Summary of the Sykes Financial Elder Abuse Guardianship.

Mary Sykes was a widow (her husband was a Chicago Police officer).    She was the mother of two adult daughters.    One daughter was a journalist, and the Second was a married suburban matron.  Mary was active in her local community and a very vocal member thereof.   In particular, her activities in the garden club were legendary – so much so that she was informally listed as a community asset.

The guardianship commenced when Mary discovered that a daughter had removed $2000 from Mary’s savings without permission and became unpleasant about the activity.   Mary sought a PROTECTIVE ORDER against the offending daughter.

All of the foregoing occurred in Cook County, Illinois.   I mention this because Cook County is unique.      Normally, Financial Elder Abuse is a crime – in Cook County certain Judges consider the same to be an opportunity.     The provisions of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 are a decorative – not to be taken seriously.

My involvement occurred because a group of Mary’s neighbors came amass to consult with me and ascertain how Mary, an elderly lady  – well able to fend for her self (and did) was the subject of what they considered to be a predatory guardianship.    They reasoned that as Mary knew the objects of her bounty, the extent and nature of her estate, and could (and did) make quite reasonable purchases at the local stores a Guardianship had to be wrongful.    They asked me to investigate.

I accepted the assignment and commenced making inquiries.      The mere mention of a inquiry outraged the Cook County “powers that be” and a received a telephone call from the attorney for the Court appointed plenary guardian of Mary, and the attorney for the Court appointed Guardian ad litem.     They threatened me with dire consequences if further inquiry occurred.

I was not intimidated, and continued inquiry.       My inquiry revealed unequivocal FINANCAL ELDER ABUSE and a Judge who appeared to me to not take her oath as Judge very seriously.     I reported back to my potential clients.

Before my de facto clients (Mary’s neighbors and friends) could formally engage me, and before I filed document one in the Circuit Court of Cook County the Guardian ad litem and Mary’s guardian filed a Motion for Sanctions against me.      I protested and pointed out that I had not appeared in the case  – as yet – and had not filed document one.     In other words – I was not as yet before the Court.

No problem – as I said this is Cook County, Illinois.     I was fined approximately $5000.00!       Naturally I appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois.     The Guardian requested and received fees to address the Appeal.     Even the Appellate Court could not garner jurisdiction under the above circumstances, but, true to the standards of justice that is in vogue in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois at the time that the Sykes case was being adjudicated  the Court reversed the sanction and rendered it for nought – HOWEVER, my indiscretion of objecting to the felonies of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 being perpetrated against Mary Sykes the Court recommended that my conduct be evaluated by the ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.

I assume you are aware that all efforts to protect the rights, privileges, and immunities of Mary Sykes and prevent her exploitation in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 were in vain.  (As it appears such is routinely the situation).       Mary’s estate was ravaged and ultimately, she had to die to escape the Guardianship.     (I did hear that the United States Department of the Treasury filed a substantial lien against one of guardians – I cannot verify if the tax lien is related to the Sykes litigation).       I received a suspension for my discourtesy to the Judges assigned to the Sykes case, and after 53 years in the active practice of law – including but not limited to a bit of recognition in WHOS WHO  et al for my achievements – I retired on the threshold of my 80^th birthday and the recognition I was old.     (I’ll be 90 years of age in July!).

The Sykes case and others similar to it are not to be taken likely.      They should be taken seriously.   Unfortunately, they are not – they are prime source of corruption and financial elder abuse!      The fact that I am not the man I was in my 20’s and I’m as sharp as I was does not mean that I need the assistance of a guardian.      Indeed, I am slower than  I was in my 20’s and I no longer have a partial photographic memory.     Heck – I’m asked by my “peers” to play racquetball today not because of my dexterity or skill, but out of courtesy.     Worse yet, in some circles I’m not even invited to play.    (If the Judge appointed guardians were in the competition – they would have been excluded 20 years prior – not just recently.

America – and especially Illinois – has laws!     Guardianship such as Sykes, Sallas et al are “legal” thievery in the nature of FINANACIAL ELDER ABUSE.     The problem is they are very lucrative and easy to conceal – as the judiciary is hand and glove a participant in the felonies.      With Judicial orders authorizing every felony theft, including but not limited to Medicaid, and other government frauds, it is difficult to induce public officials, attorneys, and other persons employed to protect the elderly and government institutions to step up and do their jobs – THERE IS NO PRECENTAGE IN IT.

Here in Illinois the Michael Madigan cases stand as a clear caveat  – yes, Mike recently went to jail, but, how many years did the whistleblowers receive punishment for “ratting” on the sovereign.      How many were punished to a lack of respect for the criminals openly and notoriously allegedly violating 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56.       Let me put it another way – how many lawyers do you see are willing to file a case under the act?      Is the inducement of triple damages, attorney fees, and a reduced standard of proof an inducement for a lawyer to even investigate Guardianship fraud?

In my prior e-mail I referred you to Attorney JoAnne Denison.      Ms Denison is an attorney with alleged technical skills.      Mr. Dean Sallas, during the Covid pandemic, opted to attend the guardianship hearings involving his wife by Zoom.    Sallas who is year my junior went to Ms. Denison and requested help in making Zoom available to him.      His wife’s guardian – the Cook County Public Guardian – and other alleged predators were outraged!     How dare Ms. Denison make Zoom available to Mr. Sallas!     The reported the ethical breach to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois (IARDC).   So outrageous was the offense of providing possible justice of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas that the IARDC) immediately commenced in investigation.    A “trial lawyer” was sent to Ms Denison to investigate the insidious event, and a subpoena was dispatched to Goggle to obtain the information on Mr. Sallas’ account.

Ultimately, after a few letters of outrage were dispatched to the IARDC,  Attorney Denison received information that the IARDC was not going to investigate further.        The long and short of the event was Mr. and Mrs. Sallas retirement estate of approximately 8 million dollars is gone, Ms. Sallas lives in a nursing home, Mr. Sallas lives in his vehicle parked in the parking lot of a church, and their luxury home in Skokie is now owned by the mesne assignee to the ****** Bank.

Ken Ditkowsky