While the Tribunal argues that I am lying, here are 60 points they got wrong:

EXHIBIT B – 60 FACTS THE ARDC GOT WRONG (NOTE THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THEY DO THIS–SEE THE 60 POINTS FROM KEN DITKOWSKY’S CASE)

Item    Page    Got it wrong…
1.        5    ¶ 2.  Administrator fails to mention that CT filed a petition when she was accused by Mary of swiping $4,000 out of one of her bank accounts.  ARDC fails to mention the handwritten letter from Mary telling her that she wants Carolyn to stop it with her “old tricks”. Where is that information?
2.        5    Fails to mention that CT alleged Mary suffered from dementia and memory loss.  Offer of Proof (see ROA) from Scott Evans testifies that Mary was playing canasta in a local card group at the time and beating the pants off everyone (fall of 2009).  It also fails to mention she was declared incompetent by Dr. Shaw who never actually met with her, in derogation of the Illinois Probate Act requiring examination by a licensed MD.
3.        6    Whatever was filed, Mary’s home with a lot of approx. 75 by 200′ in depth in a desirable neighbohood, Norwood Park was likely worth $1 million.  It was appraised at $700k in Jan. 2012 and sold in Feb. For $213k.
4.        6    ¶ 1.  Fails to mention that Gloria Sykes held last POA and the GAL’s blocked that POA and so did Judge Connor. Judge Connor constantly told Gloria that the POA was not important until the day Mary was guardianized and then she told Gloria it was “too late” to bring it up–a typical game on the 18th floor.  One day it’s too early and the next it’s too late.  See, c.f. Sophie Reichert case.  Same ploy by court
5.        6    IPA makes it clear that Mary’s wishes have to be followed unless and until it is shown that they are unreasonable.  None of this happened.  Illinois is a sliding scale guardianship case.  Mr. Splitt ignores that law.
6.        6    ¶ 2.  Stern and Farenga did not split fees.  Mary’s home was sold, about $80k was netted and Farenga, Stern and Schmeidel took that money.
7.        6    ¶ 4, Gloria filed a counter petition in case a guardian was appointed.  There has to be a reason stated and it does not say she agreed with the court’s assessment, only that there were allegations of dementia and memory loss.  In addition while it says “Gloria was represented” her counsel quickly withdrew because “he did not want to get involved in this case, they would sell Mary’s home and possessions and use it for attorneys fees and she would be left with CT, whom she did not want to live with.  Atty Dolgin was right. He was never subpoenaed by the ARDC, but was on the witness list.  This is evidence of a cover up in the Sykes case. The witnesses are not fair and balanced. They are carefully culled and selected.  Mary was actually doing fine with Gloria as her POA.
8.        7    Top of page. The $1 million in valuable coins is not listed because Gloria did not know of the value of the coins. Ken Ditkowsky was Mary and Charles’ Sykes estate attorney and the value of the coins is/was part of his business records–records the ARDC conveniently never subpoenaed and never deposed Ken D. about.
9.        7    Dr. Mar Amdur, like Shaw, is part of the “cottage industry” in probate.  He did not examine Mary either but declared her incompetent. See her video (which the ARDC tribunal refused to watch) on Vimeo by searching Mary Sykes.
10.        7    The disqualification was bogus. It was taken up on appeal and the same Justice that denied all of Gloria’s appeals denied this one.  How random is that?  Respondent was never called to be a witness.  Had she been called she would have pointed to the vimeo evidence she already posted.  Mary was competent enough to choose Gloria as her POA and she had that right.
11.    `    8    top of page. Gloria was clearly the last POA for health care and should have been chosen.  To invalidate a POA you have to have notice and a hearing.  None of that was done.  CT was appointed in derogation to the Illinois POA act. The ARDC never investigated the lack of hearing, due process or violations of Mary’s and Gloria’s human and civil rights. They did what they wanted.  Mr. Splitt’s statement ignores the Ill. POA Act and does not mention it.
12.        8.    Discussion regarding Peter Schmeidel and his “talents.” The ARDC is invited to investigate the case of LGV, which he was involved with, where the person met with Dr. Shaw on a Friday and was guardianized on Monday with out notice, summons or complaint properly served.  Her home was sold and estate drained. She lived on the streets for 2 years and begged the OPG for money and food, but they told her she had to go live in a locked down nursing home where she would be drugged and most likely killed.  She files complaints with the ARDC and they dismiss them out of hand and never investigate. Today the estate of a bungalow ($250k) and bank account ($150k) is drained and she lives in poverty. Good going there, Mr. Schmeidel.  Most of her money went to attorneys fees and fees of people and businesses she did not want in her life.  To date, she is furious.  Mr. Splitt does not mention this complaint.
13.        8    Bottom of page. This is a common ploy in probate with the attorneys.  If the ward does not have enough money for lavish attorneys fees, make up a false claim and get it from another relative (Steven Schwartz case and Miriam Solo, Michael Hubbard and Janie Thomas–cases the ARDC does NOT investigate).  The entire paragraph is a lie.  A furor was created in Judge Stuart’s testimony when asked by Respondent “is it true you chained Gloria in your ante room and had her pets threatened with euthanization”.  Stuart: “No, I would never do that.”  Courtroom goes into a panic.  A few more benign questions, then “how many times have you chained a family member in your ante room.”  Stuart: “You know, that was the first ti—, let me change that, I never chained anyone in my ante room.”  Yeah right. She knows it, you know it, and even PS and AS bragged later to Judge Hollis what you did in chaining Gloria on a ND Ill transcript.  Does the ARDC investigate? Never and of course. 6 weeks later, Tim Evans would call Judge Stuart in his office and then she would announce she was “suddenly retiring” in 2 days.  Does Mr. Splitt address this or investigate it, certainly not.  Chaining any civil litigant is a flagrant Abuse of Power.  Judge Stuart had other means.
14.        8     top of page.  Gloria was allowed to ask limited questions and it was clear at hearing the elderly sisters had not been notified that Mary was to be guardianized.
15.        8    POA of Mary says she wanted to live in her home until she died.  Mr. Splitt forgets this.  Mr. Splitt does not even mention the video on Vimeo of Mary clearly indicating her wishes. Respondent will be glad to play that during the hearing it is only 10 minutes long.  Judge Garber said it clearly indicated Mary’s competence.
16.        8    The determination by Judge Stuart that any money belonged to Mary was plain wrong and she knew it at the time. Gloria owned 6016, it was her home that suffered ice damming one winter and by fall it suffered a massive black mold outbreak due to shoddy repairs.  Only Gloria paid for the insurance, only Gloria’s name was on the insurance  Mary’s name was added to the home title for testamentary purposes only.  Mary’s name was added immediately prior to settlement for res judciata purposes only.  Mary had her own attorneys in the Lumberman’s case and with Center of Concern in Park Ridge.  Mr. Splitt skips over all of those facts–facts published on the blog.  Only Gloria suffered breast cancer due to the black mold the insurance company grew in her home.  Any claims by Mary are specious.  Mary had her own home at 6014.  She had insurance and her personal possessions there.  To date, 6016 lies in ruins. The insurance money was to repair the home.  Chase sold the mortgage to Fannie Mae and put the property in foreclosure but Gloria has stayed the case because Fannie Mae  is in receivership with home mortgages and only the receiver can approve a foreclosure, which it has not.  Mr. Splitt again neglects these points and does not discuss them.
17.        9    Notice of hearing to guardianize. There is no certificate of service in the file to either of Mary Sykes, or her two elderly sisters Josephine DePietro or Yolanda Bakken.  Neither filed an appearance.  Neither was represented by counsel.  Again, Mr. Splitt skips the important facts.  Soldini requires actual notice, not wishful notice.  There is no evidence either sister was actually served with anything in that file, and in fact neither was in fact service with the requisite 14 day advance notice to take jurisdiction of the case.  Gloria has filed some appeals on that–all turned down by Justice Bernstein who apparently does not get cases on a random basis.
18.        10    Peter Schmeidel denies “churning fees” (his name is not mentioned in the blog statement, is Mr. Splitt telling the Review Board and Respondent something they do not know, that Mr. Schmeidel is in fact behind a quest for all attorneys to churn fees in the case?  Mr. Schmeidel testifies that he has $200k in fees, but puts in a petition for $100k in the court records.  What is the discrepancy?  Mr. Splitt does not answer that question.
19.        10    The $100k amount is wrong.  The amount taken from Gloria to pay Mary’s attorneys fees is $200k.  Further, Mary lives at her daughter’s.  She had complete health insurance, being a CPD widow, and she had SSI and the CPD pension of her husband, approx. $2500 per month.  Mr. Splitt does not mention this or acknowledge it. What is CT doing with that money every month?  And why do duplicate credits show up on CT’s accounting under insurance?  Is that insurance fraud?  Medicare fraud?  Why does not the ARDC investigate when Gloria reports it?
20.        10    ¶ 2.  Cynthia Farenga. Why does CF insist Mary needs funds when in fact she lives with CT and has her own income of $2500. Why did not the ARDC subpoena the bank for the safe deposit records containing the approx. $1 million in gold coins.  CF never put in or showed a fee petition. She took the funds out of the trust selling the home, but the court already warned (this disappeared from a transcript one day), not to commingle the trust with the estate or the trust would come into the estate for accounting purposes.  Nonetheless, the monthly mortgage on the house in the trust was always paid from estate funds by the Guardian, CT.
21.            10    bottom of page.  Same questions as item 20 for CF. Why are the fees the same? Why was there no fee petition?  Why does not the ARDC investigate? Even more important, why does not the ARDC dispute the fact that the testimony for AS and CF show that over 4 years they took out over $30k in fees from the trust, but only saw Mary for minutes (less than an hour) in all that time? (Emphasis added).  See their testimony on transcript.

22.        11    Why doesn’t Dorothy Brown put up publicly the images of all documents?  Don’t those belong to the public?  Why is she hiding them?  Why is it when you go to law division you can’t print documents from other divisions?  Why doesn’t she put them up when the printers often don’t work in law, chancery or probate divisions?  A 12 year old could hack this stuff and put it up.
23.        11    ARDC does not counter money grubbing attorneys.  But the ARDC does not publish any figures, any statistics of who, what and when bills these large estates.  The court system keeps everything in its files and charges of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for large estates go unanswered. There is no transparency, accountability, ratings, etc. of any fee billed to an estate. As noted above, the attorneys, GAL’s and others come from “secret lists” not available to the public. These attorneys have no Google ratings and they are not yelped by the families forced to use them, or the wards forced to use them.
24.        12    Judge Stuart cannot refuse to go over Gloria’s claims of lack of jurisdiction, which she did in fact refuse–all the time.  When jurisdiction is brought up, at any time, whether first day of the case, 10th day of the case or 100th day of the case, it must be seriously considered.  When brought up on 1st or 10th appeal it must be seriously considered.  This Judge Stuart did not do.  Judge Stuart denies corruption but has to chain a civil litigant.  She then denies jurisdiction has to be addressed each time it is brought up.  She curtails Mary’s guardianship proceeding and does not care about notice or service upon Mary or her elderly sisters.  This is similar to Clinton saying “I did not have sex with that woman” because what he did was not sex–in his mind only.
25.        12    While Stern and Farenga deny corruption and ignoring Gloria, what do you call it when the court has no jurisdiction and Mary was not served.  Not the ARDC, CF or AS or PS or HW can explain how Mary got served by a Cook County Sheriff when she was living in Naperville and why Exhibit A which goes into great depths on how there was no service, was never countered at trial by any of these actors.
26.        12    Rolling eyes, strike pleadings, cutting off Gloria, ignoring what Gloria and her attorneys had to say, all not countered by the ARDC.
27.        13    ¶ 2, Judge Stuart denies a cover up, but then why is Mary guardianized without notice to sisters, or service of summons and complaint? Why did Judge Stuart testify she was never told CT drilled out safe deposit box without a court order–a court order which is necessary to obtain before touching jointly held assets.
28.        13    PS testifies there were no exparte communications, but there is in fact on every door to the judge’s private areas a sign saying “staff and judges only.”  Gloria and Scott frequently complained of PS, AS and CF going in and out those doors.  They said it happened “all the time.”  So why didn’t the ARDC subpoena tapes in the court room and out the hallways and when Respondent subpoenas those tapes her FOIA requests are not returned?  Interesting.
29.        15    PS denied he or the GAL’s were fraudulently taking money, but what about others?  Why are they covering up instead of serving subpoenas and discovery?  Isn’t that their jobs?  KD has business records indicating valuable coins.  Gloria, Kathie and Yolanda confirm hearing of this.  No GAL or probate atty questions CT or serves her with a supoena or deposition. Also, why did the ARDC quash subpoenas for the bank records?
30.        16    “Corruption reaches the highest levels” does not just mean the ARDC.  It is now becoming apparent that mortgage payoffs of certain judges are coming from known mobsters and that info will be coming out shortly.  In addition, the Tribunal and ARDC ignore the letter to Gloria regarding her complaints that “AS is her guardian”–a veiled threat. Who investigated that and why did it take weeks before the ARDC issued a retraction.
31.        16.    Judge Evans refused to allow her to blog with a computer, not just in general. The ARDC does not mention the fact that everyone is allowed under relevant US Supreme Court law to take notes in court. What difference does it make if it’s a pen and paper or with a computer.  And the bailiffs often stop people from even taking notes with a pen and paper, let alone a computer.  Of course, even assuming a computer were recording, what difference would that make unless you were a miscreant who liked changing transcripts.  Computers and note taking are freely allowed in the ND Ill. Courts but not in the circuit courts. Again, the difference is if someone needs to have a transcript fudged you can’t do that when someone else is making an honest recording.
32.        17.    Respondent has the right to tag postings as she desires and is necessary. While one judge refusing to allow blogging and computers is a story, many others experiencing the same thing and also finding corruption (deviation from law, morals or ethics) now becomes litigation and a clear and obvious trend.  By tagging a post with “corruption” it allows internet users to band together and to make a formidable group of those that are denied their constitutional right to free and open and democratic courts.
33.        34.    “Scary shades of Greylord” is a feeling. Respondent has a right to blog her own feelings.
35.        18    AS testified that he never changed the order in question, but the ARDC does not investigate at all the who, when, why and how of the order being changed and double stamped.  Peter Pan didn’t come and do it. The Order being scratched out in portions and double stamped speaks for itself.
36.        18    No other judge had discussed or ruled on the issue of jurisdiction to that date.  Mr. Splitt skips over the part where Respondent went downstairs, had all of the prior orders printed out and challenged all the attorneys where there was any finding of fact or motion on jurisdiction.  PS put his head down and ran out the court.  AS denied the challenge and CF wasn’t there.
37.        18    Respondent’s blog is now up to about 80,000 views and is very popular with no complaints.
38.        20    While Kathie would not know of churning or over charging, PS testified to over $200k in fees over 4 years and never met Mary.  Gloria and Scott considers that an outrage and so does most of the general public.
39.        20    Kathie Bakken testifies that important evidence was ignored.  Kathie did not use the term “railroading” Jay Dolgin did.
40.        21    Evidence in Mitigation. Mr. Splitt fails to state that both Ken and Bev gave glowing reports on how hard Respondent works and how she helps so many probate court victims on a daily basis, whether they have money or not.  The reports were glowing, not just factual, and Mr. Splitt never says that Ken Cooper compared her to “A Man without Season”
41.        21    It is very intellectually dishonest for CF to complain about being sued over a civil rights dispute when every day, and in Mary’s case she sues and guardianizes so very many victims.  Since she complains of a “detrimental effect” by filing a lawsuit, then why did she do what she did to Mary?  Why is she even a lawyer when lawyers sue people for a living.  She guardianizes Mary but spends minutes with her.  Respondent spends hours with the Sykes family, years seeing Mary in the neighborhood and then decides to sue CF for ruining Mary’s rights and her own civil rights.
42.        Fn3, p21    “Frivolous lawsuits” is not well founded.  Little to no case law was mentioned in either suit upon dismissal. In the copyright suit perhaps 10,000 copies were made, of not just Respondent’s creative works, but those of dozens of other authors that write for a living and who were unhappy with the ARDC copying their works (Sykes, Phelan, etc.)  In the civil rights suit, it is proposed that under the Loving case, the ARDC has no jurisdiction to regulate blogs concerning public matters and corruption, esp. when the ARDC is part of a code of silence and the coverups themselves, as noted by dozens and dozens of letters ignoring valid citizen complaints (Sykes, Gore, Bedin, Wyman, etc.)
43.        22    PS is disingenous he has no way to counter what is said of him on the blog. The blog has a comments section.  He has been repeatedly asked to go on Cooper’s Corners (a local cable show) to explain his actions. He is NOT a judge.  He can defend himself.  He has most likely 7 years of college. He is not a disabled person.  He blames Respondent and others (Probate Sharks, Nasga, etc.) for his lousy reputation in the marketplace but he has a remedy–do some good works and then have people click on them and he can repair the horrid things he has done.  He just chooses not to do anything good in his life. ( personal opinion).  So it is by his own choice all the criticisms (and not just Respondent) of his past behavior rise to the top of the internet search engines.  He needs to take responsibility for his own karma he himself created over the years.
44.        22    Respondents blog causes “unnecessary court time and satellite litigation.”  1) PS has no evidence of that and Gloria states openly she does her own litigation and 2) we do not yet live in a police state where the powers that be can claim “blame the media” and “shoot the messenger” when they don’t like media content.
45.        22    PS claims the real Lumberman’s money belonged with Mary because he had outstanding legal fees, just like Michael Hubbard in the Janie Thomas case and Miriam Solo in the Steven Schwartz case.
46.        22    Judge Stuart claims “Mary needed money” but all will go to attorneys fees.  Mary had income of $2500 per month and lived with CT.  She had 100% health insurance. What money did she need?  Gloria took care of her for 10 years and never went into court asking to sell her home or liquidate bank accounts.  Why suddenly Stuart, Farenga, Stern and PS “need money” for Mary when in fact, 100% has gone and will go to attorneys fees over her $2500 per month income.
47.        23    Again Mr. Splitt, does not tell the whole truth. Gloria has a therapy dog Shaggy and was going to bring him to see Mary.  Mary loves the dog.  Gloria wrote her name on the sign in sheet as “Sykes”.  The police aren’t even allowed to delete photos. Likely AS requested it, a gross violation of Respondent’s rights and Mary and Gloria’s rights, but the ARDC never investigated that.  The footage would should high level cognitive thinking on Mary’s part. AS wanted it destroyed. Mr. Splitt did not check the law, he does not protect anyone’s civil or human rights.  He helps the ARDC cover up such violations.  Mr. Splitt also does not mention that Respondent asked Mary if it was okay to video her and she gave consent.  Employees watched videos and pictures being taken for 35 minutes and no one said anything.  Mr. Splitt is not being honest about the transcript. He needs to try honesty for a change.
48.        24    Interestingly, Mr. Splitt decides that Vig is a mob term. Why does his brain go that way?  VIG is shown in all caps because it is an acronym for “Very Important Gain.”  It is not just a loan shark term.  Respondent does not speak Russian and is not part of any mob family. Is Mr. Splitt?
49.        24-25    Resondent did not investigate the OPG fires with the police department or the fire department or some law firm.  Why would she do that? It is clear from the comment she recalls them herself from Suntimes and Tribune articles.  The ARDC does not counter they could not find the articles themselves. They are there. They don’t want to look.
50.        25-26    The conclusions of “false statements” are not made with any proof. The ARDC can’t even respond to Exhibit A, which is, where is the jurisdiction in the case of Mary Sykes and why do they cover up repeatedly discovery of the gold coins? The recommendation to suspend is also baseless.  There is no evidence of failure to follow rules.  The Respondent wanted to email, as the Ilinois Supreme Court now recommends and use fax communications. The ARDC wants to run a trial like it is 1960.  This is just not done any longer.  Attorneys share files on Gdrive, Drop Box, Boxbe and others. Attorneys cooperate. The ARDC attorneys at every turn impede progress and technology. They refuse electronic filings in favor of paper which ruins trees and the environment on a massive scale and promotes pollution and a decay of the earth.  Respondent wants no part of that. It is irresponsible and short sighted.
Simply because there is a dispute between the ARDC and Respondent (who is a practicing patent attorney and has a degree in engineering) and the ARDC which has none of that, does not mean that her behavior is inapropriate.
There is absolutely no basis to suspend Respondent for 3 years and dozens of her clients will be left without probono or low cost counsel.
Will the ARDC and the Ill.Sup. Ct find these clients pro bono counsel?  Mr Splitt does not seem to care these are mainly probate vicitms who have suffered grave injustices.  The respondent fully intends to send each and every one of them to Mr. Larkin and Mr. Splitt and ask THEM to help these people out, without pay or expectation of pay.
51.        27    Waiver of argument and facts.  As shown by this Exhibit, Mr. Splitt and the ARDC have waived at least 51 facts they got wrong. They also clearly ignore the law and cite hearing administration cases and low level non appellate cases over and over, which they know they are not supposed to do.  Respondent only cited appellate court cases.  Everything respondent has mentioned is well known and citable. Further, the behavior of the Tribunal to the members of the public and Respondent herself was so scathing and condescending, the Review Board should find the transcripts of proceedings mandatory reading.  The ARDC has met no burden of researching and following the law itself.  The public is furious with the behavior of the ARDC in recent years.  The ARDC ignores this.
52.        29    The ARDC misreads the following cite: “judges are presumed to be impartial.”  Note, the word is ‘impartial” and not “infallible”.  The ARDC reads the conduct of judges to be conclusively “infallible” when they clearly are not. The media is ablaze with the Pennsylvania “Kids for cash” scheme, judges investing in prisons schemes and all sorts of unethical acts of judges acting badly across the nation. What the ARDC attorneys should take of note is that they seem to believe they have absolute immunity and that they too will be infallible in future litigation.  But a recent 2nd circuit decision just told the “kids for cash” judges and attorneys there will be no immunity for them.  Being a felon is not part of the job of being an attorney or judge.  Judges Stuart and Kowamoto are gone, suddenly retired. Judge Quinn is currently running a probate case outside the 120 window allocated by the legislature for temp guardianships.  No, they are not infallible.
53.        31    last para. “Judges Connors and Stuart were presumed to have acted properly.  See all the probate blogs, talk to Ken and Bev Cooper and all the probate victims mentioned above.   Ask them.  Again, the presumption concept is not accepted by everyone, and especially not by the myriad of probate victims and blogs out there.
54.        32    No objectively reasonable basis for Respondent’s statements is a bit premature. Note there are already 53 points the Tribunal got wrong.  The investigation is ongoing. The bank records of many judges have not been investigated.  Stuart is gone. Kowamoto is gone. Why otherwise would these judges one day get up and leave suddenly?  The investigations are not over and the ARDC refuses to help out.  The public is outraged and not protected and the ARDC ignores it.
55.        33    ARDC cites again “attorney’s offensive and profane language” is not the issue. Also “resort to epithets or personal abuse” is also not the issue.  Claiming judge was biased because he was paid by the state is also not the issue.
56.        35    Palmissano, who repeatedly yelled and screamed at judges is not a case that shows the issue herein
57.        36    Martin-Trigona making profane and defamatory statements to the ARDC is not the issue.
58.        36    Then the ARDC finally and begruginly cites SCOTUS cases, but clearly does not read them all or is familiar with the facts.  In the Citizens United case a scathing and ridiculous movie was issued right before elections about the Clintons.  SCOTUS said that was okay and protected by the First Amendment.  The ARDC says neither Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, Snyder, Citizens or McCutcheon involves attorneys, but obviously they didn’t read the cases.  At least TWO attorneys were involved in the production of the Hillary movie (Ann Coulter and another attorney) and the US Supreme Court said it was okay and no disciplinary actions were brought against either attorneys. Further, likely the video game company either had an attorney on staff, or hired one to protect its violent video games.  No one went after that attorney either.
59.        37    The ARDC cites Gentile, but the Gentile court found the attorney had the right to make statements about a case ongoing before a jury.
60.        38    The ARDC neglects to mention the fact that no one in particular has been accused of any crime or corruption. Rather, all the Respondent has done is asked, begged and cajoled the ARDC and the authorties to investigate the Mary Sykes case.  No one knows what is going on. The ARDC, rather than protecting the public and victims, protects the miscreants. They create a code of silence, quash subpoenas, fail to take depositions and investigate when they should do so, and make the public and victims furious with numerous reply letters which dismiss valid citizen complaints out of hand on a regular basis. They do not Ethics Report as required and their public property records are highly questionable and they refuse to answer valid questions from concerned citizens and the news media.  Almost all other Ill. State agencies publish salaries and require Ethics Reporting. The ARDC does not do this.  THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ARDC MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED.