From Ken Ditkowsky–case law on standards in probate

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Dec 2, 2013 4:44 PM
To: probate sharks , NASGA , Tim NASGA , Jo Anne Denison , GLORIA SYKES , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , Cook County States Attorney , Eric Holder , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , DiAnn Matson , Denise Rotheimer , Diane Nash , Kathie Bakken , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – Kanfer v. Busey Trust Co.

If you recall, I sent you a case entitled Parsons vs. Wambaugh which held that a guardian (judicial official) who fails to take care of the assets assigned to him/her can be surcharged the loss.    Thus, applied to the Sykes type cases the plenary guardian who engages in Elder Cleansing is going to have a problem and be culpable for the losses incurred.
The Annual accountings however appear to be binding on parties who have knowledge on the basis of res judicata.   (see attached cases).      The Court then goes on the say that the Guardian ad litem (Stern/Farenga) are not just passive parties, but have an affirmative duty.    Further where there are losses as the result of a plenary guardian’s conduct there is liability.
Now applying this to the Sykes case as an example.   We know that Carolyn entered her and Gloria’s safety deposit box and removed property.    This property and property removed from the house was never inventoried.     The Court was not interested and it is alleged that Carolyn obtained a ‘windfall!’    The United States of America was never notified of the accounting of Carolyn (nor was the State of Illinois) thus, Carolyn is liable for the taxes on the gross value of the property not inventoried.   The instant case places a duty on the guardian ad litem!    This duty not being fulfilled is a breach of fiduciary relationship and therefore creates the transition to ‘conspiracy’  et al and tax liability on the GAL.    The GAL has an affirmative duty.
 
Our issue is whether or not Carolyn is free and clear of her fiduciary responsibility to account for the uninventoried assets!!   In reading the case, in my view, the right to possession (title) never passed to the miscreant – therefore, the loss of value is assessable to Carolyn in full and she cannot profit by her less than candid statements to the court.   Simply put – she converted the property and while it is possible recovery of the property is lost, the benefits (at their highest state) are the property of the Estate of Sykes. (Thus, the tax liability vested! – the breach of fiduciary relationship remains and the fiduciary cannot retain dime one!)      
 
As a matter of law it is assumed (as relates to us)  that appointed judicial officials would never intentionally cause themselves to be unjustly enriched at the expenses of their ward.    Thus, applying the principle it must be assumed that Carolyn in not inventorying the gold coins, and other assets Carolyn (and those standing in her stead) is given the opportunity to address and error would do so and therefore, the statute of limitations could not run as to a scrivener’s error of such short duration.
 
  As this Court decision affirms a positive duty on the part of the guardian ad litem (Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga) and it is of record that they have not complied with the positive duty – pursuant to Himmel I am forwarding this case to the IARDC and Mr. Larkin so that he and his staff may have the benefit of the reasoning of the Court and most importantly can correct the errors that have occurred to date in not joining with us in demanding an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the entire Sykes matter and the other elder cleansing cases–Gore, Bedin, Wyman, Tyler, etc.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/