A Most popular article on Probate Sharks.com from Ken Ditkowsky and footnote updates

read my essay and note that it needed to be updated.     The Rosemond v Markham case makes it very clear that Jerome Larkin’s assault on the First Amendment (and the Attornment by the Illinois Supreme Court) are not only ultra vires but serious violations of 18 USCA 241 and 18 USCA 242.  (they are serious because they relate to the death of a victim of elder cleansing).
I updated the article by footnotes in red, to wit:

Labels:  Yanan Wang
Friday, November 30, 2012
 

Editor’s note: Congratulations to Ken Ditkowsky! This essay is now in the all-time top 10 of the highest volume posts on the blog ProbateSharks.com.  Let’s hear it for K.D.   Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com

Seen on a T shirt for the holidays “I read the Constitution, it has great articles!”
Comment:  this shirt if worn by Jerome Larkin or his 18 USCA 242 comrades would be a prevarication.   
From Ken:
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: [NASGAmembers] [New post] From Lisa Belanger in Mass. Her struggle to protect her father
In the Sykes case, Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, and the plenary guardian have not put in for any fees [1]. It is now three years! Adam Stern ‘for free’ spend dozens of hours prosecuting a Rule 137 motion against me knowing that the Probate Court had no jurisdiction and that any order that he could hoodwink a judge into entering would be reversed on Appeal. Cynthia Farenga has spent hundreds of hours examining the “probate shark, Nasga, and your ( marygsykes.com) blogs so that she could supply  Ms. Black with writings that depict the fact that you and I have been calling for an investigation of the terrible violations of civil and human rights that Mary Sykes has suffered. Indeed, even Peter Schmiedel has contributed to fiasco. Each of the aforesaid attorneys have spend hundreds of uncompensated hours so keep the ‘ball in the air’ so that a Probate Court Judge was not directly confronted with either having to refer the 42 USCA 1983 violation to the United States Attorney and/or the States Attorney of Cook County or over-rule the Appellate Court decision in Sodini. [2]  [3]These attorneys have not presented any substantial fee petitions for all their services to the Estate in protecting it from having to address the fact that Gloria Sykes protestations have merit and that a million dollars in gold coins was never inventoried!* Thus, if we use precedent the attorney acting for $5 dollars an hour my be getting too much! Farenga/Stern/Schmiedel are doing it for nearly free! [4]
I sent you by a separate cover a short essay
What happened to the Bill of Rights?
Title XI a of the Probate Court is a comprehensive legislative plan for the protection of the liberty, property, civil rights, and human rights of a person who is allegedly disabled. The First Ten Amendments of the Constitution are the ‘core’ of Americana. The Illinois Constitution of 1970 is a State reiteration of commitment of the State of Illinois to the Bill of Rights and 735 ILCS 110 et seq. is a more recent affirmation.
The Probate Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction.  It is not intended to be a ‘super court!’Thus, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. grants the jurisdiction to the Probate Court to address limited issues, and the legislature by using the word “shall” mandates the maximum protection for the alleged incompetent. Section 11a -3 mandates venue. Section 8 determines what must be in the petition. Section 10,11 (Jurisdiction) mandates jurisdictional criterion. Section 17,18 mandate the procedure and limitations on the guardians and their activities. The protection of the liberty rights of the alleged incompetent is the clear focus of the Legislation.
Unlike the mortgage foreclosure situation and the appointment of a receiver, the Rules are strict and unbending. Discretion that affects the Liberty right of an alleged incompetent is severely limited by due process requirement (proper notice and hearing). The hearing process is intended to be procrustean so that a ‘ward’ is not ‘willy/nilly deprived of the valuable liberty right. Thus, after the petitioner seeking to declare a person disabled or incompetent proves the fact by clear and convincing evidence the incompetency and the degree thereof, the guardian is limited to performing only the actions that the disabled person would have performed, and if there is question or something usual the guardian must seek a hearing on necessity (section 18). The generous use of the word “shall” is antagonist to what has been reported to have occurred in the Sykes, Gore, Wyman, Tyler and many other cases.
The Evidence Deposition of Justice M. Connors taken in my Illinois ARDC proceeding demonstrates the paradox that is creating a scandal that rivals Greylord and the fact that currently two Illinois Governors are tenants of the United States Department of Prisons. The Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court have both acknowledged that 755 ILCS 5/11a -3 et seq. Is intended to protect the Liberty, Property, Civil and Human Rights. The protection is to place a simple ‘due process’ criterion upon the imposition of a guardianship on an alleged incompetent. Section 10 and Section 11 make it clear that Notice must be served on the close (near) relatives of the alleged incompetent. (See In re: Sodini 172 ILLApp3d 1055) [5]
The GAO report to Congress (Sept 2010) discloses that Illinois is not alone in what appears to be a systemic effort to deny seniors their liberty, property, civil and human rights. That fact many of the political community have been successful in perverting the aforesaid liberty, property, civil and human rights of the Mary Sykes of this world is not an excuse for what appears to be wholesale deprivation of liberty, property, human and civil rights of seniors. It does not exculpate law enforcement and the media for turning their heads to avoid observing the deterioration of the Rule of Law. It certainly does not obviate the duty of the Judges to understand and honor the decisions of the Appellate Courts, and not act where jurisdiction is not obtained. Indeed, as a lay citizen does not have the excuse of not knowing the law, certainly a Judge (who is paid over a $100,000 a year) has even less excuse in not knowing and/or following the law. (Compare the Sodini case with Judge Connor’s evidence deposition!).
Now to the prime question  – what happened to the Bill of Rights! The question is answered when you read Judge Connor’s deposition testimony. The question is answered when you read the Sykes transcripts for August 2009 and August 2010. The question is answered when you read sanction motion written by Adam Stern seeking to sanction me and is further answered in his and Cynthia Farenga’s ARDC complaints concerning my seeking to investigate the Sykes case and/or the ARDC complaints against me and Attorney Denison making appeals to law enforcement to investigate the Sykes case and in particular:
1) the failure of Carolyn Toerpe (as petitioner) to name Mary Sykes’ siblings in the petition to declare Mary Sykes incompetent
2) the failure of Carolyn Toerpe to disclose in her petition her ‘power of attorney’ granting her dominion over Mary Sykes assets.
3) The failure of the Court to hold a hearing on the sworn petition of Mary Sykes for a protective order barring Carolyn Toerpe’s alleged misconduct toward her.
4) The failure of the Court to require Carolyn Toerpe to comply with the Section 10 (Sodini) notice requirements. And in particular, the failure of Stern, Farenga et al (and the Court) to recognize that the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of Illinois have both pointed out that without the compliance with the Sodini notices the Court lacked jurisdiction [6].
5) The Court acting without jurisdiction. And in particular, the Court freezing Gloria Sykes’ assets, allowing the Isolation of Mary Sykes, the seizure and non-inventory of about a million dollars of gold coins etc.
6) The refusal of the Court to address the lack of jurisdiction. Etc.
The Bill of Rights and in particular the First Amendment is absolutely clear in prohibiting any government censorship of citizens including lawyers . The Alvarez case is the Supreme Court of the United States’ statement on the subject. The foregoing not withstanding the freezing of Gloria Sykes’ assets by an Illinois Court in Indiana and the prosecution of objecting lawyers (including JoAnn Denison and yours truly) are oxymoronic.
Now back to the question! We are losing our Bill of Rights because each of us is sitting back and allowing the political elite, law enforcement and the press to allow the guardians in the Sykes case deny Mary Sykes due process and equal protection of the law. We – you and me – allowed a State Judge to ignore the notice requirements necessary to vest her with jurisdiction and enter orders that she knew or should have known were unauthorized.
Yes, we objected and wrote letters, e-mails, and protested. The Judge however was retained in the last election – so we failed! Indeed, by our ineffectiveness and by our failure to raise a ‘hue and cry’ we are allowing Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated to be denied their First Amendment Rights and in particular their liberty, property, human and civil rights. Every day that Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated are in bondage or our help hostage is a day that you and I are losing our First Amendment Rights and hundreds (if not thousands) of Mary Sykes’ are ‘second class citizens’ who have been and are being denied their ‘liberty, their property, their civil rights, and their human rights.’
Mary Sykes and those who are similarly situated are entitled as citizens of the United States of America to an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the deprivation of their liberty, their property, civil and human rights that they are subjected to right now! As citizens they are entitled to law enforcement doing its job and prosecuting those persons who act under color of law to deprive Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated of their LIBERTY, PROPERTY, CIVIL, RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS. The State of Illinois and the United States of America in addition to doing the right thing has a pecuniary interest – it only stands to reason that if the guardian has not filed an inventory disclosing the almost a million dollars in Gold coins, she has not paid her Federal Income Tax on the coins. [7]
Ken Ditkowsky
jmdenison  | November 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm | Categories:  Uncategorized | URL:  http://wp.me/p209wH-pi


[1] Today after Mary died and her million home was sold, the Probate Court awarded substantial funds to the GAL and the attorney for the guardian appointed without jurisdiction for fees.   Mary’s home was sold at a bargain price to a person that we believe to be a nominee.   The home will now go through a bunch of mesne sales and the proceeds that Mary’s Estate is rightly entitled will be paid to miscreants (some known and some unknown).   The taxes paid will be fraudulently claimed to be Capital gains and the State of Illinois and USA will lose out on thousands of dollars of tax money.    Everyone knows that this will happen, but no one will lift a finger to protect the rightful interests of the public and in particular the State of Illinois.
[2] The attorneys are no more than ‘well’ compensated.    We understand that one or more of them might have an interest in the nursing home that Mary was warehoused in.    No investigation has been made by Law Enforcement to ascertain whether any kickbacks were paid to any of the attorneys (or the judge) in the case.     The ‘cover up’ promulgated by the IARDC (at public expense) so far has been very successful.
[3] Sodini  required prior notice to relatives including children and siblings as to a hearing on Mary’s competency.   No hearing was held as required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 et seq, and no findings required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b were ever made.    In fact the Sheriff of Cook County has no record (according to his letter) of service ever being had on Mary Sykes.   The Court file 09 P 4585 which has been suppressed in all disciplinary hearings related to the Sykes case has no summons in it ever being provided the Sheriff (or anyone else) that complied with the Statutory requirements of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.    Of course, as testified to by Judge Connors on page 90 et seq.  the result of the hearing was predetermined.   Her words were – we would have reached the same result!    As no hearing was every held – we have to believe the learned Judge!
[4] Fraud on the court and the judicial system pays well.    All you have to do is last out the objecting family members (and wait until the victim dies)  and a handsome payout occurs.    The only objector at this point in time (Gloria Sykes) *****.   (Gloria is sensitive so I’m not saying anything about her – I want her to speak for herself.    She has not been treated very well.   She was beaten, robbed of her very valuable intellectual property, and literally had her personal assets stolen from her.    One morning she work up and found a strange man wandering in her home.   She called the police and he fled.   He claimed to be from the Mortgage company!    I had a mortgage with the same entity and my mortgage company never came to my home invited or invited and they certainly never invaded my privacy.    She also had her personal property literally toss out the window and was evicted!   The States Attorney prosecution of the miscreants was a scene from Alice in Wonderland)   
[5] The guardian is a fiduciary and as such owes the highest level of fidelity and honesty to the ward.   Honesty and honor are the watchwords.     This means that formal compliance and protection of the wards civil rights and human rights is not sufficient.    The theft of dime from the ward is a serious offense and a taxable event.    Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 the coverup of the tax evasion and the theft are serious matters.   The theft in a proper proceeding results in the removal of the guardian and a sur charge; however, in these elder cleansing cases the law in its most strict form applies to family members but not the guardians for profit.   A family member who accepts the advice of his/her attorney – who is engaged in the elder cleansing conspiracy – cannot claim ignorance of the law or that his/her attorney lied to him/her.   That family member is assumed to be a Law professor at Harvard and the law is strictly construed against the family member; however, as to each member of the 18 USCA 242 conspiracy they are given the greatest leeway and indulgence.     In fact such minor offenses as 1.5 million dollars not accounted for, the prospecting for gold in the mouth of an elderly victim, the theft of a million dollars in gold coins, a lack of jurisdiction, a few lies ***** are all ignored.    In fact, even admissions such as that of titling of the wards property in the fiduciaries name and attempting to sell it (Nash) are over looked.   An attorney who raises such trivial concerns is severely disciplined with Suspensions of law licenses.    
 
 
[6] Notice and Hearing are the essentials of Due process.    The record in Sykes makes it clear that prior NOTICE was ignored.    This issue has been raised over and over again.    Larkin and his 18 USCA 242 conspirators have tried to get around it with inventive lies.    For instance,  the Rule 711 ILCS 5/11a – 10 summons was not printed by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, ergo, to comply with the requirement (jurisdictional) of the Statute any attorney seeking to obtain a guardianship had to prepare and type (or print) his own summons.    No such summons appears in the file 09 P 4585.   For this reason the file had to be suppressed not only in the disciplinary proceedings but in Gloria Sykes’ appeals.    One look at the record of case 09 P 4585 informed all the judges of the Appellate Court of Illinois, and the Supreme Court of the Illinois that a major fraud had been perpetrated in the Circuit Court of Cook County and pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 law enforcement had to be informed.   Indeed, the Honest Investigation had to occur.
 
Just to finish the thought and demonstrate the lengths that were gone to to obviate and obfuscate the facts, without a scintilla of evidence one of Larkin’s Kangaroo panels invented the idea that Mary’s sisters had knowledge of the incompetency hearing.    The fact that there was no evidence of such information was a minor inconvenience.   What they did not count on was the fact that Adam Stern wrote an e-mail to Gloria Sykes pointing out that no hearing was ever held – he, and others met determined that no hearing was necessary and presented a order to Judge Connors.  Connors rubberstamped the order and a guardian was appointed to forfeit all Mary Sykes civil and human rights.    Judge Connors in her deposition stated that if she had been informed of this situation she would have caused it to be rectified, however, she would have thereafter reached the same result.    Thus, when a case is wired – it stays wire.   This includes the cover up disciplinary proceedings.   
[7]   omitted.
I hope that this e-mail clarifies just how serious the dirty little secret of elder cleansing is and why the United  States of America has to be pro-active in first doing an HOnest investigation and then prosecuting all the miscreants.  (especially those who aid and abet the criminal enterprise and who have not paid the Federal and State Taxes on their booty!) 

 Ken Ditkowsky
Advertisements

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