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find it highly offensive they publish something about me and I cannot comment, I cannot respond, I cannot reply, they do not publish any proof whatsoever of their claims, and then they go whining to the hearing panel that I am lying and my counsel must be disqualified.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

Advertisements

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