to explain. When a proceeding is “in personnam” personal jurisdiction is obtained by service of a summons and complaint upon a person or corporation. An “in rem” proceeding (such as a foreclosure) can take place ask long as you have served the property by notice and the court attains jurisdiction over the property or “rem.” (for examply posting on an apartment for eviction or a home for foreclosure but only AFTER you have validly attempted to serve the owners and after a diligent search cannot find them.
In Mary’s case, the court knew where she was, but never served her. So the only notice was by a court order handed out to a few people.
Of course, this meets none of the standards for either in personnam or in rem jurisdiction, but that does not stop the court appointed/connected miscreants from taking over Mary’s life, property, civil and human rights and sending her to a remote location (Naperville) with a daughter when her last POA said she wanted to live in her home until she died and have both daughters care for her there.
But the property was sold, and at my ARDC trials, one of the main cover ups was to deny that some $160k in attys fees to Peter Schmeidel and Fischel and Kahn–or the bulk of the estate would go to attorneys fees. The ABA Journal covered this up by pulling comments on their blog from family members who related the lack of service of summons and complaint upon Mary and notice to Mary’s family, which is required to take in personnam jurisdiction over her. The ARDC covered this up by banning most of my witnesses (experts and fact witnesses) but presenting Judge Stuart, who lied on the stand and then “suddenly retired” soon afterward, Peter Schmeidel who is covering up telling the court all of Mary’s assets have to be liquidated “for her care”, but the vast majority have already gone to attorneys fees ($700k home appraised in January sold for $220k in Mar, then they grabbed daughter Gloria’s assets of some $200k falsely claiming they belonged to Mary, and $60k from the home sale went to attorney’s fees and over $100k from Gloria’s funds went to attorneys. You figure. The cover up continues with the ARDC having witnesses lie, transcripts changed, audio tapes documenting the changes supressed–it’s all fraud on the court.
Best thing about fraud on the court? It has NO LIMITATIONS PERIOD. That’s right, like jurisdiction, it’s a scab over a huge festering boil waiting to be picked — any time, any day.
The hue and cry from probate victims will not stop as long as we have a free and open and democratic society and open internet. They are banding together and publishing popular blogs ( this blog, Probate Sharks, NASGA, John Wyman’s, Candice Schwagers, Stop Guardian Abuse and others)
Everyday, the ARDC flings more and more paper at me and I don’t care. All I think of is the suffering and horrors these probate victims and the families have gone thru and will go thru unless and until all this nonsense in the courtrooms stop.
In the ARDC decision, the tribunal insulting stated “the Respondent does not know about basic concepts of law…..” Sorry I have to disagree with the Tribunal, but their “basic concepts” of lies, coverups, banning crucial witnesses, treating the Sykes family members like dirt–I don’t need their “basic elements” in my craw. The Tribunal can keep that for themselves.
I know what a summons and complaint is and notice to all next of kin. I know the alleged disabled respondent must receive a “notice of rights” in large bold type to take jurisdiction. It’s the Tribunal that does not know basic concepts of due process and free speech that a 6th grade student must know on her or his US civil rights exam to pass to the next grade.
I don’t see any of the tribunal offering to take on all my cases for pro bono, but I will ask them, and Mr. Sanders can pull his money out of his pocket to sponsor lawyers to do the same thing I do for free or low cost each and every day to protect the human rights, civil rights and elderly of our seniors. This is karma they have to make up.
Mr. Splitt just asked for an extension of time for his brief to the review board. He said the “record is too big” to get his brief done. I wonder when he will finally realized that he is prosecuting an innocent, honest attorney and all this is bad karma for him, and he should just refuse to write the brief and quit. While everyone deserves representation, what the ARDC wants him to write is a huge pack of lies and a cover up. When the fraud on the court is finally heard by an open and honest legal forum, hasta lasanga, don’t get it on ya.
Respectfully Mr. Splitt, no extension of time will allow you to search that entire record for some reason to discipline me. Keep on going, but you won’t find it. And if you do what the ARDC asks of you to convict a wholly innocent attorney, like Ken Ditkowsky and Mr. Amu, maybe it’s time to just walk off the job. If your heart is in the right place, the angels will protect you.
Each and every day, I work for low cost or free and do not turn people away. I help them against the liars and the cheats and the thugs hanging in the court room hallways. It’s not always easily and I have my critics (the ARDC talking about all the good I do in a huge paragraph, but it ends with “all of that is misplaced.”) No, Mr. Larking, goodness and kindness and helping others is NEVER misplaced. I’d rather have a ton of that than the lies propagated during my trial, and the exclusion of crucial witness, the lying and the cover ups
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 14, 2015 7:36 AM
To: Janet Phelan
Subject: The In Rem guardianship/ or the application of the Dred Scott Decision to Seniors and the Disabled in Illinois and some other miscreant States.
The Avarice of the guardians for profit is legendary. Like their sponsors and mentors in the nursing home industry, the corrupt judges and public figures who act in concert with them, and the hanger-ons who pick up quarters that drop from the booty no loose dollar avoids the net. In the Mary Sykes case and a number of other guardianship cases that we’ve examined and reported to the Justice Department the miscreants ran into a problem – the victim was not incompetent. In the Sykes case she was so clearly competent that the miscreants could not afford to allow a hearing to occur. Thus, the record in case 09 P 4585 indicates that there was no hearing – indeed, to meet the standard of clear and convincing (and determine the extent of the disability) not a single word of testimony was uttered! Of course prior notice of the non-existent hearing was also avoided.
As the foregoing is jurisdictional how does the law rationalize the theft of more than a million dollars as legitimate? The Court orders entered by the Judge are void for lack of jurisdiction and thus when and if the tax laws are applied some very heavy clouted people are going to jail and are going to wind up with non-dischargeable tax liability. Ergo, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and Mr. Larkin have exerted extreme efforts to ‘cover up’ the felonies by trying to silence myself and other attorneys who take their oath seriously .
The Dred Scott decision has been resurrected in Illinois to make the Elderly and the Disabled property in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. (See 09 P 4585) if Tim is correct and personal jurisdiction is not necessary pursuant to this scenario – the seniors and the disabled are PROPERTY.
Tim has suggested that the ultimate cover up is going to be and is that the guardianship proceedings are in rem proceedings and therefore personal jurisdiction is un-necessary. This is same legal theory that the National Socialists used to confiscate the property of their victims in the holocaust scenario. Stalin just took what he wanted, but, we here in America recognize that history treats thieves badly – thus, a rationalization is necessary. (In rem proceedings are proceedings against the property themselves). Thus, to obtain jurisdiction where none can be had, the miscreants AND THOSE WHO THEY ACT IN CONCERT WITH (such as Jerome Larkin) claim that possession of the property gives them all the jurisdiction necessary.
The issuance of a Court order is obscene and void as it would violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As theft is a felony, I reported these incidents to law enforcement pursuant to 18 USCA 4. The miscreants think that reporting crimes is unethical and I now have a four year suspension for doing so! Thus, pursuant to my First Amendment Rights I am continuing to report this criminal activity by Mr. Larkin and his cohorts and demanding their prosecution in the very same manner that America would address a bank robbery, theft by a fiduciary, tax evasion, fraud etc.