From Ken Ditkowsky –numerous statutory provisions not adhered to by courts

To: “JoAnne M. Denison” <>,
Subject: Time for law enforcement to enforce the law – TIME FOR JEROME LARKIN, LEA BLACK, and the other co-conspirators to be disbarred! Human rights and the Constitution are not technicalities!
Date: Mar 17, 2016 4:05 PM
It occurred to me that after reading today’s newspaper that too many of us operate under the credo – do not bother me with the facts, I’ve made up my mind.
For months I’ve been referring to the protections afforded by statute to disabled people that corrupt judges and lawyers ignore and 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 242 violators such as Jerome Larkin of the Illinois lawyer disciplinary commission (IARDC) seek to obfuscate.      If we examine 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 as an example, I can illustrate exactly why Mr. Larkin and his co-conspirators do not wish any investigation of their conduct much less an HONEST INVESTIGATION.
By use of footnotes, I’m going to explain the statute [1], to wit:
  ILCS Listing     Public Acts    Search     Guide     Disclaimer

Information maintained by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Updating the database of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) is an ongoing process. Recent laws may not yet be included in the ILCS database, but they are found on this site as   Public Acts   soon after they become law. For information concerning the relationship between statutes and Public Acts, refer to the   Guide.
Because the statute database is maintained primarily for legislative drafting purposes, statutory changes are sometimes included in the statute database before they take effect. If the source note at the end of a Section of the statutes includes a Public Act that has not yet taken effect, the version of the law that is currently in effect may have already been removed from the database and you should refer to that Public Act to see the changes made to the current law.
    (755 ILCS 5/11a-10)   (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-10)  
    Sec. 11a-10.   Procedures preliminary to hearing.  
    (a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days [2]. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section[3], except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for persons with developmental disabilities, the mentally ill, persons with physical disabilities, the elderly, or persons with a disability due to mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, persons with physical disabilities, or persons with a disability due to mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11 [i]. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.  
    (b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem . The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.  
    (c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act, where the public guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975, where an adult protective services agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Adult Protective Services Act, or where the Department of Children and Family Services is the petitioner under subparagraph (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2-27 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the public guardian, the adult protective services agency, or the Department of Children and Family Services.  
    (d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.  
    (e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. [4] The summons shall be printed in large, bold type [5] and shall include the following notice:
    You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a person with a disability. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.  
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is:  
     If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.   [6]
You have the following legal rights:        
      (1)  You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer,        
      (3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six       
      (4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.       
       (5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.        
       (6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.       
       (7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
    You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.  
    Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.  
    (f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. [7]  
(Source: P.A. 98-49, eff. 7-1-13; 98-89, eff. 7-15-13; 98-756, eff. 7-16-14; 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
This type of statutory language is universal.    Every State legislature has made an effort to protect the rights of citizens from the guardianship abuses including but not limited to elder cleansing; however,  the corrupt judges, lawyers, judicial officials have all joined in an  overt agreement to enhance their pecuniary stature by herding senior citizens into abusive guardianship so that the senior citizen estates can be looted, and last drop of Medicare, Medicaid, social security, pension et al money can be garnered in their personal accounts.    As an example, in the Mary Sykes case the estimate of theft is $3 million dollars.   In Alice Gore it is 1.5 million plus the value of the gold harvested from her mouth *****.
It has been respectfully suggested that the miscreants and their co-conspirators have not paid the Federal or State taxes on these monies.     If we use the Sykes case as a poster board, the intentional misuse of the guardianship (and governmental position) is not an issue.     Take any of the miscreants whether it be Judge Connors, the two guardian ad litem, Jerome Larkin, Lea Black **** and you have open and notorious evidence of intimidation, fraud, kidnapping, fiduciary theft, income tax evasion, violation of civil and human rights, spoliation of evidence *****.      The road map of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is not a secret document – it is a statute of the State of Illinois.    
Jerome Larkin, Lea Black, **** and the Supreme Court of Illinois have committed very serious crimes against the State of Illinois by their participation in the ‘cover up’ and by ignoring Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4.     Not one of the miscreants called for an HONEST INVESTIGATION!     They fought it tooth and nail and used their governmental positions to deny not only the senior citizens due process but the whistleblowing attorneys and member of the public their First Amendment Rights.
Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators deserve and should be prosecuted to the full leader of the law and be required to pay every dime of the State and  Federal Income taxes that ordinary citizens routinely have to pay when they err.


[1] By making particular provisions darker, and underlined I will call attention to important sections.
[2] A prompt hearing is necessary to assure due process for the alleged incompetent person.
[3] The appointment of a guardian ad litem is supposed to provide a neutral in the picture to inform the Court of the circumstances that are before the Court.      The petitioner has the burden of proof and must prove incompetency by clear and convincing evidence – however, the experts are very unreliable and of easy virtue.
[4] Service of Summons is the traditional manner in which a person is informed that he/she has to appear in Court to protect his/her rights.      This summons has to be served in a very procrustean manner.    This is not a Willy nilly procedure it is deadly serious.      The summons as noted in the following verbiage must contain some very particular warnings and they must be written in a very special manner.
[5] Note – the print must be large and bold.    During the Sykes and Gore case proceedings the Circuit court did not even print a summons that complied with the direction of the Statute .    If you examine some of the probate files it is respectfully suggested that you will few, if any, that comply with the statutory direction.
[6] Notice and hearing are the keystones of due process.     The Illinois legislature sought to make the notice meaningful.    The corrupt judge and lawyers treat jurisdiction and due process as mere technicalities.    To protect them 18 USCA 371 criminals go to extremes to hide the statutory protections from the public and the silence attorneys who are willing to risk their licenses to comply with the oath that they took when originally sworn to the bar.
[7] As a disabled person may actually be disabled, to prevent that person from being taken advantage of – and so that the proceedings (i.e. hearing) are not secret or disregarded interested parties are supposed to be given 14 days prior notice.    This technicality in the Sodini case was held to be jurisdictional.    When Larkin was faced with the fact that in Sykes that not only was Mary not served with the proper summons in the proper manner, but no effort had been made to notify the required family members he resorted to his usual method of addressing the problem.    He and his kangaroo panel without a scintilla of evidence told an untruth.     They claimed that the required family members knew of the hearing.     Unfortunately, the court record in 09 P 4585 (Sykes) reveals that no hearing was ever held.    According to GAL Stern, he (Stern) met with GAL Farenga, and the attorney for the petitioner and they drafted an order and Judge Connors signed the order appointing a guardian.     Judge Connors in her evidence deposition at page 90 and following admitted she was wired – i.e.  She had made the decision prior to a hearing.    Thus, the result was predetermined.


[i] Every effort is to be made to make certain that the alleged incompetent is provided with notice of the proceedings and its dire consequences.   In the Sykes and Gore cases we had guardians’ ad litem who have been alleged to have been part of the elder cleansing scheme.

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky –numerous statutory provisions not adhered to by courts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s