ableable to even speak to my mother.  It is unthinkable that any person, any Court, would deny a person with association to her child, her sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins and best friends in order to silence her and keep the delusions perpetrated by attorneys such as Adam STern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, and Amanda Byrne that Mother is Alzheimer’s and ***, for their financial gain.  It is incomprehensible that any Court would protect financial exploiters, and abusers of the elderly and disabled — for whatever the Judge’s reasons.  I have no trust in the Judiciary, in attorneys, in what we label laws that are established to protect us.  Judge Murray may be the only judicial in regarding the Sykes case who is a person of integrity, a jurist who, gives a hoot about right and wrong: I don’t know. I simply don’t know.

The Chancery Court also has under advisement in regarding Toerpe’s motion to dismiss the Declaratory Action against her as not only the alleged Trustee, but also the alleged Guardian and as Toerpe herself.

It’s been a grueling few months and I cannot see light at the end of the tunnel, maybe because I’m blinded by all the lawlessness that has gone on for FIVE YEARS!   I note the people Ken cc’d his email to Tim.  I see that many are government agencies, law enforcement, and the media. I understand that all of this appears simply to unbelievable to comprehend, but, it is real.  My mother is prayerfully holding on, still praying and believing that I and Aunt Yo and with the help of one other person who, without his experiences, wisdom and compassion for justice, I believe my mother would be dead, and I’d be, well, not writing this email for certain.

My thoughts continue that we should treat our fight for justice as if it were a maze and work on reaching that finish line without having to take any serious action. Given that there is so much injustice in our world, the best way to find hope is for us to work together as a a group of people, few victims themselves to court sanctioned illegal guardianships,  to fight for justice  and free the elderly and disabled who are discriminated against and hostage to the abuse and financial exploitation.  Our Courts should punish the attorneys for the serious fraud on the court and treason against the US Constitution.

When my father passed away. I took life and education more serious. My daddy made me open my eyes to reality, meaning that I only have one life to live so I should live it to the fullest and get a good education. I remember that he told me to let no one get in my way. “Let no one get to you and you will shine above all haters.” I will always carry my father in my heart, which is engulfed with anger and fear for my Mother’s life.

All of this has left me in a state of helplessness that I had never experienced before and believe me it does not feel good. I had to sit there and watch Carolyn Toerpe walk away with my My Mother, and the Court continues to allow Toerpe to slowly kill my mother. There was no limit to my rage that night in September 2009, that I could have killed the next thing that even looked at me: that’s how mad I was.  That rage is gone, however, the sadness and fear for Mother’s life remain.

Mother will turn 95 on January 5, 2014, and this will be the fifth birthday I cannot celebrate with her.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (Martin Luther King). This is the first quote that I heard in Religion class and just struck my heart.

Big dreams come with big thoughts. Experiencing Injustice in my life is the last thing that I thought would happen to me. I’m 62 years old and living in today’s world feels like a giant rock has fallen on my head.

For all the people currently caught is unjust guardianships, and abused by the Courts, I say, each one of us have a chance to change the world that would be a better place to live and grow old, then now. We can do this together.

There simply can’t be happiness in the Sykes/ Campabellow/Bakken/Evans/ et al families and won’t be until Mother is freed, her life saved. This is my wish for this Chirstmas: that my Mother is home with me and I promise I’ll never stop hugging and loving her and pray she has many more years with me and the people she loves and trusts.

I offer good will and health to all of you this holiday season.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
BELIEVE (BeLive) LLC
773.910-3310(cell)
773-751-1310 (fax)
855-376-0040 (business)

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:06:11 -0800
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: 18 USCA 4 Concealment of criminal activity
To: timlahrman@yahoo.com; NASGA.org@gmail.com; Sa3456@msn.com; gloami@msn.com; illinois.ardc@gmail.com; NASGA.org@gmail.com; gloami@msn.com; verenusl@gmail.com; jdit@aol.com; vahrh1135@aol.com; askdoj@usdoj.gov; ces@cspin.com; k_bakken@att.net; tips@elderabuseexposed.com; tips@cbschicago.com; tips@tribune.com; matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov; wmrcls@hotmail.com; JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com; johnhowardwyman@gmail.com; matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov; janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com; statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov; chicago@ic.fbi.gov; chicagotonight@wttw.com

Tim,

18 USCA 4 states:

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

18 U.S.C.A. § 4 (West)

There is absolutely no question that CT removed from Gloria Sykes’ and Mary Sykes’ safety deposition box the contents thereof and did not inventory the same.    There is no question that the value of the contents exceeds the threshold so as to make it a felony.    There is no question that Attorney CF and Attorney AS did not report the substantial change in the lifestyle of CT after she was appointed guardian of Mary Sykes.    (it is now reported that prior CT was insolvent, however today she sports expensive jewelry.)     CT has never denied the charges – however AS, CF have without any personal knowledge issued denials.

Gloria, yours truely, JoAnne Denison and many others have reported the alleged felony to law enforcement, the IARDC, etc.     The IARDC if it undertakes to prosecute an attorney for reporting pursuant to the duty under 18 USCA 4  it (the IARDC) has an investigative duty.    Thus, you are absolutely correct that staff of the IARDC is thwarting 18 USCA 4.    (Even Judges and Attorney regulators are not immune to Federal Law and the responsibilities of citizenship).    When Gloria first reported to Court and then to IARDC the theft of over a million dollars in gold coins a duty developed in the Court to protect Mary.    When Gloria and others reiterated the charges of serious theft, tax evasion etc a duty arose that required an investigation by AS, CF, and PS.    When the lack of action against CT was noted and the obvious assaults on Gloria occurred this scenario transformed from a benign complaint to more positive duties.    The IARDC for instance had to investigate the attorneys.

The law presumes that government agencies do their jobs.   Therefore, the Administrator of the IARDC is presumed to have done an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of CF, AS, PS, and the Judges.     Thus, the prelude to 18 USCA 4 has been raised and the law (in my opinion) suggests that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC have actual knowledge of all the facts in the Sykes case.   The same situation would exist in Wyman, Gore, Tyler, etc.

Yes, Tim I am complying with 18 USCA 4.    I’ve sent a copy of this e-mail to the States attorney, Mr. Holder, and the IARDC.     The non-inventory of the gold coins and other valuables by CT in my opinion is a felony and thus as we know about it it makes “whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony”  us!

Let me take a moment out to wish that we can end Mary Sykes years of torment now and that you and all who receive this e-mail a Happy, Merry and Prosperous Christmas and New Year.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Not all attorneys are treated the same on the 18th floor…..

What is very interrsting is that every time I present a fee petition, I always discount it 20% or more.  Sometimes the other attorneys will follow my lead.  One would think the court would try to make all of the discounts the same or nearly the same.

But in this case, my fees for the Olson estate were about $15,000 for working on the estate for about 1.5 years, dozens of emails, accountings, you name it, I did it, the lion’s share of the work.

So what happens with the “other attorneys” get in there for fees?  They want more of course and do not want to discount.  However, I have not seen a one of them work to keep someone away from the OPG/nursing home, when that is what the ward wanted.  No one wants to do that work.  Most common complaint when you want to  keep a senior at home?  No one can find an atty to go up against the GAL’s and OPG.  Well, I will do that, but I have to expect my fee to be cut about 90% (from $15k to $1k is what they wanted while the GAL got $2.5k because he’s a go along kind of guy), but the client prevailed for me for $2k.  Good going.

This is one of the reasons why these cases need to be transferred to NFP’s or not for profits where we can do fundraisers and bake sales to keep seniors at home (who want to stay at home) and out of nursing homes.

So, I am working on that, but I thought you might find the following pleadings interesting of the “club” of the 18th floor, which I do not belong to ascribe to.  I am dedicated to doing what the CLIENT wants.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwRk1WWkNtU0RiTUE/edit?usp=sharing

Next what we need to work on is a pubic listing of GAL’s and service providers which can be accessed by the litigants, complete with reviews and comments of family members involved or not involved in guardianships.  There should be wifi on the 18th floor and ratings, costs and service concerns should all be published and accessible by the public.

joanne

The Shifting Sands of the IARDC interpretation of the Sawyer case

Dear Ken;

I noted that too.  At first the IARDC was of the opinion that the Sawyer case held that an attorney could NOT criticize a law, a statute, a court proceeding a judge or his decision.  I have published that on my blog repeatedly it is exactly the opposite–that a lawyer can in fact criticize a judge, a law, a statute, a court proceeding and a decision.  So they have given up on everything but the judge.

Here’s the problem.  Many judges, I have found from the public records, (many in Atty Lanre Amu’s case have this problem), have highly suspicious XXXX records.  Now the proof of the corruption lies in the actual XXX records.  But if you go before that judge, ask for a change of judge and a subpoena of his XXX records, the IARDC will go after you because, well, from Atty Amu’s case, judges are perfect, they never have bad ideas and never do anything wrong and are incorruptible as the Lord and Master himself and the entire Holy Family–Yeshua, Joseph and the two Marys.

I have talked to the authorities about this problem, I have begged them to get the XXXX records and let me know when it is “safe” to reopen these cases and get my clients justice and eliminate the corruption.

I have heard nothing.

It’s a system, a deeply ingrained, highly troubled and unjust system that has gone on with impunity for decades.

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Dec 18, 2013 8:26 AM
To: “timlahrman@aol.com”
Subject: Re: just a case cite I ran across

These press cases are always in flux.   The 4th Estate today is getting a broader and broader.
I’ve been working over my document to the Supreme Court – I will send it out later on – I have trial this afternoon so it will probably be tomorrow.   What I thought was interesting is the intellectual dishonesty that is exhibited by IARDC.    The Sawyer case is the prime example.   After citing the case for the proposition that the Supreme Court in Sawyer recognized their right to regulate the speech of attorney someone at the IARDC read the decision and found out that the Court ruling was just the opposite.   So rather than admit their error they now are suggesting that lawyers have the right to be critical of laws but not judges.
I guess the US Attorney in prosecuting the judges in Greylord had an ethical lapse.
Ken Ditkowsky

On Failure to Report a felony….another reason the IARDC is on thin ice

for questioning Atty Ditkowsky “does he feel sorry for reporting (felonious activities) to the authorities.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Dec 18, 2013 9:06 AM
To: “timlahrman@yahoo.com” , NASGA , Diane Nash , GLORIA SYKES , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , NASGA , GLORIA SYKES , probate sharks , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , Eric Holder , “ces@cspin.com” , Kathie Bakken , “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Chicago Tribune , matt senator kirk , rudy bush , JoAnne Denison , John Howard Wyman , matt senator kirk , Janet Phelan , Cook County States Attorney , “chicago@ic.fbi.gov” , “chicagotonight@wttw.com”
Subject: 18 USCA 4 Concealment of criminal activity

Tim,
 
18 USCA 4 states:
 
 
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

18 U.S.C.A. § 4 (West)
 
There is absolutely no question that CT removed from Gloria Sykes’ and Mary Sykes’ safety deposition box the contents thereof and did not inventory the same.    There is no question that the value of the contents exceeds the threshold so as to make it a felony.    There is no question that Attorney CF and Attorney AS did not report the substantial change in the lifestyle of CT after she was appointed guardian of Mary Sykes.    (it is now reported that prior CT was insolvent, however today she sports expensive jewelry.)     CT has never denied the charges – however AS, CF have without any personal knowledge issued denials.     
 
Gloria, yours truely, JoAnne Denison and many others have reported the alleged felony to law enforcement, the IARDC, etc.     The IARDC if it undertakes to prosecute an attorney for reporting pursuant to the duty under 18 USCA 4  it (the IARDC) has an investigative duty.    Thus, you are absolutely correct that staff of the IARDC is thwarting 18 USCA 4.    (Even Judges and Attorney regulators are not immune to Federal Law and the responsibilities of citizenship).    When Gloria first reported to Court and then to IARDC the theft of over a million dollars in gold coins a duty developed in the Court to protect Mary.    When Gloria and others reiterated the charges of serious theft, tax evasion etc a duty arose that required an investigation by AS, CF, and PS.    When the lack of action against CT was noted and the obvious assaults on Gloria occurred this scenario transformed from a benign complaint to more positive duties.    The IARDC for instance had to investigate the attorneys.
 
The law presumes that government agencies do their jobs.   Therefore, the Administrator of the IARDC is presumed to have done an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of CF, AS, PS, and the Judges.     Thus, the prelude to 18 USCA 4 has been raised and the law (in my opinion) suggests that Mr. Larkin and the IARDC have actual knowledge of all the facts in the Sykes case.   The same situation would exist in Wyman, Gore, Tyler, etc.   
 
Yes, Tim I am complying with 18 USCA 4.    I’ve sent a copy of this e-mail to the States attorney, Mr. Holder, and the IARDC.     The non-inventory of the gold coins and other valuables by CT in my opinion is a felony and thus as we know about it it makes “whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony”  us!      
 
Let me take a moment out to wish that we can end Mary Sykes years of torment now and that you and all who receive this e-mail a Happy, Merry and Prosperous Christmas and New Year.  
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Winnifred Carol Wyman’s guardianship ended Dec 3, 2013

Dear Readers;

It is with an utterly heavy heart that I inform you that Winnifred Carol Wyman has passed over.

Her “color of authority” guardianship ended with her death on Dec 3, 2013.  The Carol Wyman I knew was sweet and lovable and cherished her “little dog” Pierre and all her grandchildren and babies her children and their children produced.

Unfortunately, after being thrown in one of the worst nursing homes in Illinois and finally escaping, after daily abuse-beatings and sexual abuse-she had to move to Colorado with her son John Howard Wyman where she could safely paint 8 hours per day from the end of 2009 to the present.

You can see her obituary here:

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/obituaries/9238828-113/wyman-winifred-december-rockford

You can see her artwork examples here:

(Photos used with permission of John Howard Wyman, © 2013 all rights reserved)

Mrs. Wyman painted nearly daily from arriving at John’s home in Colorado and amassed an amazing collection of dozens and dozens of original art work–many acclaimed by art critics due to the use of color, design and amazing shapes and figures.  John Howard Wyman supported all of this artwork–even though the state left him with nearly no funding to care for his mother.

Under the standard guardianship system in Illinois, seniors are daily thrown into nursing facilities against their will–and often against the will of their family members who want to take them in but can’t.

A judge in probate recently told me that “there is no case law saying that a home placement is preferred over a home placement.”

Well in this home placement–forced by a daring escape from a nursing home, elopement to another state where Mrs. Wyman was freed from the evils of a probate court “ready to institutionalize her” (Another OPG atty told me “seniors often remain in their homes for far too long after they should be institutionalized), this senior painted dozens and dozens of amazing pieces of artwork and John Howard Wyman sacrificed mightily to make that happen.

Grandma Moses started painting at the age of 80 and was one of the most prolific and highly acclaimed artists of folk art Americana.

If you are interested in any of her works of art, please email John Howard Wyman at johnhowardwyman@gmail.com for photos and pricing.  Most of her works were sold at $3,000 each, but the prices may escalate.

John worked to get an agreement with the probate court that Mrs. Wyman could keep all her earnings from her paintings. Wasn’t that nice of them?

To add insult to injury, The Supreme Court of Illinois turned down her appeal on Nov. 27, 2013 to be a free woman again.

Just another example of how for many seniors in guardianships, death is the only way out.

JoAnne

From Jim Simms down south–a concern over prosecutorial conduct

And yet another article that is causing a flap, and that is one from down south regarding one of their SC justices speaking out against prosecutorial misconduct and the prosecutors want his disqualified.

Problem is, Justice Beatty makes some good points about 1) not allowing prosecutors to control a trial schedule 2) holding a defendant for 18 months to force a plea bargain; 3) the old fashioned practice of prosecuting a prostitute and not the customer.

Read on for additional information:

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2013131209860

Of course, the fist protest you get is “he can’t say that”–a clear warning that someone is hiding something.  If the prosecutors were honest, they would respond with his concerns, claim they should not have control over trial scheduling–the court should do that, and also prosecute fairly and evenly.  The Sawyer case has made it clear, if you are not on a case, you can criticize the law, the case law, the statutes and whatever else you find that is not correct or which may be corrupted or corruptible.

From Atty Ken Ditkowsky re the Adult Protective Services Act–immunity for reporting abuse ignored

 

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Dec 8, 2013 6:48 AM
To: “zamirkatan@aol.com” , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , NASGA , probate sharks , Jo Anne Denison , Martha Jantho , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , SUNTIMES , Chicago Tribune , “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Janet Phelan , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Cook County States Attorney
Subject: (a-7) A person making a report under this Act in the belief that it is in the alleged victim’s best interest shall be immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action on account of making the report, notwithstanding any requirements concerning the confidentiality of information with respect to such eligible adult which might otherwise be applicable.

The ‘cottage industry’ of elder cleansing is alive and well even though the Legislature of the State of Illinois has made it very clear that the public policy of the State abhors and condemns it.     735 ILCS 110/5 has been enacted to make it very clear that Illinois will not tolerate anyone impeding or otherwise interfering with the free flow of ideas and citizen rights protected by Article One of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.     The survival of the criminal enterprise created by the elder cleansers and most other criminal enterprises depends upon the attornment of public officials temporarily in power and the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of all who oppose the enterprise and especially the Lawyers.
In the Greylord case wherein 15 sitting judges were sent to prison for corruption (and many more were forced to resign) stands as a beacon.     Elder Cleansing as exemplified by the Sykes case 09 P 4585, Gore, Wyman, and dozens more are stark examples of the three elements that compose the crime of elder cleansing, to wit:  railroad a senior citizen into a guardianship, abuse and financially exploit the senior, and finally aid the senior into an involuntary assisted suicide.   (Mary Sykes is now in phase 3)
I am proud to have joined with Attorney JoAnne Denison, some other lawyers have and/or speaking out against judicial attornment and fostering of Elder cleansing.    As we enter into the Christmas Season (the season that Americans celebrate ‘good will’ and ‘fellowship’) it saddens me that I am receiving many communications from people all over America crying out their loved ones are being victimized by elder abuse and our public officials are so impotent to address crimes against humanity that stain our very souls.    Mary Sykes has been isolated from her two elderly siblings and her younger daughter so completely that efforts at finding her, much less communicating with her, are impossible.     Bev Cooper and others recall who Alice Gore was spirited away and it took weeks to discover that she had died.    The avarice of the elder cleansers was so obscene that Ms. Gore’s teeth had been mined for the gold that were contained therein.
Yes, Mr. Larkin, Ms. Farenga, Ms Solo, Mr. Schmiedel, Mr. Stern and all who are alleged to have participated and/or who stand accused of  aiding  and abet elder cleansing I am proud to openly oppose the interference under color of law with the Civil Rights of Mary Sykes and all the senior citizens who are similarly situated.   And yes, even though it appears the words of the Illinois legislature are impotent and the protections afforded by statute, to wit:
(a-7) A person making a report under this Act in the belief that it is in the alleged victim’s best interest shall be immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action on account of making the report, notwithstanding any requirements concerning the confidentiality of information with respect to such eligible adult which might otherwise be applicable.   320 ILCS 20/4
are impotent.    (If you have been wrongfully accused, let me extend my hand to once again for the umpteenth time to invite you to join in the cry for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of all of the elder cleansing charges starting with Sykes)
 Even though Ms. Denison and I have little protection from the attacks on our professional standing and reputations,  I and many more citizens (including lawyers) will continue our fight to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Illinois.    The ultra vires disciplinary proceedings brought under color of statute in attempt to suppress the exposure and abhorrence to the elder abuse and financial exploitation that is fostered by a small group of the political elite temporarily in power yields bitter fruit, but, the American Spirit will prevail.    An ARDC lawyer asked me several dozen times during cross examination if I was repentant – let me answer once against:  ABSOLUTELY NOT!     I and many just like me will not attorn to elder cleansing or any other obviously wrongful program no matter who supports and fosters it.
The Rule of Law has been made clear by the recent Supreme Court of the United States cases – government cannot impede or regulate speech.     It is believed that the Illinois Supreme Court will attorn and make a strong statement; however, it is important that we have more than statements!   Talk is cheap.    While the choir get bigger Mary Sykes and hundreds of senior citizens are being subjected to ‘elder cleansing’ and in this holiday season are being isolated from their families, friends, and those who love them.    The Sykes case is just one example!     How does this tragic situation prevail in America?
Merry Christmas!     We ought to be ashamed!
Ken Ditkowsky
From Joanne:

I still want to know how and why the Naperville police were able to destroy a video of Gloria visiting with Mary on June 22, 2013 which clearly shows 1) Mary was lucid and about 90% competent; 2) she had not been told her home was sold and 3) her hair was unkempt, her bottom teeth (partial) was missing and 4) her teeth were clearly dirty.

I don't understand why when I faxed the Naperville police they have not fixed that video though it has been posted and shared for months, and their actions were clearly wrongful and unconstitutional.

Further, their report does not mention if Adam Stern told or requested Officer Krakow to ask everyone to delete pictures on cell phones at the nursing home. We protested.  We told the officer that these were important pictures and video and yet he demanded it and said otherwise we "would not be cooperating" in his investigation.

We still do not have those questions answered, nor has the video been fixed and reposted in comment.

The shennanigans in the Sykes case continue unimpeded and uninvestigated.

It was never investigated either how Harry Tyler's $9 million disappeared between his death and the guardianization of Lydia Tyler 3 years later, despite the efforts of some family members who had evidence of the bank accounts.

It has never been investigated why Dominic Spera was locked out of his bank accounts for months, rendering him homeless, it was never invetigated why Wyman and Sykes have continued on in court proceedings for 3 years or more without jurisdiction and the appellate courts do nothing.

Many, many questions and answers of elder abuse, but no answers.

The ARDC will ask me if I am sorry I publish this and contact the authorities.  When I tell the authorities that the IARDC wants me to take down this blog and stop reporting corruption, they just chuckle.

So which is it? All the funny stuff at the IARDC and lack of honest investigations or advice from the uncorrupted authorities?  I'll clearly take the later.

Sooner or later the lies catch up.

JoAnne

From Atty Ken Ditkowsky and the “Hard Rock” document

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:40 AM, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

The American Constitution is a ‘hard rock’ document.    It is intended to protect not only the weakest amongst us, but also the strongest.    There are no exception!    The protection is universal.
The American Political System is a no holds barred conflagration in which only the strong survive.    When an individual runs for any elected office he/she puts everything on the line.   There is no turning back, no ‘do overs’ and certainly no protection from even the vilest of slanders.    Elections are ‘wars’ and every attempt at civility is usually rejected by one or both of the candidates.   In Illinois and many estates Judges are elected!
The American citizen is one of the most fortunate human beings on earth as we as a Nation inherited from our founding fathers a formula and system that when we follow it literally paves our streets with gold.    All you have to do participate is put your nose to the grindstone, follow the formula and work your tail off!     Millions of Americans have done so!     My friend Sam Moy (Fung Yee Moy – now deceased)  recounted on the origin of the Moy family in Chicago.   His uncle and father – aged 6 and 7 arrived by train to Chicago to found the family.  On a lesser scale my then 9 year old grandfather was sent to North Dakota where he (and many others just like him) at the first opportunity homesteaded land.    Our ancestors were not handed anything on a gold or silver platter – they earned it!    We received the fruits of their labor and their toughness.
‘Elder cleansing’ is therefore so disheartening.     The reaction of the community to it is very discouraging.     How can a society exist when senior citizens are herded into guardianships so that they can be stripped of their assets, their liberty, their civil rights etc?    How can our society exist when the Rule of Law is totally ignored by persons who like to refer to themselves as “judicial officials.”     The dirty little secret of ‘elder cleansing’ is well known and a situation we observe too often.     Everyone has expressed shock seeing the senior lying in his own urine in a nursing home!    Everyone that has looked into the Sykes, Gore, Wyman, Tyler et al cases have been repelled.    (except for the miscreants and those who aid and abet them).
Everyone who has attempted to do something about ‘Elder cleansing’ is classified a ‘nut!’ by the miscreants and their supporters.   The attitude is “how dare you bring to our attention the National Socialist program that we are sweeping under the rug!”     The second oldest profession points out that lawyers are advocates and it is high form of professionalism to advocate for the unpopular.     Thus our laws and the Rule of Law draws its momentum from cases in which a miscreant represents himself falsely as metal of honor winner, a group of social misfits picket a funeral, some profiteers with no social conscience market violent video games to children etc.    We even protect the rights of thugs who express the desire to recreate the Holocaust!     HOWEVER, what is being done to protect the senior citizens who have contributed to the wealth of the Nation!
The Mary Sykes case is an example.     Our law enforcement community, our legal community, our social welfare community and to some extent you and me took comfort in our laws.    Our legislature enacted 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 etc.    Indeed, Illinois created a road map that if followed met every standard of our society.    The safeguards abound!    Our legislature was not done – enacted additional safeguards such as 320 ILCS 20/4.     Illinois law enforcement, Illinois lawyers, and Illinois citizens sat back, stuck out their chests and said: “how wonderful and I.”    
Unfortunately, it never occurred to us that our miscreant crew and those who aid and abet them would have the temerity to flaunt the clear words of the Statute!   Horrors!!!!!     Mary Sykes was herded into a guardianship.    Jurisdiction was treated as formality to be ignored.   In an e-mail, a GAL proudly acclaims that he, another GAL, and the attorney for the petitioner agreed that Mary Sykes was incompetent and a judge rubber stamped their determination.    In her evidence deposition the Judge stated that had she been aware of the lack of compliance with the jurisdictional criterion she would have vacated her order and held a hearing.   However, the result would have been the same.    The rest is history, as in all the ‘elder cleansing cases’ Mary’s property was sequestered (not inventoried) and the guardian who heretofore was noted to have stolen pennies from Mary.    (In one instance, Mary caught her finding before Mary lost it $4,000.00.    She then and therefore confessed but rationalized the event by informing the family that she had set up a IRA account for 90 year old Mary).    Once Mary’s assets were safely in the hands of the miscreants, Mary went into phased 3 of elder cleansing.    Her isolation was augmented and she is believed to be incarcerated in a nursing home (some where  unknown to the family and friends) rewarded with drugs so she will not bother anyone waiting for her death.
I want everyone know that this e-mail is according to Mr. J. Larkin and his ethics panels at the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline commission is unethical.     According to Mr. Larkin and his ethics panels it is a violation of Canon 8 of Legal Ethics for a lawyer to do what I am now doing and they have asked the Supreme Court of Illinois that I be suspended for four years.    As I owe America a debt of loyalty and I profited handsomely for the gifts that America provided my family and my friends my direction comes not from Larkin, Black, Forenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al but from the founders of America, my ancestors who help build America and the ‘Good Lord.’     As I testified as long as the Stars and Stripes flies over America she and the principals of America have  my undivided loyalty
That said, what we in America face as we close out the year 2013 is our ultimate enemy.    The ‘elder cleansing’ cases are just part of the problem.    The ‘bad guys’ in the Sykes case and the elder cleansing cases are taking advantage of our malady.     We unlike our ancestors all too often rely upon ‘form’ rather than substance.    Legislation is meaningless if it is ignored.   Had the Circuit Court of Cook County forced the miscreants to comply with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 and especially 10(f) Mary Sykes would be with those who care about her and annoying the Garden Club of Norwood Park.     Indeed, if the Courts been concerned with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3, most of the victims of ‘elder cleansing’ would be having Christmas dinner with those who care about them rather being drugged zombies at various nursing homes.    If Mr. Larkin and the others who are aiding and abetting ‘elder cleansing’ read the First Amendment, Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution, 735 ILCS 110/5, and 320 ILCS 20/4 the legal profession would not be infamous and held so universally in disrepute.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year – I hope in the new year we all will live up to the expectations of our respective ancestors who actually contributed to America and American culture rather than just paid lip service to its principles.
Ken Ditkowsky

US Dept of Justice is collecting court docts on Elder Abuse for New Project

Dear colleagues,
The Department of Justice is developing and scheduled to
launch, in early  2014, a new Elder Justice Website to serve as a resource to
elder abuse  prosecutors and others. One key component of the website is
a repository of federal and state court pleadings in elder abuse, neglect
and exploitation cases. We hope this repository will ameliorate
at least one of the barriers to elder abuse prosecutions, namely the lack
of training and guidance. In order to make the repository as effective
and useful as possible, we are currently looking for good examples of
publicly filed documents (e.g., indictments or informations, motions, and
sentencing memoranda) in every state. If you or one of your colleagues
have any such documents, please email them to Susan Lynch, at
susan.lynch@usdoj.gov. As we hope to launch the
website in early 2014, we need to have all submissions by December 16,
2013. If emailing the documents is inconvenient, please feel free to
email us cases with the docket numbers and county/state name so the
pleadings can be retrieved from your local clerk of court at our
expense/effort. Your submission can make a huge difference not just to other
prosecutors, but also to elder abuse victims as well.

Thanks in advance for your support,

Andy Mao
Assistant Director and Elder Justice Initiative Coordinator
Civil Division
Commercial Litigation Branch
U.S. Department of Justice

*************************************** To reply or send a
message to the entire NCEA listserve, address your post to
ELDERABUSE@LIST.NIH.GOV. To change your listserve status, send the following command(s) in an email directly to LISTSERV@LIST.NIH.GOV: SET ELDERABUSE NOMAIL: To TEMPORARILY  SUSPEND receiving messages. SET ELDERABUSE MAIL: To RENEW listserve after temporarily suspending mail. SIGNOFF ELDERABUSE: To
UNSUBSCRIBE permanently. Do not include a subject header or any other
text, and remember you must send the message from the address at which
you are subscribed. The NCEA ElderAbuse listserve is administered by
the Center of Excellence on Elder Abuse & Neglect at the University
of California, Irvine, as a service of the National Center on
Elder Abuse (NCEA) and is supported in part by the U.S. Administration
on Aging. Send feedback or questions to the listserve manager at
ncea@uci.edu. Thank you.

>
>
>
>
>

Interesting series on WGN TV–Who is judging the judges–this week

But you can view it on the internet here:

http://wgntv.com/2013/12/02/who-is-judging-the-judges-issues-of-qualification/#idc-container

It is interesting that they feature Attorney Valukas who says “corruption is not an issue.”  Excuse me?  have you not googled corruption and chicago courts?  I think there are plenty of blogs out there besides mine.

Other than that, the series raises some very interesting issues such as how well informed voters are before they vote for a judge

Pluto cold–Heard today in Probate court on the 18th floor–a nursing home is better than in home placement

So dear readers;

Image this.  You are elderly, you live with your elderly sister whom had gone the 27th mile in a marathon to provide tender, loving care to you in your advanced age and health.  You are not well.  You whine and groan and keep her up late at night.  You have lived with her for several years now and not paid rent and she is your devoted, loving care taker.  She quit her job to take care of you.

So, today you go to court on the 18th floor.  A miscreant atty proposes the OPG as guardian which means sister will have to live in a nursing home, away from your beloved, comfortable home with your devoted and loving sister with a long term bond.

One, lonesome, but passionate attorney argues that this is NOT the best placement, and argues the above. She further argues that nursing home placement is more dangerous than in home placement with a loving, caring, devoted sister.

The response form the court?  Incredulously and coldly, there is no case law that says a nursing home is dangerous or less preferred than in home placement, and the sister can just go see her at the nursing home every day as she desires.

Cold?  I think about 227 below and it’s Celcius I’m talking and not Farenheit.  It’s not just Alaska at night cold, it’s Pluto cold*–the non planet.

I’m just saying.  And karma that comes around goes around.  Not a one of the other attorneys spoke up for this poor ward and the best thing for her.  I think there were 3 other attys there, including the GAL, the brother’s attorney (who had no objection to all of this) and the OPG.  Of course not the OPG, Tom Brennan, intake counsel for the OPG already told me before “some people just remain in their own communities for far too long and aren’t institutionalized promptly enough.”  Already reported that.  Pluto cold if you ask me.

JoAnne

* “pluto cold” from “universitytoday” website:

Zero Kelvin is the absolute zero temperature; a theoretical maximum point where no more energy can be extracted from a system. 0-degrees Kelvin corresponds to -273-degrees Celsius.

The surface of Pluto, in comparison, can range from a low temperature of 33 Kelvin (-240 degrees Celsius or -400 degrees Fahrenheit) and 55 Kelvin (-218 degrees Celsius or -360 degrees Fahrenheit). The average surface temperature on Pluto is 44 Kelvin (-229 Celsius or -380 Fahrenheit).

I think we just have to use Kelvin anymore to describe the 18th floor and it’s inhabitants.

New ARDC logic–blogging is worse than conversion/breach of fiduciary duty

Dear Readers;

As many of you are probate victims in and of yourselves, many of you have been victim to the falling off of millions of dollars of assets in your loved one’s estate, or perhaps some miscreant court looks the other way while tens of thousands of dollars are removed from your accountings every year to accounts that simply don’t exist and are no where to be found and the court looks the otherway.

You are well aware of that feeling of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of your funds.

Recently we published the Karavidas decision where an Illinois attorney was not disciplined because his conversion of funds and breach of fiduciary duty was while he was only the executor to an estate and he was not the attorney for the estate.  The ARDC Review Board excused him and SCOI said firmly not all bad acts done by an attorney are subject to discipline, and especially those done as personal matters by the attorney.

So, incredulously enough, (as if this weren’t complete proof of troubles at the IARDC), we get the amazing response where the Administrator and attys Opryszek and Smart argue that the conversion and breach of fiduciary duty by Karavidis is not subject to discipline, but BLOGGING IS SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE.  They continue to argue that this blog accuses or makes false statements regarding the judiciary (which it does not and my witnesses will all state firmly it is truthful), and I have threatened to present criminal charges even though 1) I am not a prosecutor and have not acted in that capacity on a blog, and prosecutors do NOT use blogs to present criminal indictments, the due process rules still apply of a warrant, arrest and formal charges; and 2) I am not Bill Windsor of Lawless America saying that I will assembly together a grand jury calling together a group of citizens to indict certain miscreants.  I have never said that.  Bill Windsor has a great idea and concept, but I think we all know that concept is having a most difficult time finding purchase in the nation’s court systems and is so far being ignored.

So what exactly did the ARDC say?  Read it here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwTGpPRjZ2V0pQQ0U/edit?usp=sharing

I still have not figured out how blogging is worse than conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, but perhaps one of you might enlighten me.

Further, the Karavidas decision did say that the prohibited activity had to be specifically enumerated in the conduct alleged, and I don’t see that from their assertions of 8.2, 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 8.4(g) which no where speak about blogging.  The ARDC has not explained where it gets its prohibition on blogging, esp. when the blog is non commercial in nature.

JoAnne

PS–the envelope did come with a cute Christmas sticker on it and I wonder if SO or MS or JL will be sending me a Christmas card soon.  Oh, of course it will say please delete your blog and lie for us and life would be sooooo much easier.  But I’m not into that.  I’m into protecting and advising YOU the public of what is going on day after day on the 18th floor and where ever corruption is reported or suspected to me.  YOU have the right to know what to expect before you step into a courtroom. It may be be the unvarnished and inconvenient truth, but at least it will be the truth and not a pack of lies you might hear elsewhere from the tied in, tied up, well connected powers that be.

Important dates for Gloria Sykes! Be there or be square

Gloria’s requests for court watchers, bloggers and supporters of justice in our court system:

  I need people in court tomorrow, 4th Dec., 11 am Chancery room 2510 to declare my rights to the Lumbermen’s funds, to my home 6016 and ***

6th Dec. at 10:30, 1404 I have U.S. Bank for Rule for contempt of court re. the safe box and,

9 Dec. at 1 pm 1404 Toerpe stands trial and JD you need to be there.  I also want as many citizen court reporters as possible as I cannot afford a official court reporter. 

If anyone wants to car pool, email me and be at my office one half hour prior to court time to ensure time for parking and travel up elevators that can take 10 min or more during busy season.