From Dan Devine–an article on protecting seniors

Protection of elder rights 24 hours a day

By Richard Devine
Cook County State’s Attorney
Our job as prosecutors isn’t always easy. We not only deal with heartbreaking violent crimes, we also run across clever con artists who deliberately target victims because they’re elderly or vulnerable. We’ve seen caretakers who mistreat their charges pitifully—and steal from them in the meantime. We’ve seen cold-hearted cases of financial exploitation. And we’ve seen home repair fraud schemes that operate almost like corporate firms. A recent Sun-Times series outlined the kinds of crimes I’m talking about. I’m sure some of you read it. If you did, you learned that what we handle isn’t often pleasant. The cases are sometimes pathetic, and sometimes our work is tragically sad.
Recently, though, I had an unusual task — much nicer than the normal routine. This time, it was my job to hand out money. Let me tell you about it. It involved a case that had more than 100 victims. The victims were all elderly, and none of them were rich. But each had made at least one solid investment in their lives: they each owned a home.
As I said, they weren’t rich. Their houses were often small and deteriorating. Some of these men and women had lived in their homes for decades. Their houses didn’t look like much, but they were the only real assets these people had. And then those homes became the target for a clever ring of con men.
The con artists worked out of two companies. One was Senior Citizens Remodeling, Inc. The other was the Senior Income Reverse Mortgage Corporation. They approached homeowners one by one and convinced them that they could improve the value of their homes. The sales people were well spoken, sophisticated and persuasive. They spoke of new roofs, brand new garages, new electrical and plumbing systems. They convinced the victims to take part in a federally funded “Reverse Mortgage” program. That program allowed the homeowners to borrow against the equity in their homes.
Then, when the loan checks came, the con artists stepped in and took the money up front. They promised to do repairs and renovations. They promised to make things better and increase the worth of the old homes. But they never showed up to do the work. Or if they did, they often did the jobs only halfway, or worse.
The owners were trusting. At first, they thought they were making a smart move. Slowly they learned they were wrong. They started calling the company, again and again and again. They did what they could, but they got nowhere. To their detriment, they had believed the promises and they were left with nothing. There was another part to the scam.
When the mortgage company arranged the loans, they charged lender fees that were out of line and above federal limits. In most cases, the victims never even knew it. But I’m pleased to tell you that that’s not the end to the story. When we got wind of the con, our office went to work. We took action against both the remodeling company and the mortgage company they worked with. After long months of legal work, we reached a settlement with the mortgage company early last year. That settlement for $200,000 was paid.
Then, later in the year, we reached a settlement with the remodeling company, too. The scam company was ordered to pay full restitution to its victims, and $50,000 in fines on top of that. After that, our office had another job to do. We sorted through the evidence to try to find all the homeowners. By the time it was over, we’d found 164 elderly people who’d fallen victim to the cold-hearted scam. Next, we had to figure out how much money the con artists scammed from each one. In many cases, it amounted to thousands of dollars. The best part came last.
Last month, it was my job to start giving the money back. That was a pleasant task. We got a lot of smiles and a lot of thank you’s. One man, who is 82 years old, joked about it. He told me he didn’t like the scam companies, and was glad to see them go out of business. “I like YOUR company,” he told me.
Of course, our office isn’t exactly a company. But we try to operate in a business-like way. And we try, whenever we can, to protect the vulnerable and the elderly. To do so, we’ve taken up new legal tools and a new system of organization. Three years ago, we reorganized. We created a special “Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Division” made up of experienced felony trial attorneys. The attorneys rotate duty so that someone is on call 24 hours a day.
These specialized prosecutors handle their cases vertically. That means they go to work when a call comes in from police and work the case from beginning to end, from the preliminary hearing, to trial, all the way through to sentencing. It may be a financial exploitation case, a case of abuse or neglect, or a violent crime. Whatever the case, we find that elderly victims are more comfortable if they can rely on one attorney throughout. It takes away some of the intimidation that courts can cause, and it’s worked. We’re proud to say that our new division had a conviction rate of over 90 percent last year.
We also have specialized personnel in our Victim-Witness program, who help guide elderly victims through the legal process. When it’s needed, they offer transportation and other assistance as well. Beyond that, our office drafted new laws to fit the crimes. We’ve written laws that help strengthen the testimony of older victims, and we drafted groundbreaking legislation that tackles identity theft, another crime that often hits the elderly. We’re doing what we can to protect the vulnerable citizens of this city.
As I said earlier, the job can be sad. And it can be frustrating, but not always. I’d like to finish by reading you a letter we got after we handed out those checks last month. This was from a man named Harlan Naas, one of the victims in that home repair fraud scheme.
“Thank you for making my holiday season the happiest in a long time,” he wrote. “I am age 81, undergoing cancer treatment, and had less than $100 to spend when the $3,200 check arrived.”
That’s why we do what we do.
Please remember that at the State’s Attorney Office, it’s our job to protect you. If you believe that you or someone you love has fallen victim to fraud or exploitation, please contact us. It’s our job to do what we can.
********

\

I just wonder where Atty Devine was when we asked the states attorneys offices to protect Mary G. Sykes.  Instead she was fleeced of hundred of thousands of dollars–which the attorneys said would be used for her care–but it went to the attorneys!   She was guardianized and railroaded into this “crime” without due process-no evidence of service of process with Sheriff Dart and it was a done deal with Adam Stern and Cynthis Farenga and all Mary’s rights were gone, she was stripped of her home, her nearly $1 million in valuable coins (and discovery was suprressed on those at my trial and by the probate court whenever the GAL’s Stern and Farenga said so, or Harvey Waller or Peter Schmeidel said so.  My trial was a joke with the Tribunal believing every dumb thing out of the mouths of Judge Jane Louis Stuart (who lied on the stand and was subsequently forced in the sudden retirement, likely by the FBI), now Aicha MacCarthy who was on the bench on this case when Mary G Sykes was narcoticed to death, placed in hospice and on drugs despite being a staunch Roman Catholic who put in her last POA to prolong her life by all means.

Where is the hue and outcry over the death of one lone woman from Norwood Park neighborhood in Chicago, her home sold by the probate flying monkeys for pennies on the dollar, stripped of her all her rights, isolated from 20+ former friends and family.

I understand that the Catherine Falk Organization is getting the Aging Parental Reunification Law passed in Utah right now, please pray for them to get this done.  I believe in California it is on the Gov’s desk for signature.  Please pray it is signed right away.

In the case of Gloria Sykes, she is now dead, being narcoticed to death, no funderal, no announcements, no obituary, embalmed while the Guardian waited.  No tox screen, no autopsy.

What about the other seniors.  At least Mary has quite a few voices–Gloria, Kathie, Ken, myself and others–willing to go to the ropes and beyond for one little old lady we knew and loved well.  But there are others–Ms. Lipinsky’s mom was narcoticed to death after she plead with Ms. Lipinsky, a beloved daughter not to leave her with the evil sis, but Ms. Lipinsky had to, there was a court order.  Not long after her mom too was narcoticed to death “in hospice”, and the sis made sure there was no tox screen, no autopsy and no questions, a quick cremation.

please pray for the below bill:

Click to access Peter-Falks-bill-NY.pdf

And if you get a chance, go to their website and show your support

Another good story to read is on the dangerous of psychotropic meds and how they are frequently used in nursing homes far too often and generally as chemical restraints.  Of course, none of this is legal in Illinois where the patient has to give consent to the use of such drugs, warned of the side effects and given alternatives, but it happens all the time, so please be aware and protect your loved ones.

http://www.news10.net/story/news/investigations/2015/06/17/45-area-nursing-homes-rate-below-average-for-the-use-of-antipsychotic-drugs/71258022/

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.

A very well drafted letter from Judy Ditkowsky asks, “Why did the GAL’s threatening KDD when all he wants to do is investigate?”

Dear Readers;

Mrs. Ditkowsky has been kind enough to share her very well drafted letter with us on this blog.  In it, the letter asks the most important question underlying the case, why do the GAL’s in a Probate proceeding threaten a third party attorney for merely investigating an alleged wrongful guardianship?

Inquiring minds want to know.

As an attorney, or even an outsider, it doesn’t take much to know that when one is threatened, there is assuredly a fat, thick, scab to pick that probably contains a good amount of pus and infection.  I’m not a criminal atty, but at least I know that one.

Read on for some very interesting news.  I never heard the entire story about the “threats”, I know the ARDC did not want the entire story to come out, so this is very interesting.

JoAnne

Dear Senator ______,
RE:  Attorney SANCTIONED for SEEKING TO PROTECT A NINETY YEAR OLD LADY from severe repression of her civil and human rights!
My husband, Kenneth Ditkowsky, was threatened three years ago, that if he continued to represent the interests of a large group of relatives, personal friends and neighbors in their concern for the ongoing health and safety of a ninety year old lady, he would be hauled before the Court for sanctions and also the Illinois ARDC.  At that point, he had done nothing but investigate what their complaint entailed.  I personally was present in my husband’s office when the two telephone calls in which attorney Peter Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Adam Stern made these threats, and heard them, because he put the calls on speakerphone specifically so that I would hear them.  Ken had done nothing improper, and therefore threat of attorney sanctions were totally improper.
 However, the threats were not made in vain.  Within a year, Ken had been sanctioned, and within six months thereafter, these same sanctions were vacated by the Appellate Court, as having been issued totally without jurisdiction.  Ken had been ordered (by the Circuit Court which incidentally had no jurisdiction) not to represent the ninety one year old lady and he NEVER had done so.  He had, however, as an attorney bound by the Himmel rule, continued to report violations of her civil rights.  He did so continuously, as there was no evidence that his reports had been taken seriously, and he widened the circle to whom the reports were made.  He also had a responsibility as a citizen to take action for the protection of a person whose rights were covered under Federal Statute and the fourteenth and fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution.  He had his own rights under the U.S. and the Illinois Constitution of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the first Article of the Illinois Constitution).
 Then step three was taken by attorney Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Stern, now joined by Guardian ad litem Farenga.  Amazingly, fifteen counts that Ken had misbehaved were brought by the attorney for the administrator of the Illinois ARDC. I use the term misbehaved advisedly.  The fifteen counts met no criterion of specificity.  Under the U.S. Constitution, a defendant has the right to know exactly what he is being accused of, but the attorney for the administrator ADMITTED in her response to the motion to dismiss that she had no idea what lies, deceptions, or interferences with the administration of justice had actually taken place other than that emails had been sent .
 Suffice it to say that the hearing officers attorned completely to the actions of the ARDC and subjected my husband to a hearing.  The hearing officer announced that two days and two days only were allotted to this hearing, and then allowed the prosecution to meander on until after four p.m. on the second day.  Under the U.S. Constitution, how can a defense be limited to less than an hour of a business day, perhaps a hearing going to late in the evening of a weekend day?  Beyond that, apparently there was some “underlying case” which could not be referred to.  The “underlying case” could only have been the matter about which the supposed lies, deceptions and  “interference with justice” were made.
Despite these obstacles, under oath the prosecution witnesses made significant admissions that they did not follow mandated procedures prescribed by state statute to protect the civil rights of their ward.  Furthermore, while each retained the title of Guardian ad Litem after what was a VOID Plenary Guardianship according to the mandatory provisions of the State Statute, neither undertook to actually perform the duties assigned to a Guardian ad Litem, which are to protect the interest of the ward against malpractice by the Plenary Guardian, but instead invented non-existent duties which were to the detriment of their ward. The statement UNDER OATH by Cynthia Farenga was that in most cases the duties of the Guardian ad Litem are over in a few months, while in this case the Guardianship she has been awarded has extended for over three years.  Does this mean that Ken has “interfered” with justice by making it possible for Mary Sykes to remain alive at the age of ninety three, having been kidnapped just before her birthday of nine decades under color of statute, been kept  isolated from her family and friends, and been consigned to “elder day care”, having lost the comfort of her own home and the waste of all her assets?
There are two CD’s, taken a year apart, of Mary Sykes, after her incarceration under false pretenses in a home and daycare center. Neither shows the feeble-minded individual SWORN TO UNDER OATH by attorney Adam Stern. The first was taken a year after the kidnap occurred; the second, shows the ravages of two years spent under hostile conditions; yet Mrs. Sykes is still aware of her situations, her companion(s) and is lucid. In addition, independent observers of  Mrs. Sykes have occasionally seen her at family events and have reported that she has been cogent; there has been no investigation permitted of Guardian Ad Litem’s sworn statement at ARDC hearing, that in his initial interview with Mrs. Sykes, there was no question of her incompetency. Mrs. Sykes is prevented from using the telephone to contact her relatives, but on the very day of the hearing, one was able to speak to her while her captor was not present and Mrs. Sykes was lucid and cognizant of whom she was speaking to (also, she was certainly aware of how to pick up and answer a telephone)  despite her advanced age and the nearly complete isolation from all her family except for the plenary guardian, the guardian’s husband, and the granddaughter and the consignment to a day care center offering no intellectual stimulation, much less rehabilitative activity.
 The General Accounting Office in 2010 issued a report of the nationwide abuses of the rights to life, liberty and property of elderly people.  Has this report been placed into the circular file?  It is up to our elected Senators and Representatives to stand up for the citizens of the United States who have had the nerve to live past the Soylent Green age of thirty and for those who who have had the nerve to care about the rights of their fellow citizens in the face of the actions herein complained of!
 Mr. Ditkowsky has spent untold time, energy and material resources in the fight to free Mary Sykes.  He has exposed, UNDER THE OATHS OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES in the process of this ARDC hearing, numerous instances of egregious disregard of statutes, court decisions, the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.  Under the most adverse of circumstances, his defense was able to show the TRUTH of the statements he has been making.  He was able to bring into evidence even more evidence of the truth of the statements he has been making.
 Nevertheless, the hearing panel did not consider any of this evidence but made their determination before leaving the building, as an order of misconduct was issued first thing the following Monday morning.
 Please be advised that Mr. Ditkowsky has never been accused of mistreating the elderly; he has been sanctioned and his reputation impaired for over two years for OPPOSING the mistreatment of one very feisty and resilient old lady. Isaiah, chapter 58 is quoted yearly at this time that the Lord does not care about fasting and sackcloth when innocents are being abused.  The armada of Government, however, in this case, is being employed to destroy the reputation of one who believes in the words of the Prophets, of the U.S. Constitution and of the Illinois Constitution, federal and state judiciary and laws and statutes.
 I am writing to you in the sincere hope that an investigation into the conduct of this entire matter over a period of over three years will be ordered.  This situation begins with the first attempt to chill any investigation into the circumstances of an almost ninety year old lady, on whose behalf almost twenty friends, neighbors, relative and fellow club members signed a petition and raised money for a retainer to pay my husband to look into the legal issues raised by what then seemed like a miscarriage of justice. It has continued through to the actions of the Attorney Registration and Discipline Committee which refused to dismiss an incompetent Motion for sanctions and in which its hearing officers issued an order of misconduct without taking the time to address any of the evidence allowed into the case as a result of the lines of questions introduced by the prosecution, which showed without a shadow of a doubt that neither the Guardians ad Litem nor the plenary Guardian were appointed in accordance with Illinois Statutes, decisions of appellate ( both federal and state) courts, or decisions of the United States Supreme court, in clear derogation of every free speech, right of association and right to petition for redress of grievances of the government.  Please investigate how this can happen in 2012 in The United States of America!
I apologize for the length and detail of this letter.
Sincerely,
Judith Ditkowsky
Dear Judy;
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for.  I loved your letter.  Tomorrow I am going to try to help John Wyman and test the meddle of the Probate Court in Rockford.  Soon as it is over, I will find the nearest Starbucks and give you all the results.
thanks again for your kind sharing and understanding.
JoAnne

From KDD–Sykes has TWO GAL’s. What are they supposed to be doing and why aren’t they gone in the case?

From Ken, regarding GAL’s and guardianships and jurisdiction
The Court must first determine in every case if it has jurisdiction.   If it has jurisdiction it has inherent powers to address the matters that come before it in the pending “case and controversy.”    The key words are “case and controversy”    After the appointment of a plenary guardian there is nothing more to do except supervise the plenary guardian.
A guardian ad litem functions as the “eyes and ears of the court” and not as the ward’s attorney. In re Guardianship of Mabry, 281 Ill.App.3d 76, 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16 (1996), citing In re Marriage of Wycoff, 266 Ill.App.3d 408, 415–16, 203 Ill.Dec. 338, 639 N.E.2d 897 (1994). The traditional role of the guardian ad litem is not to advocate for what the ward wants but, instead, to make a recommendation to the court as to what is in the ward’s best interests. Mabry, 281 Ill.App.3d at 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16. The role of the guardian ad litem is thus in contrast to the role of the plenary guardian of the person appointed pursuant to the Probate Act. Under section 11a–17 of the Probate Act, the plenary guardian makes decisions on behalf of the ward and must, in general, conform those decisions “as closely as possible to what the ward, if competent, would have done or intended under the circumstances.” 755 ILCS 5/11a–17(e) (West 2000). See also In re Marriage of Burgess, 189 Ill.2d 270, 278–79, 244 Ill.Dec. 379, 725 N.E.2d 1266 (2000) (guardian must generally “make decisions on behalf of a ward in accordance with the ward’s previously expressed wishes”).

In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374, 888 N.E.2d 15, 20 (2008)
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From JoAnne

Dear Readers,

Now one would think that a GAL is supposed to be the “eyes and ears” and not take a side, not isolate a ward, not allow any of her property to be destroyed by the PG’s atty, PS, but it happened.

All of it happened.

Nothing was reported to the court, there is nothing in the court’s files indicating any concern on the part of the GAL’s.

How could this be you ask?

It is most certainly clear that everytime a GAL ticks off someone in the family, they make a bundle.  They sell the ward’s paid for home for atty’s fees, they foment controversy, they get right in the middle of everything.

The other daughter is and has basically been pro se for 95% of this proceeding.  The GAL’s are counting on that too.

It seems to me, when these controversies are involved, perhaps the senior and her family have a constitutional right to an atty–and the Probate Court should pay for that, not the senior or family when wrongs have been committed.  This is especially so when the attys involved will be asking the estate for reimbursement in the case.

It is my opinion that once it became clear there was a conflict of interest with the GAL’s and the other daughter, the GAL’s should have been replaced and the case reassigned a new judge and the other daughter should have been appointed a pro bono atty if she asked for one.  That would have made the proceeding much fairer and ensured justice.

take care

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.

Summary of Procedural Errors in In Re Mary Sykes

From KDD:

I wonder if another letter to Judge Evans, Judge Stuart, the two Illinois Senators, the Judicial Inquiry Board, the ARDC. Gov Quinn and the Chief Judge of the Illinois Supreme Court might cause a stir!

Maybe you could ask as a concerned citizen how the actions in the Sykes case can be reconciled with the Sodini case.   For instance the Petition does not comply with the statute.   It is missing the names several people who are required to be named;  i.e., Mary’s two sisters.    The petition requires the disclosure of ‘powers of attorney’.   There are none.   755 ILCs 11a – 7.   Of course 755 ILCS 11a -10 (f) requires service on the ‘near’ relatives.   These are Gloria and her two aunts.   Neither was served.
If we get more basic, how come the proceeding was brought in Cook County – at the time of the filing Mary was residing in DuPage County.    (755 ILCS 11a -3)   The statute uses the world ‘shall!’
Sodini mandates that these technicalities are jurisdictional.   No jurisdiction means no valid court orders could issue after Dec. 7, 2009.
If you look at section 18, the treatment of a disabled person is mandated – Isolating a disabled person from her younger daughter, he siblings, her friends, her activities is beyond the scope of authority.   Indeed, the statute appears (section 18) is very clear that the plenary guardian is specifically prohibited from denying a disabled person her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.    The affidavit of Mr. Evans that was attached to my answer demonstrates how perverted the process has become in Illinois.
What is scary is the fact that if the process that was followed in Gore, Tyler, Wyman and Sykes as examples were to be followed in the case of Romney or Obama each of our presidential candidates could have Carolyn Toerpe as their plenary guardian.   Adam Stern could then and there tell the Court that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney did not wish attorneys, Dr. ****** or **** could testify that he administered the mini-mental examination and combined Mr Romney and Mr. Obama scored 12 out of 44 and therefore neither has the capacity to care for themselves and need ReHab assist to look out for them 24/7.     Cynthia Farenga can tell the Court with the same degree of certainty that she exhibited in the Sykes case that Mr. Obama was delusional when he said that he was the President of the United States and Mr. Romney has a vivid imagination when he claimed to have been nominated by those imaginary Republicans to be their nominee.   After all – it is unethical to confuse her with the facts – she has made up her mind, and besides everyone knows that there are no Republicans in Cook County.
In all seriousness we need an ‘honest’ comprehensive and complete investigation now!    I really would have trouble with Mr. Obama having Carolyn as his plenary guardian.
Ken Ditkowsky

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”

 

Today’s hearing–Fun and games with lies and more lies.

I really don’t know where to begin with today’s hearing–it was truly amazing.

First of all, and I truly have to congratulate Gloria, she finally filed some version of a Motion to NonSuit or Dismiss based upon Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)!  I don’t have a copy of it yet, but I hope she sends it to me soon for posting.

Yeah!  You go, Gloria.

Well, after that first stab with a nice large kitchen knife on the most obvious scab to pick with this court, you wouldn’t believe the out right lies that followed.

First, came the admonition from the Judge that it was her understanding that the issue had been dealt with by the court before, and she turned to Adam Stern and asked him if that was true.

AS replied that it had been brought up numerous times before and it had been denied. (Big lie no. 1)

PS then chimed in with how he brought it up in an appellate brief, he recalled writing the argument, and it was denied on appeal (even Bigger lie no. 2)

Gloria then tried to point out the appeal was dismissed for formatting issues, margins and number of pages, but the court kept on cutting her off and telling her “not to speak”.

The next topic they talked about before, during and after the testimony was PS constantly telling the court that Gloria’s testimony and exhibits had been barred because she did not send them to PS on time. (Medium size lie no.3 I’m giving it a medium on the lie because Gloria should have filed it with the court, she only emailed it, so I’m downgrading the lie.  JMHO)

Again, Gloria was repeatedly shushed up when she tried to counter with she had the dated emails she sent them on time and there was no such court order.  (Go ahead and look at the table of transcripts, documents and orders on this blog.  I don’t even think there was a motion in the file, let alone an order, and all motions by rule must be in writing and proper notice and service must be given).

And of course, you know me.  I just couldn’t resist plunking down $21.75, sweet talking my friend behind the Probate imaging and printing counter in the Probate files department for a current copy of all imaging of orders going back to January 2011 or about 21 months.

Guess what?  No such orders exist!  None.  No orders saying any Motions to Dismiss were filed and heard and denied, and no orders saying Gloria’s testimony and exhibits were barred.  ( I will post the packet in a bit and give anyone $1000 if they can find any such orders).

So, while Gloria was grilling Dr. Shaw a new charcoal crust on his liar’s sandwich consisting of multiple layers of pure baloney (he was testifying he saw Mary in 2012 but she was incompetent in 2008 to sign a settlement agreement after Mary met independently with a lawyer the day before, yeah, right, that testimony can’t be transcribed either), I was downstairs getting a current printout and receipt for all orders entered since January of 2011.

I bring that back upstairs, and have Gloria take it to the bench and present it as a minor “clean up matter” (when in reality it was a load of you know what looking for a fast moving fan).

Gloria proceeds to inform the court she just received a packet of all the court orders going back to January 2011 and there are no orders in there 1) denying any motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; 2) there is no order denying her the right to put on witnesses and her own exhibits.

Gloria says she has the emails containing a list of witnesses and exhibits and it was emailed to PS on time.  If she can find that to show PS is liar, I will post it.

While the Judge did admonish AS that he was the “eyes and ears of the court”, he swore to get the order barring Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits as untimely.  Gloria swore she never got a copy of the order, and I have to believe her because it’s not in the court’s paper file and it’s not on the court’s official imaging system.

Gloria told the judge she had no transcript from the prior court dates because all she gets is excuses when she orders them.  She does not have Shaw’s prior testimony, she does not have the testimony from May, though we have both ordered it.  (She should have made a request for a continuance based upon the fact she could not cross examine Dr. Shaw without a transcript of his prior testimony).

As soon as court was done, I looked for AS (CF wasn’t there due to a “personal matter”), and showed him the pack of orders and challenged him to find those orders in the packet.  He said he didn’t have time, he was busy writing up an order and he couldn’t do two things at once.  He never took up my challenge.  He said he would get it and email it to Gloria and get it to the judge tomorrow.  I warned him not to mock one up either because I’ll figure out how to show it was mocked up.

PS didn’t even bother responding when I challenged him regarding the printout of orders, he just walked on by.

But the piece de resistance for the day?  The ultimate kicker?  First the judge orders all of the attorneys outside the courtroom (this is despite the fact we really weren’t even talking about anything), and then she locks the door!  Amazing.  Even the cute little naive associate Amanda Byrnes who could not be more than 22 or so could not get into the court to get the last order stamped.  The judge kept on mouthing “come back tomorrow” for our orders.

You think we got on her last nerve?

I’m taking bets right now, 2 to 1: a) we never see the transcript from May 2012 or today; b) we don’t get the court orders.

Never mind.  Today I saw 3 orders drafted up.  Gloria initialed one and that was denying her Motion to Dismiss and she made AS put the grounds into it and he added “because it had been brought previously” (okay, that’s totally funny because jurisdiction can be brought up at any time and the court must make a serious ruling on it, despite the fact it’s an outright lie and there is no court order ruling on it prior to this day, with respect to PS’s lie that it was argued on appeal, it doesn’t matter if jurisdiction is brought up on the first or tenth appeal–it is always timely) and I will go back tomorrow to get the court order, then I will send Julia and I hope Scott can try to get copies.  I bet we don’t.  No matter, each of us will draft up declarations that Scott and I saw drafts of 3 court orders and then the court locked the doors and told us to come back tomorrow and when we did that, we were refused copies.

What a legal soap opera.  But you would think the Law Bulletin would catch on to this.  There’s drama, there’s lack of jurisdiction and the law at every turn, we have judges on the record saying they don’t have to follow the rule of law (Connors, August 2011), we have a judge tossing all the attorneys out of court and locking the door behind them without signed court orders, we even have a million dollars missing in gold coins!  Cash taken from a mattress.  A wrongful eviction.  Out of the wrongful eviction a Contempt Order against the Plenary Guardian.

I can’t think of a more compelling, addictive story.

So when did the court say it would consider final oral arguments on the partition motion?  October 3, 2012 at 2pm.  You think the court is avoiding something?

As Sarah Pallin says (and/or Tina Fey), “you betcha”.

And Ken already pointed out to me that it’s interesting how the date was well after his Sept 2 to 3rd date for his hearing on lying.

Who’s been caught lying now.

 

From Ken Ditkowsky. Who Atty Leah Black really wants to testify…

Ms. Black does not want Connors to testify, nor does she want Gloria to testify.    She would like to limit the testimony to Farenga and Stern and deny me cross examination.    Unfortunately she knows that is not going to happen.     The Alternate reality is not going to fly.     The strategy was to frighten me!    A Judge, especially, an appellate court judge testifying against you is supposed to be a terrifying prospect.     It is not if you realize that if Connors does testify she might decide to be truthful.    If she is truthful her testimony will be that there is a pattern of conduct in the probate division of the Circuit Court wherein seniors are all too often railroaded into guardian-ships in which they lose their liberty, their property, their civil rights and their human rights.   
 
Connor’s testimony if contains even a scintilla truth is going to have admissions that:
1) she was told on August 31, 2009 that the applicant for plenary guardian was unable get Mary Sykes’ doctor sign a certificate of incompetency  CCP211 and even though charged by the jurisdictional statute to hold a hearing in which the standard of proof was clear and convincing she never held a hearing.    Ms. Black denied that no hearing was held in answers to Request to Admit.    Thus, Ms Black is going to prove herself a bit aggressive with the her answers to the Request to Admit.
2) that she knew or should have known the record in the case before her and the record revealed that a) the petition was faulty as it did not name all the close relatives and b) the close relatives were not served with a written 14 day notice prior to the hearing.    In fact there is no certificate of mailing or service.
3) that there were other irregularities.    I’ve listed them previously so I will not do it again, but these irregularities were also jurisdictional and continue to this day.
 
I do not see how it is unethical or immoral to refuse to attorn to what in my opinion is corruption of the court significantly worse that the parent – Greylord.     How can any right thinking person sit quiet an allow seniors to have their estates looted and  their liberties forfeited.    
 
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Fax to Attys Leah Black and Steve Kozlov at the ARDC

First please see the links to the fax I just sent to Attys Leah Black and new counsel Scott Kozlov.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwNGEwbFVnSEpCc1k

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwNGEwbFVnSEpCc1k

Atty Kozlov has just filed an appearance on KD’s ARDC case, so we want to make him immediately aware of the quagmire into which he will step.

And Scott, it’s not too late to call Cynthia Fareng and Adam Stern and tell them to do the right thing and dismiss the Sykes Probate case no. 09 P 4585 before it’s too late for you too.

You are now aware the court is without jurisdiction from prior posts on this blog, in particular please see the “Important Documents” page on this website, and esp. Yolanda’s declaration indicating there is no jurisdiction over Mary Sykes because a Notice of Hearing was not disseminated 14 days prior to the hearing by the petitioner, in writing, to the two adult sisters of Respondent (Yolanda and Josephine) as well as another adult child–Gloria.

Gloria has been victimized in all of this and was (wrongfully) evicted  from her home, despite the fact she was a long term care giver.

Be forewarned, the case is wired and apparently it goes high enough to get into the ARDC, the IAG and other offices.

It is only due to this blog and other blogs that are disseminating the information that something is strangely and strongly awry in the Probate Court.

Please join with Ken and I to ask for and obtain, a complete investigation of this case!

thank you for your attention to this matter.

JoAnne Denison

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

Form to get any Probate case dismissed for lack of Sodini Jurisdiction or proper Notice to Close Relatives

Dear Readers;
One of the things I have noted by listening to dozens and dozens of probate case is, as in the Sykes Probate case, the court seldom or never asks the following questions to properly attain jurisdiction over the Respondent (alleged disabled person).

Illinois law requires 1) the Petitioner 2) must serve written notice (by mail or personal delivery) to 3) close relatives (defined as adult parents, children AND siblings) 4) informing each of the date, time and place of the hearing.
If this is NOT done, it is a serious and fatal flaw, and the case MUST BE DISMISSED OR NON SUITED, and the Petitioner and court MUST START OVER.
So, how do you do that?  With an emergency motion.  An emergency motion is one that is defined as one that is not on the court’s regular calendar and was not served with notice either 2 business days in advance when served by personal delivery or 7 days when served by regular mail.  The court does not currently accept email service, but many litigants and attorneys don’t mind or they prefer email service and that’s okay–as long as you have a written agreement to that effect.

But an Emergency Motion is entirely appropriate for someone living under a guardianship where every day of freedom counts.  That means all you have to do is file with the clerk’s offices, drop off that pleading with the court (bring a stamped courtesy copy for the judge to the court room and put it on the docket there)  the day before, fax or email it the day before and bingo, you should be able to get relief in court the very next day!  Be sure to let the Respondent know, and any attorneys that have filed an appearance.  The attys can be served by email or fax, but confirm with a phone call and tell them it’s very important to get over to court ASAP.  Generally, with a filing like this one, the judge will be asking to get on the phone any atty that has not showed up and s/he will wait for them to show.

Jurisdiction is a very serious matter folks, and it leads to malpractice suits against all the attorneys involved, the guardian ad litem and even the judges.  Jurisdiction has to be fixed swiftly and immediately.

for the link to a PDF version of the form:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwaWU1aFBZRjUtbDQ

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwaWU1aFBZRjUtbDQ

for the link to the WPD version of the form

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweGwwemJ6cEw1NUU

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweGwwemJ6cEw1NUU

for the link to an RTF version of the form:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwREt4ZS1LQ0dHYmM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwREt4ZS1LQ0dHYmM

 

 

 

Calls on Gloria to do the right thing and file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit

Apparently Gloria has some reservations regarding filing the Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit, even though it is very necessary and inimical to the proper administration of justice in Mary Sykes’ Guardianship case.
In this case Ken is encouraging her to use my draft or write her own–neither will matter.
Of course, those of you that know Gloria, know that she believes she must put per personality into any writing, so let’s see what she comes up with.

It’s okay to be better than me, Gloria!  I don’t mind.
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky

Gloria rewrite the motion but file it.  …[edited for extraneous information]
Let us get on the next step:
“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 Cnnors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”
I understand that the guardianship hearing was dated December 2009  – there is a gap between August and December.
The usual procedure is that when you file the original petition, there is a hearing date set.  This is the reason that the Court has ignored the oral statements and avoided the Sodini issues.    The movant then and there serves a copy of the petition on the alleged incompetent and the close relatives.   (this passes the test of Sodini).   A hearing is held on the date that is scheduled or on a subsequent continuance date.
In the Sykes case, the ccp 211 was not filed with the petition and no hearing date could be set and apparently none was set.   The petition did not disclose the close relatives and therefore was also defective.   The entire guardianship scam was intended to avoid for Carolyn an embarassment of a protective order and most importantly the return of the funds and property from the safety deposit box.   In fact Carolyn did not desire a hearing and when she placed the petition for service on Mary she intentionally gave a cook county address knowing that she had taken Mary to live with her in DuPage County.
In late August 2009 the Court was getting impatient with the fact that there had been no CCP 211 filed rather than dismissing the proceeding did something very strange.   She asked Carolyn’s attorney as to the lack of a certificate of incompetency.  She was told by Carolyn’s attorney that Mary’s doctor refused to sign.   Then our ‘unbiased judge’ made the famous statement to the effect that Carolyn ought to go out an find a doctor who was willing to prostitute himself. (Of course she did not use those words – but the meaning was clear!)
Immediately thereafter Mary was bench served.   I have assumed that the bench server duly read her all the statements required, including the fact that she was entitled to a lawyer.    Mary requested a lawyer – however, GAL Adam Stern thwarted that effort! GAL Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn’s lawyer were upset that Gloria might use the Lumberman settlement to help her mother and therefore the TRO fiasco was successfully commenced and Gloria’s rights were violated.
Mr. Schmiedel disclosed these facts to a judge, who just ignored them.  Mr. Stern attempted to avoid the issue entirely by a bold assertion that Gloria (and/or her attorney) had agreed to the guardianship of Carolyn.   Gloria cut him a new GM with her outrage at the alleged frugality with the truth.   However the fact remains that Mary was denied a hearing by the agreement of GAL Adam Stern, GAL Cynthia Farenga, and Carolyn.    |
As I understand it these are the facts!   Gloria if they are true let us bring them to Circuit Court’s attention and move to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.   Then, move forward with appropriate lawsuits to 1) obtain the work product stolen from you during the forcible entry and detainer action, 2) obtain remediation for interference with you repairs to you home, etc etc.
This case has gone on long enough.   We have called for a law enforcement investigation as the civil rights of everyone are being abused when a Court continues to enter orders without jurisdiction.   What is occurring in the Sykes case is the nadir of the jurisprudence and is rightly called the “SON OF GREYLORD!”
Gloria  – or anyone else – correct any of the facts that I have wrong.  Farenga claims “truth” is on her side.   OK when were the notices sent out?   When were they received?   When was the hearing held?   Who was present?   Who testified?  Ms. Black in the Request to Admit denied that a hearing was not held?   The docket does not show a hearing and no one seems to know about it other than Ms. Black. Maybe the Sodini compliance’s were all accomplished in a parallel reality – how do be access that reality?
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Joanne’s continued communication with Diane Saltoun-Illinois Executive Director Attorney General

Below is a fax that was sent to Ms. Saltoun yesterday. She is being kept updated about the fight against corruption in the Sykes case 09 P 4585

FAX_20120801_1343785279_36

A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

Dear Readers;

The RTF version of this has been sent to Gloria and KD has strongly recommended to her she file it ASAP.

The next version will be for Kathy.

I would love to see each of Cynthia Farenga, Gloria Sykes and Kathy Bakken get to court and motion this up and all present it on the same day.

And Adam, I would never leave you out.  Let me know if you want me to do one for you too!

thanks

JoAnne

Attorney Code 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
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION
To: See attached service list:

Please take notice, that on the ___ day of August, 2010, 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,

_______________________________
Gloria Sykes, daughter,
Pro Se
Prepared By:

Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com                                     Attorney Code # 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
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 Gloria Jean Sykes, daughter of the above Respondent, who is an interested party and should have been named in Exhibit A to the Petition for Guardianship filed by Carolyn Toerpe in the above proceeding and is made 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 undersigned 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,

_______________________________
Gloria J. Sykes, Daughter, an interested party
to Respondent, Mary G. Sykes
Prepared By:
Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case.

In this email, Gloria explains a number of obvious mis steps and bias against her and her mother by the GAL’s from the very beginning.  The GAL’s were never impartial, but showed clear bias.

Oh Scott, it gets better.  Adam Stern just happened to be sitting in the courtroom in Cynthia Farenga’s absense and Judge Connors, who after she admits she doesn’t have the file on the Petition for the Order of Protection (and the only reason Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, Scott, Dorris, Suzie and I were present on August 26, 2009, was to support mother in obtaining the protection order against Carolyn Toerpe),  and notes on the record that mother was not served and is not present, appoints Stern to (1) procure all of the police reports on Toerpe and to investigate mother’s assets (for a reverse mortgage because Toerpe said Mother had no money to live in her home).  The odd this is, that before Toerpe started to financially exploit mother to the extent that she is the Plenary Guardian, et al, Mother lived comfortably in her home.  The mortgage was paid on time every month, property taxes and insurances were paid, phone was paid, electric was paid, gas, et al, and Mother ate well, and we traveled the United States together…..  Mother was so active in the Community that out precious moments together were first thing in the morning when we walked out pooches, and from dinner time until we walked the pooches at 10 pm or so each night.  Looking back and reading the verified court transcripts, the Guardianship appointment of Toerpe was a done deal on June 30, 2009 when Toerpe kiddnapped Mother from the Harrision Street courthouse and took her out of state and hid her and kept her out of Illinois so she couldn’t pursue the protective order.  Neither Adam Stern or Cynthia Farenga were ever at Mother’s home and Toerpe made certain that she took Mother to Farenga’s office.. as well as all the court friendly doctors who signed fradulant CCP211 reports where Toerpe signed PhD after her name.

 
Once Cynthia Farenga showed up on the 30 August 2009, she believed Toerpe had mother medicated enough, or enough undue influence was perpetrated on the 90 year old woman, that Mother would coward, but she didn’t.  She corrected Adam Stern when Stern went on a rampage accusing me of abusing her, and then when Farenga told the Court the same, Mother stood up to all of them and spoke her mind.  Mother has never wavered, and so, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel hired Dr. G. Shaw to testify that mother is not only incompetent now, but she was also incompetent and unable to handle her affairs on October 18, 2008, or so.  This testimony is in complete opposition to Dr. Patel’s medical reports where he clearly told Toerpe he would not sign the CCP211 because my mother instructed him not to.  That my mother ‘makes sense’ out of any topic” and can “communicate on any subject matter”.
 
But let’s go one step forward, the Court orders Toerpe has to bring mother home on September 4, 2009 and Toerpe, knowing that I’m fixing up my back yard, yes my back yard at 6016 for a huge welcome home holiday party for mother, calls me and tells me she will be bringing mother home early, but in about one hour.  But Toerpe is already in the home (6014) and she drove her daughter’s car just so I wouldn’t notice that she’s already there.  But her plan is thwarted because I have ‘workers’ around the house, and he sees Carolyn through mother’s kitchen window as he is fixing a leak on the exterior faucet.  Toerpe then calls me and demands I tell her who the “black man” is along side the house!  I immediately return to 6014 and find Toerpe in the refrigerator, looking through food which I just bought for the party.  Toerpe tells me that she will buy all of mother’s medications at Walgreens (and mother can no longer get her medications from her neighborhood pharmacy where she and Daddy have gone for over 30 years!).  Mom and I hug, but mom is very quiet and looks sickly — she’s lost a lot of weight.
 
Then Toerpe walks mother out to my backyard as if mother is a cripple, and she she leaves, Mother tell me that she doesn’t want to go over to Carolyn’s home any more: that it’s weird over there.  I go back to the home and watch Toerpe get into Kristin’s car, and all Toerpe has are her purse and keys.  Toerpe didn’t bring any of mother’s beautiful summer clothes I bought Mom back with her, and even kept all of the winder clothes including coats and jackets Toerpe took from Mother’s home in August.    Cynthia Farenga said to make a list and she would get the clothes back, but Farenga never planned on getting mother’s property back from Toerpe because she had already agreed to Toerpe’s payment plan for Farenga’s services.  
 
I can go on and on, but I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the States Attorney’s office with the following documents and evidence:
 
(1)  That I had just purchased a ‘flashy new Lexis”
(2)  That I had gone bankrupt twice.
(3) That I dictated the letter mother wrote on September 20, 2009 and the letter 
Mother asked Cynthia to give to the Judge.
(4) That Yolanda Bakken slapped Toerpe in the face and tried to kidnap Mother in August 2009 when visiting on a court order.
(5) That Scott Evans wrote the Toerpes a threatening letter.
(6) That Doris Evans is a threat to Mother’s well being 
(7) That I abused my mother and,
(8) That I financially exploited my mother.
 
Then I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the court with Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as ordered by the Court and provide proof of the $26,000 she took from mother in 2006 and set up a joint savings account in Toerpe and my mother’s name: then of course, proof that there was a CD or a IRA account opened in January 2009 with the $4000 Toerpe took from mother’s bank account.  Then prove to the States Attorneys office that Toerpe didn’t double pay the mortgage in July, August, September, October, November and December of 2009 so it would appear that Mother had no money in 2009!!!.. 
 
I can go on with request but this is a start.  Until you prove all of the above Cynthia Farenga, I think that you have a problem on your hands.  Of course, you believe you are immune from any lawsuits, but I got a feeling that if one person from the State’s Attorney’s office is just a little interested in proving me wrong, they’ll check it out.  What they will find is that Toerpe’s been stealing money from my mother for a very long time and it’s because my mother caught her in Feb. 2009, Toerpe set a course to take control of mother’s person and finances to cover up her crimes.  Then lucky  Toerpe, she hired a lawless attorney who would murder his own mother for money as he ripped off seniors in Indiana on remodeling and reverse mortgages: then Harvey Jack Waller was blessed to have you Cynthia Farenga appointed and now I’m back to the beginning of the case.  
 
The question is Cynthia Farenga, in absence of any evidence as you have none to your malicious allegations, how do you continue to get away with these crimes against the elderly, disabled, and all people the elderly and disabled trust and love?  That said, I know your husband and once in a while you buy and sell estates of Wards of Cook County, and your husband Michael Crowley does your dirty work and serves fraudulent documents on people’s financial advisors and institutions, and you had me served with a Pizza Flyer, too, but who do you sleep at night?  Your daughter appears to be a lovely young woman (the internet is great for ***).  Does she know who you really are?  Does she know that you lie, cheat, steal and will murder in order to earn your living off of the elderly, disabled and all people who stand up for the truth and justice?  
 
So Scott, if there were one person at the Illinois States Attorneys office willing to steal across the LINE Cynthia Farenga drew in the sand (as she keeps moving is), I know for a fact that soon after the investigation there would be a grand jury asking Carolyn Toerpe some serious questions.  I know that Toerpe, however will coward and she will turn Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel in as they are orchestrating all of this by using our courts as their weapons of choice. 
 
But now I’m way a head of myself.  Let’s go back to the court transcripts ……
 
FYI the Court Reporter from the date Kevin Salam testified refuses to call me back and the Official court reporter’s office cannot help me get the transcripts from Salam’s testimony.  Similarly it took six months-for me to get the transcripts format eh Domestic Relations court in and regarding the petition for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe.. That said, the records are available for any one to read and they are a good read.  
 
FYI Ya got three days to turn over the documents Cynthia Farenga  as I am prepared to publish an article — If you have any of this evidence, and proof of course of the Sodini requirements met, you may be able to prove your claims as I always give both sides of the story. As it is, the transcripts and court docket show exactly what I and other people, including Ditkowsky have said.  You, Cynthia Farenga are a liar and a fraud — well, those are my words.  I will retract and apologize once I have the above documents and records in the hands of the Illinois States Attorney — and available or the public to examine.
 
Have a beautiful day all.  I have just started… Watch me!
 
 
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

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