From Ken Ditkowsky — new comments concerning Cynthia Farenga

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “support-mobile@dowjones.com” <support-mobile@dowjones.com>
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: My posts are now blocked on the ABA journal site (KMM34075327I72L0KM)
Thank you.
This elder cleansing situation is a National disgrace.     It is also a cancer in that lawyers are being told – complain about judicial corruption and you lose your First Amendment Rights.   Unfortunately this situation is not confined to the Elder cleansing issue.   
For your information I decide to examine the letter of one of the two guardian ad litem in the Sykes case.  The letter was amazing in it lack of candor and intellectual honesty.    

Admissions by Farenga

 
The statement of Ms. Farenga is replete with admissions and disclosures of the perfidy that has occurred in the Mary Sykes case.     Mr. Farenga’s statement was in words and phrases:
“I am commenting for one reason only, and then in a limited way. JoAnne, Ken and Gloria and Tim Lahrman have been publishing untruths and fabrications about Mary Sykes” case for the last 4 1/2 years and they are not going to stop.. The denial of their complaints, which JD,, KD and GS have in total filed in virtually every court level including state and federal, in multiple divisions of state court, of appeals and requests for reconsideration, all of which they have lost, speaks to the untruths of their claims. There is no way that every court, panel and individual judge from the 7th Circuit down is corrupt. As the briefest example of their untruths, I have not retired from the practice of law, let alone for any reason related to the Sykes case. JD has made this claimed before and I have corrected her, just as I have informed her that the real estate transactions she accuses my husband of making (not that she has described what is wrong with them) were not made by my husband, who has a very common first and last name. One last clarification, and I am limiting my comments because I too could write endlessly about this case: Gloria Jean Sykes HERSELF filed a petition to have her mother declared a disabled person (incompetent). She could not possibly have more clearly submitted herself to the Court’s jurisdiction. A hearing took place at which she presented witnesses and cross-examined them. The saddest fact of all is that Gloria Sykes has refused to visit her mother because of the Court’s requirement that a supervisor be present. Regardless of her vehement opposition to this requirement, she has chosen to deprive her mother of her company rather than abide by a condition which might have been waived n the future if she’d comported herself during any visits she’d chosen to make. Adam Stern and I beseeched her to visit her mother despite needing a supervisor and told her that her case would in no way be legally prejudiced by using a supervisor. Yes, she could have been visiting her mother but preferred to make another choice. Both Adam and I volunteered to serve as supervisor without charge in order for a visit to take place. Actions speak louder than words. These people are living in their own universe. Their untruths to my comment will be forthcoming …”
Now let’s examine what Ms. Farenga actually says:
“I am commenting for one reason only, and then in a limited way. JoAnne, Ken and Gloria and Tim Lahrman have been publishing untruths and fabrications about Mary Sykes” case for the last 4 1/2 years and they are not going to stop… The denial of their complaints, which JD,, KD and GS have in total filed in virtually every court level including state and federal, in multiple divisions of state court, of appeals and requests for reconsideration, all of which they have lost, speaks to the untruths of their claims. “ [1]
Response:     What untruths Farenga refers to is not specified.    In fact, Mr. Larkin in two disciplinary prosecutions has failed to specify what there untruths are.     Certainly, the lack of jurisdiction is not seriously questioned.     It is horn book law that in order to appoint a guardian the Court has to obtain jurisdiction over the person.   This is obtained usually by service of documents.     In particular due process requires notice and hearing.      If you examine the Court file in the Sykes case 09 P 4585 there is no return of summons on Mary.    There is a stamp with a name on it by the sheriff does not acknowledge it as anything.    A return of summons usually is a statement under oath or its equivalent that the person has been in fact delivered a copy of a properly constituted summons in a timely manner.    This is lacking.
What is also very disturbing is that the Clerk of the Circuit Court did not have distribute to attorneys at the time that process had to be served a form summons that complied with the Statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.    
As there is a petition that has to be filed by the Applicant to have the citizen declared incompetent this Petition must disclosed the near (close) relatives such as siblings, children etc. [2]     Of course, Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, Mr. Schmiedel, Mr. Larkin et al are all silent concerning the fact that the petition filed neglects to disclose that Mary had two living siblings.    Thus, they were not disclosed.    The rationale for disclosure is the fact that Illinois as a matter of policy – but not practice – does not wish to have citizens elder cleansed.     The statute requires that as a jurisdictional matter the near (close) relatives such as Mary Sykes two sisters and younger daughter be afforded 14 days prior notice of impending proceedings to have Mary’s competency be adjudicated.
Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, Mr. Schmiedel, Mr. Larkin et al are all silent as to this jurisdictional matter.      The Court record does not contain any affidavit of notice being afforded.     Larkin  and his co-conspirators in their  18 USCA 371 action and assault on the First Amendment has run up the flag pole several scenarios to attempt to make the lack of jurisdiction an untruth.     Schmiedel has attempted to equate a hearing on a care plan into a competency proceeding.     Unless the proceeding is ‘fixed’ this is impossible as the Illinois Statute reads:
 
(b)  Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. 
755 ILCS 5/11a-3
 
Any reasonable interpretation thus requires a detailed medical examination so as to inform the Court of the extent necessitated by the individuals’ actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.      Clairvoyance is not a substitute.    The discussion of a care plan prior to an appropriate hearing is putting the cart before the horse.    
Ms. Farenga, has been invited to detail the statements that she claims are false.   She cannot do so.    Each of the statements is supported by affidavits, testimony (or admissions) and the Court records.    The averments made by Larkin, Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al are unsupported and refuted by not only statute but everyone who has knowledge of the facts.
 
“There is no way that every court, panel and individual judge from the 7th Circuit down is corrupt. As the briefest example of their untruths, I have not retired from the practice of law, let alone for any reason related to the Sykes case.
Comment:    This sentence is the type of ‘strawman’ and obfuscation that the Larkin and Farenga are reduced.     No one has claimed that every judge is corrupt except Ms. Farenga.     Ms. Farenga was noted to have closed her law office on the North Shore.
“JD has made this claimed before and I have corrected her, just as I have informed her that the real estate transactions she accuses my husband of making (not that she has described what is wrong with them) were not made by my husband, who has a very common first and last name. “
Comment:    I assume that JD refers to JoAnne Denison not Judith Ditkowsky, Joseph Dubow, ****.    I also assume that Farenga is referring to investigations by some investigative reporters who made inquiry into Ms. FArenga’s husband’s campaign contributions and his participation in some very shady judicial sales.     There reporters were anticipating that Mary Sykes very valuable residential lot in Norwood Park would be sold at a very bargain price.      The lot was appraised at approximately $700,000.00.     The reporters reviewed some of the questionable sales and with the aid of some real estate professionals traced the pattern.      It was expected that after a bunch of gestures and complaints that the Sykes estate was bankrupt or near bankrupt.     In an effort to raise the fund the guardian would request the right to sell Mary’s home.    The highest price that could be obtained would be in the 200,000 to 300,000 dollar range.    
After the money was in hand it was easily divided.     The sale however would be a sham.    A nominee for the miscreants would be the purchaser.   After a series of mesne transactions the miscreants would create an exculpatory paper trail complete with sham mortgages, liens etc.    Finally the $700,000 would be realized and the proceeds distributed as a capital gain.   (The tax evasion is reported by the family of Mary Sykes pursuant to 18 USCA 4).
 
One last clarification, and I am limiting my comments because I too could write endlessly about this case: Gloria Jean Sykes HERSELF filed a petition to have her mother declared a disabled person (incompetent). She could not possibly have more clearly submitted herself to the Court’s jurisdiction. A hearing [3] took place at which she presented witnesses and cross-examined them. “
 
Comment:    Ms. Farenga has written endlessly concerning this case to various staff members of the IARDC complaining about the fact that Ms. Denison and I were not playing dead and were calling for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the irregularities that were so evidence in the Court record.    She was upset that various Blogs had picked up on the misconduct (elder cleansing) and were broadcasting the call for an investigation.    Worse yet she was busy issuing denials on behalf of the guardian as to the drilling of a safety deposit box and the removal of about a million dollars in gold coins and the theft of other collectibles = none of which were inventoried.     Interestingly the guardian never denied the alleged thefts nor did Larkin have the temerity (or courage) to call the guardian as a witness to deny the alleged thefts!      The information concerning these matters is contained in Ms. Sykes’ e-mails and in her affidavit which was filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.    Larkin (by his attorneys) went to extra-ordinary means to prevent Gloria Sykes from testifying as to these matter and certainly did not call her as a witness.    (Of course he did not need to – the results of hearings held under his directions appear to the undersigned and court watchers to be pre-determined and for form value only).
Whether the Court had jurisdiction over Gloria or not is irrelevant and a red herring.     The guardianship proceedings were intended strictly to determine if Mary was incompetent or not.   The fact that the proceedings were wrongfully used to garner control over Gloria Sykes property is another matter that should be addressed by the Attorney General of the United States.    Ms. Farenga did not cover herself with glory when she obtained the sequestration of Gloria Sykes property by what appears to myself and others to be memorialized in the Court record as an oral petition that was later reduced to writing after the damage was done.     
Unfortunately for Ms. Farenga no jurisdiction was ever obtained over Mary Sykes, thus it is apparent that no jurisdiction could be obtained over anyone else!    The concept of a traffic court judge adjudicating the defendant guilty of over=time parking and granting the defendant’s wife a divorce and custody of the children is quite foreign to American jurisprudence.
The clause however highlights on the tactics that is so commonly used by the elder cleansers in their war against the elderly and the disabled.    It was reported that Gloria Sykes was advised to file a counter petition in order to protect her mother from what appears to be a vindictive guardianship.    Farenga of course fails to disclose that the guardianship proceeding was a retaliation for Mary reacting to the alleged theft of $4000.00 from her bank account and some bad conduct by her older daughter.    (Mary had gone to court and on her own filed a Petition for Protection against the older daughter.   The older daughter then started these proceedings only to be thwarted by Mary’s doctor who refused to certify that Mary was incompetent)   Thus, Farenga amorally attempts to side=step the facts by the statement supra.    This tactic is used in many of the elder cleansing guardianships.   It is terrific – it places the family members on the defensive.
 
The saddest fact of all is that Gloria Sykes has refused to visit her mother because of the Court’s requirement that a supervisor be present . Regardless of her vehement opposition to this requirement, she has chosen to deprive her mother of her company rather than abide by a condition which might have been waived n the future if she’d comported herself during any visits she’d chosen to make. Adam Stern and I beseeched her to visit her mother despite needing a supervisor and told her that her case would in no way be legally prejudiced by using a supervisor. Yes, she could have been visiting her mother but preferred to make another choice. Both Adam and I volunteered to serve as supervisor without charge in order for a visit to take place. Actions speak louder than words. These people are living in their own universe. Their untruths to my comment will be forthcoming
 
Comment:   Intellectual honesty and truth is a stranger in the world of the elder cleansing war on the elderly and the disabled.   
The saddest fact of all is that Gloria Sykes has refused to visit her mother because of the Court’s requirement that a supervisor be present [4]
Comment:     Why should there be any requirement of supervision?      Immediately, prior to the guardianship Mary was active in her community, her church, her garden club.    She even went with Gloria to a media event and had a conversation with the President of the United States.     The quoted words of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 are consistent with and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement that a reasonable accommodation be made for any disability.    Ms. Farenga, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Stern, et al are estopped to deny a lack of disability as they worked so hard to commit an alleged fraud on the Court as to the said disability.    N.B.   This is the reason that they got so upset when Mary was recorded by friends and family on the rare occasion when visitation was allowed!      Pictures were routinely confiscated and the miscreants could be heard to implore the judge to impose sanctions and destroy videos that were taken.    On the MarySykes blog the videos that Farenga, Larkin, Schmiedel, Stern etc. have tried to censor are displayed.    They demonstrate a Mary Sykes who has very limited disabilities if at all.    The cover-up of the railroading of Mary Sykes is respectfully submitted for the rationale for both Ms. Denison and me to be disciplined and be suspended for absurd period of time.    (I got four years).
The affidavit and testimony of Scott Evans refute Ms. Farenga’s distortion.      Whether you are fond of Gloria Sykes or not she made herculean efforts to keep in contact with her mother even though her mother was removed from Cook County by the inappropriate and statutory defective actions of the miscreants.      The statement by Farenga is patently frugal with the truth.  
 
“Regardless of her vehement opposition to this requirement, she has chosen to deprive her mother of her company rather than abide by a condition which might have been waived n the future if she’d comported herself during any visits she’d chosen to make. Adam Stern and I beseeched her to visit her mother despite needing a supervisor and told her that her case would in no way be legally prejudiced by using a supervisor”
 
Comment:       This group of sentences describes the attitude that is so offensive in these elder cleansing cases.      Ms. Farenga as an attorney is well aware that guardianship is a status that should be used only when a reasonable accommodation is necessary to be afforded.     It is not a penalty or a punishment.     The requirement of supervision is an onus on the senior citizen about to be cleansed and a method of abuse imposed not only on a resisting family but the senior citizen himself (herself).     Why would the younger child of the cleansing victim (guardian zed victim) have to have any restriction on her visitation if the criterion stated in the statute was to be imposed, to wit:
(b)  Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. 
755 ILCS 5/11a-3
 
Ms. Farenga fails to recognize that “ Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations”    I believe it was Ms. Farenga who applied for the restriction saying that family members were agitating Mary Sykes.     Indeed, any intelligent person who was aware of her surrounding would be agitated if told by a court that she was to be taken out of her life, be separated from her friends, her family, her sisters, her younger daughter, her church, her garden club and her life!       Ms. Farenga and a Court totally lacking in jurisdiction and statutory compliance assaulted Mary’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.    By the stroke of pen in a kangaroo proceeding Mary became a non- person.
As a human being Ms. Farenga had a duty to join arm and arm with Mary’s family and friends in protesting the injustice that Ms. Farenga described.     As an attorney Farenga scuttled her Oath and her integrity!     Had Farenga as guardian ad litem done her job she would have insisted on the Petition for a Protective Order be heard immediately and the $4000.00 unauthorized withdrawn by the applicant for guardian be addressed by law enforcement.  
The petition for guardianship is not something that can be taken lightly!     It is a serious matter to take away liberty rights from a person.     When it appears that the reason for interfering with the liberty rights is to remove property rights the problem becomes even more serious.    Ms. Farenga does not discuss the numerous trips to the emergency room at Edwards Hospital by Mary, the admission of neglect by the guardian, or the exhibition of wealth by the guardian who prior to the appointment is reported to have been a virtual Bankrupt.   
The arrogance of Farenga is exhibited by her “now” offer to be a supervisor of the visitation by Ms. Sykes with her mother.    I personally recall that Scott Evans, Gloria Sykes, and Mary’s sisters begged for visitation with Mary and were refused.    They could care less if Farenga or Stern was present.   They were turned down most of the time.    (Stern did on several occasions make the gesture of arranging visitation – but it appeared that he wanted something and that appeared to be his motivation)  
Good faith on the part of the miscreants (including Jerome Larkin) is totally a stranger and totally lacking.    So far any gold in Mary Sykes teeth has not be harvested nevertheless the Holocaust that she is being subjected to is deplorable and wrong.    As the guardian purchasers expensive diamond rights, throws lavish parties, and remodels her home Mary Sykes has been deprived of her liberty, her property, the association and social intercourse with her friends, family and neighbors.    Shame!!
Mr. Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission along with the acting miscreants should be ashamed of themselves and resign from the human race.   We as citizen should be ashamed of ourselves as we have not done enough to address an ISIS assault on America and its key values.    Merry Christmas.
 


[1]  Ms. Farenga and along with Mr. Stern, and Mrs. Schmiedel ignored the Jurisdictional criterion that is usually applied in American courts and in an effort to intimidate me from investigating the Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 filed a sanction motion against me.     Even though I at the time had only started my FRCP 11 investigation, the Court in an effort to stop my looking into the aforesaid case actually sanctioned me.    I took an Appeal to the Appellate Court of Illinois.   The Court was forced to vacate the sanction order on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction.   Of course Ms. Farenga does not recognize this decision in her quest for obfuscation of the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes and her participation in the War against the elderly and the disabled.

[2]
§ 755 ILCS 5/11a-8. Petition

·         Sec. 11a-8.   Petition. The petition for adjudication of disability and for the appointment of a guardian of the estate or the person or both of an alleged disabled person must state, if known or reasonably ascertainable: (a) the relationship and interest of the petitioner to the respondent; (b) the name, date of birth, and place of residence of the respondent; (c) the reasons for the guardianship; (d) the name and post office address of the respondent’s guardian, if any, or of the respondent’s agent or agents appointed under the Illinois Power of Attorney Act [755 ILCS 45/2-3], if any; (e) the name and post office addresses of the nearest relatives of the respondent in the following order: (1) the spouse and adult children, parents and adult brothers and sisters, if any; if none, (2) nearest adult kindred known to the petitioner; (f) the name and address of the person with whom or the facility in which the respondent is residing; (g) the approximate value of the personal and real estate; (h) the amount of the anticipated annual gross income and other receipts; (i) the name, post office address and in case of an individual, the age, relationship to the respondent and occupation of the proposed guardian. In addition, if the petition seeks the appointment of a previously appointed standby guardian as guardian of the disabled person, the petition must also state: (j) the facts concerning the standby guardian’s previous appointment and (k) the date of death of the disabled person’s guardian or the facts concerning the consent of the disabled person’s guardian to the appointment of the standby guardian as guardian, or the willingness and ability of the disabled person’s guardian to make and carry out day-to-day care decisions concerning the disabled person. A petition for adjudication of disability and the appointment of a guardian of the estate or the person or both of an alleged disabled person may not be dismissed or withdrawn without leave of the court.  
755 ILCS 5/11a-8
[3]The use of the word hearing is a stranger to the truth.     A guardian was appointed for Mary Sykes without any hearing.     Adam Stern in an e-mail to Gloria Sykes is reported to have stated that he and others got together an agreed that Mary Sykes needed a guardian.   The Court rubber stamped the order presented.    In her Evidence deposition the Court at approx. page 90 states that had someone told her that there was no jurisdiction she would have vacated her order.    She then stated that she would then reach the same conclusion.     From the clear words and phrases contained in the Judge’s deposition there is little doubt that if a victim is designated as to be the subject of elder cleansing the result is a foregone conclusion.       The Court record clearly reveals that there was no actual hearing in which testimony was taken in which any inquiry was made of 1) if Mary had any infirmity and 2) the extent and nature of that infirmity.
[4] It boggles the imagination that anyone would claim that Aunt Yolanda or Daughter Gloria Sykes missed an opportunity to visit with Mary.    Each of them begged endlessly to Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga that they arrange visitation time.    It was routinely refused!      Many of the appeals were made in my office on my speaker phone.     Mr. Scott Evans on his own investigated to try to find where the miscreants were hiding Mary.    He found her in a ‘day care center’ surrounded by no stimulation.     His inquiry caused him to be admonished by Farenga, Stern et al.

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky — new comments concerning Cynthia Farenga

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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