CLICK HERE for 09 P 4585 (Sykes) Transcripts/Record on Appeal

Record on Appeal

Volume 1A pp 1 to 56

Volume 1B pp 57 to 121

Volume 1C pp 122 to 250

Volume 2 pp 251 to 299

Volume 2 pp 300 to 399

Volume 2 pp 400 to 500

Volume 3 pp 500 to 599

Volume 3 pp 600 to 699

Volume 3 pp 700 to 750

Volume 4 pp 751 to 800

Volume 4 pp 801 to 850

Volume 4 pp 851 to 927

Volume 4 pp 928 to 999

Volume 5 pp 1000 to 1099

Volume 5 pp 1001 to 1099

Volume 5 pp 1100 to 1200

Volume 5 pp 1201 to 1250

Volume 6 pp 1251 to 1351

Volume 6 pp 1352 to 1452

Volume 6 pp 1453 to 1500

Volume 7 pp 1501 to 1601

Volume 7 pp 1602 to 1702

Volume 7 pp 1703 to 1750

Volume 8 pp 1751 to 1851

Volume 8 pp 1852 to 1952

Volume 8 pp 1953 to 2000

Volume 9 pp 2001 to 2101

Volume 9 pp 2102 to 2202

Volume 9 pp 2203 to 2249

Volume 10 pp 2251 to 2351

Volume 10 pp 2352 to 2434

Volume 11 pp 1 to 101

Volume 11 pp 102 to 201

Volume 11 pp 202 to 250

Volume 12 pp 1 to 101

Volume 12 pp 102 to 202

Volume 12 pp 203 to 250

Volume 13 pp 1 to 101

Volume 13 pp 102 to 202

Volume 13 pp 203 to 250

Volume 14 pp 1 to 101

Volume 14 pp 102 to 173

Hearing Transcript 8-26-09

Hearing Transcript 9-21-09

Hearing transcript 11-6-09

Hearing transcript 11-10-09

Hearing transcript 12-7-09-cond

Hearing transcript 12-10-09

Hearing transcript 12-21-09

Hearing transcript 12-29-09

Hearing Transcript 1-15-10

Hearing transcript of 1-25-10

Hearing transcript 3-18-10

Hearing transcript 4-20-10

Hearing transcript 6-23-10

Hearing transcript 11-29-10

Hearing transcript 11-30-10

hearing transcript 1-25-11

Hearing transcript 02-15-11

Hearing transcript 03-18-11

Hearing transcript 4-19-11

Hearing transcript 7-08-11

Hearing transcript 8-12-11

Hearing transcript 9-8-11

Hearing transcript 9-14-11

hearing transcript 10-6-11

Hearing transcript 11-9-11

Hearing transcript 12-21-11

hearing transcript 2-16-12

Hearing transcript 2-21-12




Hearing transcript 5-11-12

NEW!  Links to the Sykes Case Record on Appeal–the entire record which shows

1)  There was no proper Summons and Petition and Notice of Hearing on the Petition served upon Mary G Sykes 14 days prior to the hearing.  I challenge anyone to find this and the Afft of service from the process server, whether it was the sheriff or a special process server; and

2)  No Notice of Hearing to the younger daughter daughter GJS nor the elderly sisters Yolanda and Josephine!

The links:

File 1, Vol 4 a p 751 to 814

File 2, Vol 1 b p 122 to 250

File 3 Vol 1a-2 p 57 to 121


File 5 Vol 4a-2 p815 to 885

File 6 Vol 4b p886 to 1000

File 7 Vol 3b p 625 to 750

File 8 Vol 2b p 376 to 500

From August 2012:

Notice to Appeal

From January 2011:

From February 2011

From February 2011- part 2

From March 2011

All orders from Jan 2011 to August 16, 2012


This page will contain a table of the most important links in this case:
1. Documents regarding lack of Sodini notices:

A.  Declaration of ADULT SISTER NO. 1: YB:

(declaration redacted for private purposes)

A.2 Declaration of ADULT SISTER NO. 2:  JD

Note at the bottom of this document it just says she is elderly and not well and cannot make it to court.  Which is fine.  Courts do not require the infirm and elderly to come to court.  This sister is in her late 80’s and should not have to come to court.  There are telephone and video depositions that can be taken instead.


see paragraph 9:

C1. The Sodini case, which states that notice of the time, date and place of the hearing for guardianship MUST be served on all adult siblings and children:

Here is a link to the case:

You will note that this case is very similar to the present case where Mary’s two adult sisters were never served notice of the hearing.  Bummer.  The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that it is a jurisdictional defect necessitating a dismissal of the entire proceeding.
C2. The Tiffany case, which states that written notice is a necessity and not merely a formality.

Here is a link to the case:

The Illinois Court of Appeals, 6th division, reversed the decision of the circuit court of Cook County because the State did not comply with the notice requirements of the Mental Health Code (a Statute). Similarly, strict notice requirements are also present in the current case, where the court did not comply with the procedure set out in 755 ILCS Section 11a-10.

D. Carolyn Toerpe’s Defective Petition for Guardianship where she forgets about her mother’s sisters:

This table is a comprehensive list of all the troubles, misfeasance, malfeasance, troubles, issues, problems and other actions conducted by the miscreants in this Sykes (the IARDC says I can’t use the words “corruption” or “tortfeasor”.)  Probate case:


There are currently 13 large appellate volumes containing complete sets of pleadings, transcripts and orders missing from the Probate files.  If see anywhere, please contact the court and get them back there ASAP!


If missing more than half a huge court file AND lack of Sodini notices to adult siblings and children isn’t clear evidence of corruption, cronyism and tampering, I don’t know what is.

Someone is clearly cleansing the file and doing it in a methodical fashion.

The fact that Appellate volumes are missing clearly shows a pattern to obstruct justice.  The rest of the file is poorly organized and it is difficult to put it in order and make sense of it.

But appellate volumes are unique in that generally all important documents in the file to date are included, in order and without pages missing.

If the judge only had the file for about 2 years under lock and key, and the appellate volumes came back from the court of appeals in early 2011, it does not look good for the court or court insiders, or the GAL’s who Gloria and Scott say often emerge from out the Judge’s private areas!  How does this happen?  The wolves are clearly guarding the chicken house.
E.  COST OF CORRUPTION — now $273,213 to produce this blog and help others!

Cost of Corruption for Producing this Blog thru Jun of 2012

Cost of Corruption thru July of 2012

Cost of Corruption thru Aug 2102


(you can deduct the Target vs. Sykes fees–that was definitely Predatory Lending–33% are you kidding?  I have not been to Target since.  I believe that HSBC was the lender and they’re pure evil!  Just take a look at any Google search on all the crap they have pulled, let alone the 33% interest they charge.)

CT and Gloria have expressed an interest in wondering why I publish “Cost of Corruption” which is considered to consist of 1)  My proof of claim filed with the BK court regarding In Re Sykes (see my forebearance agreement with Gloria below) and 2) Monthly accounting for my legal time spent on the Sykes Blog.

Cynthia says that my time spent on the Sykes Blog is not billable and I can’t bill at attorney rates for it regardless.  But the reality is, it takes an attorney to make those comments and further, I only publish this blog from a legal standpoint primarily, so yes, it does take an atty to write, review and publish it, and so atty rates are applicable.  Further, by filing the bogus disqualification against me back in January of 2010, and then continuing the tort by filing a bogus ARDC complaint, denying me use of my laptop in court, my grievances against her and the other miscreants are continually being renewed.  And since she interfered with my representation of Gloria and since Gloria still does not understand the nuances of the DisQ, the action is continuing and my losses are continuing.  The only way I am left with helping Gloria and Mary is to run the blog–all else has been and continues to be interfered with by the miscreants.  Hence, running the blog is also my damages for their tortious actions.

With respect to my deal with Gloria, it is this:  I will offer her forbearance on the following terms: 1) she speaks only in a neutral manner or better about me publicly or privately; 2) she takes both bills and files them in her Ad Pro as a “Damages Exhibit” against the miscreants and helps me collect.  She can just black out and redact the Target stuff.

I will assume that if she believes that I am not going to sue her she has accepted this deal, and this deal only.

2. Amended Petition for Partition

Before any petition for partition is filed, it is common practice (and common sense) to do an APPRAISAL to see if the property in question is even worth partitioning. Did Peter Schmiedel do this? No. There are so many things in this case that are simply not done correctly.  Here is a link to the Amended Petition for Partition filed by Peter Schmiedel on behalf of Carolyn Toerpe. Yes readers, this is ACTUALLY filed even before any appraisal was done. For all they knew, the costs of partitioning could very easily outweigh the benefits. But since this case is filled with corruption and incorrect procedures, this misstep went unnoticed by the Court.


3.  Court Order for CT vs Gloria case number 2010 M1 712719


4. Peter Schmiedel Letter to J. Brodsky 2/24/2010


5. Adam Stern’s List of Documents 2/14/2011


6. Carolyn Toerpe: Objection to Motion to Substitute Judge for Cause 5/7/2009


7. Sykes Property Gloria’s Brown House Title


8.  Fax from Cynthia Farenga to the Court admitting no service on Mary Sykes by August 26, 2009; Affidavit from Chuck Madurer attesting to what Mary Sykes wanted; Power of Atty for Health Care signed by Mary G. Sykes granting power to Gloria     

1 thought on “CLICK HERE for 09 P 4585 (Sykes) Transcripts/Record on Appeal

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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s