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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>, probate sharks <email@example.com>, JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@denisonlaw.com>, Tim Lahrman Bev Cooper
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.
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.
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.
Gloria Sykes, Daughter of Respondent
Gloria J Sykes, Pro Se
6014 N Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
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:
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.
Gloria Sykes, Daughter of Respondent
Gloria J Sykes, Pro Se
6014 N Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
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:
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.
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”