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