From Cynthia Farenga–smoking gun II letter–wrong on soooo many levels

I don’t believe that I received this from the ARDC during my discovery, but it is a very important letter-  it rises to the level of Smoking Gun II.  I believe the ARDC should have produced it to me in my discovery because it mentions Ken’s behavior and emails which were frequently featured on this blog.)

During Ken’s trial I could not for the life of me figure out why the ARDC was going on and on with Ken’s letters to the authorities prompt Gloria into action (little do these people know Gloria, she is an investigative reporter and once she sees an injustice, whether it is the horrific crimes of John Wayne Gayce and the subsequent cover up by the CPS or it is freeing her mother from “guardianship purgatory”, that is where a senior is railroaded into a guardianship and the only way out 99% of the time is death, she is like a pit bull and never, ever gives up.  But, she writes her own legal papers or she works with Tim and other lawyers to do so.  Like a good reporter, she does not reveal her sources.

So what does Cynthia Farenga, a favored attorney, make up to the IARDC?  The following letter:

In this letter she assumes “[i]t is clear form a multiplicity of pleadings that he is defacto represeting Gloria Sykes, a party at the trial level, despite the fact that he was denied leave to represent her in the Probat Court because, because (sic) he previously represented her mother Mary Sykes for a period of ten years.  Gloria and her mother Mary currently have adverse finanacial interests to one another, which is why he was denied leave to represent Gloria in Mary’s guardianship case.”  This statement is clearly wrong on sooooo many levels.

First, one does not “imagine” a “defacto” representation.  Ken has the right to talk to anyone he wishes.  Second, no one, after investigating over a dozen people, the court records and numerous trancripts, has ever proved Mary was served 14 days in advance of her hearing, nor were the two elderly sisters served, leaving the 09 P 4585 case without jurisidiction.  Next, CF imagines there is a conflict between Gloria and Mary and their interests are adverse financial ones.  Let’s take a look at what actually happened.  Jay Dolgin said that he wanted out because they were railroading Mary (he asked for discovery and was denied flat out), and he stated, mark my words, CT will put Mary in a nursing home and they will sell her home and take her accounts and property and it will all go to nursing home fees and attorneys fees and she will be left with nothing, and Gloria will be homeless and penniless and he wanted nothing part of that.

What has happened?  Mary’s house was sold.  CT sports an obvious upgrade in hair and spa and expensive jewelry–seen clearly across the courtroom.  Daughter has college and a lavish wedding paid for.  AS has a $60k tax lien.  AS and CF now have expensive homes with jumbo mortgages.  What has happened to Gloria?  Homeless and penniless with a sheriff’s order to sell her home.  Mary’s finances?  Some $50k + in attorneys fees taken from the trust, and PS is claiming $200k from what is left over from Gloria.

Were Mary and Gloria’s interests truly adverse? Heck no. Both were fighting the probate court for their own homes and money!  Jay Dolgin was spot on.  $1 million in valuable gold and silver coins missing.  Cash in mattress missing.  Looks like the vast bulk of the estate will go to probate attorney fees.  The miscreants blame Ken and I while they grab all the cash. Smoking Gun II letter.  It’s a smoke screen.

Here we have CF declaring (apparently Gloria) having “serious emotional problems, which he appears to be taking advantage of…. he plays into her delusions and fantasies about events occuring in the case and its ultimate outcome in order to generate fees, as his multiple pleadings either lack foundation in law or misstate or misapply the law and facts.”

What pleadings?  Ken was haled into a court without filing an appearance and the court clearly lacked jurisdiction over him.  Gloria does her own pleadings with lawyers other than Ken and my self and CF is delusional that in Dec. 2010 that Ken and I were billing and collecting from Gloria. The handwriting was already on the wall, and she was already homeless and penniless.  So what fees?

To accuse Gloria, an award winning journalist of having “serious emotional problems” and to have “delusions and fantasies” is to impugn her professional status and career, amounting to defamation, false light and libel.  Is CF punished by the ARDC for that?  No, because this is probate and it’s an “anything goes” scenario, CF is lauded for her ability to make stuff up about a family member to defame them, marginalize them in probate–all to her advantage.  Then Gloria’s assets can be grabbed, she can be rendered homeless and penniless–all without interference from the authorities.  Happens all the time in the miserable world of probate on the 18th floor and around the country.

The IARDC should have provided this important letter to me in my discovery. They did not.

The letter goes on to say (page 4 of 8), para 3, “[Brodsky]believes Ditkowsky is exploiting Gloria for finaancial gan and that Gloria is demonstrably emotionally/psychologically troubled.”  More false light, defamation and libel.  In probate, if you want to get rid of pesky family members, all you have to do is say they are emotionally/psychologially troubled.  Gloria may be emotional, but she knows what justice is and what justice is not.  She knows that neither she nor her aunts were served with 14 day advance notice of the time, date and place of hearing–meaning serious trouble for the GAL’s.  Do the GAL’s move to dismiss the case and make up the serious trouble they have caused Gloria?  Heck no, they then attack Gloria and say is she mentally disturbed–defaming and libeling an award winning, skilled investigative reporter.  It is a tried and true method in probate to get rid of pesky family members that demand justice in a world lacking justice.

Gloria did nothing wrong. She did not cause this trouble.  She was named by her mother in her advance directives.  She cared for her mother and was her constant companion.  The guardianship was to sell the home, collect bank accounts, sell valuable homes in a hot neighborhood, Norwood Park, and generate massive fees–to the probate attorneys involved. What has happened?  Exactly that.  It is said about $60k from the sale of Mary’s home went to the attorneys.  PS is claiming $200k from Gloria’s Lumberman’s money.  Enough said.  The IARDC prosecutes Ken and I believing PS, AS and CF.  Jay Dolgin, I and Ken know better. The assets of Mary and Gloria will be collected and go to massive attys fees from the miscreants.

It is now over for that scheme in the probate court.  Ken and I are convicting of lying about the scheme to drain Mary and Gloria.


In the end who had the true financial conflict with Mary (the Miscreants and Mary).  Who had the true financial conflict with Gloria?  (the Miscreants).

Mary wanted to live together with Gloria until she passed away.  The agreement with Gloria in the POA was she would care for Mary and keep her at home, as Mary desired.


Read the Illinois POA Act, it says these agreements are inviolate and cannot be disturbed unless there is “serious and substantial harm” to the Principal’s estate.  Okay, I will admit, draining an elder’s estate is “serious and substantial harm”, but in the end, who did this in fact?  The miscreants!

Who among us wants to go to all the trouble of making advance directives (POA for health care) and then having the state trash it on the 18th floor.  If I say I want my Son 3 to be my guardian and to live with him until I die in my own house and he manages my funds, whatever they are, WHAT RIGHT DOES THE STATE HAVE TO STEP IN AND DISTURB THAT ARRANGEMENT?

No one denies that Mary was well cared for, lived in her own home, did fun and interesting things with Gloria and wanted to NEVER GO TO A NURSING HOME, she wanted to stay in her home and have Gloria with her–BFF’s they were.

The letter goes on “She (Gloria) later sought to nominate her self orally without amending her written cross petition.”  The Record on Appeal speaks for itself.  In the event a guardian was to be appointed, Gloria filed a cross petition with the OPG and when the OPG appeared and declined to be involved, she then filed a second petition with Kathie Bakken nominated as Guardian of the Estate and Gloria would be Guardian of the Person, as per Mary’s advance directives.

The letter from CF is a pack of lies.  The miscreants DO NOT keep elders at home with the people they love. They sell homes, deplete estates, defame other attorneys and family members, they trash advance directives and scoop up the money and leave a wake of grief and tears.

Just ask Gloria, Kathie and Yolanda.  And when they came to testify at my trial, what did the IARDC do?  They got rid of Gloria by telling her “bring 12,000 emails” when the miscreants produced not barely a one.  More emails than the miscreants were already published on my blog.  Kathie and Yolanda were told their assertions to their basic constitutional rights–due process and the right to advance notice, a hearing and clear findings of fact and law–as proscribed by the Illinois Probate Act was not theirs, the Tribunal strenuously worked to deny these rights to them, telling Kathie constitutional rights were “sour grapes” over and over, as if she, a highly skilled and intelligent woman with her own business would start to believe that tripe.  The arrogance of the chair was astounding and amazing.  At the end, Kathie could not believe it.  I could not believe it.  The arrogance clearly denigrated into outright rudeness and condescension.

This behavior continued up to the Tribunal trying to explain to Kathie on the stand that the word corruption has a different meaning for attorneys and for the public.  He asserted “corruption” when used in a general sense means that someone may have violate a law or code of ethic or morals, but when attorney uses it, it means passing cash over the bench.  (Huge eye roll).  Kathie, to her credit, quickly countered, “but Ms. Denison is writing a blog, so wouldn’t she use the general definition and not the one only for attorneys.”

Yep, that was the highlight.  It was a genuine woman at the well argument.

Read CF’s letter and see if you believe her–or if you believe what happened in the end and what happens every day in probate to some cases where greed and money looks too tempting and some huge cash grab takes place, all the while trampling on family members with miscreant groundless, gratuitous and unwarranted defamation of family members



PS — Cynthia Farenga goes on to make the assertion in her letter that KKD makes “serious threats” of “some really good quotes” in a pleading he is to file  That’s a total LOL ROF 4PIA!  I really don’t think legal quotes amount to “fighting words” for your average person.  Maybe for those in Mensa with too many PhD’s, but the average guy on the street will just turn back to the game on the telly and his beer than worry about a “good legal quote from some really good case law.”  That’s admirable imagination at work, though I have to tell you.  Now I have to tell you, in all due defense, she does name drop “Lady Gaga” but I understand that by Jan 2011, most teens considered Gaga old news.  Old lady news, that is.

PPS–CF continues to assert only “one legal fee” will be charged between her and AS, but wait, she took fees from the Trust (sale of Mary’s home) without a fee petition and without court approval.  You go girl with that one.

4 thoughts on “From Cynthia Farenga–smoking gun II letter–wrong on soooo many levels

    • Unfortunately, if the estate has money, then they become much more common. Probate can be a real thorny court system for many out there. Not all cases are like this, it’s just there shouldn’t be any.

  1. I am really impressed together with your writing abilities and also with the structure to your blog.
    Is that this a paid subject matter or did you modify it your self?
    Either way stay up the excellent high quality writing,
    it is rare to look a great weblog like this one these days..

    • Thanks for the comments. The blog is political speech and it is “unpublished” which means it has not been sold or offered for sale. It is dedicated by attorneys and the public involved to probate and corruption victims.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s