Now that we know Dorothy Brown is a “pay to play” princess of the court system (note I said “a princess” not “the pricess” I think, I have more than a few cases I would like to open up because I was told behind the scenes that the “random judge assignment system” is nothing more than a myth in the minds of the clouted. Attorneys that really practice at the Daley Center find insurmountable odds in presenting their cases up against clouted law firms. So far, 5 to 0, clout wins every time.
So from Ken Ditkowsky:
The Answer is found in the Sykes case.
The attempt by Farenga to control Gloria Sykes should have given me the answer to the question. Gloria had (has) a bunch of vulnerabilities. Each of us is vulnerable and most of us are particularly vulnerable when it comes to family members. Catholic Guilt/Jewish Guilt is our nomenclature.
The reason that Gloria could not be controlled was fortuitous.
The facts are simple. After a long legal battle Gloria obtained a settlement of the mold claim on her home. The judgment was substantial. A quick check of the title revealed to the miscreants that:
1) the title to the dwelling was in Joint tenacy
2) the property was adjacent to Mary’s home and
3) that Gloria’s parents had most probably given the joint tenancy property to Gloria (actually, Gloria, acting pro se should have used a TODI or Transfer on Death Instrument, take note)
Thus, I suggest that the miscreants et al reasoned that Gloria would have guilt in not sharing the settlement with her mother. Yes, she was using the funds to rehabilitate the house, but certainly some of the funds were being personally used. Thus, the allegations of ‘conflict of interest’ and that that Gloria ******.
It did not work because the supposition was terribly wrong, and sibling rivalry and indignation was at a peak. JoAnne Denison was also in the picture and JoAnne was aware that naked averments were not only false but lacked any basis in fact. In fact, Mary was not even an insured on the hazard policy of insurance as her joint tenancy issue was Gloria’s way of estate planning – she only had her mother to be concerned about as she had no husband, no children *****.
Now lets translate this situation to Carolyn. (I am speculating)
Carolyn, the oldest child in the Sykes family had a husband and a daughter. The husband was unemployed – the industry he choose was subject to chronic unemployment and he was always in the right place at the wrong time and the odd man out. They lived in Naperville and well beyond their means. Family members report that Carolyn was unhappy in her job and had few friends and little success. She was the odd man out also in her family.
In desperation to say out of Bankruptcy, Carolyn helped herself to a couple of dollars from her mother’s bank account and got caught. Mary reacted and a family altercation occurred that led Mary to over-react with a very public Petition for a Protective order.
When Carolyn sought assistance from one of the few friends she had, she was drawn to one of the families’ corrupt political “friends” “Judge ****” The Judge recommended a lawyer (who had a shady reputation) and the political wheels moved.
When Carolyn objected to what she knew was wrong and dishonest the rivalry between her and her sister was used to stir the waters and keep Carolyn on track. In the beginning I am sure that Carolyn really believed that she was doing something good for her mother; however, the million dollars in gold coins, large sums of cash squirreled away by Mary, a generous pension, and life savings were great temptations. This was especially true as the miscreants trained her to pay invoices that they gave her without thought. They of course kept telling her how terrible Gloria was and how she was saving Mary from her ‘evil’ sister.
It was not long before Mary’s money paid for the remodeling of the home that Carolyn could only dream of before this occurred as well as the lavish wedding of the daughter. Carolyn had not make application to the Court to use the money, nor did she have anything to distinguish her “theft” from that of any ordinary thief. Worse yet, Gloria and other family members were quite knowledgeable as to what was occurring and complaining bitterly. In anger Carolyn had struck her elderly aunt and lied to the police concerning the incident!
These facts were not lost on the miscreants. They reminded Carolyn of her fiduciary relationship and made certain that she knew if she did not co-operate fully she personally would be put to the torch! As Gloria sought justice and Mary’s friends screamed for an Honest investigation Carolyn became deeper and deeper involved and more and more a pawn of the miscreants. She was constantly threatened – stay with the program or we are out of here. Carolyn complied.
There are facts that give credibility to the theory. The most striking is the fact that Carolyn never denied that she wrongfully entered the safety deposit box and removed a million dollars in gold coins. The only denials have come from the miscreants and their co-conspirators at the IARDC–entities that have consistently blocked requests to depose and question her, filing one motion to Quash after another. Just what did they need to Quash is my question.
Carolyn is too far into the quagmire to come clean at this point in time. She will follow the lead of the miscreants even if it leads to rack and ruin. She has violated every principle that she ever had or was taught. There is no forgiveness or no redemption.
The miscreants are not dependent upon finding vulnerable siblings and no rule or act of humanity ever stands in the way of them accomplishing their nefarious goal.
Carolyn is not the usual pawn. Most of us have a bit of larceny in is, but only a bit. In most instances it is innocent and insignificant. It does not override our personality and dreams, driving us and motivating us. In several of the cases in which people have confided in me, to gain control the miscreants have encouraged breaches of fiduciary relationship by the child. Remember, a fiduciary is held to the highest level of fidelity and honesty. Thus, a fiduciary who does something as innocent as purchasing a suit of clothes with the ward’s money is guilty of a breach.
Please let me illustrate. In the 1960’s a union officer went one evening to purchase a vehicle. He picked out his car, and when it came to pay for it he found he did not have his checkbook, but he had the union checkbook. Unthinkingly he wrote the check for the car out of the union checkbook. This was a breach of fiduciary relationship even though the very next morning he reimbursed the union. He also created an income tax liability and the IRS prosecuted him for not paying the taxes. (This case was on the Bar examine – it is Kaiser v US)
Thus, a breach of fiduciary relationship occurred quite innocently. Of course the GAL is obligated to report this breach to the Judge. The judge interesting in getting a guardian for profit appointed so that he/she can get on the gravy train uses the event to sanction and surcharge the family member who needs controlling and – you all know the rest.
Thus, if YOU become too co=operative with the United States Attorney, the Department of the Treasury, etc you can expect that quite innocently your bonding company will be writing you a letter demanding umpteen dollars, etc etc.
The miscreants will innocently point out – Carolyn has **********>