From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 13, 2014 3:18 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , GLORIA SYKES
Cc: Chicago FBI
Subject: Re: Alteration of transcripts
The criminal events are much more serious than ‘false arrest.’ As the Court never had jurisdiction in the Sykes case, and certainly had no jurisdiction over Gloria to demand that she tell them where she kept her money what we are dealing with in opinion is kidnapping, assault, battery, extortion, intimidation. For all purposes, the Lumberman order was a final order. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 is the only way to attack a final order after term time. An ex-parte proceeding in the probate court does not cut the mustard! In addition there is little thing about Illinois Courts lacking jurisdiction over Indiana businesses and Indiana citizens.
For a judge to order that a person be restrained the judge has to hold that person in contempt. If the contempt occurs within the sight of the judge, no hearing (Direct Contempt) is necessary and to cure a disruption the Judge is the sovereign in his own courtroom. Something like the captain of the ship; however, in America due process has to occur. Thus, allegedly without a verified petition, without notice, hearing, legal representation or any of the basic Constitutional safeguards Gloria was chained and restrained. While chained and restrained it appears that she was forced to reveal where she kept her money.
What really frosts me is the letter of July 1, 2013 from the IARDC telling us that they would not investigate Adam Stern because he was Gloria Sykes’ GAL. The author of the letter – another attorney – knew or should have know when she wrote the letter that it was totally false. Of course after being called on it, 17 days the false statement became a ‘typo’ BUT now that the excuse had been shot down no investigation followed. How do things like this occur in America!!!! Last night Mrs. Cooper gave us an explanation. (tie to the nursing home industry)
It is the fact that if the facts are as they have been reported to us the facts reveal multiple felonies. Therefore we have reported the felonies to the law enforcement authorities pursuant to 18 USCA 4. Some of the people acting in concert (see 18 USCA 371) are attorneys and therefore we have reported the information to the IARDC.
JoAnne – I realize that Mr. Larkin considers it a breach of the ethical requirements of the legal canons of ethics and before his panels I have been convicted and you have just finished a hearing but as a human being upon seeing such perfidious conduct it is quite clear that an open and notorious report to law enforcement has to be made. I understand that Mr. Larkin’s attorney argued at your hearing that there were no Supreme Court cases that were applicable to attorney’s protections under the First Amendment. I guess no one at the IARDC read Sawyer, Peel, et al. (Peel was interesting as it looked to everyone like a pure case of ***** that resulted from Peel being too successful in defending clients before the IARDC.
The Sheriff’s deputy taking your laptop is indeed a Civil Rights violation that using the criterion of 18 USCA 371 we could tie him in with our most favorite miscreants. However, I am not anxious to make the lawsuit more complex. I would like to focus in the current Federal Pleading strictly on the concerted acts of the named defendants to attempt to silence you and me. The Sheriff’s deputy should be disciplined by the Sheriff for his improper acts (as should the deputy or deputies who assaulted Gloria). As a law enforcement person he should never act against the Rule of Law.