From FB: How to Operate Smoothly in Probate with Little Oversight, the story of Miriam Solo Soloveichik Greenfield Faskowitz

Miriam Solo (aka Miriam Greenfield, Miriam Soloveichik, Miriam Faskowitz)

licensed attorney, Illinois.

Parents: Rose Joffen (Raizel) and Chaim Borouch Faskowitz

Siblings: 4 siblings, 5 children total. Moshe, Moredchai, Brandy and Michel.

Link to supporting document file:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wZKLV_7s6uYmE-Heg83u3wWmO7be7k-Z

Estate involvement:

1) Estate of Marjorie Ivy, a long time girl friend of brother Mordecai Faskowitz

On April 11, 2014, Chris Ivy, the nephew of Marjorie Ivy, files a Petition to become the Independent Administrator of his deceased sister Marjorie Ivy. Page 1

According to a October 11, 2013 article in the Chicago Tribune, Mordecai Faskowitz shared an apartment with 70 year old Marjorie Ivy, page 12. The Cook County medical examiner’s office determined that Marjorie Ivy died from multiple stab wounds and cuts in a homicide. Mordechai Faskowitz was held without bail on a murder charge.

Marjorie Ivy had been dead for days, because a man who had keys to the building discovered her body because he had not seen her for days and the apartment was emitting a foul odor. Page 12.

Mordecai F. Admitted to the crime but had to be tazed by police so they could arrest him. Page 13. A friend said of Ivy, that she was a very nice person “who was passionate about animal rights.”

The value of Marjorie’s estate in the Petition was listed as $850,000 by the nephew Chris Ivy.

On page 3, a listing of Marjorie’s assets shows a Vanguard IRA, a Drefus Crop investment account and a New York Life Insurance policy, all naming Moredecai Faskowitz as Beneficiary and/or his trust, Mordechai Faskowitz Supplemental Care Trust. Page 2, ¶ d indicates that it was Razel Faskowitz who created the MFSC Trust naming Miriam Greenfield as Trustee in 2006.

Page 4 shows that Mordecai was found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Para. 10 relates that Marjorie died of more than 40 stab wounds.

Page 2 shows that the Estate of Marjorie Ivy attempted to reclaim all assets left to Mordecai on under the Illinois Slayer Statute which provides that “A person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another shall not receive any property, benefit or other interest by reason of the death…in any capacity.” Para 11.

Pages 9 to 11 shows that Marjorie Ivy has some 28 nieces and nephews with an interest in her Estate.
Miriam Solo then files an Affidavit with the Estate of Marjorie Ivy in which she explains: 1) she is the younger sister of Mordecai (page 15). That she met with Mordecai and Marjorie (Gayle) Ivy in June 2016 for Marjorie to “provide for each other” and “Gayle’s specific desire to add to the trust, of which I was the trustee.” ¶ 6.

Question: how is it that Marjorie dies October 13, 2013, Mordechai is put in jail, but then she and Mordechai are meeting with Miriam Solo in June of 2016 to move Marjorie’s assets into Mordechai’s estate upon her death? Why is Miriam Solo helping with this when Mordechai is her brother and she is the trustee of his “Supplemental Needs Trust”?  When Mordechai dies, his Estate flows into a Supplemental Needs Trust (again, Miriam Solo is the Trustee) (see below), but why would Marjorie Ivy want to leave her Estate to Avrohom Soloveichik whom she is not related to, upon Mordechai’s passing?

The Affidavit continues on with ¶ ¶ 8 to 33 detailing Mordecahi’s alleged schizophrenic episodes which led up to Marjorie’s death caused by over 40 stab wounds from Mordechai. The real question is, why was Miriam Solo acutely aware of Mordechai’s deteriorating mental health, but she did not make certain that he had his meds and was taking them. She was the only sibling living in Chicago at the time, and she had his POA and he was at her house sometimes during August to September 2013 and Miriam Solo knew his mental condition was extremely poor at that time, yet she did nothing about it.

The probate court, after briefing and hearing, the court then issues an Order that the Petition to disqualify Faskowitz under the Slayer Statute is denied. Page 28. This was based upon a Petition for Summary Judgment filed by Miriam Greenfield on December 7, 2017, page 53 to 63. Miriam Greenfield signed as “agent pursuant to the power of attorney for Mordechai Faskowitz”, p. 36.  How did Miriam Solo get this Power of Attorney when Mordechai has been incompetent for years and subject to shcizophrenic and dangerous episodes for most of his life?

A dispute ensues over Mordecahi being able to answer Interrogatory questions prior to hearing because he is institutionalized. Pages 29 to 34.

Page 37 show the beneficiary change request to Moredecai Faskowitz and a secondary beneficiary, Adrienne Russ, both listed as friends. This was done June 23, 2010 and not in June 2016

An Interpleader action was also filed over the the New York Life policy. Page 39.

It is not known from the court records if Mordecai’s deposition was ever taken.

It does not appear in either the court records or in the decision on Appeal, if anyone noticed that the standard to convict for an intentional homocide is “beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal court, but there is a much lesser standard of “more probable than not” to disinherit a person in Probate court.

By the time the Interpleader is filed, there are now 45 nieces and nephews claiming an interest in this estate. Pages 41 to 44.

The decision was based upon a Summary Judgment Motion which had argued that Res Judicata applied to the finding of NGRI, and therefore Mordecai was barred from inheriting from his stabbing victim Marjorie.

The Appellate court ruled at ¶ 30 however: A Finding of NGRI on a Charge of First Degree Murder Does Not Create an Irrebuttable Presumption Under the Slayer Statute.

The issue for Marjorie Ivy, stabbed to death over 40 times by Mordecai, was taken up on Appeal and the Illinois Appellate court ruled that the trial court’s decision that someone found “not guilty by reason of insanity” is not irrefutably covered under the Slayer Statute. They find that the use of Summary Judgment was inappropriate for the issues at hand, that is whether the killing was intentional. The court noted that admissions spoken to various doctors during examination could not be excepted from the hearsay rule and were not considered. No deposition was ever taken of Mordecai and since he died on May 15, 2019 (page 49), it is doubtful that there is any possibility of preventing his estate, his Trust, operated now by Miriam Solo, to go to the rightful heirs or the nieces and nephews of Marjorie Gayle Ivy.
No new pleadings have been filed as of that decision.  A status is set for Jan. 14, 2019.

The Appellate Court decision is located at:

Click to access 1181691.pdf

Note “Miriam F. Solo” is listed as an attorney on appeal, presumably for brother Mordechai Faskowitz. ¶ 15, “Respondent, through his agent” filed an answer to the Petitions to disinherit him under the Slayer Statute. Meaning Miriam Solo was the agent for Mordechai, but where is her Power of Attorney, when was it executed and how did she know he was in his right mind when it was executed. Or, is it a durable power of attorney that would survive Mordechai’s insanity and incompetence? In any case, Mordechai Faskowitz had been confined to the Elgin Mental Health Hospital since his criminal trial, and perhaps before that up until his death in May of 2019.

More important, the will Miriam Solo filed as Executor was prepared just days before the death of brother Mordecai and it no doubt had to be Executed and witnessed at the Elgin State Mental Hospital. Was Mordechai even competent at that time, not insane, not mentally disabled? After all these facts, that would be quite a stretch to say Mordechai was even competent to have a will. And what about the POA which was used to file all the documents and pleadings in this case? How could a POA be valid when Mordechai was regularly seeing demons and hearing voices? Was it a durable POA granted years earlier when Mordechai was more mentally stable?

And while Marjorie Ivy’s estate is purported to go to the Special Needs Trust for Mordechai Faskowitz, his will at page 45 states that his Estate will go to the Special Needs Trust for Avorihim Soloveichik, another disabled individual. In these special needs trusts, however, the beneficiaries are incapacitated or incompetent, so who is overseeing the management of these funds?

More important, it would appear that Miriam Soloveichik back in 1994 was appointed the Guardian of Avohom Soloveichik, 94 P 10177. Despite the fact she was legally required to file an annual report on the ward, as well as an accounting if the ward held any personal property, Miriam Solo has filed just two annual reports on the ward, so how is then that Miriam Solo is qualified in any manner to manage a trust with $850,000 in it for Avrohom Soloveichik, a disabled person. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W-CwP1zSqtSZXGDIVA88xJHy8ZKL4WOo)

2) Estate of Mordechai Faskowitz

Right before the Appellate court decision of June 26, 2019 was handed down, Mordechai Faskowitz dies on May 15, 2019, page 49, and younger sister Miriam Solo Greenfield Petitions to become his Executor.

While all along during the Probate proceedings for Marjorie Ivy in which Miriam Solo was arguing on behalf of Mordechai Faskowitz that Mordechai was hopelessly insane, seeing and hearing demons, stabbing them and skipping his meds, we find that Mordechai Faskowitz, who never gave a deposition or answered critical Interrogatories, is now able to execute a will and is suddenly of “sound mind and memory”. Page 45.

Question, which is it? Was Mordecai hopelessly schizophrenic, seeing demons, stabbing at demons, or is he of “sound mind and memory.” Who is manipulating his pleadings in court?

On page 45, Miriam Solo Greenfield is appointed Executor of his Will and his entire inheritance is amazingly provided to Avrohom Soloveichik Supplemental Needs Trust, even though Mordechai has numerous nieces and nephews and Avrohom has been, for years, placed in an institution in New York as a disabled adult.

The witnesses are illegible, and not typed into this will but appear to be Miriam Greenfield at her address 6538 N Sacramento, and an attorney friend of hers, Jonathan Shimberg, 9003 Lincolnwood Dr, Evanston, IL 60203, Page 46.

NOTE: this will, likely created by Miriam Solo, is not notarized. The names of the witnesses are not typed out. No phone numbers are emails are provided for the witnesses.

Listed as heirs on Page 51 are Avrohom Soloveichik Suppplemental Needs Trust with Miriam Soloveichik as Trustee (now listed as M. Greenfield, Trustee), together with brother Moshe Faskowitz, and sisters Michele Triester and Brandy Tuchman. On page 52 it also lists Miriam Solo Greenfield. Avrohom Soloveichik is Miriam’s eldest special needs disabled son by her first marriage.

Further provided in this estate is an Affidavit of Heirship noting that Chaim Faskowitz (DOD Aug. 1997) and Razel (Rose) Jofen (DOD Dec. 2018) are the parents of the decedent Mordechai Faskowitz. Page 47.

In this Affidavit Chaim and Razel or Rose Faskowitz had 5 children: Moshe, Mordechai, Miriam, Michele and Brandy.

2) Estate of Irving (Isaac) Faskowitz (Fisk) and Sofia in Florida

On April 8, 1999, Sofia (Fisk) Faskowitz died leaving her entire estate to her husband, Irving Fisk.Page 100 and 98.

On June 22, 1999, Irving (Isaac) (Fisk) Faskowitz died, but his will only name his wife who had predeceased him. Pages 101 and 96.

Neither of the wills executed by Sofia and Irving Fisk named any other beneficiaries other than themselves.

A probate proceeding, PC 99-307 was opened in Florida and Rose Faskowitz, mother of Miriam Faskowitz Soloveichik Greenfield, promptly filed an Affidavit of Heirship (page 65) claiming that her husband’s name was Chaim, and that he was a cousin and uncle of the decedent, Irving Faskowitz. ¶ 15. This was because the decedent’s father was Isaac Faskowitz, and Isaac’s father was Mordecai Faskowitz. Mordecai had another Son Moshe. Son Moshe married the daughter of Mordecai, or in other words, Daughter Miriam supposedly married her uncle Moshe. They had four children: Chaim, Alter Mordecai, Breina and Beila. Only Chaim had children. Chaim married the Affiant, Rose Faskowitz, and they had four children: Moshe, Miriam, Brandy and Michel. ¶ 10.

During World War II, Chaim’s entire family was in Poltusk, Poland.

The Affiant, Rose (Razel) Faskowitz, then claims the rest of the family, other than her and Chaim, perished in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.

However, it must be noted that while ¶ 10 of the Affidavit of Rose Faskowitz lists four children (Moshe, Miriam, Brandy and Michel); note that in the Estate of Mordechai Faskowitz, Rose suddently has a 5th child–Mordecai.

On page 50-51, the Affidavit of heirship for Mordechai’s Estate clearly shows 4 siblings: Moshe, Brandy and Miriam. Apparently on January 5, 2001 Rose (Razel) Faskowitz forgot she had a 5th child.

We know that Miriam Greenfield Solo was involved in this because she filed a Consent and Waiver and acknowledged a copy of the Petition to Determine Beneficiaries and waived notice to hearing on the Petition to Determine Beneficiaries. (Page 65). She also received a copy of the Fla. ATG Petition to Set Aside Finding of Beneficiaries.  Page 82.  While brother Mordechai was remembered when he hacked his girlfriend Marjorie Gayle Ivy to death, she forgot he had to be included in this estate of alleged Uncle/Cousin Isaac Faskowitz.

Nonetheless, the Affidavit of Heirship filed by Rose (Razel) Faskowitz turns out to be utter nonsense.

On August 2, 2001, the Attorney General of Florida investigated the Probate Case of Irving (Isaac) (Fisk) Faskowitz and concluded that none of the children of Rose Faskowitz were in fact related to Irving Faskowitz, the decedent. While the Affidavit of Rose Faskowitz tells a long tale of nieces marrying their uncles (the family tree that does not branch) and harrowing escapes from Nazi occupied Europe to the US, none of that is apparently true.

From ¶ 8 of the ATG letter:

The information provided by the discovery of the decedent’s birth certificate is inconsistent with the Affidavits in support of the Petition to Determine Beneficiaries as follows:

a) the decedent’s name at birth was Isaac Faskowitz, not Irving Faskowitz, as alleged by affiants.
b) the decedent was born in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, State of New York; not Poland as alleged.
c) The decedent’s parents were Harry and Anne Faskowitz, not Isaac Faskowitz, as alleged.
d) The decedent did not, nor did his parents, immigrate to the United States from Poland. The decedent’s parents immigrated from Russia, and the decedent himself was born in this country. ¶ 8, p.81 ¶

It should also be noted that Isaac Faskowitz was married to Sofia Faskowitz and her death certificate says she was born in Puerto Rico and therefore was an US citizen. Nothing was said of her in the Affidavit. Most likely decedent met his wife in the large Puerto Rican community when he was young in Manhattan. The decedent was an US citizen born in New York City.

Despite the fact that the ATG of Florida researched the probate estate and found the heirs to be a fraud, no action was taken by the Florida Probate Court and on December 2006, the Estate was finally distributed with a total of $1,592,456 for 4 beneficiaries, or $398,114. Not bad for finding a similar name and cooking up affidavits.

On page 89, An agreed order was entered determining the beneficiaries to be Miriam Greenfield, Brandy Tuchman, Michel Triester and Moshe Faskowitz. No mention of brother Mordechai.

On page 91, it appears that Moshe Faskowitz, Rose Faskowitz and Dr. Jean Jofen were already to testify there were 4 children of fake Uncle/Cousin Mr. Isaac Faskowitz and not 5.

On page 93 is the Proof of service of final accounting and petition for discharge. Again, no mention of a 5th sibling in the Faskowitz sibling group. Mordechai is missing his hundreds of thousands of dollars. And Miriam Solo Soloveichik Faskowitz Greenfield is part of it.

3. Estate of Ralla Klepak

On May 3, 2019, Miriam Solo Greenfield files a Petition to become the Executor of her friend, Ralla Klepak, who passed on April 25, 2019. Page 118.

She lists the value of Ralla’s personal property at $1 million and her real estate at 2046 W. Addison Ave, Chicago for $250,000, despite the fact that Ralla’s office building, which she owns, is worth easily over one million dollars. In addition she owns a home on Addison Ave and a home in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The decedent, Ralla Klepak, has told many people that she adopted a Mexican son, however no “son” is mentioned in her will at Page 102. A Jorge Bautista at 5158 N Ashland is listed in the will, but he is not mentioned as a son. According to Instantcheckmate.com there is a person named Jorge Bautista at 5156 N Ashland and an address in Tampa, Florida. However he is 71 years old and clearly not a “son” which Ralla met and adopted at age 10 some decades back.

The bulk of the Estate is given to Miriam Solo. All the contents of Ralla’s home. Third ¶ p. 103. Jorge Bautista $500,000. Miriam Solo is given Ralla’s Puerta Del Sol South Apartment in St. Petersburg, Florida. P.105, FOURTEENTH ¶ , the rest and residue of her estate to the Ralla Klepak Trust for the Performing Arts, and Miriam Solo is to get $75,000 per year for managing the trust. Page 109, Article4 (sic). Large amounts are given to various charities on p.110. $100,000 to Victory Gardens Theater, $100,000 to Steppenwolf Theater, $100,000 to Northlight Theater, etc. Page 110

The Will appears to have been quickly drafted with tons of typos.

A typical will has the Testator initial every page of the will. No pages are initialed in this Will.

The will has an attestation clause by witnesses, but it is not notarized, as a will typically is notarized.

Sharran Greenburg is a witness, and mentioned in the will.

The will is executed 2 months before she died. Just like some others…..

4. Guardianship of Alice Gore

Cooper’s Corner show.

here is a video with a lot of detail about MS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG8FZhBJGXI

Bev Cooper (the host of the show) is the daughter of 99 year old Alice Gore.
Miriam Solo (aka Soloveichik, Greenfield, Fisk, Faskowicz), was the Guardian ad Litem for Alice Gore.

11:18 – MS brought false charges against Bev Cooper and obtained a false Order of Protection
Bev Cooper had to pay to see her own mother at Warren Barr Pavillion, a nursing home 20 miles from Bev Cooper’s home. Bev Cooper loved to take care of her mother and told Miriam Solo she wanted to take her mom home and take care of mom — for free.

12:19 – Nursing home is owned by a cousin of MS

13:10 $1.5 million is billed by attorneys in fees during 3 years of guardianship

13:15 – Alice Gore loves to eat, but against her will a GI tube is inserted so she can never eat again.

14:40 – MS chooses a mentally ill granddaughter, with multiple psych hospitalizations to become the guardian of Alice Gore, over the objections and petitions of Bev Cooper to become the guardian of her own mother

15:50 – Bev Cooper cannot visit her own mother

16:08 – Bev Cooper states than MS is an animal, inhumane, and evil

In conclusion

There are now two wills (Klepak, Mordechai, Ivy) which all have the following similarities:
1) not notarized, witness signatures have no typed or printed names next to them so their names are easily read and known to others.
2) the decedent dies days or weeks after the will is allegedly executed (Mordechai, Klepak)
3) disabled individuals are used to move substantial amounts of money via a Trust mechanism, which is essentially a private device with no court oversight and little accountability, especially where the beneficiary is mentally deficient or incompetent. Who is looking out for this disabled person? Where is the accountability and oversight when the Beneficiary is disabled or mentally infirm himself?

Two new lows from the ARDC and Review Board–Banning Mr. Amu and Lying about case law

First, my decision from the Review Board today:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwbEhhNnNfVUN1aFE/view?usp=sharing

Next, the comments of Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 10:46 PM
To: “JoAnne M. Denison” , Probate Sharks , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , Matt Senator Kirk , Eric Holder , “J. Ditkowsky” , “FBI- ( (” , KRISTI HOOD , Chicago FBI , BILL DITKOWSKY , Bev Cooper , “newseditors@wsj.com” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , “information@iardc.org” , “postmaster@iardc.org” , Federal Bureau of Investigation , Jay Goldman
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?

Given the state of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filing anything with the IARDC is a waste of time and effort.     I read the opinion of Larkin’s kangaroo committee and was shocked that the lawyers on the committee intentionally and deliberately misrepresented the Alvarez case.     
What occurred was not just intellectual dishonesty – it was actual prevarication as to the ruling of the Court.
Ignorance of the Law is said to be no excuse, and lawyers are presumed to know the law.       In the opinion of the Review Board of the Illinois Disciplinary Board it appears that the Administrator and his kangaroo panel intentionally misrepresented the ruling in the recent Supreme Court cases that Ms. Denison cites including but not limited to United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2544-2545, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 587-588, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *16-18, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)  
 
In the most dishonest, disreputable, and wrongful manner the panel takes the following words are an exact quote from the Alvarez decision that the Administrator and his stooges misrepresent:
 
The Government disagrees with this proposition. It cites language from some of this Court’s precedents to support its contention that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection. See also Brief for Eugene Volokh et al. as  Amici Curiae  2-11.  HN6 LEdHN[6]   [6] These isolated statements in some earlier decisions do not support the Government’s submission that false statements, as a general rule, [2545]  are beyond constitutional protection. That conclusion would take the quoted language far from its proper context. For instance, the Court has stated “[f]alse statements of fact are particularly valueless [because] they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas,” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 52, 108 S. Ct. 876, 99 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1988), and that false statements “are not protected by the First Amendment in the same manner as truthful statements,” Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 60-61, 102 S. Ct. 1523, 71 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1982). See also, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacysupra, at 771, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346 (“Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake”); Herbert v.Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 171, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115 (1979) (“Spreading false information in and of itself carries no First Amendment credentials”); Gertz,supra, at 340, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (“[T]here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964) (“[T]he knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection”).
These quotations all derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement, such as an invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation. See Brief for United States 18-19. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection. Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.
HN7  LEdHN[7]   [7] Even when considering some instances of defamation and fraud, moreover, the Court has been careful to instruct that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside theFirst Amendment. The statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood. See Sullivansupra, at 280, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (prohibiting recovery of damages for a defamatory falsehood made about a public official unless the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”); see also Garrisonsupra, at 73, 85 S. Ct. 209, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (“[E]ven when the utterance is false, the great principles of the Constitution which secure freedom of expression . . . preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless false-hood”); Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U.S. 600, 620, 123 S. Ct. 1829, 155 L. Ed. 2d 793 (2003) (“False statement alone does not subject a fundraiser to fraud liability”).
 
This section is a discussion of the government’s arguments – not the Court’s decision.   Thus to  claim that the Alvarez Court carved out an exception to content related speech is clearly dishonesty on the part of the Administrator, his attorneys, and his rubber stamp panels.      Let me make the allegation perfectly clear, to wit:    The Hearing panel, the Administrator and the Review panel openly and notoriously misrepresented in their opinion the Law.    Such is intolerable and is totally unprofessional and unethical.     Certainly whomever wrote the opinion in the Denison opinion was aware that he/she was acting fraudulently,      The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly made political and content related speech to be protected by the First Amendment.     It did not single out untruthful statements and it is fair to say that the Supreme in Alvarez rebuked the statement that the Disciplinary Board advances with the words:
 
The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2550, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 593, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *32, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 
For the Record the Court ruled:
 
The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The Stolen Valor Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment.

United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2551, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574, 594, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4879, *35, 80 U.S.L.W. 4634, 40 Media L. Rep. 1953, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 468, 2012 WL 2427808 (U.S. 2012)
 
The disgraceful act of Mr. Larkin’s kangaroo committee has reached new lows of dishonesty and corruption.    
 
Unfortunately, the Illinois Attorney Registration of Disciplinary Commission, Mr. Larkin, and those who act in concert with them are mostly lawyers and mostly paid by the public.    As public employees they commit their crimes in the course of their employment and very often are able to get away with serious criminal acts by claiming immunity etc.    The mantel of legitimacy hides many felonies; however, this opinion in the Denison case is so wrong and ethically challenged as to mandate not only an HONEST investigation, but the forfeiture of the licenses of every attorney involved in the prosecution.      Rule 8.3 requires lawyers to complaint of this type of unconscionable acts by lawyers to Disciplinary authorities.      8.3. is thwarted as the ethically challenged lawyers are the Disciplinary authorities!.       18 USCA 4 requires felonies to be reported to law enforcement.     This particular criminal act committed in derogation of the Civil Rights of JoAnne Denison is being reported herewith to law enforcement.
 
 
It is proper to the challenge the law, custom, usage, and even habits.       However, if Mr. Larkin and those he acts in concert with want to challenge a law it is respectfully suggested that the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of the United States should not be challengeable by blatant misrepresentation of the cases and the law!      Indeed, some honesty should be demanded of agents of the Supreme Court of Illinois! 

Next, we have Mr. Lane Amu, an unfairly prosecuted HONEST attorney who was suspended for three years for making honest statements about corruption in three of his cases–statements which were never denied by the judges involved, and all three judges reversed their decisions.  Most notably, one of the judges Lynn Egan, had to resign from her position on the Board of Directors of a corporate entity whom her brother-lawyer represented and appeared before her on behalf of that same corporate entity.  It is most interesting she resigned from that Board, but not as a Judge for her ethical violation.  Mr. Amu’s assertions are showing effects–but the effects are ignored by the Judiciary and the ARDC, but not the corporation involved.

So, what does the ARDC do?  Reverse his decision. Write an apology to him?  Of course not!  They ban him from filing motions with the Clerk of Court of the ARDC.
See the letter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwbzg3THJZVmVmalk/view?usp=sharing

——————————————-
From: JoAnne M Denison[SMTP:JDENISON@SURFREE.COM]
Sent: May 28, 2015 4:08:12 PM
To: loamu@aol.com; Kenneth Ditkowsky [Ditkowsky Law]; Atty Barbara Stone;
Atty Candice Schwager
Subject: Re: Banning Mr. Amu from the ARDC — questions?
Auto forwarded by a Rule

This is interesting.  So many questions.

1) Why is Lanre Amu being denied access to a Government State of Illinois office?
2) Was there a court order issued?  If so, why was he not served? Who received a copy of the court order, if anyone?
3) What happened to Mr. Lanre Amu is Fraud on the Court.  All orders issued during a Fraud on the Court tained case are void ab initio.  Has there been a ruling on the Fraud on the Court issues he suggests?
4)  Did Mr. Jerome Larkin ban Mr. Lanre Amu from the premises, if not, who did this?  What were the grounds?
5)  Does not Mr. Amu have a constitutional right to gain admittance to the ARDC to file motions?

let me know if you have further questions.  I would like to publish.

joanne

And I have to add, this smacks of the underhanded tactics used in corrupt cases.  I can’t tell you the number of cases I have seen where a probate victim, for whatever reason, loses an attorney, then all victim’s pleadings are struck on oral motion, or they are ignored or lost and forgotten (Sykes, Jones, et alia).  This is not supposed to happen.  It is a constitutional right to be pro se and have one’s pleadings respected.
Orders to ban the filing of further pleadings are simply unconsitutional. They should never be entered, and they never are, by HONEST judges.  And HONEST attorneys don’t move to strike them simply because the litigant is now pro se.  An honest judge is supposed to protect pro se litigants and not summarily strike and ignore pleadings.
And Mr. Tim Lahrman, a probate victim himself, I wish to direct this new article to Mr. Larkin today:
The fight for freedom, democracy, civil and human rights and liberties for senior citizens and the disabled in the US is NOT over.  We will fight.  We will be vociferous.  We will ask those who lie, cheat and steal, take kickbacks, supress Democracy, supress the First Amendment to step down and resign.  We will ask the States Attorneys to do their jobs — or resign.  We will ask the FBI and federal monitors to step into the State Court system and do their job until we achieve justice and dignity for the elderly and disabled persons in Illinois and across the nation.
Justice is Truth in action.

From Ken Ditkowsky–We must stand up for our rights if we want to preserve our Democracy

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 12:01 PM
To: “loamu@aol.com” , “joanne@justice4every1.com” , “verenusl@gmail.com” , “timlahrman@aol.com” , “nasga.org@gmail.com” , “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , “jdit@aol.com” , “askdoj@usdoj.gov” , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , “chicago@ic.fbi.gov” , “drditkowsky@aol.com” , “tips@tribune.com” , “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com” , “bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com” , “letters@suntimes.com” , “foxnews_7d7b711af105dca690ab56169c0ff242@newsletters.foxnews.com” , “ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com” , “sa3456@msn.com” , “fiduciarywatch@gmail.com” , “statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov” , “isba@list.isba.org” , “aclu@aclu.org” , “scottcevans@hotmail.com” , “ecarter@atg.state.il.us” , “glenest03@yahoo.com” , “bstone12@hotmail.com” , “prov2828@hotmail.com” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “schwagerlawfirm@live.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , “sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov” , “zamirkatan@aol.com” , “llessura@gmail.com” , “jnjgldmn@aol.com” , “activistpost@gmail.com” , “tvfields@oh.rr.com” , “newseditors@wsj.com” , “nvallone1@gmail.com” , “webmaster@abajournal.com” , “consult4lj@yahoo.com” , “jimdit@earthlink.net” , “kozakm1@gmail.com” , “drrob2007@yahoo.com” , “k_bakken@att.net” , “utterby@sbcglobal.net” , “info@deepfriedbrownies.com” , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, “johnhowardwyman@gmail.com” , “maryrichards45@gmail.com” , “truthbetoldradio@gmail.com” , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , “writejanet@live.com” , “kev_pizz@hotmail.com” , “information@iardc.org”
Cc: “pmanson@lbpc.com” , “pusateri@lbpc.com” , “sgarmisa@hoeyfarina.com” , “rstrom@lbpc.com” , “lwood@lbpc.com” , “questions.insideout@gmail.com” , “arin@nextions.com” , “kmcdonough@smsm.com” , “mscodro@jenner.com” , “denise.c.garcia@microsoft.com” , “oluk@nshn.com” , “bhaan@leesheikh.com” , “celia.gamrath@cookcountyil.gov” , “lyndsay@lmarkey.com” , “seth.darmstadter@klgates.com” , “alongo@cassiday.com” , “jgabala@illinoiscourts.gov”
Subject: Re: Amu’s Supplement to Motion to Reverse Suspension of Law License

Subject:  Racism
 
Unlike the racism of the 1950’s today’s bigots are much more subtle but just a venal.     Some of these miscreants have found their way into the political closet and occupy positions of important and public protection.    Today’s racist does not refer to his victim in a pejorative manner, and in fact he open donates money to organizations that ostentatiously claim to be monitoring and protecting the rights, privileges and immunities of the minority targeted.    The big lie that today the ‘show’ is more important than the substance and thus there are huge numbers of ordinary people who feel that they have been sold out or at not considered important by their leaders and their government.
 
The Judicial process is the ‘escape value’ of American society.     It is in this forum that the founders of America decreed that individuals, corporations, and mighty and the powerless would all be equal, receive due process of law and adjudicate fairly and appropriately their disputes.     Thus, it is reasoned that while citizens had the right to protest and exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS it would be unnecessary.     Of course the naivety was obvious as humanity has and will always have an element of corruption and avarice that cannot be filtered out.
 
This does not mean that Americans have to live with corruption.     We of course have to be diligent and we have to ‘stand up’ for our rights if we wish to retain them.    
 
The Lanre Amu case is particularly interesting in that it was the Administrator of the IARDC’s duty to prove by clear and convincing evidence whatever facts that he alleged constituted Mr. Amu’s misbehavior.    In particular the Illinois Court has stated:
it is a rule well recognized, that where the evidence to prove a fact is chiefly, if not entirely, in control of the adverse party and such evidence is not produced, his failure   [395]  to produce the evidence tends to strengthen the probative force of the evidence given to establish such claimed fact. [Citation.] The burden of producing evidence, chiefly, if not entirely, within the control of an adverse party, rests upon such party if he would deny the existence of claimed facts. [Citation.] Where a party alone possesses information concerning a disputed issue of fact and fails to bring forward that information, and it is shown that it can be produced by him alone, a presumption arises in favor of his adversary’s claim of fact. [Citation.]”
In the cause at hand, the Administrator failed to show that the means of proving the proportionality of the fees was in the exclusive possession of respondent such that the burden-shifting rule of Beldingapplies.  HN7 SHAPE  \* MERGEFORMAT   It is essential that the Administrator prove each allegation by clear and convincing evidence. In re Enstrom, 104 Ill. 2d 410, 416, 84 Ill. Dec. 486, 472 N.E.2d 446 (1984).  The complaint alleges that respondent participated in a division of legal fees that was not in proportion to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by each  lawyer . Thus, it was the Administrator’s burden to prove  that the fee division was disproportionate to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by both respondent and Rosenblum.
 
It has been Mr. Amu’s contention that the Judge’s that he was complaining concerning were corrupt.     One of the Judges’ (Judge Egan) was the subject of a Crain’s Chicago Business article that ironically made the very same assertion that Mr. Amu made.        This fact is hardly a coincidence as the hearing panels of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission have very ‘sorry’ reputations.     “Wired” is a polite way of referring to them as it is not unusual for them to make findings in favor of the Commission without any evidence being presented to them [1] .      Amu has complained vigorously of being ‘railroaded’ and wrongfully suspended to deaf ears.
 
The publication of the Crain’s Chicago Business article making the exact averments that Attorney Amu has made highlights the disconnect between the Illinois commission doing its job of protecting the public and having a private agenda contrary to the Constitutional mandate of both the Federal and State Constitutions.       The public certainly would give much more credence to Crain’s than Jerome Larkin!       Indeed, it is a matter of public record whether Judge Egan is on the board of plaintiff, her brother is the attorney for the plaintiff, and whether the judge is presiding at the trial.      Such is an up or down situation.      If the commission found by clear and convincing evidence that the public record, Amu, and Crain’s were all lying and the Administrator was the only ‘truth teller’ such would and should be suspect.     That apparently is what they did and the Supreme Court of Illinois not only affirmed but found by the interim suspension of Amu that reciting the public record by an attorney is inherently dangerous to the public safety.
 
Forgetting that a reading of the decision of the hearing board, review board et al gives the impression of a racial nexus for the proceeding and forgetting the history of Mr. Larkin – i.e. the barring of Diane Nash from the kangaroo proceedings involving JoAnne Denison, and his refusal to apologize or even disingenuously try to offer an excuse for the racist act,  this latest act by Larkin individually and as the alter=ego of the Illinois Supreme Court is so outrageous as to call for an investigation by the Justice Department of yet another act of racism, and Larkin’s corruption.
 
When lawyers cannot count on fair play and honesty in their own personal dealing with the Supreme Court of Illinois it is no wonder that the public in general holds the Court system of the 2nd oldest profession is such low repute.    In point of fact the justice system if the ‘elder cleansing cases’ and these disciplinary cases are examples the public is correct that the Illinois Justice System is terribly corrupt and unreliable.
 
Let is backtrack for a moment.    Assume for the purpose of argument only that Mr. Larkin was misled and acted in objective good faith.     The Crain’s article is now called to his attention!   What does he do?   
 
The fact is Mr. Larkin has not apologized to Mr. Amu and now that he knows that Amu’s statements were in point of fact truthful he is not in the forefront of seeking Mr. Amu’s license to be returned to him.      Certainly, Larkin is not offering restitution to Amu for the defamation, insult, and personal wrongful conduct!      Basic decency would have required Larkin to come forth immediately upon finding out about a “mistake” and tendering an apology.      He did not I expect he will not.      The fact remains that Amu has been punished because he, as man having a dark hue to his skin, complained about a fair skinned judge and accused her of corruption.     To Larkin it is intolerable that a respected publication made the same averment!      
 
By my definition Larkin’s conduct is unacceptable,  racist and so ethically challenged that he has forfeited any respect that he might have had and should be instanter investigated and removed from public office.      There is no place for ‘racists’ in government.    The principle of equality before the law for all is too important to be shoved under the rug no matter what political mentor sponsors Mr. Larkin.


[1] In my proceeding a panel solved a jurisdictional problem by inventing without any testimony or even an assertion by the Administrator that required notice to family members of a hearing was obviated by the family members having knowledge of a hearing to determine Mary Sykes incompetent.      The panel was so anxious to please the administrator that they found that the undisclosed family members had knowledge.    The knowledge was not specified to be prior, but, as the result was predetermined that fact or the fact that the Court record in the Mary Sykes case revealed that no such hearing ever was held.    The finding of Mary Sykes’ incompetency was based upon an order being handed to a judge and she rubber=stamping the same.     The Court file was kept out of the proceeding as it would have disclosed that the Administrator once again was not truthful.

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

Dear Ms. Farenga, Mr.Stern, Mr. Schmiedel,
Attached hereto is the Motion of attorney JoAnne Denison that was electronically filed by Ms. Denison (via my office) with the Illinois Supreme Court.
This Motion seeks in part that the Illinois Supreme Court order an investigation of the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation cases – such as the case of Mary Sykes in which sans jurisdiction a plenary guardian was appointed who is reported to not have inventoried a large number of gold coins and other valuables.
By the United States Postal Service  mail a copy of the document is being mailed to the ARDC as it is an interested party.
In the interests of justice and the interest of Mary Sykes and the other persons similarly affected, we invite you to join with us in requesting an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter and in particular, the admitted lack of the service of the 14 day notices required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Ken Ditkowsky, as it was in 1961

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 25, 2013 10:26 AM
To: JoAnne Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , yjd
Cc: states attorney , Cook Sheriff
Subject: Fw: Firing bad judges – NEWS: (Cook County) How clout keeps court cases secret

On November 28, 1961 I took the same oath that every lawyer in the State of Illinois is mandated to take.    A few days later I tried my first case in the Superior Court of Cook County and a couple of days later tried a case in the Circuit Court of Cook County.    In 1970 by the ‘blue ballot’ Constitutional convention the Superior Court merged with the Circuit Court.
The practice of law in 1961 -62 was quite different from what exists today.    Lawyers belonged to the same fraternity.    95% of us were friends and we had an interest in solving our client’s problems rather than churning their files and bankrupting them.    When a case came into the office, the lawyers discussed the case and determined what, if anything, could be agreed upon.  We then submitted the matters that were in issue to the Judge.   Most of the time the ‘Judge’ would cut to the heart of the issue and the matter would be further reduced in complexity.     The net result that except of very few cases trial and expense was avoided.     Oh, there were clients who would not settle for love or money, but, most of the lawyers could be said to have had an agreement to agree.    What we did not have was the ‘take no prisoners’ approach that exists today.
Yes, in 1961 were had corruption and some of it was blatant.    The perniciousness of the corruption was as bad as it is today; however, the big difference was that we did not have as many pious public officials and organizations fostering it.    When a court file was not open to the public, the lawyers, the judge, and everyone else knew that there was hanky/panky going on.     Most miscreants were not anxious to broadcast their “motion to fix.”     Most judges wanted no part in the ‘game’ and they acted accordingly.   There of course were a few who played the ‘game’ but the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Tribune reporters made them very nervous.      A Sykes case as an example would have been addressed on day one – the guardian ad litem, assuming that they were innocent would have covered themselves with detailed reports to the Court.    As an example, Mr. Stern upon observing the extensive remodeling going on at the plenary guardian’s home would have reported this to the Judge and would have reported Ms. Gloria Sykes statement concerning that event.      The pending Motion for a Protective order filed by Mary Sykes would have disqualified the plenary guardian on day one, and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 would have been carefully observed.
Ms. Gloria Sykes reported the disappearance of the Court file in Sykes.    It has now reappeared – so there is hope that it is in the same condition that it was prior to its disappearance!
Mr. Mayor – thank you for forwarding the article.   Chicago is not ready for reform – we cannot even obtain an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.   The two Chicago newspapers are apparently disinterested in the fact that senior citizens are being deprived of their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights right now in Chicago.     Mary Sykes has suffered for more than 3.5 years!
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

The First Amendment and Attys JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

okay to publish?and many of these stories act as if these cases are MY grievances that I’m airing and they’re not. (Some of the news stories did get this wrong and said that I was petitioning for guardianship, when I was not, but many corrected that and said I only filed an appearance and then was disqualified because I notarized a document, and then a couple years later started the blog when the Sykes case drug on and was clearly without jurisdiction and then via the probate victims’ blogs I was finding a similar disturbing pattern of cases not following the Illinois Probate Act with large amounts of funds uninventoried, no jurisdiciton, etc.).
I am REPORTING these stories, I am calling for an INVESTIGATION by the authorities and by the ARDC because courts are acting without jurisdiction and the authorities are not investigating and they should.  The probate victims come to me AND you Ken and they wonder why they are not getting the basic forms of justice–due process, notice to all relatives so the court can be fully informed and appoint the best guardian, inventory of all assets and possible assets belonging to the estate.  Millions in about half a dozen cases reported directly to me are uninventoried and missing.  The family and legatees/heirs want to know why.

I am REPORTING on corruption in the Illinois courts so that it can be brought to light and eliminated.  The regular news does much of this.  Why not me?  Why not you?

Subject: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

Ms. G___ S____ in an e-mail  furnished me with a list of some of the blogs that are carrying the JoAnne Denison story.    The attack unconstitutional attack on Ms. Denison’s First Amendment Rights by the Illinois ARDC is not unprecedented.   The First Amendment is often not held in high regard by government when it decides not to be transparent or decides to obviate the rights of a particular group of people.    Government with something to ‘hide’ or that is embarrassed by its own conduct is usually behind the miscreant conduct.   A review of the Mary Sykes case 09 P ____, pending in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County  is clear in disclosing a quagmire of bad behavior by ‘judicial officials.’     In Sykes and in all of these situations, the victims are senior citizens, the disabled (with money) and their families.
It is our belief that the ARDC did not receive a mandate to suppress Attorney speech and therefore lacks jurisdiction.   The ARDC’s mandate comes from the Illinois Supreme Court and that Court is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.    The Alvarez, NY Times, et al decisions are clear in pointing out that ‘content’ based speech cannot be suppressed.    That is not to say that the same speech might under the right circumstances be subject to defamation suit, but government (including the ARDC) does not have standing to prevent the publication. l
In light of the history of Illinois and the 15+ judges who went to jail in the Greylord scandal and the number of Illinois high ranking political types that are in jail the ban on suppression of free speech is vital and a core basis of America.    The blogs who are reported to have carried the story are:
Ken Ditkowsky

The Stated Policy of the ARDC–DO NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

Yep, that’s it.  After Greylord and 2 Illinois governors sitting in club fed med, the ARDC is following along party lines and is telling both myself and Ken, go ahead, do what you want but never call for an investigation!  Senior are robbed, deprived of life, liberty,  property, forced to enter the worst and most dangerous nursing homes in the nation, BUT NEVER CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION!

I don’t know about you, but that’s the lamest thing I have ever heard in my life. 

That’s what it is all boiling down to.  Apparently the ARDC is nothing but part of the official  CYA Illinois civil servant club.  They must have a lot of CYA in their computers and copiers, that’s all I’m saying.

So my 10 page complaint about censoring me and this blog, ignoring the relatives of Gore, Tyler, Bedin, Sykes, Wyman who are furious with the courts for probate abuse of their grandmas, are supposed to do just what?

In any case, Atty Ditkowsky and my ARDC cases march along.

See below:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 22, 2013 8:06 PM
To: Tim NASGA , NASGA , GL– , Steven D Schwartz
Subject: You are invited to join with us in our petition to the Illinois Supreme Court

On Tuesday I intend to file on behalf JoAnne Denison the Motion to the Illinois Supreme Court for an HONEST, complete and comprehensive examination of the “judicial officials” who the Illinois ARDC is protecting.    In Cook County the rogues gallery is believed to have at the top of the list such illuminaries as:   Miriam Solo, Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al.
If you have been allegedly injured by any of the “judicial officials” you are invited to request that the Court give you leave to join with us, incorporate by reference and make part of your petition the JoAnne Denison motion so that you can request the Supreme Court of Illinois to require the Illinois ARDC to actually do its duty and protect the public from miscreants who are reported to have engaged (and are engaging) in a pattern of conduct designed and reasonably calculated to deprive senior citizens of their liberty and property.
As Gore has 1.5 million, Tyler approximately 8 million, and each of the other estates large sums of money there is a real incentive for at least the taxing authorities to be interested.    A breach of fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event.’   This generates ‘ordinary income.’   The failure to report the income is tax fraud.   A civil tax penalty of 50% plus interest at 5% can go a long way to provide the revenue that the president has been seeking.    In the Sykes case the United States of America should after all more than 3.5 years should have income taxes due it of at least a million dollars.    Aiding and abetting tax fraud is a criminal offense and accessories during the commission of the tax fraud bear the same responsibility as the person responsible.
I do not believe that the Supreme Court delegation to the IARDC was intended to include helping them fend off the victims, the families of victims and a few assorted attorneys (JoAnne and yours truly) who keep raising this point!    JoAnne and I both are under the impression that everyone is equal under the eyes of the law and therefore, law enforcement ought to conduct an investigation of Solo, Schmiedel, Stern, Farenga et al and determine who is correct in their assertions.   In Sykes as an example it is very clear that Farenga, and Stern were appointed by a Court that lacked jurisdiction – that is most troubling!    Mary Sykes therefore has been denied her rights and property for 3.5 years by a court that lacked jurisdiction.     If your loved senior is in a similar situation – the time is now to join with us.
Illinois does not need another Greylord or Son of Greylord.   Two governors, and a bunch of legislators in jail is enough.   If the Illinois ARDC does its job maybe we can have our judges in black robes and sitting on benches deciding disputes rather than in orange jumpsuits in prison cells.   Just a thought
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

What is the standard of the ARDC in free speech? Or, Where is my refrigerator for my Chilled Speech?

That is what I found in Ken’s case.  It was clear the ARDC panel thought that for a lawyer, the burden was on the lawyer to prove the statements were true by clear and convincing evidence and not the other way around.

The the ARDC brought in two miscreant, nefarious lawyers (according to NASGA’s “most wanted list”) who obviously lied through their teeth and said there was “nothing wrong” with the Sykes case.  Well, Sykes is on appeal.  I doubt that the appeals court would even come close to saying the appeal was frivolous, so are we lawyers all supposed to stand by and say nothing because that’s a safe position?  The ARDC won’t slam some time wasting 10 page complaint on our desks at the whim of the lawyers involved.

Think of the unfairness to the families.  They don’t want that.  They like my blog I have heard.

I think the ARDC is dragging everything out on Ken’s case and they might be doing that on mine too because if GJS wins on appeal, (which should happen hands down if the Ill. Ct. of Appeals does its job), we will both be vindicated we were in fact telling the truth about jurisdiction and the ARDC panel had bricks for brains.  I have the Wyman case too up on appeal, and that should be another case clearly lacking jurisdiction.

I believe therefore it will be up to the LAWYERS and the PUBLIC to demand that lawyers have the right to free speech and the ARDC will just have to DEAL WITH blogging.

I maintain a lawyer cannot blog and watch every word.  Further, what words are we prohibited from using?  What words should be “chilled” in put in the refrigerator?  What words and phrases must be frozen, never used and put in my freezer until hell obtains exactly the same temperature?  What do they want us to say?  And if the warm and cozy words and phrases they will accept and can be put by the fire are outrageous lies but it makes the ARDC attys feel warm, cooey and safe, what then?  Must we say them so we have something to say?

Monitoring speech and thought is not only near impossible, it is actually impossible.  SCOTUS knows that.  It’s clearly the slippery slope, the wedge with the edge, a falling star in a black hole.

What words, what phrases, what inferences?

The ARDC has not said.  In Ken’s trial, they seemed to not like the fact he was incessantly calling out for an investigation by the authorities.  Well, probably GJS was responsible for most of that, but still they never knew who was pounding Officer Pecks with 500 emails one weekend.  Ken clearly wanted to take the credit for that one, but I’m not sure.

Again, exactly how is the ARDC using its $450 annual lawyer fees and tax dollars to investigate and control.  SCOTUS says “there must be a problem to solve” if the state wants to control speech.  And, there must be a “clear solution.”  And finally both must be subject to “strict scrutiny” (which is actually saying “fat chance.”)  I see none of that here.  Just a whole lot of vague, unsolvable territory.  Sham proceedings.  Reverse standards of what Congress and SCOTUS has promulgated.

What solution can there possibly be in putting this blog into my freezer?

I can’t make ice cubes out of it, you know!

Is my blog a problem in need of solving? The ultimate solution: censorship!

On 2-20-13, I published a post regarding a most amazing case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants–complete with dozens of quotes as to how under the First Amendment the government has absolutely no interest in censoring or regulating content based speech and that speech covers not only my blog, but apparently it can cover the trashiest of computer and Wii-Fi games and what not, ie, Grand Theft Auto (GTA).

From Brown:
Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R.A.V., 505 U.S., at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U.S., at 822–823, 120 S.Ct. 1878, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R.A.V., supra, at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818, 120 S.Ct. 1878. *** end of quote.

So is the ARDC saying that my blog is a “problem in need of solving?”

Now, as any parent knows, GTA and perhaps Postal has got to be about the trashiest, most obnoxious, detestable, despicable digital media games out there.

The US Supremes says this is “content based speech” and the government cannot regulate its dissemination to even children.

You know, this is the game where you get to rob whatever–a bank, a 7-11, a gas station, kill the clerk, pay for a hooker in an alley, beat her up or kill her, and you get points!  That’s right, points for evil deeds.  You can even get points for killing a cop during your robbery. (I wonder if they have demerits for feeding the poor, or donating clothes).

I digress.  The game is a parental nightmare and a horror show.

So my question is, why is the ARDC going after my blog and saying I cannot speak out against corruption, I am lying about it (despite the fact the court records are published here, the evidence is published here and the blog is complete in and of itself)–when the US Supremes have said you have to leave even the worst and most despicable of trashy video games alone–it’s protected speech?

Can ANYONE answer that one?

What if a lawyer wrote that game or portions of it?  Would the Illinois ARDC go after that lawyer?

What if my blog were put into book form and sent to the ARDC, could they draft up a complaint against a book?  Can they ban a book or discipline a lawyer in the US for writing a book about corruption in the courts?

Are we fast approaching the decline of our democratic, open and free speech civilization where the ARDC will start rounding up and banning books?  Will they have the Illinois sheriff do it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In Germany in the 1930’s the Gestapo took away all the weapons from the Jews.  A Jew was shot on sight, frisked in the street and shot if he had any weapon–gun or knife.  When that was done, the Gestapo then went and rounded up Jewish lawyers in the courts and banned them from practicing law.

The slippery slope, the wedge with the edge.
While the US Supreme Court has clearly spoke, apparently not all lawyer have heard–apparently the lawyers at the ARDC have not heard.

A 2011 decision. The latest. Confirming over 100 years of free speech case law that I get to say what I want unless someone can prove it is blatantly false or made up–and even then, as long as it is clear it is satire or my imagination, I don’t think they can regulate that either.

What if Lewis Carroll were a lawyer?  Could he have written Alice in Wonderland, clearly making fun of royalty as pompous asses?

I still have a lot of questions that no one has answered.

Is the next step book burning?

 

Just so you know, Attys Jerome Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek, you are free to posts your comments here.  I won’t ban them and you can link anywhere you please.

I WILL FREELY GIVE YOU FREE SPEECH, why do you not afford me the same courtesy?

And between the ARDC and myself, who IS the most transparent and appears the least corrupt?

It’s interesting to note that the ARDC has charged me with lying on this blog.  Not only have most of the other major blogs come to my defense in this matter and have offered to testify on my behalf, but one thing really sticks out in all of this, and that is TRANSPARENCY.

The ARDC posts a complaint utilizing my copyrighted materials, and I expect to receive the copyright registration soon, then Ken Ditkowsky files a Motion to Dismss the complaint, the ARDC responds with a Motion to Stricke his MTD,  KDD files leave for interrogatories, the ARDC files a Motion to Disqualify Ken, he files an answer–all of that is on my blog.

During the “hearing” today on the Motion to disQ one thing struck me about all this.  While the ARDC claims they will call KDD to testify as a witness regarding the blog, he responded with it’s not his blog, he does not control it, nor does he publish anything there.  I make the requests to publish to him.

But the blog, I told the ARDC and the hearing panel, is complete in and of itself.  Documents published there include everything needed to show from the courts own records that the cases I publish about–Gore, Bedin, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman, etc. all appointed a guardian without jurisdiction. The motions, affidavits and all relevant documents are published on this blog so I have transparency when I say something.

Ken is not needed for that.

Further, what does the ARDC publish for transparency.  Are they engaging in “fair reporting”, providing all the facts.

For example, they say I am lying about jurisdiction, service upon Mary, service upon Yolanda and Josephine BUT THEY HAVE PUBLISHED NO DOCUMENTS ON THEIR WEBSITE TO BACK THAT UP.

I challenge them to do so.  I find it highly offensive they publish something about me and I cannot comment, I cannot respond, I cannot reply, they do not publish any proof whatsoever of their claims, and then they go whining to the hearing panel that I am lying and my counsel must be disqualified.

Disgraceful.  There are no words….

I am TRANSPARENT, they are not.  I do not make conclusory statements, but I investigate and back it up with facts–declarations, conversations, anything.

The ARDC just runs to the hearing board to get my atty disqualified.

 

That’s all they got.  No blog, no proof, nothing.

The ARDC must really be afraid of this blog and want it censored

because increduously, they just disqualified Atty Ken Ditkowsky as my attorney!

The first thing you do, when you really have no case is get rid of opposing counsel on a bogus motion to disqualify. That is what happened here.  The ARDC says “there might be a conflict”–no there is not–we are on the same side, reporting on misconduct and lack of jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case.  The ARDC says it wants to use him as a witness regarding the blog, but in reality, I run the blog, the blog is mine, and there is nothing to question him about.  The documents speak for themselves. The blog speaks for itself.  I have heard no adverse comments to this blog, only laudatory, confirming comments that there IS a problem with jurisdiction in the Mary G Sykes case, that justice must be done there  and in other cases lacking jurisdiction–Taylor, Gore, Drabik, Bedin, Spera, Wyman.  There are others I cannot mention because I have been asked not to mention them, the victims are soooo afraid of probate court and their GAL’s.

I don’t understand all of this.  Ken Ditkowsky has come up with wonderful, wonderful cases to send to Attys Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek–all ignored.  The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) makes it clear whatever you put on the internet–you have no liability, except for copyright infringement–and I have done none of that.  My posts are my own, I always ask to publish.  The ARDC has no complaint about that.

My blog is like a book.  I have never heard of a lawyer disciplined for writing a book–the content of a book is clearly first amendment protected.

So why then, are they rubber stamping all of the ARDC’s motions and denying me my choice of counsel.  I have a 6th and 14th amendment right to the counsel of my choice.  All the ARDC attorneys did was cite a bunch of criminal law cases about co-defendants.  It was crazy. They can’t question KDD because he has no first hand knowledge of blogs or blogging.  He doesn’t run my blog, I do.

Time to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  I need the findings of fact and conclusions of law ASAP.

If we have to, we need to take it to US Supreme Court.

I don’t understand why I can’t freely write about corruption and blog.

The concept that KDD “might” be a “witness” is bogus.  Further, the concept that I cannot have him for my counsel up until trial is further bogus and just use another attorney then is bogus.  I asked for that and they turned down my request.  I have seen courts do that one over and over, just bring in another atty for quesitoning your own atty, which as we know, questioning an atty is generally a waste of time.

AS and CF said there was jurisdiction at the ARDC hearing–despite the fact that Yolanda and Josepine both have exeucted affidavits they were never served with the 14 day prior notice of time, date and place of hearing.  The hearing panel today wasn’t concerned one bit that the ARDC was promulgating that big hairy lie.  They didn’t want to hear it.  A probate court without jurisdiction for 3 years.

Can someone please explain all of this to me?

thanks

joanne

What has happened to our little boy? Did he grow up or just get older?

In the search to find out just whom is prosecuting/persecuting me for speaking out about corruption in Illinois courts, I ran across this:

Jerome (Jerry) E. Larkin, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, ex officio, is Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), responsible since his appointment to that position in March 2007, for administering the agency which registers Illinois lawyers and investigates and prosecutes allegations of ethical violations.  Mr. Larkin is a graduate of Niles College of Loyola University and the Loyola University School of Law.  After he was licensed to practice law in 1978, he joined the ARDC as staff counsel.  He investigated, litigated and appealed countless attorney disciplinary cases.  He later served as Senior Counsel, Chief Counsel, Assistant Administrator, and then Deputy Administrator from 1988 until his appointment as Administrator.

He is a past President of the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), the bar association of lawyer regulators.  In 2003, he received the ARDC’s 25-year leadership and service award.  In 2006, he won the NOBC President’s Award for lifetime achievement in the field of lawyer regulation.  In 2009, he was a recipient of an ABA CoLAP Meritorious Service Award.  He was also given the Robert Bellarmine award for distinguished service to the Loyola Law Alumni Association in 1992.  Mr. Larkin is the fourth Administrator of the ARDC.  He follows the late Carl H. Rolewick (1973-1988), John C. O’Malley (1988-1992) and Mary Robinson (1992-2007).

You will note it says nothing in his bio about knowing about First Amendment or Free Speech rights, nor does it say he ever protected any of those.

Just how does it happen that Atty Jerome Larkin, the recipient of an ARDC award, a Loyola Law Award, an ABA award (I’ll skip NOBC, never heard of them)  is somehow demoted to the position of reading atty blogs on corruption and drumming up some sort of ridiculous notion of regulating our speech and thought patterns?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Check out his full bio with a picture at:

http://ilsccp.org/home/commissioners/jeromelarkin.htm

And can somebody please ask for those awards back for being an idiot about the US Constitution and bill of rights?

Really.  Who would have thought.

I’m very glad I speak out about corruption and represent people with no money and have no money myself rather than go to fancy expensive dinners and get fancy awards.

Save the money on your fancy awards, and take the money from the plaques, trophies, whatever, turn it into dollars and give it to the homeless on the streets.  At least they give you a blessing.

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

Let’s see which Probate Court does better–Rockford or the 18th floor of the Daley Center

Dear Readers

As you may or may not know, John Howard Wyman has written an excellent book on the Probate court in Rockford, and his harrowing experiences there.  If you don’t have a copy, please go out and get a copy.  Out of stress and strife, John Wyman has done a great deal of good by writing a book on his experiences in order to help YOU, the people who have been denied justice in an Illinois Probate Court.

While I am not going to provide you with much comment on this case because there’s no reason–the pleadings speak for themselves, I did want make sure you have the pleadings in case you face a similar situation.  Therefore, I am publishing all the documents in that case, namely,

John’s original Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)

JHW – Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Aug 31, 2012

Attorney Sharon Rudy’s Brief in Response

SRR – Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Sept 14, 2012

My Reply Brief, filed yesterday:

JMD Reply Brief–Motion to Dismiss, Lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini)
The transcript from the last hearing in which I argued that the Motion to Dismiss IS in fact an emergency because everyday someone lives under a guardianship without jurisdiction is a day she has been deprived of life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights without due process of law, which is a constitution violation under the US and Illinois state constitutions.

Transcript of hearing 8/31/12 re Emergency Motion to Dismiss or Nonsuit due to lack of Jurisdiction.

I will be ordering all the transcripts today.

I am also publishing the hearing date, time and place of September 28th, Court room 217, 400 West State St, Rockford Illinois, Judge Fabiano  at 11:00 am so all the Probate groups can come out and watch and publish.  This should be a major victory for the Probate groups.  If the Honorable Judge Fabiano does her job, this should be a dismissal/nonsuit QED.

Judge Fabiano will be our heroine.  She can then tell all the other Illinois probate judges to carefully check and question that all adult children, siblings and parents have been given notice of the date, time and place of hearing, in writing, 14 days in advance of the hearing.

thanks

JoAnne

I am publishing this because PLEADINGS SHOULD BE PUBLIC.  The Rockford Court house has been given about 80 million dollars so far to get their court records computerized, and so far, nada.  Attys cannot upload, the public cannot download and the system, like the Cook County system, is an electronic dinosaur.

I hope to also get all the transcripts and publish them for you in the Rockford case.

While I am actively involved in the case, I will refrain from commenting on it, you can still get the book (on Amazon), and read the pleadings and transcripts because I intend to do the job of the Illinois county courts and make them all public, as they should be.

thanks

joanne
PS – If you are having any problems opening the above links, try downloading the software for Google Drive–just google it.  If that does not work, please email me and I will try to help.

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/

Breaking news–KDD found guilty of “misconduct” but exactly what miscondut?

Dear Readers;

Apparently today KDD received a letter from the ARDC saying they found him guilty of “misconduct”. No reasoning.  No findings of fact, no conclusions of law, no reasoning.  Just a blanket statement.

So what was the misconduct, exactly?  Was it because Larry Hyman made CF cry?  Was it because the cats in the peanut gallery commented on the fact LB’s high heels were too big and she flashed boobage during the proceeding clearly aimed at her second chair and the hearing panel chair to distract them?  Was it because the peanut gallery, consisting of the 6 to 8 major probate blogs shows up and laughed at LB during appropriate moments because she is clearly technologically challenged?

Many inquiring minds want to know.  Hey, I want to know.

But outpouring of sympathy and support for KDD is resplendent among the bloggers and peanut gallery and anyone else who read and reads his words of wisdom.

I advised him long ago to go to Federal Court because the ARDC was clearly “in” on all of this too and friends and cronies of the miscreants.  But did he listen?  Heck no.

So Ken, don’t dispair.  Get your butt over to federal court where the judges didn’t sleep during Con Law 101 and don’t have cronies on the 18th floor.  That’s where you belong and that’s where your intellect and abilities will shine.  Mucking around with the alligators in the swamp is not where you belong.  You are better served up on the hill with wise, intellectual human beings for a change.

take care

joanne

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Martin
To: “NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com” <NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NASGAmembers] From Attorney Ken Ditkowsky re: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014
Ken I would suggest on Monday you contact Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center and have them represent you pro bono for violations of your 1st amendment rights to free speech. I was on the security detail for Pastor Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp and they were railroaded to about their free speech rights and they won their case.
Richard Thompson is the former Oakland County Prosecutor who successfully convicted Dr. Jack Korvorkian of assisted suicide. I will call you tomorrow with the contact information and the other contact person there is my friend Kathlyn Lynch.
Never give up my friend.
Regards,
Marty Prehn
PS Sounds like we may need a protest
From: nasga us <nasga.org@gmail.com>
To: NASGAIllinois@yahoogroups.com; NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 5:56 PM
Subject: [NASGAmembers] From Attorney Ken Ditkowsky re: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM
Subject: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014
To: NASGA <nasga.org@gmail.com>, probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@denisonlaw.com>, Tim Lahrman  Bev Cooper

Larry Hyman called to tell me apparently before the ARDC panel left for the day they found me guilty of misconduct.  As representatives of the various organizations that protest elder abuse/financial exploitation of the elderly  sat through the hearing it is apparent that each organization having a person present has an opinion as to the veracity of the finding that I acted improperly.   It would be helpful to me, if you would publicly express that opinion to the panel, the ARDC, and the public in general.
The ARDC order did not specify what conduct was misconduct, but, as the only conduct alleged was my complaining about the fact that Mary Sykes was railroaded into a guardianship sans jurisdiction and this situation has prevailed for three years – It is apparent that Lawyers are guilty of misconduct if they report elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly and/or exercise their First Amendment Rights.
It thus appears that the policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5 is just verbiage- it means absolutely nothing.  It apparently is the policy of the State of Illinois that the jurisdictional protections of 755 ILCS 11a – 1 et seq are irrelevant.    It is apparently the policy of the State of Illinois that the protections of the First Amendment are irrelevant, and the Supreme Court is also irrelevant.    An attorney who acts to disclose the ‘dirty little secret’ that senior citizens are being routinely deprived of their life, liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights you can expect that you will be disciplined.  Censorship is alive and well!   The separation of a 90 year old lady from a million dollars of assets is a subject that must be ‘covered up!’   To request an investigation is obviously unethical.
Even though it is aggravation of my misconduct to advocate to law enforcement that they investigate the Mary Sykes case and similar cases I renew my call for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.   I do believe, though I could be wrong, this is still America and we still have a First Amendment and a Bill of Rights.  Democracy is not a spectator sport!
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
Dear Ken;
Just a minor correction, but seniors are being deprived of life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights.  We all know that nursing homes are dangerous places and seniors live about 40% or more fewer years there than in their own homes, so when probate courts declare seniors ALWAYS demented, ALWAYS in need of 24/7 specialized care in a lock down facility (to be sure they don’t escape home before the home is sold), then medicare liens the home, sells it and that pays the US govt AND the probate attys–everyone gets a piece of grandma’s and grandpa’s pie, except the families, we KNOW they’re not happy and they will lose the will to live.  It is clearly a deprivation of life, liberty and property and the shameful, dirty little secret of the US, and probate attys in general.

Ken Ditkowsky does a Cable Access Show on Sykes

Dear Readers;

In case you did not know, last night Ken Ditkowsky and Bev Cooper engaged in a wonderful discussion of the evil and corruption which has crept into the 18th floor of Probate, and specifically this show featured the ARDC proceedings.

I was at the taping, and I have been promised disks of relevant shows which I will post on Vimeo and Facebook for your viewing enjoyment.  The cable show airs on the North Shore in various suburbs on Comcast including approx. Highland Park, Winnetka, Lake Forest, etc.  Bev tells me it will air repeatedly over the next few days, which is great and will give the issues a whole lot more exposure.

Please read on for KDD’s wonderful assessment of portions of his trial (which I happen to agree with).

I also want to thank Bev and Ken Cooper very much for all their hard work on these shows, protecting Probate Court victims and eliminating corruption from the courts.

JoAnne

Ms. Denison/Ms Cooper
Ms Cooper, thank you for the opportunity to appear on your program and express my views on the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation of the Elderly situation.
On the way home from your studio I was reminded of the most serious of the allegations that I have made concerning the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation situation.   It is interesting that it is the one series of allegations that the ARDC has stayed far away from even though, the ARDC attorney wanted to know if I repented for writing a complaint letter to Attorney General Holder and disclosed the three currency situation that I believe that I uncovered.   Of course I did not repent as I believe that under the First Amendment I have a right to communicate with my government and with the public.    The cross examination questions are significant in that they assumed that there was something wrong with my communicating with law enforcement and others information that is detrimental to a whole group of well connected individuals who receive from the State and Federal governments very significant sums of money.  (The suggestion that it was unethical to disclose the three  currency scenario was most troubling.   Why should the ARDC be concerned that I was disclosing a ‘fraud!’?)   The verification of situation was not only the statement from a nursing home owner, but the fact that my niece was terminated in retaliation.   As a citizen I have a right to be concerned and under the First Amendment my right is absolute.  Our Federal Government is 16 trillion dollars in debt.  It is respectfully submitted that every citizen should report questionable situations in which the hard earned tax dollars may be acquired under suspicious circumstances.
 That said, the nursing home agreements are all uniform and all drafted by the very same attorney for his key client.     The agreements involve the basic structure of the nursing home agreements.     The crux of the agreement up until I got involved was understood by people in the know to be a debtor/creditor relationship masquerading as a limited partnership.   Pursuant to the agreement the understanding was that the general partners were to receive a management fee of 5 to 7% of the gross income of the facility.
The attorney who drafted the agreement recognized that under Illinois law the only person who can manage a nursing home (care facility) is a State licensed administrator.    Thus he drafted the agreement to provide that the general partners can participate in the management (administration) and not create a conflict of interest.    If they participated the management would receive the fee of 7% – 9%.     To participate in the management a State license is required.    The agreements that I was furnished – in my opinion – do not authorize an exception to 805 ILCS 215/406 (f) with regard to the statutory prohibitions infra.
Thus, in most of the nursing homes  – I say most, because there might be an exception or two – the licensed administrator manages the nursing home and is usually paid a salary.     There is no provision for an unlicensed administrator.    Now read 805 ILCS 215/406 (f).    “(f) a general partner is not entitled to remuneration for services performed for the partnership”     Thus, Mr.Esformes, Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Rothner,  et al. have been taking money for management of the partnership and were not entitled to the same.    If this money was charged to the State of Illinois as part of the administrative expense in medicaid or similar cases the State of Illinois (and the United States of America) have been overcharged in the same manner as might be alleged in connection with the transportation, drug, nursing, etc.     The big difference is that with the number of nursing homes, the duration and **** we could be talking a billion (with a B) dollars in State reimbursements.    Depending on how this was reported on tax returns were could be talking about a significant amount of taxes.    Accordingly, we need an immediate honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation into all these elder abuse/financial exploitation cases.    As I’ve indicated this investigation must do more than just scratch the surface.   I believe that the Sykes case is tied into the Federal Investigation into the transportation of nursing home occupants (Kaplan and Rothner), the pharmaceutical purchases (Esformes),  Energy (Multiut) etc  ****.   This is an octopus with many heads.    I previously suggested that there were three currencies used to ‘cover up’ the miscreant activity.    US currency being used for legitimate operations, nursing home beds for intramural transactions, and opportunity for even more critical scenarios.     (As I am not a professional investigator at best the foregoing is supposition.    It may be 100% wrong; however, I believe in its accuracy and therefore submit it to my friends and to selected law enforcement, including Senator Kirk to ascertain if my observations are accurate)
Now couple all this with the other politically related Elder Care scandals involving isolation, deprivation of rights, cover up, voting, etc., in which the cabal is involved, then we are talking some major money and a major reason for attempting to shut up lawyers who might blow the whistle or might alert the authorities.
As I informed the ARDC attorneys during cross examination, I intend to continue to exercise my First Amendment Rights and report to my friends, my neighbors, my clients and my government the information that I feel needs investigation.   As I told Mr. Carter and Mr. Doluce my files are open to them and I will share.    With our government is in need of funds to operate, I believe that those who desire to deny the senior citizens their liberty, their property, their civil rights and/or their human rights ought to pay their fair share.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Motion to Show Cause why Sanctions should not be entered against Attorneys Stern and Schmeidel

PLEASE READ OUR DISCLAIMER REGARDING PLEADINGS I HAVE DRAFTED FOR THIS WEBSITE.  IT IS AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE–CLICK DISCLAIMERS

Gloria, this is dedicated to your bravado today in court.
You go girl!

Atty: Pro Se
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585

NOTICE OF  MOTION
To: See attached service list:

Please take notice, that on October 3, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Maureen E. Connors or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED FOR PERJURY AGAINST PETER SCHMEIDEL AND ADAM STERN, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Gloria Sykes, Daughter of Respondent
Pro Se
Prepared By:
Gloria J Sykes, Pro Se
6014 N Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
ph 733-910-3310
email gloami@msn.com

Atty: pro se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585

MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED FOR PERJURY AGAINST PETER SCHMEIDEL AND ADAM STERN
NOW COMES Gloria J. Sykes, daughter and interested party in the above proceeding and respondent to a Motion for a Petition to Partition in the above proceeding, (“Gloria”) as it relates to the above Guardianship Estate of  Mary G. Sykes (“Mary”) filing this motion pro se,  and respectfully moves this honorable court to Show Cause why these two attorneys should not be sanctioned for making false, and blatantly misleading statements to the court, namely: 1) that Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini) was heard and denied by the court numerous times; and 2) Gloria’s Witnesses and Testimony to be heard in relation to her Probate Proceeding have been stricken by prior order of court when in fact they have not.
The facts relating to this motion are as follows:

FACTS:

1.    On August 16, 2012, between 2:00 pm and 4:30 pm, a hearing was to be held concerning invalidating the apportionment of property held jointly between Mary and Gloria located at 6014 N. Avondale Ave. in Chicago, Illinois.  While the entire family agrees (except for the Plenary Guardian) that this house fully and rightfully belongs to Gloria, and Mary’s name was added as a testamentary convenience, the plenary guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, has filed, and this court has wrongfully entertained a Motion for Partition AND a Motion to invalidate an apportionment agreement dating back to August 2008 and embodied in a court order.
2.    The time to attack a judgement and a court order is two (2) years as set forth in § 1401 of the Illinois Probate Code.
3.    In August of 2010 during a hearing, Judge Connors said she did not have to follow Illinois procedure and she could invalidate another courts’ judgements–referring to this court order.  Judge Connors said she did not have to follow § 1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure relating to the attack upon a judgment.
4.    Dr. Shaw, accordingly, was called to testify on August 16, 2012 as a continuing witness in these matters.  Gloria was to cross examine his testimony–which she did.
5.    Prior to the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Gloria brought an Emergency Motion to Dismiss the above proceeding for lack of jurisdiction under the Sodini case.
6.    The court heard argument, first asking Adam Stern, Guardian ad Litem as to his comments on the motion and he replied that the court had heard this matter “numerous times” and denied any lack of jurisdiction “numerous times.”
7.    Then court then asked Peter Schmeidel, attorney for the Plenary Guardian as to his comment on the motion, and he agreed with Attorney Stern that not only had the court heard this matter “numerous times” and denied any lack of jurisdiction “numerous time” BUT he even argued it on appeal and it was denied by the appellate court.
8.    Gloria repeatedly tried to make her argument that both were lying, there are no court orders that any Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction were heard or were ever denied, that her appeal was dismissed not on the grounds, but for brief formatting errors (section 341 compliance)–but the court cut her off quickly each time telling her to shush up and “not speak”.
9.    During this same proceeding before, during and after the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Peter Schmeidel made continuing comments that “Gloria was barred by court order to present her witnesses and testimony” when in fact that was not true.
10.    Gloria’s attorney friend, JoAnne Denison (Attorney Denison), then went downstairs to the Probate Files records office and requested and obtained copies of all court orders dating from January of 2011 to present, paid $21.75, obtained a receipt, and handed it to Gloria who then presented it to the court, challenging Peter Schmeidel AND GAL Adam Stern to find copies of the court orders they asserted to the court existed regarding striking Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits and the numerous denials of Motions to Dismiss based upon lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini notices) .
11.    Attorney Denison in the hall outside the court, again challenged the two and both refused her challenge to find the court orders Schmeidel and Stern told the court existed.  Atty Stern claimed he would find the order barring Gloria’s witnesses and testimony.  Atty Denison warned him it wasn’t in the imaging official records and he had better not mock something up or she will figure it out.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that both GAL Adam Stern and Attorney Peter Schmeidel be brought before this honorable court and be sanctioned for blatantly and unrepentantly making false, misleading and completely untruthful statements to this honorable court, thereby severely prejudicing and obstructing justice in the above proceeding as it relates to Ms. Gloria Sykes.
Ms. Sykes also respectfully requests that a hearing be promptly set on her Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit for lack of Jurisdiction because no Soldini notices were ever served upon Mary’s elderly sisters, Josephine and Yolanda and that GAL Stern be directed to subpoena Josephine to court because she is currently afraid if she “takes the wrong side” like Yolanda, Gloria and numerous other family members the GAL’s will not let her see Mary again.

The pack of Orders obtained together with the time stamped receipt are attached hereto as exhibit A.

Because it is believed that Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn Toerpe’s attorneys have interferred with the production of transcripts in the above case (someone is doing this, because they simply cannot be ordered and transcribed to date), a bystander’s report as to the above is attached hereto witnesses by Attorney Denison, Ms. Gloria Sykes and Mr. Scott Evans in support of this motion.

It is further noted that approximately 80% of the court’s file is missing, including 13 large volumes of appellate record which were sent back to the trial court in March 2012.  It is respectfully requested that an order be issued requiring all attorneys (including Ms. Denison and Mr. Ditkowsky) meet with their files and records and the entire file be reconstructed and then imaged by Files Department).  Much injustice is being done in this case because the file has been professional “cleansed.”  While the miscreants say it is Gloria, the reality is, Gloria is helping with a blog located at http://www.marygsykes.com where all transcripts and records are published. So if Gloria is helping and participating there and this blog is publishing the pleadings, transcripts and orders, it makes no sense to accuse her.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Gloria Sykes, Daughter of Respondent
Pro Se
Prepared By:
Gloria J Sykes, Pro Se
6014 N Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
ph 733-910-3310
email gloami@msn.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned herewith certifies that a copy of the foregoing Pleading entitled “Motion to Terminate the Plenary Guardianship” and Appearance were served upon the following parties as noted on December 14, 2009:
To:

Mr. Adam M. Stern
111 W Washington St, #1861
Chicago, IL 60602 via email and first class mail, postage prepaid

Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Fischel and Kahn Ltd
190 S. LaSalel St, Ste 2830
Chicago, IL 60603
via email and first class mail, postage prepaid

Ms. Cynthia Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, #200
Evanston, IL 60201 via email and first class mail, postage prepaid

___________________________

 

Exhibit A–The challenge to find the alleged court orders.

All orders from Jan 2011 to present, including dated receipt.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwRmhldlZPcmVHV2M

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwRmhldlZPcmVHV2M

And note that while in about July 2012 it says Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits are barred, there was no prior court order to that effect.  I was there in July and PS was lying when he put that in that order too!  Gloria tried to tell the court that, but she again was sushed up and told “not to speak”

 

Okay, let’s rehash the law of who is famous and who is not……..

Dear Gloria;

Thank you for your very kind response regarding what I am doing to try to move along the dismissal/nonsuit of 09 P 4585, which Ken will agree should have been dismissed 2.9 years ago, right?

In any case, I know you and CF have your panties in a bit of a bunch over the pleadings I draft for you completely pret a porter–ie, ready to wear or use.

I did Cynthia’s because she asked me for help in an emailing whining she had no help.

I did yours well, because I think you need to file that and I wanted to make it easy for you.

I know as a reporter you were told “don’t ever use anyone’s likeness or name without permission”, blah, blah, BUT it isn’t as simple as that and the newsworthy exception is very broad.  I assure you I am not using your name (which you keep on telling me and Ken you’re famous anyway so it shouldn’t be a problem) to trade off or palm off some sort of success or promotion for myself.  You would tell me that wouldn’t work anyway because your name and fame well out shrowds mine at any time.  And well, personally, I don’t care about fame, money, blah, blah, or I wouldn’t be doing this and Ken wouldn’t either. (In fact, I still have to figure out how to pay rent this month, oh well, that’s another day for sure).

Also, the companies that produce those shows are not in it to test the bandwith of that case law.  They aren’t looking to get to the edge or test the waters because that would be expensive and a waste of time outside their focus.  BUT when you have a lawyer doing a blog, what do I care.  You think CF’s gonna sue me with the famous 10 page table of torts she’s involved in?  Gimme a break.  Right now, except for the last little squeal, she’s laying low on a case that has been sans jurisdiction for 3 years now!

I’d worry about you, except there’s the fact you mostly like to do cases pro se, you write motions with no less than a dozen unrelated topics in them, you give spontaneous speeches to the court also with no less than 10 unrelated topics in the speech, you don’t trust or listen to lawyers, so that’s an easy one there.  Not worried.  It’s okay tho, because in the Probate case, I personally enjoyed a lot of your speeches with 10 unrelated topics, but I was there for entertainment value and blogging, not lawyering.

Plus, I think it’s somewhat duplicitous don’t you, for me to be in the area of law and afraid that someone will sue me over something stupid?  Well, I see other lawyers whine about getting sued for their tortious behaviors and I think they need to put on big boy under pants.

Besides, the levels of views on the blog today was outstanding.  My dear readers must really love all of this–so for them, I’m going to publish your comments AND everything everyone has been whining about all over again.

You didn’t think I was a weenie lawyer, did you?  Naw, I still got all my teeth.

take care

JoAnne

PS–and while I’m publishing all this stuff again, I want to esp. dedicate it to Gloria, Cynthia and Lucinda who need a real lesson in First Amendment rights.  See Alvarez case and the Pentagon Papers or just watch the movie.  Yep, just checked, Pentagon Papers is on Netflix, as well as Daniel Ellsburg’s “Most Dangerous Man in America” and another documentary I have not seen (Shouting Fire, I put in in my queue).  Your homework is for Gloria, Lucinda and Cynthia to watch these and get back to me tomorrow.  That’ll keep you all up!  I also like the Wikileaks guy and you should read his bio on Wikipedia.  Another one of my heroes.  I think they’re doing a movie or there was a book or something.  He’s great.

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 6:46 PM
To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” , Lucinda , NASGA , “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , Tim Lahrman NASGA , matt senator kirk , LUCIUS VERENUS , states attorney , Sherrif Dart , Elaine NAsga
Cc: scott evans , “k_bakken@att.net” , Chicago Tribune , savage@suntimes.com
Subject: RE: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

Dear All,
I have been involved in the publishing world since 1983 and the broadcast industry since 1975 and there one rule any reputable journalist must obey:  never publish a person’s likeness or name without prior permission in writing (rights agreements) unless of course that person is a public figure such as politicians, the Pope and/or Brittany Spears.  What we can do and we do do legally is used documents and or publicized recordings of men and women, to thoroughly report stories. That said, a reputable writer/author/reporter will not call a person x, unless there is evidence which the blogger, reporter, et al, produces along with the statement, and most of the time we don’t say it, we quote someone who has given us permission to publish their name and likeness and obviously what they have said.  That said, today’s journalist or blogger crosses the line often, and all to often uses adjectives to describe a person or persons that may appear to defame, but in the Sykes case, there are over 12 volumes of verified court documents where Cynthia Farenga and her colleagues have defamed and discredit me with ease, in order to create the appearance of their client, Carolyn Toerpe being the good daughter, and I am the bad daughter and my mother in her petition for an order of protection was ‘confused’ as to which daughter is which.
I’m a human lie detector, or so I’ve been called by colleagues who has, in the past been able to point to people’s lies and get them to ultimately tell the truth.  The truth, you know is not always spoken, but often in the eyes, the actions, the reactions and body and facial movements of people.  What drives me up a wall is when people LIE to me, LIE to the court, LIE for their own personal gain.  I was once standing before Judge Stuart, and I appeared before her only after I rattled off my customary I do not waive my rights to jurisdiction, and then the Sodini requirements, attorney Peter Schmiedel was lying about documents filed, and blabbing as he does, puffed up like a peacock and arms tightly crossed in front of him  (sure sign of a person who doesn’t believe what he or she is saying).   I blurted out, “LIAR” and as mouths dropped, Schmiedel backed off from the bench and mumbled, “I’m going to sue you for libel…”.  Adam Stern rushed to his rescue and said, “He didn’t say that…” and I dropped the documents I was holding to disappear from the bench.  Judge Stuart gave me an opportunity to leave the courtroom, where I was able to compose myself.  There are serious consequences to the LIES we tell and in the Sykes case the life of a once vibrant, loving, healthy, active, involved woman, my mother, is at stake.
I’m not defending JD: nor am I taking the side of Lucinda, who I do respect.  What is needed her is a sense of civility for all people, even people we don’t agree with.  I personally would love to get Cynthia Farenga in a room and ask her questions.  I’m certain she wouldn’t agree to that: she wouldn’t wont to go down that rabbit hole as there’s no telling what will bite her.  That said, a hard truth is better than a soft lie.  The hard truth is this:  Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern agreed to disregard, cover-up, destroy the ‘truths’ in the Sykes case in order to comply with an agreement between them and Toerpe and Toerpe’s attorneys  for financial gain.  Hiding behind what they believe is ‘immunity’ they will and have stopped at nothing to cause me great harm, financial loses, and in their sociopathic minds, silence me and walk away with the Lumbermen’s money, my home and my  mother’s home.  Although the Illinois Probate Act of 1975 mandates that after the appointment of a guardian, the GAL’s are automatically dismissed, in order to protect the law firm of Fiscal and Kahn, who made a similar agreement, CF and AS have lied to every Judge since, every law enforcement agency and even the political elite, telling them that notices were served, they were reappointed to the case because of me (transference is a clear sign of LYING and guilt), and meanwhile, Toerpe had retained five attorneys from Fischel and Kahn, Leslie ? for the adversary in the bankruptcy court, and of course Harvey Jack Waller and his son:   Technically my mother is paying for 10 attorneys to keep her isolated, drug her, steal her home and her estate, destroy all people my mother loves and trusts, and, ultimately, murder her!
Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Amanda Brynes, and the other two male attorneys from Fischel and Kahn, have not put in for one dime however, which is curious, don’t you think?  There is a confidential settlement agreement which lays out how each of these attorneys will get paid, and I will make that available at the proper time: I refused to sign the agreement and AS, PS, CF and my attorney at the time JB attempted to file an in camera statement stating that I am bi polar and mentally ill.
What I’m trying to say is that JoAnne Denison can write her little head off as long as she doesn’t put words in my mouth, in another person’s mouth and when she uses adjectives, she backs it with evidence.  FYI Toerpe stopped me from paying the mortgage on 6014 and then she stopped paying the mortgage on 6014 and claimed in her inventory she was paying, but I am certain she is paying attorney fees instead.  Law firms like Fischel and Kahn do not work for free and they do not have a pro bono department: a friend called and was turned away.  “Times are tough,” she was told, et al.  Ironically, I talked to attorney Peter Schmiedel about hiring him in October/November 2009 and his firm declined to take my case.  I watched him defend for Elizabeth on the Lydia Taylor case and was impressed.  In fact in that case he argued the Struck case to get his client visitation: in the Sykes case he attempted to use it to stop me from associating with my mother.
I don’t like JD’s tactics, but I am mad as hell at the trickery used by Cynthia Farenga, ADam Stern, et al.  I don’t think JD is trying to influence any person as the Probate Court has dug in and is sanctioning this lawlessness.  I also thin that we need to be civil and present the “truth” the “facts’ in a professional manner.  Name calling is childish: the documents speak for themselves.
Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel have spent a lifetime over the past three years defaming and discrediting me, attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky and even JoAnne Denison: it is their cottage industry of ‘business-as-usual’ sanction by the Court.  That said, at least JD is publishing the transcripts, documents filed with the court and proven over and over again that there are and were not Sodini notices and therefore, the Court has held proceedings without jurisdiction.  The orders are void.  There is no guardianship and that is what is important.
Show me the proof and I will present in a reputable forum, but CF, AS, PS cannot provide one ounce of evidence.  They got the court to deny me a right to have witnesses or bring evidence to the attention of the court, meanwhile they’ve froze my assets, stole my homestead and a good portion of my property of my estate and the worse thing, they won’t let my mother see or talk to me and have perpetrated undue influence on her that is damming.  They’ve told my mother that I ‘abandoned’ her and that I ‘stole’ her home, her property, and all her money.
I will be filing documents tomorrow, and at the end of the week, and next week too.  There was and is no Sodini notices and Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel know this.  No one is trying to ‘influence’ the ARDC or the Court.  We just want an honest investigation.  The truth leaves tracks and it’s time to go down the rabbit hole.  Unfortunately for Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel and Deborah Jo Soehlig and Amanda B, and Joel Brodsky, what respectable investigators will find will bit each one in the ass — the truths will also save my mother’s life.  That is all I care about.
Does anybody want to join me in saving my mothers life?  Saving her life will save the lives of thousands of innocent elders and disabled people!
JD take my name off of and take Cynthia Farenga’s name off the document you wrote.  Now you have a template for any victim or hero to use in cases like the Sykes case.  It’s just that a template.
God bless us all.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:19:23 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

Thank you for your comment directed to Ms.Denison.
No attorney can ever stand quietly when he believes that an injustice is being done.    It is my opinion that you are misconstruing Ms. Denison’s actions and postings and thereby doing her an injustice.   What we have in the Sykes case is a situation in which a senior citizen has been deprived of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights in complete derogation of the ‘Rights of Man’ and the United States Constitution.   (The Illinois Statutes and Probate Act also are violated)
What has happened in the Sykes case is beyond belief – In point of fact any fair minded person looking at the record, reading the transcripts etc would remark:  “HOW CAN THIS OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”  (I believe that you and your organization have expressed this sentiment and have worked to attempt to allievate this terrible fiasco)
In fact anyone looking into the case has to notice on day one that the case is not only unusual but basic civil rights were and are ignored.  The Illinois Legislature in order to address the issue of seniors being railroaded into unwanted and un-needed guardianships set up some jurisdictional criterion.
From day one the two Guardian ad litem (i.e. Ms. Farenga and Mr.Stern) ignored the jurisdictional criterion and it appears joined the plenary guardian in actions which in my opinion are deplorable and unconscionable.  If you want a taste of what was promulgated read a random three or four of Gloria Sykes’ e-mails.
The net effect of the actions taken by the GALs and the plenary guardian has been to deny not only Mary of her rights, but Gloria Sykes as well.   What is particularly interesting is the fact that what was done was done without jurisdiction.   Required basic jurisdictional steps have been routinely ignored.   The one jurisdictional challenge was by me and it was successful.
Ms. Denison has requested Ms. Farenga to do what a lawyer (or judge) should have done on Day one – as there is no jurisdiction – ask for dismissal of the case.  In my opinion it is a procrustean application of political correctness to suggest that requesting a court appointed GAL to correct a mistake (whether intentional or not) is not entirely appropriate.  Is  Ms.Farenga  such an ‘august person’ that like the queen of England it is treason to suggest that she cannot be wrong?   I do not think so.    Moreover – drafting a document so that Ms. Farenga can effortlessly correct the problem of lack of jurisdiction and continued violation of Mary Sykes’ civil rights is also entirely appropriate.
No one ever said or posted (or implied ) that Ms. Farenga attorned, agreed, or signed the documents that Ms. Denison prepared.   In fact Ms. Farenga refused to participate in the remediation.    In fact Ms. FArenga refused to participate in the call for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.   We ‘peons’ do not understand such complexities.   All we understand is it is wrong to deny grandma of her liberty and property.   It is wrong to attempt to intimidate.   It is wrong to bear false witness.   It is wrong to loot grandma’s estate.   We do not accuse Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, or even Ms. Troepe of anything – all we ask is for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation.
Instead of the necessary investigation that will vindicate the Sykes family, the Sykes neighbors and the Sykes friends, we have gotten intimidation in the form of sanction motions (now moot and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction), complaints to the disciplinary boards, and violations of our First Amendment Rights.  One of the attorneys retained by Gloria Sykes pointed out that every attorney has been threatened with disciplinary proceedings and possible loss of his/her license.   Even the Gulag of Russia were not that brazen!  The brown shirts were more subtle!   (yes I know you are part of choir – but a lawyer has to pompous – it is part of the definition)
It is unfortunate but the Sykes case is not isolated or unique.  The September GAO report details a bunch of similar cases and people writing to blogs have reported even more.    Mr. Wyman published a book concerning his mother’s experiences and several other have started blogs.  I am starting to avoid railroad crossings and I check the showers to make certain that water is the liquid that is being delivered.
Let me leave you with the parting thought:  If Cynthia Farenga is in good faith she has nothing at all to fear from an honest complete and comprehensive investigation hy law enforcement.    If Cynthia Farenga is in good faith she is aware that the Sodini protections of the probate act were not afforded Mary Sykes and therefore as they are jurisdictional she will either sign the documents drafted by Attorney Denison or draft her own so as that Mary Sykes can be free and Gloria Sykes can get her life back.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: Michigan Advocacy Project <michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com>
To: NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com; Kenneth Ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; JoAnne M Denison <joanne@denisonlaw.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

TO: JOANNE DENISON, Attorney

RE: YOUR COMPOSING AND INTERNET POSTING OF A FAKE LEGAL DOCUMENT (“MOTION TO DISMISS” to Cook County, IL, Probate Division), IN WHICH YOU ASCRIBE AUTHORSHIP OF THE “MOTION” TO ANOTHER ATTORNEY (WHOM YOU HAVE PUBLICLY DEFAMED IN THE PAST), TO FURTHER YOUR OWN AGENDA:

https://marygsykes.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/for-cynthia-farenga-motion-to-dismissnon-suit-for-lack-of-sodini-jurisdiction/

Along with readers of the “marygsykes” blog, National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse-e-group members and numerous other recipients of the email (below), I have read your recent display of defamatory sarcasm against one of several attorneys involved in Mary G. Sykes’ guardianship proceedings.  Despite your intrepid, illusory wordsmithing, I “see through your brain like I see through the water that runs down my drain.”  *

You have been attempting to influence the course of probate and attorney disciplinary proceedings in less-than-admirable ways.  (Purportedly, due to lack of “standing” with the court at this time, you cannot file the “Motion” you wrote and the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) is investigating a complaint about your professional conduct.)  While some people might suggest that you have every right ‘under the U. S. Constitution’ to declare and foster denigrating opinions about others to the world, without consequence, I disagree.  Regardless of your views about the court’s ‘jurisdiction’ and authority to supervise this vulnerable person’s care and estate, intentionally ‘putting words in someone else’s mouth’ to intimidate or coerce that person (‘official’ or otherwise) into taking an action that s/he has not elected to take independently is ethically unsound.  More specifically, were your intentions true, you might have simply called Cynthia Farenga, Attorney/GAL, on the phone and discussed your idea – or written a proper letter to her – or made an appointment at her office.

Perhaps you have taken a mini-course in Anti-Defamation Law and hope to outwit your perceived legal opponents by writing scathing commentaries, unchecked.  Perhaps you plan to produce a bundle of biased letters for the IARDC, as distractions from attorney conduct issues.  Perhaps you just believe that recklessly libeling anyone who does not vociferously agree with you or your legal protégé du jour is ‘OK’; I don’t.  (If I had not read my phrases on the “marygsykes” blog, extrapolated without context or permission, I might have reserved comment at this time.)  A ‘for entertainment only’ disclaimer on a blog entry does not suffice when misrepresenting the intentions of others in print, no matter how imaginatively.  “Entertainment” like this is bad for guardianship victims and their families, everywhere.

I am copying Ms. Farenga with this letter; please do not construe this common courtesy as an expression of allegiance toward any party or the court.

Sincerely,
Lucinda P. Lambert

* Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”

P.S.  Kenneth Ditkowsky originated the Denison email.  As NASGA’s Moderator passes Mr. Ditkowsky’s emails through the e-group, this so goes this “Reply All,” with exception of Ms. Farenga.

From JoAnne:

Sorry, but with my own blogs I don’t follow the one above.  No offense.  Just no time.

BUT, I did respond to Lucinda as follows:

Dear Michigan Advocacy Project

I can answer that.  You know, I really hate to do all the typing work to get all my pleadings done.  I would like someone to type up all my Motions, Notices of Motion, Certificates of Service.  Ken will attest to the fact, it just drudgery.  I like typing the argument best and reading and using the cases.  The rest is well, busywork.

Cynthia Farenga asked me for help.  She said she had no one to help her because “there were too many conflicts”.  There aren’t because as officers of the court, we have to ensure that everyone’s constitutional rights are attended to.

The post makes it clear that I am helping Cynthia out and I did the document for her to help her out. She needs help.

Um, this is a blog.  There is no “public defamation.”  I did not call another atty any per se defamatory names such as slut, whore, addict, etc.  Did you know that courts are starting to say even calling someone gay isn’t defamatory?

In any case, you seem to have a lot of anger, but not a lot of direction, and certainly not anything much legal to say.

Blogs, the news and all sorts of publications are protected by the First Amendment.

Further, you seem to ignore the fact that I know Gloria, I know the family and I know what I am saying to be true.  And why are you trying to protect poor CF and the Ill. ARDC lawyer.  Do you think they are toddlers wearing their Tinker Bell pull ups?

They can deal with what I say.  And in any respect, it’s not particularly scathing.  With respect to the average journalism out there you see on the evening news, cable and what not, I’m pretty Marvin Milktoast.

But if it gets you reading, go for it!

thanks for emailing me with your concerns.  i do appreciate your reaching out.  I don’t know if I can answer all your emails because I’m busy protecting Mary and Gloria, but we’ll see if I can help you out too.

Peace,

JoAnne

PS–And what kind of an Advocacy project are you when you promote courts that operate without due process, constitutional protections for years.  You need to think about this before you seek to “help” people.
PPS–I’m not sure I understand your concerns that I am “improperly influencing” a bunch of (corrupt) attorneys?  I really don’t get that.  I think you can improperly influence someone of limited or fragile mind, such as a child (not my kids, they were all smart alecks and brats), but an adult?  an attorney? are you kidding?  CF last I looked was a big girl.  And Leah Black at the ARDC is a big girl too.  What you said is kind of insulting to them, in a way.  I hope you see that.  It’s as if you’re assuming someone snatched their brains away and we should all protect them for that.  Hmmm maybe you do have a point, but not in the way you might have thought.  Peace.

PPPS–any psychologist and linguist will tell you sarcasm is a valid, useful and necessary form of communication in any society.  It’s only teachers that don’t like it because it makes the whole class laugh.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: marygsykes <donotreply@wordpress.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [New post] For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction

New post on marygsykes

For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction
by jmdenison
Dear Readers;
Below inline and via a link you can find the entitled motion I sent to Cynthia today.
We are all hoping she will file this motion and do the right thing.
If it were me, I would hate to do it, but I would do it.  I have had to do this before, and it’s a killer thing to do, but an atty has to explain to the client why s/he will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and then do it.
It’s horrible.  It’s a do over or start again, but it MUST be done.
Let’s wait and see what happens.  If she does it, it will most likely be the end of this blog.
JoAnne
PS – if Cynthia does not do it, I will send another to Gloria and then to Kathy and then to whomever is an “interested party” to attack that jurisdiction.  This is a serious, constitutional, due process flaw in the case ab initio.
PPS – the link:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTmJQdU5IU1dPYkU
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTmJQdU5IU1dPYkU
link to exhibits:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbE9CQmNhelBnQjg
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbE9CQmNhelBnQjg
Attorney Code _____________
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION
To: See attached service list:
Please take notice, that on _August 1, 2012, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Jane Louis Stuart or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SODINI JURISDICTION, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________________
Cynthia Farenga
Guardian Ad Litem
Prepared By:
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
cfarenga@comcast.net
Attorney Code #14,867
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
EMERGENCY
MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI
JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON
PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP
This motion is brought by Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga (“Farenga”) pursuant to Probate Code 735 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f) requiring written Notice for any Hearing on Guardianship be provided by the Petitioner in the matter to all close relatives (as defined by the Probate Act) and served no less than 14 days in advance of the hearing.  The onE and only necessary ground for this motion is that Petitioner, Carolyn Toerpe, and her attorneyS of record, failed to serve ANY close relatives as required under this Probate Code section with ANY written form of notice 14 days in advance of the hearing date, as declared in the attached pleadings recently brought to my attention.
The grounds for this motion are:
1.      The Illinois Probate Act 755 ILCS § 5/11a:
(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.  755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
2.     The Illinois Probate Act define the required notice be served upon adult children     and siblings of the Respondent.  In the above case, Mary G. Sykes has two adult     sisters, Ms. Yolanda Bakken and Ms. Josephine DiPietro, as well as a daughter     Gloria Sykes who should have been served under 755 ILCS § 5/11a.
3.     Attached is a declaration, Exhibit A, from one of the elder sisters, Ms. Bakken,     attesting to the fact that she was not served in accordance with 755 ILCS § 5/11a     (f).
4.     Attached hereto is a second declaration, Exhibit B, from the adult daughter Ms.     Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”) attesting to the fact that she was not served any Notice of     Hearing on Petition as provided for in 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f).
1.     The case, In re Sodini, (cite) (Exhibit C, hereto), makes it clear that these notices are     jurisdictional in nature and must be served strictly in compliance with the procedure     set forth by the Illinois State Legislature.  In Sodini, the adult sisters were not served with proper notice and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  (Cite).
2.     WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that
a.     The above cause of action be dismissed/non suited for lack of jurisdiction;
b.     All orders, including an Order to invalidate Ms. Gloria Sykes’ Power of Attorney be voided Ab Initio.
c.     All orders freezing Gloria’s assets be voided Ab Initio
d.     Mary be allowed to freely return to her home.
e.     Carolyn Toerpe be barred from conducting any mental or psychological examination on Mary G. Sykes.
f.     Carolyn Toerpe be permanently barred from ever filing an Illinois CCP 211 or its equivalent until further order of the court and for good cause shown, bearing in mind she instigated, continued and fomented a Probate Cause lacking jurisdiction since December 7, 2009 or nearly three (3) years, causing great harm, stress and hardship to Mary G. Sykes and her immediate family;
g.     And for any additional relief and remedies deemed proper by this honorable court.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________________
Cynthia Farenga, GAL to Mary G. Sykes
Prepared By:
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
cfarenga@comcast.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned herewith certifies that a copy of the foregoing Pleading entitled MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP was served upon the following parties on this ___ day of July, 2012 by the methods noted below:
Mr. Adam M. Stern
111 W Washington St, #1861
Chicago, IL 60602 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Ms. Deborah Soehlig
Fischel & Kahn Ltd
190 S. La Salle St, E 2850
Chicago, IL 60603
via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
Ms. Gloria Sykes
6014 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
___________________________
Cynthia R Farenga

From Gloria today—

To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>,Date: Aug 1, 2012 1:41 PM

If you all will please note my mother wants to die in her home, not the home of an named abuser.  It is her wish and like my father, she has that right.  All of my father’s care for the last two months of his life was paid for by either medicare or blue cross blue shield. No money was spent from his healthy estate and my mother didn’t have to pay one dime.  But then, the POA for Health Care naming me was like the petition for an order of protection my mother had verified by the State, was ignored.  Apparently and according to Toerpe, mother’s only wishes and dreams are the wishes and dreams Toerpe has for her — and as long as she and her partners in this crime financially benefit.  It’s sad when evil so obvious is ignored by the men and women of law enforcement who, by the way, are paid from our tax dollars.  Another words, they work for us and therefore, they should respond to our request.  In any event, this legal document the POA of Health Care is just another example of the competency and determination of my mother to free herself from the abuse and neglect Toerpe began to perpetrate upon her as started in 2005 when Toerpe took my mother to attorney Michael Hagerty and they worked together to draft a document that would confuse even another attorney at first sight, let alone a 85 year old woman.  That 2005 naked trust was vacated and a new will was generated, but Toerpe kidnapped my mother on June 30, 2009 with the help of retired Judge Gloria Coco and deputy sheriff at the Harrison Street Court and never served with the petition for guardianship, mother was denied legal counsel, was denied the right to pursue the order of protection petition against Carolyn Toerpe, and was denied her right to contest the guardianship: she was however, placed in the custody and care of her named abuser and financial exploiter and everything Toerpe did and is doing, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern is or has accused me of.  No evidence is needed and the evidence against Toerpe is swept under the table for a nice fee, I am certain.  

No person in the wrong can stand up to me, a woman in the right who keeps on a comin’!!!!  Of course, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel are probably planing another ambush where they get Sheriff Dart’s deputies to handcuff me to a chair and threaten my freedoms and liberties and spit on our Constitutions as if they are trained dog-fighting Pits.  Of course, all of these criminal acts and treasons against our Constitutions are sanctioned by the Court, by Judge Jane Louise Stuart and also, Chief Judge T. Evans.  And obviously Sheriff Dart’s deputies were given permission to aggressively remove me from my homestead based on a letter written to the lawyer for Dart’s outfit by attorney Peter Schmiedel who reported that there were not pending legal actions and that the stays in the bankruptcy court for the Homestead and equity were lifted.  That Sheriff Dart knowing his men were in the wrong has not done anything to correct the problem says that he is a hypocrite, too.  He spoke before at least 100 law enforcement and elder care men and women in 2010 and said he was prepared to do what is necessary to stop abuses of the elderly: in the Sykes case he is a co-****.

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
[edited for typos only].

From: gloami@msn.com
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; dmsilver@me.com; timlahrman@aol.com; anniezhou@denisonlaw.com; wmrcls@hotmail.com; verenusl@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; yostwright@aol.com; pahah@verizon.net; scottcevans@hotmail.com; k_bakken@att.net; ildbambic@govabuse.org; wwdovew@aol.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com; gloami@msn.com
Subject: RE: Sykes case FW: [marygsykes] Please moderate: “A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria”
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:56:42 +0000

Attached please find the copy of the note Cynthia Farenga faxed to Judge Stuart.

see links at:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVnpBTjc3NThMS1E

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVnpBTjc3NThMS1E     

Also note in the letter she states that my mother is not living in her home: this is true because Toerpe kidnapped her on June 30, 2009.  I have a August 2009 digital audio recording of my mother asking me to pick her up and bring her home.  When I came to pick mother up, Toerpe had hid her at a McDonalds.  Kathie is witness to this horror.  I will make available the hour + visit digitally recorded for publication after I file the reply brief tomorrow.  Again, you will note how competent and rational mother is.  Toerpe, however held mother in a chair and would not let her up to move around.  Fred Toerpe kept his hand on her shoulder.  Again, Kathie witnessed this.  Toerpe and my mother was aware I was taping and Toerpe’s reply was, “It won’t make any difference”. This is evidence enough that the guardianship was a done deal.  I’ve been denied the right to bring evidence into the court of my mother’s extreme competency.  That said, I will make it public by the weeks end and I ask that all people post and cross post.  I will provide you with a series of photographs of my mother and me to lay over the top if anyone wants to put the visit on youtube. That said, it’s haunting.  It’s haunting.  The police were called and there was nothing they can do.  They found my mother hiding at McDonald’s under Fred Toerpe’s custody.  The police report found mother lucid but ‘confused’.  I’d be confused too, as Mother hadn’t been to a McDonald’s in over 50 years!  

 
Attached to the note from Cynthia Farenga is a copy of the POA for medical care.  The document was filled out by my mother in front of attorney Mr. Lippman, (he gave her the form: she met with Lippman on 25 June 2009 and vacated the 2005 trust and named her friend Marlene Kroll executor) and it was witnessed by neighbor and long time friend, retired LT from Chicago Fire Department, Chuck Maderer.  Kelly Yost notarized this document.  An affidavit by Chuck is also attached.  All of this can be posted as a reminder that the truth leaves tracks.  
 

That the Court sanctions these criminal acts against the elderly and disabled are crimes beyond comprehension.

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
[edited for typos only]

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:09:26 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com

“The Sodini notices were never served on my Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, or me, and at no time was there a scheduled guardianship hearing: Carolyn Toerpe was appointed guardian based on an agreement between her and Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern:: my mother was not present, but when she was present in court, she objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga when asked admitted my mother objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga also admitted my mother had not been served the 14 day notice: this acknowledgement was faxed to Judge Connors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”
Rather the vilifying everyone in sight – the expenditure of the same amount of time generates a Motion to dismiss using the above quote.    What is the big deal?
In the upcoming ARDC hearing I will want you to testify as to the quoted facts. If you have a copy of the acknowledgement I would like it.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
I am leaving out one email from Gloria because it goes on and on over and over about how I am not her attorney and I don’t represent her.  While I have patiently explained to her before that it is obvious from the blog, there is already a disclaimer to that effect, her thoughts somehow get stuck on that topic on a fairly  regular basis.  So for the 100th time, I can’t represent a client and do a blog. It’s not possible.  I am doing the blog as an attorney, an officer of the court, and as a member of the press because my blogs and cross posts are nearly up to 10,000 views since November of 2011.  What is on this blog may or may not be in the court files.  Blank, unsigned and unstamped pleadings posted on this blog should be further researched unless the are clearly labeled as found in the court’s files.

And believe me, this is much, much shorter than what Gloria wrote.  Saved you all time!

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

A CALL FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION

Ms. Farenga,
 
I thought about your last e-mail this morning and it occurred to me that you actually might not know that the Sykes case is not only a serious matter, but, an innocent senior citizen has in fact been deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights.    Indeed, it is possible that you might not know that the Illinois Legislature enacted the statute described and interpreted by Sodini to protect against exactly the type of situation that has occurred in Sykes.    (Indeed, it appears that jurisdictional protections appear to be honored by non-compliance in many cases such as Tyler, Wyman, etc  – the GAO report of September last confirms this theory)
 
The problem that you face – or will face is the fact that like Justice Sotomeyer the public is getting ‘sick and tired’ of lawyers claiming innocence for bad deeds that are clearly prohibited by statute.   Too often Judges have stated when confronted by a lay person – “ignorance of the law is not excuse!”   Members of the 2nd oldest profession also use the excuse of I did not know the law and other members are sympathetic as they impose strict standards on the public.    The Sykes’ treatment of Gloria Sykes is an example. Thus, while you, Stern, and Schmiedel ‘cut corners’ and act under color of statute to deprive Gloria and others of their civil rights you and the Court demand that people like Gloria Sykes strictly comply with the Rules.    Want an example?   You, Adam, and Schmiedel were well aware when you filed the sanction motion against me that the Court had no jurisdiction!   The net was you wasted your time, my time and the Court’s time.    Further you will spend hundreds of hours in defending a very viable civil rights suit that could result in a seven figure verdict against you personally.  
 
A second example is the Sykes case itself.   You, Stern, and Schmiedel are well aware that the Petition to appoint Carolyn as plenary guardian is defective, and that the required jurisdictional notices were never written or mailed.    Thus, as a matter of law the Probate Court for over three years has operated without jurisdiction.   The ‘cover-up’ is the Son of Greylord and ultimately will result in some sort of serious prosecution of the culpable.   How could you not know of the jurisdictional problem?   Justice Sotomeyer’s decision in Jerman answers the question – you are presumed to know the law and that presumption is very strong.   Clout only works for a short period of time – it works until the ‘clout’ is required to account.   All that said, Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes have a very viable civil rights suit.    [as the court has no jurisdiction there is no immunity and what would be absolute immunity for you as a GAL does not exist in the Sykes case]
 
There are many more examples of the Sykes guardian and guardian ad litem acting sans jurisdiction.   An injunction was entered without the prior filing of a verified petition and without the mandatory bond.   The citation proceeding is flawed!     You as a seasoned lawyer owe a duty to the ‘ward’ and to the ‘court’ to prevent such misconduct.   You have a great deal of temerity even suggesting that you are an innocent and that the only misconduct that you know of is that of Gloria Sykes.   Such a rationalization is obscene!   
 
A while back – after the decision of the Appellate Court throwing out the sanction for lack of jurisdiction – I offered you the simple proposition (Safe Harbor e-mails) of you reporting the facts to the Court in exchange for my just forgetting about the Civil Rights remedy that I am entitled.   Your rejected the proposition.   This of course was your right.   I called upon you to join with me and call for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case – if you had nothing to hide.   Again you and Stern rejected the call.   A simple review of the facts, the docket, the transcripts of the Sykes case and the reason for the rejection is obvious.  
 
No, I am not going to make any more offers of settlement – I have written law enforcement and others demanding a full complete and honest investigation.    Mary Sykes is in her 4th year of captivity.  Over a million dollars in her assets have not been accounted for and certainly not inventoried.   (For the record – I was Mary’s attorney and wrote up her will – I know what her estate consisted of and I know exactly how many double eagles she had and what they were worth – I could care less whether the guardian – who had the safety deposit box drilled shared with you and Stern the ‘booty!’    By your e-mails and non-action you have aided and abetted Income tax evasion)   I am appealing to you as a human being to reach out to Gloria Sykes and the organizations that support Mary Sykes and ‘free Mary Sykes!’   Join with Ms. Denison, and the organizations that support Mary and Gloria Sykes and request a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of not only the Sykes case, but all the cases in which similar events as have occurred in Sykes are rampant!   
 
Right now you are ‘young’ and do not face the avarice that many senior citizens are confronted.   Instead of finding themselves in the bosom of loving families, they are confronted by children who cannot wait for grandma to die before seeking to loot her estate.  Even more troubling is the appearance Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern who aid and abet the scenario and when confronted by the consequences of *** come forth with ” Gloria did it!”   The climate that you helped create is a cancer and will be something that you most probably will personally confront in your household as you have demonstrated to your children and grandchildren that it is OK to deny grandma her liberty, her property, her civil rights and human rights.    Newton point out that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and this is one of the primary laws of nature.    Today we recite the law by – ‘what goes around comes around’    
 
Thus, the joining with me, Denison, Sykes and the Anti Elder Abuse organizations in calling for an honest investigation of the Sykes case you act in your own best long term interests.    Even at this point in time – doing the ‘right thing’ will provide you with great benefits; however, *****     The decision is yours and we all will fight the death to preserve your right to act inappropriately and in derogation of your own best interests.
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And I need to add that Ms. Farenga, you need to do an Emergency Motion for Tuesday to non suit this Probate case due to lack of jurisdiction, attach YB’s declaration and Gloria’s declaration, although I’m sure Gloria will be there in court and Ken and I will be glad to draft up the order for you, and serve the Motion by personal service on each of the adult siblings and children as Illinois Probate Law dictates, and LET MARY GO FREE back to her own home!  You know there is no jurisdiction, AS knows there is no jurisdiction.  Perhaps the other sister’s affidavit will be in my mail today, I’ll go check.  Gloria will just testify.  Hopefully it won’t last an hour as she lambasts you and AS for your outrageous behavior!

Please draft the motion and personally serve it on Monday to all the adult children and siblings of Mary Sykes.

Ken, we need calls to Non Suit on an emergency basis and get the FBI/police to investigate bank accounts.  Where are the gold coins!

String of Emails between Ken and Cynthia tells it all…..

Dear Readers;

Something has happened that I never thought would happen, and that is a string of emails between Atty-GAL Cynthia Farenga and Atty Ken Ditkowsky!

I simply cannot believe that CF, a clearly ethics challenged atty is writing KD, an attorney that has been clamouring for an investigation since he first became aware of the Sykes Probate case 09 P 4858 and noted many problems with the case 1) an excellent long term care giver (Gloria) was chosen as guardian over a barely there, somewhat estranged sister (Carolyn), 2) the case was railroaded with a clearly deficient Petition not naming all close relatives (I just got a case like that and the response was oh well–oh well nothing, it’s jurisdictional, babe and an extremely serious fatal deficiency); 3) no discovery,e ven though discovery was asked for; 4) claims of gold coins being in the estate, safe deposit boxes drilled out and looted even though the Plenary Guardian knew that another sister’s name was one it—-oh go see my table of torts for further information of a long history of irregularities in the case.
So please read on below.  Cynthia is amazing in wondering and worrying about this blog.  The information on it is growing.  On Monday I should have up a page of “Important Documents and Evidence against the Miscreants” which will have things like my Table of Torts, the Declaration of Sister 1 saying there were no Sodini notices, etc.

My advice to you Cynthia (and this goes for Adam, the other GAL) is to waltz your butt into court on Tuesday with an emergency motion served to Gloria and the sisters by fax, email and personal delivery (yeah, pay the $50 to get the motion out to the burbs where these ladies live or drive them out yourself and apologize like a big girl) to nonsuit/dismiss and attach the petitions of Sister 1 and Gloria and ask the case be nonsuited because there is no jurisdiction.  There is absolutely no proof in the file that attorney Harvey Waller served Sodini notices, which are jurisdictional with the following 4 elements 1) it must be in writing; 2) it must be served on close relatives (adult siblings and children);  3) it must state the time, date and place of hearing and 3) It must be served by Petitioner 14 days in advance of the hearing.  None of this was done.  The GALs are supposed to attend to these details.  You and GAL Stern did not.  3 years of this nonsense against Gloria and her mother who do want to be together.
My advice to you is to nonsuit the case and join KD and myself in calling for further investigation and a complete asset search of CT.  Heck, do Gloria too and it will show she is not the miscreant in all of this. It will take an FBI officer minutes to look at bank accounts statements, balances, etc. over the last two years.  How did Carolyn pay for her daughter’s fancy wedding and finish up remodeling her house when she is a retired school teacher and her husband was out of work for years?  Pull the tax returns from the IRS and do a comparison!

Your job was and still is to ask questions and protect Mary.
You seriously failed in that.  But don’t wallow in pity–get going!

JoAnne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 27, 2012 2:29 PM
To: “cfarenga@comcast.net”
Subject: Re: Assorted

It is interesting that you think you did not do anything wrong.  You did and continue to do quite a bit wrong.  As an attorney and as a ‘human being’ you should know what you did wrong.   The first thing you did wrong was to have denied Mary Sykes her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.

Please allow me to be more specific.   [KD response start] The Statute requires that prior to a guardian ship proceeding being held Mary Sykes and all her close relatives are entitled to a written 14 day notice.   As an attorney you should be aware of this jurisdictional criterion.  Thus, it appears that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction.  The de-facto appointment of Carolyn Troepe is therefore flawed. I trust that you are aware that this makes certain actions undertaken not only questionable but patently illegal.   As an example how could Mary (and Gloria’s) safety deposit box be drilled and the content’s removed.   The contents included jewelry and collectibles.   I estimate the value at over a million dollars.    As this million dollars was not inventoried it appears that someone other than Gloria dis something wrong.   It also appears that the total isolation of Mary from her sister and her daughter were also wrong.   [KD response start]The aiding and abetting this conduct was also wrong and in my opinion makes you and Adam Stern Accessories during the fact.    If you want details read the ADA complaint filed in Federal Court.    

[KD response con’t]Of serious concern are your statements concerning Gloria Sykes.  You cannot point to a single act of hers that was wrong.   As a citizen – you know one of those little people protected by the Federal and State Constitutions – she has every right to resist the attempts by you (plural) to deprive her of her liberty, her property and her civil rights.   The reason I am adamant in my defense of Gloria and Mary is the simple fact that I believe in the principles of American democracy!    I would be such as vigorous in defending and standing up for your rights!   If you had done a scintilla of due diligence you would have discovered that Gloria had a serious insurance claim.   Lumberman (Kempers) denied the claim and she sued.   After years litigation they offered her and she accepted a settlement.   As Mary was placed on the title by Gloria to complete her estate Mary was as an afterthought brought into the Lumberman case.    Mary had and has no interest in the property as she has (had) her own home and therefore with the aid of an attorney she signed away her share of the settlement.    As Gloria would say – the statements that you made to the Court were all intentional and knowing untruths (lies).

I do not care if you pay the taxes due for the breach of fiduciary relationship, nor do I give a damn if you got dime one of the ‘loot’ from Mary’s estate.   I will leave it to law enforcement to figure out you culpability.

You keep making statements about the corruption in the judiciary.   As you are constantly upon on the 18th Floor, you must have knowledge of who, what and where.   As my practice is general I would not be privy to whether or not your allegations of corruption are true or false.  I do know however the the Sykes case has a massive jurisdictional problem.   The entire guardianship fiasco in Sykes is clearly without jurisdiction.   Gloria and her aunts were not served with the 14 written notice.   Gloria has filed an affidavit to that effect, and I am informed that Aunt Jo has also provided an affidavit.  Mr.Stern in an e-mail disclosed that in lieu of written notice he, you, and Ms.Troepe agreed that Mary should have a guardian.   Mr.Schmiedel is quoted in the transcripts as pointing out the application for a guardian was also deficient and no written notices were sent out.

On a level playing field a Judge first checks to see if he/she has jurisdiction and then if he/she does not it is ‘game over!’   Why this has not occurred in Sykes is a mystery.   It should not be as the Sykes case has two Guardian ad litem who are aware that the jurisdictional criterion has not been met and each has a duty to report that fact to the Court.   It would seem to me that that failure is not only wrongful but a serious breach of fiduciary relationship on you part.  You are not alone however – Mr.Schmiedel as an officer of the Court and Mr. STern as a guardian ad litem also are culpable.

If there is a word that you do not understand, Ms. Sykes can explain it to you.   I understand that she was an elementary school teacher in another life.    Your ‘clever’ repartee is not appreciated.   The Sykes case is a serious matter.   A senior citizen has been isolated from her family, her activities, her friends and her life with the aid of two guardian ad litem.    This same senior citizen has had too many trips to the emergency room and too little contact with her former life.   There is serious question as to whether this senior citizen was incompetent – it is my believe that she was indeed competent but railroaded by clearly unconscionable means into the loss of her liberty.

Ms. Farenga – if you had a scintilla of ‘good faith’ you would join with me in requesting law enforcement to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.    

Ken Ditkowsky

 

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Dear Ken,
I  know that you believe your friends throughout every level of law enforcement will soon be at our doorstep. I happen not to believe that since as far as I can tell, the only one who may have acted inappropriately is Gloria. I note you did not answer the question of why you are so eager  to protect Gloria when Mary was allegedly your client.Just what is it about Gloria that impels you to violate your ethical duty to Mary in the event of even a potential conflict between them? Again, using your own logic, how do we know you all aren’t in a a conspiracy to share any funds that Gloria may recover in this litigation?  [KD response start] I have a very viable civil rights (42 USCA 1983) claim against you, Adam Stern and Schmiedel.   As you singled me out and filed a sanction motion against me in a Court that lacked jurisdiction – under color of statute you violated my civil rights.   That should be a 6 or 7 figure verdict. [KD Response end] Very odd. Only you and JD have been paid, but JD continues to post invoices left and right claiming  hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees, yet we are supposed to think that all of your hands are clean? Running a blog is not a legal task. Who is the client that JD proposes to bill upwards of $55k plus interest for running a blog?  [KD response start]Why is that any of your business.  The use of a Blog and communication is a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.      It is my understanding that the National Socialists do not have any candidates running in the current election cycle – ergo, their proposed legislation has not been enacted and the Citizens of the State of Illinois are still free to object to the acts of denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights.  [KD Response end] [JD response—the reason you have not been paid is because you are acting without jurisdiction and engaging in malpractice and malfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty.  It’s hard to get paid when you are ultra vires and committing continuing torts on a routine basis.]
You will all continue to run off at the mouth. There will be no nice view of the prison courtyard for us because We have done nothing wrong. The corruption of Greylord proportions, the corruption of the entire probate division, judges and attorneys, the accusations against Judge Evans and Justice Connors–this is all your imagination. JD’s and Gloria’s. One day in court at the beginning of this mes (sic) Gloria told me she’d pay for care giving in order to bring her mother home pending the resolution of the guardianship. She retracted the offer the next day. You can post, email, fax, blog and do whatever, but in the end, I feel sorry for you. There is not a single fact of wrong-doing you have found (as opposed to your made-up accusations), nor will you. There is none.  [KD response start]Last I heard, it was a crime to take possession of ‘grandma’s’ property without her consent.    Indeed, according to Justice Sotomeyer lawyers are supposed to know the law and to be aware that Court operating without jurisdiction issue void orders!    Persons who knowingly  act pursuant to void orders get free orange jumpsuits! [KD Response end]  
Though I’m busy writing my own book, I feel the need to let you know  that we realize these accusations are all phony. In the meantime, when the IRS knocks on my door, I’ll invite them in for tea and crudites, answer their questions and sit them down to read all of the lunatic postings that are on line. I will be glad to pay tax on the income from my book, however. [KD response start]Unfortunately and unhappily the averments that have been made are all true and correct.    You can blame Gloria Sykes for the troubles of the world, but that does not solve any of them.    My dear friend – if you look in the mirror you will see the person who bears the greatest culpability for Mary Sykes loss of her liberty and her property.   You also will see in the same image the person who failed to report vital information to the Court and/or condoned conduct that is deplored by all civilized peoples.    I sincerely hope that when the IRS comes calling you can be glib and confident; however *****[KD Response end]

From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: cfarenga@comcast.net
Cc: “NASGA” <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “probate sharks” <verenusl@gmail.com>, “JoAnne M Denison” <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>, “states attorney” <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>, “Cook County Sheriff” <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>, “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “scottevans” <scottcevans@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:25:24 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Ms Farenga,

Please send me the file that you have from the Secretary of State.  The information that I have that in late 2008 or early 2009 Mary and Gloria were going to California and Mary needed her license renewed.   She could not do so as it had lapsed.   Therefore she was required to take the written as well as the driving test.  She passed the written test with flying colors but had to retake the driving portion.  It is interesting (but not unusual in Illinois) that this little fact does not appear on the Secretary of State record.

I grieve for you as to your tale of woe having allegedly not been paid.  Being part and parcel of the looting of a senior citizens’s estate is a breach of fiduciary relationship and a taxable event.  I know what Mary sykes had –  remember I did her Will.  She discussed her Estate with me and I remember a good amount of detail.  I even know the number of gold coins!   Your aiding and abetting the non-inventory of the assets of the estate makes you an accessory!   I let the US Attorney explain to you the consequences at a proper time and place.

Unfortunately Attorney fees must meet the criterion of being ‘necessary’ and provide some benefit to the ward.    The services that you performed were worth absolutely zero to Mary in that:

1) The simple protections that the State affords to Mary – as Mr. Stern reports in an e-mail – were obviated by you, Stern, and Troepe agreeing to appoint Carolyn as the plenary guardian.  If you have been reading JoAnne’s postings at this point in time you have been educated to Sodini and know that this technicality is jurisdictional.   As you should know – no jurisdiction no ‘cover’ of statute and the ‘loot’ is taxable!   

2) you aided a abetted three plus years of abuse to Mary, including an episode that placed Mary in the emergency room having lost ten percent of her body weight.

3) you aided and abetted Mary from having contact with her sister and her younger daughter.

4) you aided and abetted  efforts that were calculated to kee Mary from being represented by counsel and having a day in Court.   I would call this aiding and abetting the deprivation of Mary Sykes’ liberty interests.

5) you aided an abetted in the ‘rape’ of the civil and human rights of Gloria and Mary Sykes.

As the Court has no jurisdiction (Sodini) you are at best a ‘de facto’ GAL and as such you have no immunity.  Of course to the extent that your conduct violates the law you are culpable and have to answer to law enforcement.   As to Gloria, JoAnne, and myself at a proper time and place you will answer in damages.    (Had you seen that the Sodini protections had been afforded Mary – we would have no remedy against you personally – but using Stern’s words – this “technicalilty” *****

Ms. Farenga – a while back I asked you to join with me and requesting a complete, honest and comprehensive examination by law enforcement of the Sykes and related cases.   You and Mr. Stern refused.  It should be very clear that you do not have the ability to intimidate Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison or myself.    We are not going away and win, lose or draw before the ARDC and where-ever you choose to complain for you and Mr. Stern (and Ms. Troepe and Mr. Schmiedel) this is not going to end.   Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison and yours truly have no intention of meekly marching in a ‘box card’ to be later herded into the gulag.   EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A TERRIBLE WRONG HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY FARENGA, STERN, SCHMIEDEL AND OTHERS WHO HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED THEM in denying Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights.

Tomorrow is a new day – Sykes, Denison and I do not seek revenge or even recrimination – we seek the freeing of Mary Sykes and that she be allowed to live out the few days that she has left in the bosom of those who care for her.  How can you as a human being rationalize that Mary has been and is being separated and not allowed contact with her younger daughter and her younger sister!   (The million dollars in assets that have been taken from Mary is irrelevant to Gloria, JoAnne.   It may not be to the IRS or IDR.

If you recall several years ago Gloria begged you to join with her to free Mary and get Mary out the abusive Gulag!   You responded with one of your “Gloria did diatribes.”   At that point in time it was no harm, no foul situation however, you rejected Gloria’s magnanimous offer.   Too bad.

One more point – I do not know what the United States Department of Treasury’s policy is on those who aid and abet the evasion of Federal Income Taxes; however, I suspect that they will be fair and just.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:05 PM
Subject: Assorted
Ken,
Just as soon as I return from visiting my hositalized relative, I’ll send over the secretary of State’s file on Mary’s driver’s license issue dates and test dates. Presumably you haven’t seen the file, because Mary did not take a test in 2009 and her last license was issued in 2005 (working from memory, or 2006 at the latest).
How ironic that Adam and I have in fact been working without payment of a dime thus far, while you and JoAnne have both stated in open court that you have received fees. JD said she received $20k or $25k. [JD response—and I have also done about $180,000 in work or more to root out corruption—time I could spend on other cases and other matters, while you two fiddle on 3 years in a case without jurisdiction]
You can fabricates more “facts”, as you all will, but I continue to question why you, who once allegedly represented Mary, are so anxious to see that Gloria gets all of the settlement money w/o expressing any reservation. Maybe, Ken, you folks are the ones who have a financial interest in this matter and seeing to it that Mary does not receive any money so that Gloria can.Perhaps you are expecting to share with Gloria? [JD response—that’s inane, KD and I call for an investigation and you do nothing.  If we call for an investigation one or all parties can be investigated.  We never said only investigate CT.  You are twising words] Your  theory about Adam and me makes no sense, as we have said before. Adam and I did not know about any alleged money trove, be it gold coins or cash in the mattress and frankly, why would we? Gloria’s OWN cross-petition does not disclose such assets.  [JD Response—Gloria has complained over and over and I know I sent you emails about the gold coins and YOU AND AS REPEATEDLY TELL THE COURT “IT IS A FICTION OF GLORIA’S IMAGINATION”, and you do not tell the judge that Ken Ditkowsky, who did the estate planning for the Sykes for years, lists those gold coins in his estate inventory which lists and information are business records and should be brought to the court’s attention for further investigation]

I know that you are imagining these “facts” [JD Response–how do you know that—have you investigated?  Nope, not one piece of discovery has been served on Carolyn—and you could have done that back in Jan 2010 and prevented misery for all of us, esp. Carolyn because at that time she could have put them back and not spent them], but I occasionally feel the need to tell you that we know they are demonstrably untrue. And you should be ashamed to be putting the law license of a young lawyer, Annie, in jeopardy, as yours and I would guess JoAnne’s will be [JD Response—this is really interesting, it shows how little CF investigates.  Annie is a law clerk and that is on our website.  Cynthia, do you ever read anything?  Annie will be please tho that you think she writes well enough to be a lawyer.  I think her non-lawyer status is clear from her writing, but *****]. Now J has this young woman on the bandwagon commenting on an area of law she seems to have no background in, and parroting JD’s tone when she makes blog entires (sic). You really should be responsible enough to leave this phony expose to yourself and JD and not to stain a young lawyer’s reputation. If you are so sure you’ll be winning a gold medal for your Greylord- like expose, leave her out of it now and promise her the credit in the future. [JD Response–Cynthia, if you don’t do the work and don’t use your own name, then there will be no credit in the future for you.  Plus, it is important that if someone writes for the blog, that person is identified.  Anyone can write and post anon junk.  The web is filled with cyber junk.  I encourage integrity.  And it’s obvious all you’re trying to do is intimidate and bully around another person–not going to happen, babe.  Annie has read the Probate Act end to end and she has read Sodini.  If you have something to say to Annie, put it on the blog.  But right now you and AS have no jurisdiction to do what you’re doing and the world knows it.]]
CRF
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <timlahrman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:29:10 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction

The State of Illinois does not have jurisdiction in Gary Indiana, Cleveland Ohio, or even Milwaukee Wisconsin.    A subpoena stops at the State line.   An Illinois Judge’s order stops at the State line.   An Illinois judgment cannot be enforced in Indiana.

Our friends in writing threatening letters to people outside the jurisdiction of the Illinois are acting without any immunity whatsoever and it is my opinion can be prosecuted in the County of the State where the victim resides.    It is further my opinion that as the Sodini requirements for jurisdiction to vest in the Circuit Court Probate Division have not been met there is no immunity for their acts even though authorized specifically by a judge’s order.    The judge to act as a judge must have jurisdiction.    this is the reason most judges make inquiry as to jurisdiction as issue one.

The fact that a guardian ad litem sends an unauthorized subpoena does not vest the Court with jurisdiction over the person.    A subpoena must be served and must be served within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

In re: Sykes is a case for the ages.  I have never seen so must ultra vires conduct in any case prior and have never seen so much disconnect on the issue of jurisdiction.   Since Jerman the presumption of lawyers knowing the law is in the forefront and all these actions undertaken without jurisdiction are going to have serious consequences.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED

An elderly sister of Mary G Sykes has signed and mailed her declaration back to our office stating that she did not receive proper Sodini notice. This is GREAT news because now we are one step closer to proving how corrupt and unjust the case truly is. JoAnne has already faxed copies of this Affidavit to Lea Black. Now we wait anxiously as we wait for Mary’s other elderly sister  to mail us back her declaration.  Justice MUST prevail!

Below is a copy of the signed declaration!

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28 – (cut and paste if link does not work)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28

Fax to Atty Black at the ARDC

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
ARDC
Attn: Ms. Lea Black, esq.
Fax 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat.      Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com  or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Marianne Buckley, Associate, Of Counsel
Troy Sieburg, Associate, Of Counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see efax header  )
June 26, 2012

Re: JoAnne M. Denison ,  In relation to Cynthia Farenga’s Complaint AND
Kenneth Ditkowsky, the Sykes Probate matter 09 P 4585
PLUS my request to open an investigation against Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern, Harvey Waller
Request for subpoenas!

Dear Ms. Black;

Without waiving my representation by Mr. Ditkowsky, who is aware of this communication, attached are two declarations for signature by the adult sisters of Mary G Sykes, namely, Ms. Josephine DiPietro and Ms. Yolanda Baaken.

Their addresses are as follows:

Ms. Josephine DePietro
222 Park Avenue
Bloomingdale, Illinois 60108

Yolanda M. Bakken
1600 N. 39th Avenue
Stone Park, IL

I would appreciate your transmitting these to these ladies to inquire if the declarations are in fact true, and they were never formally noticed by the Petitioner in the above Probate matter as to the Dec 7, 2009 Petition for Guaradianship of Mary G Sykes which was filed by Carolyn Toerpe.  This would make the entire matter–the freezing of Gloria’s $272,000, her subsequent eviction, the partition action filed against her home, her continued harrassment by the miscreants–void ab initio.

Thank you for your continued attention and investigation of the above matter.

This important communication was also posted on my blog at http://www.marygsykes.com, and http://www.marygsykes.blogspot.com, so if you lose it, it will be available there.  Also, if you do not want to retype it, today’s post provides a convenient link so you can just download a Word file to change as you please or just print out..

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

JoAnne Denison

Joanne M. Denison

Cc: Ken Ditkowsky, via email, MaryGSykes blogs.

PS–this is also being sent to you as part of my (our) continuing duty to report serious and flagrant violations of the rules of ethics and relevant state and federal laws to the ARDC.

PPS–I am told by a little bird that Josephine thinks “being allowed” to visit her sister once every two months and a phone call once or twice per month is okay because neither Yolanda or her daughter Kathy Bakken–family members once very, very close to Mary G Sykes–were told they “took the wrong side” in the dispute and therefore they are not allowed to see Mary.  I find such conduct of an officer of the court deplorable, but ****.  So you might make Josephine aware it is part of her civic duty to step forward and tell the truth–the court has no jurisdiction and Mary is able to go free and go back and live in her own home if she wants.  And, no a Guardian ad Litem is not supposed to “take sides”, but report fairly and honestly.  Mary G’s sisters used to phone each other all the time.  Gloria held parties for her all the time.  Now CT keeps her in near total isolation with just handful of visits/phone calls.  I am told at a favorite niece’s wedding, the sister’s family table was only about 5 relatives when that side of the family used to have dozens of extended family members visiting Mary (see the Christmas tape links on Vimeo – the links are on the home page of http://www.marygsykes.com.