The day after 9/11/15 — I submit that elder cleansing is worse than 9/11

Please have prayers for Randy and Gayle Robinson, Alan Frake and Iwana Lahoody.  All of these seniors are at risk of death, being in the hands of court appointed abusers (Frake and Lahoody, Illinois) or may be turned over to abusers (Gayle Robinson).  As we all know, and the ARDC has worked hard to cover up and stop this blog and stop me (but I and Ken and Mr. Amu will not be stopped), is the target-medicate-isolate-drain the estate- quietly eliminate and then cremate scheme.

Please explain to me how Mary Sykes, a staunch Roman Catholic, was put in hospice, narcotized to death when the money ran out (as predicted) and the ARDC still helps the courts and court appointed attorneys (Farenga, Stern, Schmeidel) cover up all this blood on their hands?   How did Mary end up spending $90k on a nursing home and the rest on attorneys fees when she stipulated in her advanced directives she never wanted that.  Did it take TWO gals for over 5 years Stern and Farenga to cover all this up.

Her home was sold for pennies on the dollar–to an Illinois real estate corporation.  These people don’t live there and don’t care about Mary or the neighborhood.  They just came in to grave dance.

Stern, Schmeidel, Farenga, Soehlig–all excellent examples of the many, many grave dancers in YOUR probate courts.  Not to mention the judges that support them–Stuart, Kowamoto, Quinn, MacCarthy–all handing back reports of death and abuse right back to the abusers “to investigate”.

As it started back in 2012 with Farenga’s letter to the ARDC begging them to investigate myself and Ken and never, never investigate her.  That’s exactly what they did.  They brought in Stern, Farenga and Schmeidel to testify against us, and in my trial, they ignored all the family member who would have testified that Mary was in fact competent in 2009 as show by the numerous videos of her on the internet (banned at trial and in probate), that she played canasta in Dec 2009 and beat the pants off everyone (banned testimony by Scott Evans).  The cover up continued with the uninvestigated disappearance of $1 million in valuable coins.  Where is the video from that day?  Who is holding up discovery on that one?  Why does not Jerome Larkin, Sharon Opryszek and Leah Black do their jobs and investigate.  How can Steven Splitt call himself an “ethics professor” when he has the absolute worst ethics of all, being a puppet of the ARDC?  What does he think he’s doing by all of this?  No one believes him.  These people live in a fantasy world of power and wealth and lies and deception.  Ethics Professor?  More like “justifying ethics of murder” professor.

Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel, the judges and the ARDC–all grave dancing.  Grave dancing on:  Carol Wyman, Dorothy Baker, Dolores Bedin, Lydia Tyler, Rose Drabik, and now poor Mary Sykes.

Who will put an end to all of this and STOP MURDERING SENIORS through the probate system and our court system.

from Ken

To: “newseditors@wsj.com” <newseditors@wsj.com>
Cc: Probate Sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <joanne@justice4every1.com>, Tim NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>, Nasga Us <nasga.org@gmail.com>, Matt Senator Kirk <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>, Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, “FBI- ( (” <civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov>, Chicago FBI <chicago@ic.fbi.gov>, Kenneth Ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>
Subject: A day after 7/11/2015
Date: Sep 12, 2015 7:25 AM
Why the media is disinterested in the judicial corruption that is mated to elder cleansing is a mystery.
Donald Trump, whether you like him or not, is the most famous man in the United States.    Even though he has millions (or maybe billions) to spend he gets more publicity than the President.    Every word he utters draws headlines no matter how absurd, ridiculous, or just plain stupid.    Worse yet it is debated and rehashed by even the intelligent talking heads until every morsel is chewed and digested.     Why is this occurring?      The public is fed up with being lied to and deceived.     We hunger for a straight talking John Wayne character to come to the fore and rout the miscreants who are leading the charge to make America’s core values “up is down” “down is up”  “right is wrong”  “wrong is right” *****
Trump has demonstrated that even though the mainstream media is mired in the muck of business as usual and ignoring even overt criminal activities on the part of its political favorites and causes, it cannot ignore the notoriety and circus that “sells newspapers.”    Avarice is a strong modifier.      Advertisers want their message to get out so that they can make money or so that they can extend their influence.    The fact that old people are being exploited, abused, isolated and murdered is not exciting or something that the public wants to hear of.     We know that ***** (fill in the blank with any political name picked at random) is a crook!     We know **** lies thru his/her teeth!    By ****’s opponent is slightly less of a crook and his/her lies are fresh.
Sex and violence also sell to the media.    The elderly and the disabled are not sexy.         However, government collecting the tax money that it is owed by Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 elder cleanser co-conspirators has a certain sex appeal.     Grabbing the theme of let’s make a new religion out of the corrupt political and judicial predators and strike a blow for the elderly and the disabled we do have a message that can sell newspapers.
The Woe is me crowd and the throw the baby out with the bathwater crowd that are the allies of the elderly and the disabled who have been targeted by the corrupt jurists, corrupt judicial officials, and corrupt political thugs need a new makeover.        How that is done I have absolutely no idea, but we are in a war and we are losing.     Every day the criminal miscreants of the 18 USCA 371 Jerome Larkin conspiracy are winning.     The Illinois Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment, the Rule of Law, and the core values of America aside,  JoAnne Denison calling for an HONEST investigation (of elder cleansing)  was a danger to the public.      If such an event had occurred in North Korea the ACLU, AARP, and every civil liberties group would have been hysterical with outrage.      Here in America it got zero major media coverage, no outrage, and the poison pill was swallowed as if it were an antibiotic.     The criminals responsible for this outrage received pecuniary rewards!     JoAnne had her livihood taken from her.      (These are the same criminals who denied a lawyer of color his civil rights for speaking out against corruption, and a civil rights leader a seat as a spectator at a kangaroo hearing involving Ms. Denison).
It seems to me that with all the brains that the families, friends, and victims of ‘elder cleansings’ possess we ought to be able to ‘trump’  the Donald and the miscreants and get an HONEST investigation of the 18 USCA 371 conspiracy to violate 18 USCA 241, 18 USCA 242, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Bill of Rights, ****.     An election is coming up!
NB:   Jerome Larkin’s false averments as part of his cover=up of the holocaust like judicially sanitized Mary Sykes, Alice Gore **** cases are fertile examples of very serious judicial corruption.      The breaches of fiduciary relationship that Larkin’s 18 USCA 371 conspiracy seeks to ‘cover up’ is corruption of biblical proportions.     The arrogance of power exhibited in the Gore case and the disregard for due process and civil rights in the Sykes case are intolerable and as both ladies died as part of the criminal activity clear 18 USCA 242 felonies.     In my opinion Larkin’s indictment and prosecution for his personal actions would send a chill through the establishment that protects the ‘health care frauds’ and *****.

From Eliot Bernstein on the importance of Personal Jurisdiction

Treason Ruling
“We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” –Cohens v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200.
REMEMBER THIS CASE WHEN YOU CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION AND THE JUDGE TRIES TO REFUSE YOU YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0

From: kenneth ditkowsky [mailto:kenditkowsky@yahoo.com]

Many of the acts complained of by Jerome Larkin, head of the Ill. Atty and Discipline Comm, Sharon Opryszek, Leah Black Guiterrez and Stephen Splitt, senior litigators there do not consider what they do treasonous (dismissing scores of valid consumer complaints regarding corruption in the courts–situations of fraud, conversion, theft (civil) embezzlement (civil) and other tortious actions) because they will not go after clouted attorneys (Peter Schmeidel, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern (Sykes case, et. al) CP, TR (Al Frake case for knowingly drugging him and using chemical restraints on him, selling his home when he wants to go home, etc.) Lyle Harrison (for allowing Judges Flannel and Broach to imprison him for 7 months, his brother Andrew for 2 months and their past brother Pastor Roger for 2 weeks merely for filing counter claims, while pretending it was something else (UPL) and thus violating their civil rights.

These victims and others consider these to be highly treasonous acts (not upholding the US and Illinois constitutions, watching others commit a string of felonies against innocent citizens and doing nothing.  Then actively participating in trials to deny myself and Ken Ditkowsky our Constitutional rights (US and Illinois) to warn the public of this behavior soon as it occurs.

Now we are right.  Mary Sykes was just narcotized to death on May 23, 2015 and dumped in a grave without a funeral but with quick embalmning soon as the money ran out ($5,000)

Someone came to me yesterday and said that he worked in a nursing home to pay his way thru college and everytime the family could not pay, everytime the govt shut off checks, the staff were told by accounting to narcotize the senior!

How many times does this go on each and every day.

We need a federal law that once a senior has no assets, that they be given no narcotics, place in no hospice until reviewed by a hospital committee that the act is not in fact murder.

(This contrasts with Europe where a couple of countries in a T4 Hitler like style have passed involuntary euthanasia bills).

The murder of our seniors and disables is nothing but murder. Those who participate or, worst yet, cover up (Larkin, Opryszek, Smart, Splitt, Sykes case attys, Drabik case attys, Tyler case attys, Al Frake Attys (attempted murder), etc. may also be found guilty of treason and conspiracy 42 USC sec 371)

What they are all thinking, I don’t understand.

Ken and I were right about the Sykes case. Mary is gone, having been murdered soon as the money ran out.  About $150,000 went to attorneys fees.  $200,000 of Gloria’s money was stolen for attorneys fees.  Another $90,000 went to nursing home fees–a place Mary specified in her advance directives she did not want.  This was judges Connors, Stuart and MacCarthy.

Ken and I were right.  Mary would be murdered when the money ran out and her estate would go to attorneys fees and a nursing home.  NOT for anything she wanted in her estate plan.  That was tossed aside by a greedy guardian and her greedy attorneys and the judges that act in concern with them.

MacCarthy went storming down the halls screaming at Gloria she wanted to jail her merely because Gloria brought her service dog to court.  He is trained to bark as a last resort when stress levels indicate lasting damage to Gloria.  MacCarthy has just denied Gloria’s ADA request for accommodation to Gloria and her mother and her Service dog and did so in a nasty and wrongful manner.  Why is this woman still judge?

The blood of Mary is now on the hands of Larkin, Opryszek, (not so) Smart, Splitt, Guiterrez. We warned them.  How could anyone kill or endanger a 95 year old widow?

It is time for Larkin to go to the Illinois Supreme Court, apologize to myself and Ken and drop and withdraw all the charges.

Otherwise, a serious evil and corruption permates our probate hallways.

JoAnne

Testing the Mettle of Rockford Probate Court

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, this blog is about helping others in probate court.  Letting everyone know what works and what does not work.  Pleadings, emails and other documents are published here and on other probate blogs (which I might or might not have control over) regarding better tactics to protect YOU and your beloved grandpas, grandmas and the disabled.  These are often the poor of the poor, or they will be after probate court gets to them via a fee for this and a fee for that and often two or more attys churning the bill, liening the paid for family home, the savings that were never used on family trips and vacations and vacation homes, etc.– then granny goes into a nursing home, isolated and never seeing the light of day again.  You will note it is rare to see ANYONE from a nursing home going outside ever again.  And the food isn’t healthy by a long shot. Whole Foods is NOT doing the catering.

Getting back to Probate court in Rockford, after lengthy argument, the court did NOT decide in John Wyman’s favor.  Oh, the record was clear and the court even admitted notices were not served,  but Judge Fabiano said during hearing (and we did have a private court reporter and I do have a record and transcript I will publish ASAP), 1) constructive notice is enough due process for the Wyman family; 2) the entire family knew of the proceeding and did not file anything soon after the fact; 3) laches applied (see my email to SRR below regarding THAT legal theory) and 4) Carol Wyman’s injuries in the nursing home where she was severely beaten and sexually abused could not possibly have been the fault of poorly picking a Guardian that was an infamous abuser in his family and the local community (but she did not explain why that was, SRR and KMT said it was not the right time period, but it is my understanding she suffered at a horrid nursing home–one of the worst in Rockford during the July to Sept. 2009 time period and then she escaped.)

The moral of this story is:  if you don’t like your spouse and no longer have any need or want for them around the house, drug them, take them to a nursing home and get a temporary guardianship over them in court.  When they “awake” from all the drugs and start protesting and want to go home, the nursing home will physically hold them down and shoot them up with Halodol (a drug NOT FDA recommended for seniors due to stress on all the internal organs) and then you will never have to deal with your “spousal problem” again.  And all with the blessings of the Rockford Probate court and 2 court appointed attorneys.  All you have to do is tell all the attys involved that your house is paid for in full.  They will then attack anyone and everyone to get to where they are going.

All this actually happened to Carol Wyman — and more, get the book “Against Her Will” or just email John Wyman for a copy at johnhowardwyman@gmail.com. It’s a 5 star book on Amazon you won’t be able to put down.

So SRR is supposed to draft up an order for the court to sign on Monday. Because I have been involved in, or have heard of, most of the dirty tricks in probate, I was extremely well prepared for the hearing and could shoot down just about every single dirty lie, trick, ruse — you name it, I had the answer for the court.

However, it did not seem to do much good.  SO onto the emergency appeal, soon as I get the order.

Take care all and read the email I sent to SRR below regarding what to put in the order for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

JoAnne

now for my email to Sharon Rudy:

Subject: Court yesterday In re Wyman 09 P 127
Date: Sep 29, 2012 1:04 PM

Dear Sharon;

Please make sure you put in the order tomorrow, the following findings by Judge Fabiano:

1) That the case, In re Steinfield held that notices could be excused if the movant had been significantly involved in the case post appointment of  a plenary guardian (perhaps you can find the page cite for that holding, I could not)

2) that laches applies to defeat a finding of lack of jurisdiction under the Probate Act (I believe that would be new law because laches is an affirmative defense which is only pled as an Answer to a Claim–but maybe the Illinois App. Ct will change that centuries old law, what do I know?)

3) that the Probate Act allows for constructive notice to be served on all “close relatives”.  The notice need not be in writing and it need not be personally served or served by mail.
The sisters were served via phone call to one and that was adequate notice.

4) that John Wyman and William Wyman were represented by the OPG or Heckinger in early July and that excused notice.  (Willaim Wyman was NOT represented by the OPG except early on in the case when the OPG was only defending him and did so successfully regarding the OOP.  The OPG only filed an appearance for that issue and William Wyman will submit an affidavit to the court regarding that issue, but you can put in the order that it was a finding from the hearing because that’s what happened).

5) that the sisters had constructive notice by phone or upon information and belief and statements from KTM that she remembers calling one sister sometime before the hearing.

Yes, I think that those were the most important points that both you and Judge Fabiano made yesterday.

As we discussed, my client is willing to post a supercedas bond pending appeal for half the estimate costs of appealing. Please send me a good faith estimate of those costs which may consist of:  1) utilities, taxes, insurance; 2) an estimate of the FMV of the personal property, which I believe is negligable looking at the inventory list.

If the judge is still interested in awarding sanctions, I would like the opportunity to brief that separate issue, so please put in the order a briefing schedule, ie, 1) when you will submit your motion for sanctions, 2) a 3 week response for me and 3) whatever you need for reply and then set it for hearing.  You can just call me on my cell or text me for hearing dates and let me know what day and time you will be in court to set that.  I believe that is a separate motion that must be in writing, properly served and the respondent is entitled to a briefing schedule.

Also, I did make the statement that the court appeared to making a ruling that “hearsay, innuendo and rumor” satisfied the Probate Court Act notice standards in accordance with Sodini/Steinfeld and you can put that in the order and I don’t mind.

thanks

joanne

This is what happens when Justice comes “from a list”

Dear Readers;
This is in response to my assertions that Mary should not have to continually beg and plead for an attorney to get one, or make a complete stink, that she should be allowed to see her former attorney Ken Ditkowsky freely, that he should be allowed to help her and the Probate Court’s assertions that a Probate Judge, such as the august Judge Connors requires that a ward “really need” an attorney then she would appoint one.  Of course, the GAL’s are appointed “from a list”, any independent counsel, if some ward really made a stink and it somehow got back, would not have their counsel of choice, but would have someone appointed “from a list”–which does absolutely no good, may as well have two GAL’s, oh that right, that already happened– and Judge Stuart’s assertions before a tribunal and Adam Stern’s that a ward cannot contract for an attorney is absolutely not supported by the case law.  Of course, they’re both “from a list.”
Further, court supervisors are appointed “from a list” and are not chosen for their thriftiness, nor do they work for free, as here where the court has taken away all of the other daughter’s money, and the GAL’s threaten family members they cannot see Mary if they don’t tow the line.
The court is “from a list”, the GAL’s are “from a list”, anyone who speaks out if there is something wrong will require a supervisor “from a list” and you can’t get independent counsel because they won’t be “from a list”.
But the $1 million is well documented, not investigated and everyone “from the list” sticks together to deny an elder of her life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights–clearly those must only come “from a list.”
I submit for your consideration that when justice “comes from a list” it is justice denied.
Read on for further ideas from KDD.
JoAnne
Now, from Ken:
The probate act is intended to be non-adversarial.   In other words, the community is intended to come together to protect the elderly, the lame, the sick, and all who are unable in one way or another to help themselves.   The intentions of the act are good.   The history of the act goes back to basic Judio/Christian dogma.
The idea of fiefdom for any individual is alien and the idea that the civil rights of an individual would be forfeit by the Act is heresy.  Unfortunately, the GAO report, the Sykes case and the others related thereto,i.e. Gore, Tyler, etc  illustrate the avarice is a cancer that has pervaded the best of intentions.    The idea that is advanced by Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al that these guardianship proceedings are ‘secret’ rituals to be closely supervised by the elite (obviously themselves) is nothing short of pornographic.    755 ILCS 11a -18 makes it clear that if a guardian is to appointed the guardian does not have carte blanche – the guardian is an ‘angel’ whose appointment is intended to carry out the wishes of the ward in the highest fiduciary manner possible.
As Mr. Stern testified – the guardian is given absolute discretion to govern the life of the ward, including but not limited to isolating the ward (elder abuse) from family friends, willy nilly making the assets of the estate vanish, and punishing the ‘Gloria Sykes” who oppose the arbitrary governance of the ward’s estate.
The letter of NASGA to Judge Stuart that called attention to infamy that was being perpetrated in the Sykes case should have been welcomed by the Court and an immediate investigation should have followed.    The idea of ignoring the citizen report was and is intolerable.   Persons paid by the public are not anointed.   The are not better than the rest of us peons.    The government employee whether a judge, a guardian ad litem, etc is a ‘public trust’ and impacts a duty.    The fact that Farenga, who ignored her duty repeatedly, made denials that Carolyn had sequestered and ignored not inventorying approximately a million dollars in collectibles (Au Coins), when Carolyn has not denied the same is obscene.    The fact that Farenga and Stern knew that Carolyn was drilling the safety deposit box and could not be bothered to find out what was in the box is equally obscene; however, to not report the allegation to the Court and suggest that the allegation is imaginary when both neglected to observe or properly call for an investigation is pernicious.    I do not have to state what I think of the attempts to deny First Amendment rights and to silence the protest of the alleged “theft” and the what followed.
In these cases in which a senior citizens rights, privileges and immunities are compromised (and in many cases forfeited)  the failure of a Court to give credence to all public protestations of possible corruption is reprehensible.   The attempts at ‘cover up’ are intolerable and require law enforcement at all levels to conduct ‘honest’, comprehensive, and complete investigations instanter.    Justice Marshall, and Lord Mansfield are turning over in their graves!   Buck vs. Bell and Dred Scott are alive and well in the Probate Division.   Shame!
Ken Ditkowsky

From Ken Ditkowsky, what rights do a ward have, according to case law?

Dear Readers;
In light of the fact that the Probate court is pushing its agenda that a ward MUST have an attorney selected from a list approved by the court, and a ward has no rights, as evidenced by Judge Connors deposition (published on this site), one wonders what is really going on.
I recall some years ago where SCOTUS (the US Supreme Ct) ruled that a 12 year old had the right to an atty that was separate from that chosen by his parents or the court.
A 12 year old has better rights that grandma or grandpa fighting a guardianship?  I would hope not.  But that’s what is going on everyday on the 18th floor of the Daley center and in other Probate courts in Illinois.
And I believe that just isn’t right.
Read on for some words of wisdom from Ken:
JoAnne
From Ken:
What has been happening to various seniors has been addressed by the Courts in a different context.
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46 (1988), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Dec. 1, 1988) (holding that the appointment of the parents as the temporary conservators of their adult children pursuant to a former statute that provided for the appointment of conservators of a person who is likely to be deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing persons, on the basis that the children had become coercively persuaded or brainwashed by a religious organization that they had joined, was a violation of the conservatees’ federal and state constitutional rights to religious freedom, in the absence of such actions that rendered the children gravely disabled as defined by law); Katz v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 3d 952, 141 Cal. Rptr. 234 (1st Dist. 1977).
In an action by the parents of an 18-year-old congenitally deaf woman who was alleged to be incompetent under a state statute on the grounds that she was socially naive and was being brainwashed, programmed, and secreted by members of a religious sect, the daughter could not be declared incompetent on a finding that she was “judgmentally immature” where the sole effect of immaturity as the standard by which to judge one incompetent to manage her person or property manifested itself as an abridgement of her constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of her religious beliefs, there being no financial assets of which the woman could be deprived by artful or designing persons. Matter of Guardianship of Polin, 1983 OK 111, 675 P.2d 1013, 44 A.L.R.4th 1199 (Okla. 1983).
39 Am. Jur. 2d Guardian and Ward § 24
Apparently in some States the Constitution is taken seriously and the First Amendment actually means something.  I am glad of that.

From Judy Ditkowsky–a great summary of the case from her perspective

Dear Judy;

Thanks for passing this along.  I understand before whatever the hearing board does is made final, Ken will be able to submit more argument after learning of specific findings of fact.

Thanks again, you are a great writer and don’t be shy.

JoAnne

First of all, approximately 3 years ago, the attorney for the older sister (Carolyn)  in the Sykes case, AND the “special” guardian ad litem called Ken in his office, within an hour of each other, each threatening to file a claim before the ARDC.   They threatened to have Ken brought up on charges before the Circuit Court, as they said that the Court had ruled that there was to be no further inquiry into the Sykes case.  At that time, I was in the office almost every day because of Ken’s problems with secretaries quitting and/or being sick and I was there when they called. Ken put the calls on speakerphone so I heard them. Ken was livid at this threat.

About a year to a year and a half ago, an ARDC claim was filed by the attorney for Carolyn (Peter Schmiedel), and the two guardians ad litem:  the original guardian, Cynthia Farenga and  the special guardian ad litem, Adam Stern.   When Ken continued to investigate they filed a petition in the Circuit Court for sanctions,   and Ken was eventually declared “a bad boy”.  He appealed the case,and the claim was  THROWN OUT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION by the APPELLATE court.

After Ken won in the Appellate Court, the undeterred GALs  (guardians ad litem)  continued to press charges and filed the instant proceedings with the ARDC,  with fifteen claims that Ken lied, was deceitful and was interfering with the course of justice and that he had sent emails.  Ken had sent the emails, and of course admitted that. BUT he asked for specifics. You have taught law classes and you know that vague claims are not allowed.  During the discovery process, the attorney for the ARDC admitted that the ARDC did not have information on what Ken had lied about or how he had interfered with the administration of justice. Of course, then Ken filed a motion to have the ARDC charges disallowed for want of knowledge, clarity and specificity.  The first indication that this might not be a level ground proceeding was that Ken’s motion was denied.  So he had to defend himself against essentially unknown charges.

Once he came to the hearing, the chief hearing officer sustained every motion of the ARDC to squelch any questioning that had to do with the truth or falsity of what Ken had said, calling it “trying the underlying case”.  What was the underlying case?  Ken has not appeared for anyone in “the underlying case”.  The attorney for the ARDC administrator spent over an hour emphasizing that Ken had been sanctioned by  the ARDC, and tried to ignore the actions of the Circuit and Appellate Court on the case which the appellate court had thrown out.  By allowing this to proceed, was the hearing officer impartial?  Well, I’m not impartial either, but I don’t think it came through as something which properly should have been allowed to occur.

The hearing officer had over-ruled Ken’s objection to telephone testimony by a physician whom Ken had contacted regarding the facts of something that Ken had written to the doctor and was supposed to be in the doctor’s files.  When the telephone testimony occurred, the doctor could not find the document or the place on the document to which the ARDC attorney was referring.  (All the other witnesses had the benefit of this attorney coming over to them and showing them where to look).  Eventually, the hearing officer got so frustrated that he asked to speak to the court reporter at the doctor’s office.  The doctor’s reply was “She’s not here”.  The hearing officer let this travesty of testimony continue for several minutes before finally stating that the doctor would have to come and testify in person on Friday.  If the court reporter who had been hired by the ARDC was noton the scene and recording what was happening, how could the hearing officer hear the testimony, if this was a level field hearing?

The hearing officer had allowed two days (Thursday and Friday) for the hearing and stated firmly that that was all the time allotted. He said that both sides, the ARDC and Ken, had thought it would take only one day, and he had allotted the second day only as an emergency spillover.  Then he allowed the ARDC to put on its case until I think it was four o’clock on Friday afternoon.  Is this a level playing field?

Nevertheless, with all the obstacles presented, Ken and his attorney were able to show that the older daughter’s attorney KNEW that money which had been frozen by the court system at his request was money involved in an insurance claim in which Gloria (the younger daughter) was the only litigant: the money had NOTHING to do with the old lady.  They were able to get the “special” guardian ad litem to admit that the mother was living in Du Page county, when the statute shows that probate proceedings MUST take place in the county in which the person at risk of guardianship actually lived, which was not Cook County; that Mrs. Sykes living sisters (required specifically by the law) had never been formally notified that they had the right to be at any guardianship hearing, the mother was only told of her rights to an attorney of her choice and a six person jury in a meeting in the home of the daughter whom the mother had specifically asked for an order of protection against, by this guardian — so this did not meet the legal requirements.  No one contested the claim that Ken has voiced that the mother had been admitted to the hospital for a swallowing disorder only AFTER she had lost 10% of her body weight, nor had the guardians ad litem done anything to protect their ward’s health.  The guardian ad litem actually stated that “these things happen to these people” — ie, preventable illness in his ward is none of his duty as the “eyes and ears of the court”.    The second guardian ad litem admitted that the only time she ever saw Mrs. Sykes was when the older daughter brought her to her office in Evanston because “Naperville was too far away” and the other guardian lived closer.  That is precisely why the Statute says that the proceedings must take place in the county where the person resides.  Naperville is in Du Page county, so she knew that she was not a qualified guardian under the statute.   Ken and his attorney were able to bring in the transcript in which the first judge in the case clearly said that if the MD (the one with the telephone testimony travesty and Mary’s long time physician) would not sign the form which said that Mrs Sykes was incompetent , the guardians should find another doctor who would–i.e., go doctor shopping  And, when he cross examined the first guardian ad litem, Ken was able to get him to admit that there were two doctors who routinely sign such documents and one of them was the doctor who signed the paper for Mrs. Sykes.  Finally, Ken’s attorney, when cross-examining the Evanston guardian, got her to admit that the older daughter was allowed to drill a safety deposit box with neither guardian ad litem present, even though they had received all these emails, because they “KNEW” that the gold in the box was imaginary.  When they called Ken as an adverse witness, he had the chance to give the four reasons he had to believe that the gold was real: 1) when he drew a will for Mrs. Sykes some years ago, he had properly investigated the size and type of estate he was drawing a will for; 2) Mrs. Sykes sister had told him of the way in which at least part of it had been acquired (inheritance from a specific estate), 3) he had seen one of the coins, so he was able to describe it to coin dealers and/or look up its value in coin catalogs so that he could estimate the total value at that time of the treasure, and 4) that the person accused of having taken the gold without inventory had never denied the allegation.  Remember, he was under oath and he is supposed to be presumed innocent and therefore telling the truth.  Ken  was able to state that he had been asking for investigations by Law Enforcement of activities which did not seem to fit any definition of proper behavior, and that he had been open in all his emails so that the various complainants could not complain that he was acting behind their backs.

The only action which the ARDC attorneys took to “prove” that Ken was telling lies was having the various witnesses they call deny (of course all were under oath) that they had ever done anything illegal — but over and over and over again– clearly another time waster.  Last time I studied the matter, in the U.S., a person is innocent until proven guilty — in this level of hearing, by clear and convincing evidence.  Under oath these witnesses had admitted that they had not performed the duties required by the law, had not protected Mrs. Sykes interests, had trampled over the rights of others, all of the matters that Ken had been calling for an investigation of.  No evidence was given that anyone had ever done anything except to ask what “he said” or “she said”.  Ken’s attorney brought out that the fact that these guardians had remained active in the case for no pay was not the ordinary course of legal practice of private attorneys who have bills to pay.  Ken specified exactly how much he had been paid (very very little and only at the outset) and that he had an escrow fund that includes more that what he can possibly ever be called upon to return, and that he was acting as a concerned citizen after he had been barred from representing any party in the case… and also  because as a lawyer he is bound by an actual mandatory reporting law for questionable behavior of other lawyers or governmental officials.  This is called the Himmel rule, after an adjudication.  The behavior of the guardians’ ad Litem, the judges, the attorney for the older sister, make it clear that they believe that ONCE a malfeasance has been reported, peons cannot report it again if no investigation has been made by a third party.  This is not the clear intent of the ruling of the court which promulgated this rule, nor of the baseline statute.  Of course, in their opening statement, the ARDC attorneys had stated that Ken had raised the spector of the Greylord hearings just when the public was beginning to respect the Cook County courts after so many years.  No doubt or question about that:  most of Ken’s emails had had the word Greylord in their title!!!

Ken was under oath; having been called as an adverse witness, he was able to bring  material that had previously been disallowed to the attention of the court.  Since the order was apparently written before the hearing officers left for the day.. it was issued early on Monday, obviously, Ken’s exculpatory evidence  had clearly never been looked at — again, the presumption of innocence was ignored.  Is this a level playing field???

When the transcript is issued… and obviously, the hearing officers relied “only” on their memory of what they had heard …all of this will be part of the public record.  In the meantime, the charges against Ken have been on the internet for months and no doubt the order is there now too.

In the meantime, Ken’s attorney showed that the doctor knew that the way in which Ken had phrased his questions did not make it mandatory that he respond.  He also showed that the amount of time that the guardian ad litems and the attorney for the older daughter had spent was clearly optional on their part, as they had never sent their copies of the email to spam, formally requested of Ken that he stop copying them on the emails, or taken any action short of the ARDC to stop getting the emails.  Meanwhile the ARDC lawyers attempted to break copyright laws by putting blogs into evidence without permission of the copyright owners of the blogs.  This is one of the few things they were not allowed to do.

Interestingly, the effect of Ken’s campaign has actually allowed vulnerable people to call upon the “Sodini rule” (an appelate court case relating to the laws of guardianship which I mentioned above), get their hearings, and not be declared wards of the court without due process, have their civil liberties abrogated and the money they worked for all their lives squandered by guardians and kept from their children and grandchildren and rightful heirs.  Is this interfering with justice? which was one of the fifteen counts,  or is it interfering with nefarious activity?

Why should Ken need character witnesses?  He was not accused of stealing from the elderly!  He was accused of telling lies about public officials, and the officials under oath were forced to admit the truth of some of those accusations despite the active assistance of the chief hearing officer with the attempts of the ARDC attorneys to bar this evidence.  Over the two days, about fifteen people came in to witness the hearing, and that did not include Naomi and myself.  Those who could stayed the whole time.  One lady who came had a family member from whom nine million dollars was extracted.  In another case, I think in Colorado, a ward died under strange circumstances and her body was cremated within hours.  The General Accounting Office wrote a report last year stating that elderly abuse by state officials is endemic nationwide.  Was this a level playing field? I’m not unbiased, but I still think not.  How was the field tilted?  There has been plenty of evidence in the past few years about how such things have been done in other cases.  Is it likely that what looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, breaks bones like a duck is a duck??????

Ken is not playing dead by any means.  Exactly how he intends to go about ordering the evidence that he has been railroaded is still being decided.

Judy
From Joanne again;
Great job and wonderful observations and summary.  I only had to correct a few words and typos.  You did great and raised some wonderful questions regarding the proceeding.

My question is,  how did they spend soooo much time on soooo much testimony regarding what was or was not done in the Sykes probate case when it is clear from the record 95% of those actions occurred when the court had no jurisdiction?

Not having jurisdiction is like the accused who is convicted and spends 3 years in prison when he was never in fact arrested or tried.   So everyone talks about the incarceration for 2 days?  I don’t get that.

And it’s not like you need witnesses to prove that point.  There are 3 declarations on this website from the younger daughter and two elderly sisters of Mary attesting to the fact that they never received 14 days advanced written notice from the petitioner of the date, time and place of hearing, meaning the court actually lost jurisdiction and became a nullity on December 7, 2009.  It’s all in writing.  The records are published on this website.  3 declarations and a court order from November 18, 2009 setting the hearing date says it all.

The rest is actually history, but I don’t understand how or why the hearing board had to go any further after that.

Working without jurisdiction incurs great liability on all the attys involved in the case and the two judges.  The first judge actually sits on the Court of Appeals for the 2nd district and she could not figure out a simple case of jurisdiction?  She ran the Sykes probate court from December 7, 2009 until December 23, 2010 without jurisdiction, issuing about an order per month–and all of those orders weren’t worth the Charmin they were printed on!

I guess I don’t understand the ARDC hearing process at all.  They accuse Ken of misconduct while at the same time, there was an elephant pooing in their courtroom and they claim not to see the elephant or the mounds of elephant poo.

No one has explained the elephant and the elephant poop to me yet.
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky–Happy Rosh Hashanna and a return to ethics for a new year!

Dear Readers;
While Ken was informing me of the Jewish New Year, (happy New Year), I was quipping about the year 5773 is so big it should be done in log form base 10 which means that 2012 is actually 3.03 and I forget 5773, but you all can do the math yourself (and yes, logs are actually math, not arithmetic).
Whenever someone hands me an annoying form I don’t want to fill out, I typically do the date in log form, which can be a whole lot of fun!  For example, today is 3 exp 2/3*5/10exp3.03.  People love it and I can teach them math!  how convenient is that?
I told him I love any holiday as long as it involves good food and drinking. Champagne preferrably, but a prosecco will do in a pinch!
take care all, and Happy New Year 10exp3.73!
joanne
Dear JoAnne
I am not a religious nut!   The fact is that I am an ultra liberal Jew.   This means I am like the Catholic Easter Bunnies in ‘spades!’   I go to the house of worship so often that I still have to use my GPS to find the place.
that said, the Jewish New Year is the holiest days of they year. (actually Yom Kippur is, it’s the day after or before, I forget, but I have to agree with you, Ken that  a New Year should be the holiest because, well, religion should look forward and forget the darned guilt!)   It a turning point in life when a Jew reflects on his/her conduct, forgives his/her enemies and asks for personal forgiveness.  It is a beginning and an end.  It is a celebration of life and redemption.
Few people can honestly even suggest that they are without sin.   Few people can look in the mirror and say, I like that person.  On the high holy days a jew looks into that mirror and asks the question and gives an answer.
An attorney takes an oath that is essentially as follows:
 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.  IL ST CH 705 § 205/4
What do those words mean?   They mean that I support the right of Mary Sykes and all mankind to liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.   It means that I am not going to watch your civil rights, Mary’s civil rights, Gloria’s civil rights or ***’s civil rights be trampled into the ground.   more specifically it means that I am not intimidated by Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, or any of their companions and ‘fellow traveler’s.’   It means that I am not intimidated by the ARDC panel or anyone else that takes objection to the fact that I have spoken out and will continue to speak out when I see injustice, breach of the law, and ‘cover up.’  It also means that I will continue to contact law enforcement to demand an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation into the Mary Sykes affair and every one of the similar cases – indeed, it also means that I will aid and abet law enforcement in bringing to justice each of the miscreants who have and are continuing to deny ‘grandma’ of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.
The Jewish holiday reinforces the obligation of the attorney oath as I as an American was born with a gold spoon firmly attached to both ends.   I am a 2nd generation American.    My Grandfather homesteaded land in North Dakota and my father worked his way through medical school in the ‘cleaning plants’ of Chicago.  Each provided me with the heritage of Freedom.     My personal moral code dictates that I not squander that Freedom but allowing or sitting silent when I see Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and others participate in the activities that have been documented in Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman and dozens of similar type cases now pending or disposed by the ultimate solution.
In today’s American society it may be politically correct to look the other way when a senior citizen is isolated from her family, her friends and neighbors, and it may be ethically challenged to assemble, protest to authorities and to activist groups, or otherwise object that the documented activities of Troepe, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel and others; however.   in the year 5773 (2012) and following as long as the good Lord gives me life I intend to continue my protest for every senior or otherwise handicapped person who is abuse, exploited, or otherwise deprived of his/her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.
I like the person whose image appears in the mirror when I shave.   The oath I took on November 28, 1961 meant something to me then and it means something to me now.   The High Holidays is a reaffirmation!
While I have the soapbox, I remember being in Judge Hoffman’s Court on one of the two Jewish holidays.  Hoffman liked to require Jewish lawyers to attend motion call on the Holidays, and as a young attorney you showed up prior to services.  Anyway, we were waiting for Julius the Just to appear, when in stormed the Chief Judge of the US District Court, he accosted Hoffman as they approached the bench.   The chief Judge (I cannot think of his name – he was Italian) roared:  “Julius, I do not give a damn if you respect yourself, but I demand that you respect me!  When you labor on the High Holy days you show your disrespect for me.”
Hoffman slink ed out of the courtroom and there were no more high holiday sessions in his courtroom.
In a similar manner when I allow myself to be intimidated or distracted from my obligation to support the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution by the likes of Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Black et al, I demonstrate not only disrespect for me, but for you and America.  Democracy is not a spectator sport!   Our American tradition and our Judeo-Christian tradition (and I need to add in the Muslims, Wiccans, Druids there, can’t forget them, I think that needs to be corrected to Judeo-Christian-Wiccan-Pagan Tradition)  is also not a spectator sport.    The fight that we have engaged in is more than a battle to protect senior citizens from Court appointed predators – it is our demonstration to our friends, neighbors, family, and most importantly our children and grandchildren that I respect me and thee!
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/