From Iowa–another family member denied visitation on a whim and without a court order

As we all know, guardians deny visitation up and down, left and right, esp. when they want to put the disabled in a horrible nursing home, or isolate them, or abuse them by failing to diagnose certain conditions (Johnnie Durham, Alan Frake, etc.) and seek medical help.

http://freejimmyfromguardianship.blogspot.com/

Mary Sykes is still being isolated from 20+ former friends and family, for no good reason. Gloria has not seen her own mother she loving cared for and was a best friend with, for years now. All she gets is bizarre court orders, the run around and no where near her beloved mother.

What is really amazing to me, is that everyone knows this, but they let CT continue to be the guardian.  If Gloria complains, they had the report of abuse right back to the abuser (guardian/and guardian’s attorney). The same is being done in the Al Frake case.

This blog would not exist unless there were serious violations of human and civil rights involved and the loss of personal liberties.

And for reporting the blog, Jerome Larkin, head of the Illinois ARDC suspended Ken Ditkowsky’s law license and is trying to get mine!

The law is clear. See the case quotes below:

Only those comments that pose a “serious and imminent threat” of interference with the fair administration of justice can be constitutionally proscribed”
 We can note that lawyers involved in investigations or trials often are in a position to act as a check on government by exposing abuses or urging action. It is not sufficient to argue that such comment can always be made later since immediate action might be necessary and it is only when the litigation is pending and current news that the public’s attention can be commanded.
 Again there is the importance of the time factor in terms of gaining the public’s attention. Ideally, we would want such views expressed in the abstract without reference to the particular case that is pending. Practically, it may not always be possible to differentiate the two. Still, we should recognize the importance of such criticism.
We do recognize the great benefits derived from allowing uninhibited comment by knowledgeable attorneys involved in civil litigation. This is the same type of recognition embodied in the First Amendment.
Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer
http://openjurist.org/522/f2d/242

And yet the guardians and abusers continue to get away with the scheme of target, medicate, isolate and eliminate with a quick cremate to destroy evidence.

I am not to speak of this under the attorney code of silence.  I can’t say that my trial at the the ARDC was a complete travesty of justice, a kangaroo court where transcripts were changed, a Judge had to “suddenly retire” right after, the subject of the litigation had no jursidction and continues to have no jurisdiction (Sykes–call the Sheriff’s department ask for a summons and complaint upon Mary Sykes, there is none), the ARDC 3 main witnesses have been continualy complained about in all major probate new blogs and their conduct decried, yet I am not to say anything.  Ken Ditkowsky is not to say anything about how his trial was pretty much the same, with no proof of lies, these were manufactured in a decision by the powers that be to cover up what the ARDC does not want the public to know–that probate is a target, isolate, medicate, elimate and then a quick cremation business.  We are not to say that the phrase “assets must be sold to help the disabled” is code for “judge, we want a lot of attorneys fees.”  In Sykes and at my trial, the Tribunal did whatever it could, made rash decisions to ban witnesses and evidence–to cover up the fact that a $700,000 home was appraised in Jan. then sold in Mar. for $215k–and all the proceeds went to attorneys fees, or just about all. The attorneys were so greedy, they went after a family member’s money to pay an addition $107k+ in attorneys fees to Fischel in Kahn.

But what did they tell the judge at just about every hearing to ask to liquidate?  The money was needed for Mary’s care.  No it wasn’t.  Most probate attorneys would rather stuff a disabled in a dirty, nasty inattentive nursing home with a staff to patient ratio of 1 to 10 rather than let a dime in attorneys fees escape them and it’s the honest truth.

A truth so dangerous, this IS the most dangerous blog in Illinois and the truth of the Sykes case is the most dangerous truth in Illinios because it directly exposes greed, corruption, lack of honest services, a string of felonies, as Ken says where there is no jurisdiction and Mary is in a place she never put in her advance directives.  As in the Wyman case, it was all against her will.

So today, please take a stand for this poor woman and her beloved diabled brother in Iowa where some out of control, Abuse of Power Guardian has banned her from seeing her beloved brother–all without a court order.

I say we have to pray for us all.

And then some.

JoAnne

Advertisements

One thought on “From Iowa–another family member denied visitation on a whim and without a court order

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s