It looks like we have entered the Spoliation of the evidence phase. The two Guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian are aware that for the 2nd time they have neglected the technicality of jurisdiction and are hanging out there ‘naked!’ (The first was the direct intimidation threat via the sanction motion, and this one is more serious as it arises from the failure to provide Mary Sykes with the protections that she is required to be provided by statute – the failure to provide these protections strips the Court of Jurisdiction (Sodini))
Tag Archives: guardianship
A complete list of all files in Mary G Sykes case. Please note all the missing documents
Below is a table of the files on the Mary G Sykes case that were found in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. Most of the 2009 files were copies obtained from Ken’s office, not where the main file is. Why is that? Some of the Court orders are also missing, additionally, most of the files filed by Joanne are also removed from the file.
Missing Appellate Volume: ALL 13 OF THEM
After speaking with Judge Stuart’s clerk today, it was clear that the appellate volume was not in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. She then suggested that I go down to the 6th floor to talk to the file manager Ben, who is the middle man between files coming from the Appellate division to the Circuit Court.
After checking both his computer and the physical files, he came back with empty hands and an apology. No appellate volumes to be found at all for this case.
How do nine volumes of anything just go missing?
The Appellate volumes have many of the transcripts and court orders that seem to be currently missing from the file.
Any thoughts on what happened to the Appellate volumes? Be creative in the comment section below!
Motion in Limine
More disturbing reports from other blogs regarding the 18th floor of the Daley Center
Dear readers;
This is from another probate blog but the descriptions are eerily similar to what is going on with Mary Sykes.
thanks
JoAnne
Any diagnosis makes someone at risk of enslavement in Cook County by Cook County Guardian under Illinois Probate Law in this case study. County takes away your right to decide for self
These are some human rights problems visitors/athletes face coming to a Chicago Olympics or to Chicago
1. Asking where parent or family is can result in restraining order and jail threat by Cook County judge and sheriff staff
2. Asking to visit, take family home can result in contempt charges by Cook County judge. The judge charges money to deny visits, deny phone, taking family from nursing homes. Letters from parent that she wants to go home, be visited, get phone calls are responded to with motions to strike, being pushed from the Daley Center, contempt orders and arguments that filings are repetitive
3. Wanting parent to avoid second hand smoke results in jail threats, arm twisting, being pushed from Daley Center by some Cook County sheriff staff. Wanting parent to avoid brief second hand smoke associated with cancer can result in harassment and false following to car allegations
4. Asking what chemicals are put into parent results in harassment allegations by Cook County guardian staff Nathan Goldensen and Sadeta Kalamperovic
5. Cook County guardian staff charges over $500 for routine services to be guardians over those who have injury or illness. Their staff charge for many concerns such as “can my parent come home” or “can my parent go to the zoo” or “can my parent go outside for Christmas services” or “where is my parent.” Cook County guardian charges $18 for phone calls to them sometimes
6. Cook County guardian takes most assets essentially for their own use. Cook County guardian staff wants someone to stay in a nursing home and they use the assets for the nursing home and to dispute the right to leave the facility, go home, avoid smokers, be visited, get phone calls
7. Cook County Guardian charges money to not reimburse food, dental, optical, transportation, medical, prescription bills paid by credit card by family for the parent’s care. Requests for reimbursement are responded to with jail threats sometimes
8. Cook County Guardian staff responds to concerns that they tax Boeing involved in the war in Iraq, other wars like WWII, Vietnam and Afghanistan with jail threats and confinement of parent. Boeing’s missiles dropped in many nations at Olympics and around world
9. Cook County guardian take family mail and federal court rules guardian has the right or state courts have rights and persons under guardianship do not have federal right to complain
10. Appeals about the rights to visit family, phone family and have family come home cost $200 in the Illinois Court of Appeals and $435 in the federal court. The contempt charge about trying to visit parent and have parent go home was $100. Athletes might face jail threats for trying to visit or phone or take family from certain nursing homes here.
11. Injured and some family are treated by Cook County Guardian as without rights. Cook County guardian staff Nathan Goldensen/Belko has rights to decide but none of family have
12. Nursing home director says “you will be dead if you say things like that” about contacting the US attorney about an elderly person being treated like a slave. In response to concern with “you are going to be dead” comment, access restricted for 6 months
13. Attempts to get parent fresh air away from second hand smoke is responded to with arm twisting, jail threat, 6 month access restriction and being pushed from Daley Center.
14. Nathan Goldensen asks “are you an anti-Semite,” because I express concern with the County treating persons with injury like disabled were treated in the 1930’s under National Socialism in Germany
15. County demands $30,000-40,000 to dispute reimbursement of bills, confine family, not let family get fresh air, come with police and take away parent’s place to stay, come with police and handcuff parent for running away trying to avoid second hand smokers
16. Cook County judge tries to make concern with these issues “harm to parent,” even though parent clearly says wants to live with son, phone son, visit son, go to zoo, avoid smokers, go to own doctors, likes living and being with son
17. Parent’s hands and head are shaking, and Guardian responds to concern by restricting access to see parent
18. Cook County guardian Nathan Goldensen say did not receive letters from parent even though she called him and I gave letters to him. Nathan Goldensen acts like not aware of smokers, even though I say many smokers repeatedly and show pictures she is not able to get fresh air away from smokers
19. Judge, Cynthia Farenga and Nathan Goldensen respond to concerns with second hand smoke by restricting access and having sheriff take family from building. Lawyers charge to deny rights requests
20. Any incapacity, mental illness, disability can result in this treatment by the County.
21. Cook County judge restricts filing of documents about these issues
22. Cook County judge uses diagnoses or injury to take away rights to decide for self
23. Cook County guardian staff withholds records of chemicals put into person’s body and takes away place to stay for issues like cold water in apartment, pipes that break in cold, broken elevator, cold temperatures, area involved in war, reimbursement requests
24. Cook County guardian staff and hosptals give shots without consent for trying to get expenses reimbursed, know what is put in body, be concerned over state taxing corporation involved in war
25. War crime concerns that state taxes corporation involved in war result in jail threats, visitation, phone restrictions and going home restrictions
26. Nursing home director says “mother probably not here” even though the person is there. Location withheld for 3 or more months
27. Nathan Goldensen and Sadeta Kalamperovic hold parent in facility for 17 months or longer and go through much of family assets. $4,300 is being charged each month at nursing home
29. Chicago Police and Sadeta Kalamperovic come and handcuff parent who was trying to avoid second hand smokers at nursing homeand ran away from County staff
Probate laws can make athletes and visitors’ injuries and limitations into reasons rights lost.
Diagnoses are reasons to enslave in Illinois. Mental Illness is a reason to enslave in Illinois. Why are the 13th, 14th , 15th amendment not seen as applying to guardianship even though the actions are not that different? When persons have to appeal to the US Supreme Court to visit family, phone family, get family away from smokers, get family fresh air, have family come home, similarities with slavery are seen. Many concerns in Cook County court are responded to with jail threats and being pushed from the Daley Center.
After you go to the doctor in the United States or at least Illinois, the determination of a diagnosis is legally used to strip you of a number of rights and liberties. Guardians take you as property to charge you money to express all your rights. The simple fact that you are scared of “evil people” or want to say a word like “I am from Heaven” or princess might be used to make you into a slave or County property.
My comments are who is the “judge” but then again, it can be any of the judges in Probate. Go find a list of Daley center probate judges and just insert any name. Pick a name. Any name.
There is no doubt that an oversight committee needs to be formed for what is going on in Probate. If you go to a nursing home, dozens and dozens of seniors are begging to get out of there and go home, yet no one is investigating that. I know if they get too vociferous, then they get drugged. They know they will get drugged for that and many start to shut up.
The reality is if you are a senior and you lose your driver’s license, and even then, you can be forced to live where you don’t and your home will be sold to put you in a nursing home and pay guardianship fees.
KDD is not kidding when he calls these clout heavy nursing home systems an evil cabal of corruption and the new Gulag in the US.
Whereas other countries consider it a shame to put grandma or grandpa into a nursing home, we have made it the sucking sound of a large vacuum cleaner here–wallets, homes, savings, jewelry. You name it and it will be sold to put grandma in a nursing home with a guardian that isolates here and continuously violates the ADA and her human rights.
We already have the right laws, but the implementation of these laws by the GAL’s and the court system is turning into a human tragedy and complete loss of civil rights.
JoAnne
Oversignt committe:
1) make sure that wards are not exposed to second hand smoke
2) make sure that a home is not being sold just to dump someone in a nursing home to make the nursing home money. Those are dangerous places that precipitously decreases the lifespan of seniors by half or more (3 years avg vs. 7 or more years at home when nursing care required). Guardians and GAL’s must sign a certificate of compliance that home care is not possible and/or the ward has consented to nursing home placement. Nursing home placements should be review each 6 month with a survey from the Guardian that the placement is acceptable to the ward, that there is no other home placement among relatives, and she has sought to find a nurse for in home care and that is not possible at the present time.
3) required the judges to make appealable written findings of fact and conclusions of law when a Power of Attorney for health care selecting a guardian is ignored by the court.
4) require the judges to inquire into Sodini, asking the petitioner if all the relatives are properly listed together with their names and addresses AND to file a certificate of compliance that Petitioner has served notice on all close relatives (spouse, adult children, siblings, parents) informing each of the hearing date, place and time 14 days in advance of the hearing on a Petition for Guardianship.
5) allow concerned family and friends to appoint an independent attorney who may question the court, the guardian and the GAL’s on each and all of the above. If allegations are proven, and the ward is able to pay from the estate, the court may order reimbursement of up to half the attorney’s normal published rate.
Keeping Gloria on that good roll of court wins!
Dear Readers:
I have heard that Gloria did well in court on Friday, and that Carolyn was found in contempt of court because she refused, and continued to refuse to return Gloria’s property from the wrongful eviction from the White House. We will try to get a copy of the order and transcript for you all.
I was in the Probate court the other day, and I have since determined that 13 volumes of appellate transcripts are missing from the file. That’s about a box and a half of documents–and this is while the judge supposedly had those volumes securely locked away so papers from the file would not disappear.
However, the papers that have disappeared from the file, are only the ones that the miscreants want to have disappear–mainly my stuff, Gloria’s stuff and Ken’s stuff.
Since the judge has the file locked away, it appears to be an inside job and that exactly comports with Gloria’s story that the miscreants repeatedly go past the receptionist and are in the judge’s area. Since Greylord, there has been a court order in place to stop that, but does that stop the miscreants CF and AS? Not so, according to Gloria. Scott said he would check his notes but he is not sure he recorded when and how CF and AS have popped out of the judge’s private area. He wasn’t sure he recorded that at all, but he will let us know.
Also, coming up for August 16, 2012 is the next court date where Gloria will continue to cross Dr. Shaw on his testimony.
What I want to know is about those mini-mentals, what they comprise and how they’re supposed to be accurate regarding dementia and memory loss. How can you do that on a short questionnaire in your MD’s offices and they then use that to declare you incompetent.
FYI, those reports should not have been admitted, because they comprised hearsay on hearsay and Gloria could have easily knocked them out.. But maybe PS will forget he asked to have them admitted, and Gloria can make the argument again–they are too speculative to be of any use, no CBC was taken before which would detect hypoglycemia and other conditions which are temporary and indicate dementia, etc.
For next court date:
1) Gloria’s argument in written form that all of the evidence is too speculative and too old to be of any use in declaring a 2008 contract to be voided by the court.
2) Argument that this was not a private contract between two parties, as PS misrepresents to the court, but it is part of a valid entry of a court order. We now have the records that show PS did not file a Motion to Set Aside the apportionment agreement until May of 2011–a date far too late to come under section 1401 for attacking judgments. Kevin Salaam did an affidavit to that effect, it was a court order, and Gloria should get the file to the court and ask the judge to take judicial notice of the fact the agreement is indeed part of a court order.
3) Again, Gloria needs to get the declarations from Jo and Yo and get those on file with the court and set a time for their testimony they were not served with a time and date for the original Petition to declare Mary incompetent, and the court is acting without jurisdiction. There is also nothing in the file showing Mary received notice. A notice should have been put in the file and a certificate of service should have accompanied it setting forth it was 1) issued by the Petititon, Carolyn Toerpe; 2) it was mailed to all close relatives 14 days in advance of the hearing, namely Mary, Gloria, Jo and Yo. This was never done and I believe KDD knows the transcript date where PS or HW admitted it was never done. This court has no jurisdiction and is acting ultra vires. CT, by being well informed and continuing to participate in this charade has no business being guardian of anyone again–EVER. Gloria should be guardian, if a guardian is to be appointed, and that is only to protect Mary from Carolyn. Also, see the Table of Torts which I will be publishing on one of the pages of the website.
4) Gloria also has to put together a comprehensive response to PS’s Motion for Partition. The one that is on file now 1) does not mention the legal standards to bring a partition action; 2) she does not refute those standards, but engages in “other argument” and this is clearly marked in the judge’s comments, although the judge does indicate she thinks it is “too late” to bring up Sodini. NONSENSE. Jurisdiction can be brought up at any time–it is sooooo important.
So, let’s all keep the momentum going by encourging Jo and Yo to sign the declarations and get them back by the next August court date.
Gloria should motion up her Motion to Dismiss/Non suit for lack of jurisdiction, attach a copy of Sodini, a copy of the declarations and the transcript page clearly showing no jurisdiction.
take care all gentle readers.
Gloria can do this. She already whacked Carolyn upside the head with Judge Garber last week. She can do it again.
JoAnne
Cost of Corruption May 2012 – $90,000!
what does it cost to produce this blog and publicize the corrupt errors and transgressions against the innocent in the Probate court of cook county? $90,000 so far.
Transcripts go missing…or just simply being hidden?
Transcripts are always important for any trial case, especially one that is as highly contested and contorted as the Mary G Sykes case. After ordering a transcript form the official court reporters for the court date, March 18, 2011, an AFFIDAVIT from SUSAN COSGROVE was mailed to Denison and Assocs saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to produce the transcript for that date because she could not READ the stenographic notes (something she is paid and trained to do).
It’s funny how the truth always comes out in the end because on July 12, 2012, Ken’s law assistant actually sent that transcript to us via email. THEY ordered the transcript and got it but we could not. Did someone tell the court reporters not to give us that transcript? What is happening here?
Attached is the affidavit from SUSAN COSGROVE and the front page of the the transcript that was “impossible to produce” (There are 162 pages in all to be uploaded in another post)
Gloria’s email to Ms Lea Black requesting for all documents received that proves Sodini Requirements were met
Dear Lea Black,
With the recent passing of legislation to protect seniors from neglect and abuses that passed committee, it is even more urgent that you/the ARDC forward to me all documents received that proved that Sodini requirements were rightly met in and regarding the Mary G. Sykes case: that the Probate Court had/has jurisdiction. I had heard rumblings yesterday that the Senate Committee on Aging had passed the bill but it had no yet been publicized: it was this morning. Saving the life of my mother, her due process and my due process, et all, fulfill the criteria to expedite this request: that as a journalist I have three media projects pending, with an article, once I receive the documents from your office, that will be published nationally!
Failure to comply with this request is against the statues: ignoring my complaints against Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and Deborah Jo Soehlig in order to protect another person, or to cover up the crimes of guardianship abuse against my mother — and clearly against other elders in Chicago, is a crime and unforgivable. I await your response: I will pick up the documents at 4 pm on Monday the 16th of July 2012 unless otherwise notified.
I also understand that a national award winning investigative report is in the making and about to be aired. Guardians and Guardian Ad Litems can hide behind their buddies of the ARDC and political elite, but they cannot run from the truth. Please provide me verification including proof of service that Yolanda Bakken, Josephine Bakken and me, Gloria Jean Sykes were served notice of the Carolyn Toerpe petition for Guardianship and subsequent hearing and that all people fulfilled the requirements of the Sodini notices which is jurisdictional. The ARDC would have had to have these notices in order to ignore, dismiss, deny all complaints which were many against attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Harvey Jack Waller, and Joel Brodsky.
Healthy Regards,
Klobuchar legislation to protect seniors from neglect and abuse passes committee | Hometown Source
Illinois Law as it relates to Incompetency
During the Marg G Sykes Hearing on July 6, 2012, Dr Shaw endlessly ranted on about his version of the term competency. He continuously justified his reasons for declaring Mary Sykes incompetent. Here is a very articulate and well written article written by Ken that demonstrates why this is just all wrong!
PROOF OF INCOMPETENCY
1. Statute:
Currentness
§ 11a-3. Adjudication of disability; Power to appoint guardian.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in Section 11a-2. NB NOTE THE STANDARD OF PROOF SET BY THE STATUTE. This does not allow for Mr. Stern, Ms Farenga, et al .to make an agreement to allow for the appointment of their favorite as the plenary guardian. If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate.
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. NB. As Mary Sykes passed a written examination that was administered by the Secretary of State shortly before the petition was filed – the total deprivation of her privileges and immunities was not authorized by statute. IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-3
2. Procedure:
A petition for the appointment of a guardian of the estate or of the person, or both, of a disabled person may be filed by any reputable person or by the disabled person himself or herself.1 The petition must state, if known or reasonably ascertainable:
— the relationship and interest of the petitioner to the respondent;2
— the name, date of birth, and place of residence of the respondent;3
— the reasons for the guardianship;4
— the name and post office address of the respondent’s guardian, if any;5 or of the respondent’s agent or agents appointed under the Illinois Power of Attorney Act;6
— the names and post office addresses of the nearest relatives of the respondent, in the following order:
1. the spouse, adult children, parents, and adult siblings, if any, if none;
2. the nearest adult kindred known to the petitioner;7 See: In re: Sodini The Courts have ruled this jurisdictional and in particular this prevents the railroading of a vulnerable person into bondage. Having the family know about the proceedings and having 14 days to prepare they can obtain counsel and address the fact that the person appointed as plenary guardian by the agreement of Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga et al was the very person may sought a protective order against.
— the name and address of the person with whom, or the facility in which, the respondent is residing;8
— the approximate value of the personal property and real estate;9
— the amount of the anticipated annual gross income and other receipts;10
— the name, post office address, and, in case of an individual, the age and occupation of the proposed guardian and his or her relationship to the respondent.11
In addition, if the petition seeks the appointment of a previously appointed standby guardian as guardian of the disabled person, the petition must also state:
— the facts concerning the standby guardian’s previous appointment;12 NB. Again the disabled person is protected from a lazy court, or lazy guardian ad litem, or just momentum. Obviously this requirement was ignored in the appointment of CT as plenary guardian. and
— the date of death of the disabled person’s guardian or the facts concerning the consent of the disabled person’s guardian to the appointment of the standby guardian as guardian, or the willingness and ability of the disabled person’s guardian to make and carry out day-to-day care decisions concerning the disabled person.13
A notary public’s failure to sign the jurat on a verification of the petition for guardianship of a disabled person, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to approve a report of the sale of the disabled person’s real estate, where the notary public administered an oath to the petitioner, and the notary seal and the petitioner’s signature were on the petition.14
Westlaw. © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Footnotes
1
755 ILCS 5/11a-3(a).
A person with a financial interest in having an individual determined to be disabled and in having a guardianship created is not precluded from serving as a petitioner in a guardianship proceeding. See In re Betts, 109 Ill. 2d 154, 92 Ill. Dec. 838, 485 N.E.2d 1081 (1985).
2
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(a).
3
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(b).
4
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(c).
5
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(d).
6
755 ILCS 45/1-1 et seq.
7
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(e).
8
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(f).
9
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(g).
10
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(h).
11
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(i).
12
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(j).
13
755 ILCS 5/11a-8(k).
14
In re Devereux’s Estate, 63 Ill. App. 2d 1, 211 N.E.2d 19 (1st Dist. 1965). 2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:8
5/11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing
Currentness
§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. NB Mary appeared in Court and vigorously objected to the guardianship. She filed complaints with the Illinois Department of aging, and others. Mr. Stern made statements directly contradictory to the expressions of Mary Sykes – Documents have surfaced – I presented them and Gloria Sykes presented them that contradict Ms. Stern’s representations.l complaints to the ARDC have fallen on deaf ears – in fact it appears that making these very complaints have resulted in disciplinary proceedings being brought against me. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.
(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. NB.Mary has made numerous requests for representation that have been ignored. Interestingly it appears that Stern has on several occasions informed the Court that Mary does not want an attorney. As Mary has made her requests in writing and these requests are part of the record – Mr. Stern’s credibility is sharply in doubt. Once again the actions of Stern and Farenga were reported to the ARDC and fell on deaf ears. The conflict between the GALs and Mary Sykes is legend. The record is replete with breaches of fiduciary relationship – focus on one fact – ‘why are there two GALs in this Estate?’ Now focus on the unbridled and unfounded verbal and written attacks by the GALs (and especially Farenga) on the younger daughter of Mary. Why has Mary’s younger sister been isolated from Mary Sykes. Prior to these events the two were literally joined at the hip! the respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.NB. Gloria Sykes has pointed out that the service on Mary was quite interesting. The Sheriff of Cook County was directed by the applicant for plenary guardian to serve Mary in Chicago – however, the applicant had taken Mary to DuPage County. The applicant (CT) made many attempts to get Mary’s doctor to give her a certificate of incompetency for Mary, but her refused. In August 2009 the transcript of proceedings reveals the Court advising CT to fine a more cooperative doctor – she did an Mary received bench service. Ms. Sykes in her investigation determined that the required warnings had not been give Mary Sykes. WHAT IS MOST DISTURBING IS THE FACT THAT EVERY ATTORNEY WHO HAS LOOKED INTO THIS CASE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT. (I will not reiterate what has befallen me!)
(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.
(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.
(e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT
You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is:
If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.
You have the following legal rights:
(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.NB the transcripts reveal that Mary asked for many of these rights and others asked for these right for Mary; however, they were totally ignored. This appears to be a pattern.
Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.
Credits
P.A. 79-328, § 11a-10, added by P.A. 80-1415, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1979. Amended by P.A. 81-795, § 1, eff. Sept. 16, 1979; P.A. 82-534, § 1, eff. Sept. 16, 1981; P.A. 88-380, § 135, eff. Aug. 20, 1993; P.A. 89-396, § 15, eff. Aug. 20, 1995; P.A. 90-628, § 25, eff. Jan. 1, 1999; P.A. 95-373, § 5, eff. Aug. 23, 2007; P.A. 96-1052, § 5, eff. July 14, 2010; P.A. 97-375, § 15, eff. Aug. 15, 2011.
Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110 ½, ¶ 11a-10.
Relevant Notes of Decisions (41)
View all 65
Notes of Decisions listed below contain your search terms.
Guardian ad litem–In general
A guardian ad litem is not required after a hearing on a mentally disabled adult’s competence or after a plenary guardian of the person is appointed. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 488
If the juvenile court is going to appoint a guardian ad litem for a mentally-disabled-adult parent that is a party to a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the appointment should be made pursuant to the Probate Act. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Infants Description: Key Number Symbol 205; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487
Guardian ad litem appointed to represent incapacitated adult represents ward’s best interests, rather than ward; guardian ad litem is only required prior to hearing on ward’s competence, although guardian ad litem or next friend may be appointed to represent ward’s interests in subsequent litigation. In re Guardianship of Mabry, App. 4 Dist.1996, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 281 Ill.App.3d 76, 666 N.E.2d 16, rehearing denied. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 485.1; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 495
Circuit court is charged with duty to protect interests of ward and has, by statute and otherwise, those powers necessary to appoint guardian ad litem to represent interests of ward during court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. In re Serafin, App. 2 Dist.1995, 208 Ill.Dec. 612, 272 Ill.App.3d 239, 649 N.E.2d 972. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 471; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487
Attorney’s failure to bring to trial court’s attention conflict in her dual roles as mentally disabled patient’s attorney and guardian resulting from patient’s request to represent herself, which required trial court to consult with guardian to determine whether patient should be allowed to represent herself, could not relieve court of its responsibility for making required appointment of guardian to protect patient’s interest. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133
If patient has already been involuntarily committed as mentally ill and danger to himself or others, court considering whether to appoint guardian must presume that patient is not capable of protecting patient’s interests. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 135
Statute governing appointment of guardian ad litem requires court to appoint guardian ad litem unless court has grounds for finding that guardian is not needed. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133
Trial court committed reversible error when it failed to appoint separate guardian ad litem to protect interests of mentally disabled patient once patient asserted right to proceed without assistance of counsel; trial court needed guardian ad litem to help determine whether to appoint counsel for patient against patent’s wishes. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 156
Individual adjudicated disabled adult for whom guardian was appointed as result of petition by his mother was not deprived of his rights by entry of original guardianship order despite lack of compliance with statutorily mandated requirements applicable to disability adjudication including lack of medical report describing nature and extent of individual’s physical and mental disability and presence of individual or representation by guardian ad litem or other counsel at hearing, where there was no contention that individual was not disabled adult under definition of Probate Act and court implemented measures for individual’s protection as result of petition. In re Estate of Steinfeld, 1994, 196 Ill.Dec. 636, 158 Ill.2d 1, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 59, 513 U.S. 809, 130 L.Ed.2d 17. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 156
Even under ch. 110, ¶ 54 providing that if party is declared incompetent prosecution or defense shall be maintained by party’s representative, guardian ad litem or next friend, it is not reversible error to fail to appoint guardian ad litem for one for whom actual incompetence has not been formally so adjudged. Freiders v. Dayton, App. 2 Dist.1978, 19 Ill.Dec. 316, 61 Ill.App.3d 873, 378 N.E.2d 1191. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 496
Court before which action was brought for specific performance of contract for purchase of house owned by 85-year-old woman, although it was not required to appoint guardian ad litem for defendant houseowner, was under the circumstances within its power in doing so. Freiders v. Dayton, App. 2 Dist.1978, 19 Ill.Dec. 316, 61 Ill.App.3d 873, 378 N.E.2d 1191. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487
Appointment of guardian ad litem to act as representative for party in need of such representation is procedural and not jurisdictional matter. Freiders v. Dayton, App. 2 Dist.1978, 19 Ill.Dec. 316, 61 Ill.App.3d 873, 378 N.E.2d 1191. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 488
n.b. Where circuit court on appeal from probate court adjudged alleged incompetent to be competent, probate court could not thereafter hold attorney for alleged incompetent in civil contempt of court for disobedience of orders previously entered by probate court concerning inquiry into mental condition of alleged incompetent or for assisting in denying guardian ad litem free access to alleged incompetent or assisting alleged incompetent to avoid service of process in connection with incompetency proceeding. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Contempt Description: Key Number Symbol 49
In considering appointment of a guardian ad litem, the question to be determined is the capacity of the person whose fitness is challenged to intelligently choose counsel and consult and advise with him in conduct of litigation, or capacity to manage and care for the particular business or matter involved. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 488
Generally, there should be no conflicting interest between alleged incompetent and the party representing him as guardian ad litem. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 492
Where proceeding to have an elderly woman declared incompetent was commenced by principal beneficiary under her will in order to prevent her from conveying her property to another, probate court should proceed with extreme caution in exercise of discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent alleged incompetent and only after notice to alleged incompetent. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133
Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent alleged incompetent in proceeding for appointment of a conservator, where alleged incompetent was aware of nature of proceeding and possessed sufficient judgment to select his own counsel to defend his interests. Rankin v. Rankin, App.1944, 54 N.E.2d 58, 322 Ill.App. 90. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133
Where there has not been a judgment fixing mental status of one of parties to a proceeding alleged to be incompetent, court has power to determine all facts essential to a proper adjudication upon need for a guardian ad litem for such party. Cowdery v. Northern Trust Co., App.1944, 53 N.E.2d 43, 321 Ill.App. 243. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 490
—- Compensation, guardian ad litem
Circuit Court retained authority to award guardianship fees to public guardian who was appointed as temporary guardian for disabled ward, and to ward’s guardian ad litem, even after ward’s death terminated the guardianship; Probate Act explicitly provided for the award of reasonable fees for temporary guardians and guardians ad litem, and nothing in the statutes terminating a guardian’s authority to act for the ward upon the ward’s death deprived the court of power to award fees after the ward’s death. In re Estate of Pellico, App. 2 Dist.2009, 334 Ill.Dec. 12, 394 Ill.App.3d 1052, 916 N.E.2d 45. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 180.1; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493
Statute on payment of guardian ad litem’s fee in proceeding to appoint guardian for disabled adult clearly expresses that court may assess guardian ad litem fees only against respondent or his or her estate or, in event respondent is unable to pay, against petitioner. In re Estate of Bishop, App. 2 Dist.2002, 268 Ill.Dec. 136, 333 Ill.App.3d 1113, 777 N.E.2d 1059. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493
Son who filed counter petition in daughters’ proceeding to appoint guardian for their mother, in which son asked that mother not be adjudicated disabled or, in alternative, that son be named her guardian, was “petitioner” for purposes of statute on payment of fees of guardian ad litem by petitioner if respondent is unable to pay; initial petition was filed by daughters, but son inserted himself in matter by filing counter petition and created issues to which guardian ad litem had to respond, namely, whether son should be appointed guardian. In re Estate of Bishop, App. 2 Dist.2002, 268 Ill.Dec. 136, 333 Ill.App.3d 1113, 777 N.E.2d 1059. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493
Trial court had statutory authority to tax temporary guardian ad litem fees against ward, where court appointed attorney and temporary guardian ad litem to represent ward in proceeding, there was no finding that appointment of guardian ad litem was not necessary, and court determined that ward was able to pay fees, even though there was never finding that ward was disabled, petitioners never sought hearing on petition for appointment of permanent guardian, and case was dismissed for want of prosecution. In re Serafin, App. 2 Dist.1995, 208 Ill.Dec. 612, 272 Ill.App.3d 239, 649 N.E.2d 972. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 158.1
Trial court’s conclusion that disabled adult for whom guardian ad litem was appointed, after adult had refused to consent to surgery, would not pay fees was reasonable, for purpose of determining whether guardian ad litem should be allowed fees, where no one affiliated with hospital or with suit had any contact with adult after she was released from hospital. In re Estate of Stoica, App. 1 Dist.1990, 148 Ill.Dec. 555, 203 Ill.App.3d 225, 560 N.E.2d 1152. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493
Implicit in each probate act section providing for taxation of costs is necessity for appointment of both guardian of estate of disabled person and guardian ad litem, and where petition forappointment of permanent guardian was dismissed after hearing and private counsel had appeared on behalf of allegedly disabled adult as soon as notice was received of pending hearing on guardianship, relevant provisions of Probate Act furnished no justification for taxation of guardian ad litem and temporary guardian costs to subject of the petition. In Interest of Prior, App. 3 Dist.1983, 72 Ill.Dec. 423, 116 Ill.App.3d 666, 452 N.E.2d 676. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 158.1
Where guardian ad litem had been allowed fee in circuit court for his services as guardian ad litem of incompetent, and Appellate Court was without knowledge of fees customarily charged by members of bar of county where action was brought, and parties did not present evidence on nature and extent of services performed and value thereof, it was proper that award of fee for guardian ad litem on appeal be fixed by circuit court, and Appellate Court would remand cause to circuit court to determine fee on appeal. Cain v. Hougham, App.1969, 116 Ill.App.2d 439, 253 N.E.2d 137. Mental HealthDescription: Key Number Symbol 493
Self-representation
Evidence that mentally disabled patient was totally without understanding or capacity to make responsible decisions concerning her person or her assets required trial court to reverse its prior decision to allow patient to represent herself, absent strong evidence that appointment of counsel was not in patient’s best interest. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133 NB This case points out the conflict that the Court GALs and the Guardians must face. Whenever confronted by any member of the public or Mary herself seeking to assert the statutory and Constitutional Rights the mantra is Mary said she does not want ****(you fill in the blanks). The Court accepts the statement – but, if Mary is indeed incompetent then the rights have to be asserted because she is unable to decide for herself as to whether or not it is in her best interests to waive rights. By not holding the actual hearings that are required by statute and applying the proper standards basic civil rights of the elderly are being ignored. Essentially a Soviet style Gulag has been promulgated. As a matter of law, the court and its appointee have entered into a conspiracy to violate the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constittion. As these actions are ultra vires, the question of immunity is off the table. The Nuerenberg Trials settled this argument.
Counsel
If the guardian ad litem (GAL) for a mentally disabled ward in a probate proceeding and the ward are in agreement, the GAL does in effect represent the ward; however, the court must appoint separate counsel if the ward requests it or if the ward and the GAL take different positions. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 2006 WL 1667495, opinion withdrawn, opinion modified and superseded 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 491 NB The Administration of the programs designed to protect the senior citizen from abuse and exploitatin have demonstrated in not only Sykes, but nationally that the patently untrue statement of the GAL or other appointed person is consider as gosspel
In probate proceedings, if the guardian ad litem and the ward are in agreement, the guardian does in effect represent the ward; however, the court must appoint separate counsel if the ward requests it or if the ward and guardian take different positions. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 495The words of the Mark case appear to be mandatory – but ****
Court could appoint counsel for mentally disabled patient who did not request counsel and who took no position adverse to counsel only if it found that appointment was in patient’s best interests. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133
Court could appoint attorney but no guardian ad litem for mentally disabled patient based on determination that attorney could provide protection that would otherwise be guardian’s responsibility, although this required attorney to act as both guardian ad litem and as attorney. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133
Respondent in proceeding to have him declared incompetent has the right to retain his own attorney. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133
Service of process
Constructive service on person domiciled within state, but located outside borders thereof, held not to give jurisdiction in proceeding in personam for declaration of incompetency and appointmentof conservator for person. McCormick v. Blaine, 1931, 178 N.E. 195, 345 Ill. 461. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 131
Notice
Allegedly disabled adult received reasonable notice of hearing at which petition to appoint public guardian for him would be heard and opportunity to be heard during that proceeding, thus satisfying federal due process; summons and copy of petition were personally served, summons supported conclusion that he was given reasonable notice of hearing, which in turn gave him opportunity to be heard, and he had no known living spouse or adult kindred. Young v. Murphy, N.D. Ill.1995, 883 F.Supp. 256, reconsideration denied 161 F.R.D. 61. Constitutional Law Description: Key Number Symbol 4339; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 130
In an original guardianship proceeding, the nearest living relatives of the alleged disabled adult must be given notice, and failure to give notice to such relatives is a jurisdictional defect requiring vacation of the order appointing a guardian. In re Estate of Debevec, App. 5 Dist.1990, 142 Ill.Dec. 302, 195 Ill.App.3d 891, 552 N.E.2d 1043. Guardian And Ward Description: Key Number Symbol 13(3) Matter of Sodini, App. 4 Dist.1988, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 527 N.E.2d 530.
Notice to one alleged to be incompetent and his/her close relatives is required before he may be adjudged incompetent and a conservator appointed for him. Matter of Sodini, App. 4 Dist.1988, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 527 N.E.2d 530. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 128 (notice must be 14 days prior) NB in Illinois like most States the lower Courts are obligated to take direction from the Courts of last resort. as the Appellate Court has ruled that the notice to the close relatives is jurisdictional it is very difficult to rationalize the fact that the close relatives were not afforded notice and Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel continue to act under color of statute to keep Mary Sykes in bondage, not report the dissipation of approximately a million dollars of her assets, isolate her from her friends, family and activities and deny her liberty, property, civil right and human rights. What is also most disturbing is the number of times that Mary Sykes has been rushed to the Emergency Room. Last December she was neglected and lost 10% of her body weight.
Failure of son and granddaughter of woman, in their petition to have woman adjudicated incompetent and to be appointed conservators of her estate, to give notice of time and place of hearing on the petition to other son of woman did not result in fraud upon the court concerning woman’s need for a conservator or petitioners’ qualifications to serve in that capacity. In re Neuf’s Estate, App. 5 Dist.1980, 40 Ill.Dec. 704, 85 Ill.App.3d 468, 406 N.E.2d 907. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 129
Authority of court
The trial court exceeded its authority when it sua sponte appointed a guardian ad litem for two adult former foster children, who had allegedly suffered permanent and severe physical and psychological injury as a result of sexual abuse by their foster fathers, over the objection of the former foster children and their attorney; the trial court never held a competency hearing or declared that former foster children were incompetent or disabled, the doctrine of parens patriae did not apply since former foster children were competent adults, and the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of the Probate Act for appointing a guardian. J.H. v. Ada S. McKinley Community Services, Inc., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 255, 369 Ill.App.3d 803, 861 N.E.2d 320. Infants Description: Key Number Symbol 1238(1); Infants Description: Key Number Symbol 1240(1); Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 490
Hearings
Statute setting out preliminary procedures for appointment of guardians for disabled adults and providing that hearings were to be held within 30 days of filing of petition was directory, rather than mandatory, and thus failure of trial court to hold hearing within 30 days of filing of petition by son and son-in-law seeking guardianship of mother did not void court’s guardianship order;NB. Time constraints are irrelevant when the object of the guardians are involved. They only apply to limit the objectors (i.e. ordinary citizens exercising their First Amendment Rights) statute did not contain any negative language or provide any sanction or other consequences for failure to conduct hearing within 30 days of filing of petition, and rights of mother would not be injuriously affected by the fact that hearing was not held within statutory time period. (Per McCullough, J., with one justice specially concurring.) In re Estate of Doyle, App. 4 Dist.2005, 297 Ill.Dec. 868, 362 Ill.App.3d 293, 838 N.E.2d 355, rehearing denied, appeal denied 303 Ill.Dec. 2, 218 Ill.2d 539, 850 N.E.2d 807. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 137.1
Footnotes
1 20 ILCS 3955/30.
2 320 ILCS 20/9. 755 I.L.C.S. 5/11a-10, IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10
Current through P.A. 97-704 of the 2012 Reg. Sess.
IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10
Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in Section 11a-2. If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate. 755 ILCS 5/11a-3(a).
Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. 755 ILCS 5/11a-3(b).NB: This is a sticking point. A guardianship is not an all or nothing thing. If the Court finds that I am a spendthrift that does not mean that I have to have permission of the plenary guardian to attend the church of my whim and desire or to eat drink and be merry to the full extent of my allowance. The guardian is a ‘crutch’ not a Dominique.
There is a clear distinction between a proceeding to adjudge a person mentally ill and one to adjudge him incompetent. The former relates to an inquiry and determination as to the condition of his mind without special reference to his property. The latter relates to an inquiry and determination as to his habits regarding his disposition to spend, waste or lessen his estate. It is not necessary to find a person to be mentally ill and totally lacking in capacity to manage his affairs. A mild form of mental illness may make a person highly susceptible to certain emotional appeals and incapable of making rational decisions concerning the disposition of his income or his estate. This could constitute waste of his estate and subject him to want and suffering even though the objects of his bounty may be engaged in worthwhile spiritual or religious activities. The test is incapability to manage one’s own affairs so that waste and suffering are inevitable. A person who wanted to liquidate his entire estate and give it to “Christ is the Answer” may properly be found to be incompetent and a conservator appointed. Matter of Langford’s Estate, 50 Ill. App. 3d 623, 7 Ill. Dec. 574, 364 N.E.2d 735 (4th Dist. 1977).
One’s ability to manage his person does not resolve itself upon the question of whether the individual can accomplish tasks without assistance but rather whether the individual has the capability to take care and intelligently direct that all his needs are met through whatever device is reasonably available under the circumstances. Some of the actions which indicate the ability to care for one’s own needs include the appointment of an attorney-in-fact and the selection of a nursing home. The unsubstantiated opinions of witnesses that a person was not capable of taking care of himself or his affairs, without any reasons given for such conclusions will not support an adjudication of incompetency. Matter of McPeak’s Estate, 53 Ill. App. 3d 133, 11 Ill. Dec. 349, 368 N.E.2d 957 (5th Dist. 1977).
The extremes that reviewing courts will go to uphold the order of the trial court refusing to appoint a guardian for the estate and person is Galvin’s Estate v. Galvin, 112 Ill. App. 3d 677, 68 Ill. Dec. 370, 445 N.E.2d 1223 (1st Dist. 1983), wherein the alleged incompetent had strokes, had a pet black widow spider, believed he could fire by pointing his finger, and that he was a coworker with the Shah of Iran.
Although a person may be disabled in the statutory sense of not being fully able to manage her person, a guardian of her person is not permissible or appropriate if that person is capable of making and communicating responsible decisions concerning the care of her person, even though the appointment of a guardian of her estate is appropriate. The adjudication of disability is a uniquely factual determination. It is to be made by the trial court. It is not to be disturbed upon review unless the trial court’s findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Estate of Hickman, 208 Ill. App. 3d 265, 153 Ill. Dec. 31, 566 N.E.2d 881 (4th Dist. 1991).
20 Ill. Prac., Estate Planning & Admin. § 279:4 (4th ed.)
§ 35:4. Appointment
After compliance with statutory procedures regarding a hearing and notice to the respondent, a court must appoint a plenary guardian of the person or the estate, or both, of one adjudged to be a disabled person if the court finds that limited guardianship will not provide sufficient protection for the disabled person, his or her estate, or both.1 A plenary guardian is one who has the general care and control of the person and estate of a ward.2 A guardian may also be appointed for a limited purpose if the court finds that guardianship is necessary for the protection of the disabled person, his or her estate, or both.3 The guardian of the estate of a ward need not participate in or review the prosecution of an action on behalf of the ward where the attorney’s fees will be determined solely on a contingency basis.4
The justification for the appointment of a guardian is founded primarily on the incapability of managing one’s person or estate, and not on the cause of that incapability.5 The purpose ofappointing a guardian for a disabled person is to protect that person from personally wasting his or her estate or allowing others to do so.6 The question is not whether the person can accomplish specific tasks, but rather whether the person has the capability to take care of himself or herself, or intelligently direct that his or her needs are met through whatever device is reasonably available under the circumstances.7 It is not imperfection of mentality per se which justifies the appointment of a guardian, but rather the inability to manage one’s person or estate due to that imperfection of mentality.8 Thus, a trial court errs when it appoints a guardian over the respondent’s person after adjudicating the respondent a disabled person within the meaning of the Probate Act of 1975 where the respondent is able to manage his or her own person, even though the respondent’s lifestyle is eccentric.9
Where the court has the statutory authority to adjudicate a person as a disabled person and to appoint a guardian, the court’s failure to follow the statutory procedure in making the adjudication could render the order voidable.10 However, the failure to follow statutory requisites does not render the order void from the outset.11
Footnotes
1
755 ILCS 5/11a-12(b).
In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 196 Ill. Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994) (sibling had standing to challenge disability and guardianship order).
2
In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992).
3
In re Guardianship of Austin, 245 Ill. App. 3d 1042, 185 Ill. Dec. 852, 615 N.E.2d 411 (4th Dist. 1993).
Appointment of a limited guardian restricted to the investment of the respondent’s inheritance is proper, where the respondent does not lack all capacity to understand or manage day-to-day financial needs. Estate of Barr, 142 Ill. App. 3d 428, 96 Ill. Dec. 781, 491 N.E.2d 1241 (1st Dist. 1986).
4
755 ILCS 5/11a-18(c).
5
In re Stevenson’s Estate, 44 Ill. 2d 525, 256 N.E.2d 766 (1970).
6
Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).
7
See Matter of McPeak’s Estate, 53 Ill. App. 3d 133, 11 Ill. Dec. 349, 368 N.E.2d 957 (5th Dist. 1977); In re Dunning, 211 Ill. App. 633, 1918 WL 1982 (2d Dist. 1918), Leefers v. People ex rel. Leefers, 123 Ill. App. 634, 1906 WL 1592 (3d Dist. 1906).
8
In re Stevenson’s Estate, 44 Ill. 2d 525, 256 N.E.2d 766 (1970); Galvin’s Estate v. Galvin, 112 Ill. App. 3d 677, 68 Ill. Dec. 370, 445 N.E.2d 1223 (1st Dist. 1983).
9
Estate of Barr, 142 Ill. App. 3d 428, 96 Ill. Dec. 781, 491 N.E.2d 1241 (1st Dist. 1986).
10
Estate of Steinfeld, 233 Ill. App. 3d 715, 175 Ill. Dec. 12, 599 N.E.2d 1026 (1st Dist. 1992), judgment aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 196 Ill. Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994).
11
Estate of Steinfeld, 233 Ill. App. 3d 715, 175 Ill. Dec. 12, 599 N.E.2d 1026 (1st Dist. 1992), judgment aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 196 Ill. Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994).
2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:4
Reviewing the file again–soooo very much to find and so very little time!
Dear Ken:
Well, spending 6 hours today working on that file was interesting. Apparently the PS/HW are, as suspected, very light on taking care of paperwork.
I know you will be very surprised to learn of the following:
1) PS’s Motion to Declare the Apportionment Agreement Null and Void was not filed until May 20, 2011–well past the sec 1401 two year limitations period. No surprise there. What is surprising is that Joel Brodsky told the court and PS that back in August of 2010, giving the miscreants a couple of months to file the motion, and they clearly blew it. There are transcripts where PS has misrepresented to the court that the “apportionment agreement” was merely a private agreement between 2 parties, it was not a court order, and therefore it could be set aside. All lies. The miscreants have stood by and said nothing while PS lied about all that. Kevin Salaam’s affidavit clearly said it was filed with the court and became part of the final settlement order.
2) During the last hearing, PS told the court that all of Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits were stricken and he had a court order. He said that Gloria did not turn over her list of exhibits and witnesses on time. Gloria vehemently denied that. I could find no court order providing a date for the parties to exchange witness lists and exhibits, I could not find anyone’s witness/exhibit list on file (tho Gloria said she emailed hers to PS, she should have offered to pop open her laptop and show the court on a secure server that she sent those off via email.
PS lies about the court records all the time. Gloria objected to all of this at the last court hearing, and said PS was lying, but then later she forgot about all of it.
PS has also told the court that Gloria’s Requests to Admit were stricken, but again, there is no court order to that effect either I could find.
3) Sometime in June 2010, Gloria brought up the issue of Sodini notices not being given and that the court replied “I believe that Judge Connors reviewed that issue and I will not do it again.” However, the law is that jurisdiction is soooo very important it must be explored each time it is brought up and the court must patiently listen. I have now very carefully reviewed the court’s records, I have spent about 6 hours, and there is no court order making any findings of fact or conclusions of law on subject matter jurisdiction. We will provide declarations to that effect.
I personally think a motion for perjury should be in order against PS. He has lied regarding just about every main issue that was presented in Probate–the jurisdiction, the apportionment, striking Gloria’s witnesses. You name it, he lies about it. Unfortunately, perjury is really not possible regarding an atty in court. Opposing counsel (Gloria) should be filing pleadings and demanding justice on a regular basis.
For the next court date she should put all of the above in writing and bring it to the court’s attention and demand a date to bring her witnesses and exhibits to court. She should have her own witness that mini-mentals casually mentioned in a medical report are not conclusive evidence of incompetency, etc.
thanks for all your help
joanne
What’s up with Lea Black and the dog and a simple deposition?
Dear Readers;
I have to tell you I cannot figure out any of this at all. Now LB is accusing Gloria of saying July 5, 2012 was a date previously provided to her, and that’s why LB is having fits because Gloria wants to change it?
What’s up with that?
Even assuming arguendo that Gloria told LB that July 5, 2012 was good for her deposition, when LB sent out the notice of deposition and Gloria responded it was not a good date, LB should have accommodated her. After all, it’s not a hearing, it’s just a deposition and those are easily changed. No one should care 5, 6 or 7 days in advance. Heck, I’ve even had deponents that had to go to the hospital with a close family member at the last minute, and I’ve changed and accommodated the deponent.
Attorneys pretty much have to go to work every day. I don’t understand what difference a few days or even weeks matter. A true funny story. I had a case where on or about February 1st, a Jewish deponent said holidays were coming up and he couldn’t do a deposition until 3rd week in April. Not kidding. And he wasn’t even a Rabbi or anything connected with a house of worship, he just wanted to skip 10 weeks! We actually had to extend discovery to accommodate that one!
So I don’t get LB. And the thing with the dog is even dumber. Why should she care if Shaggy is trained, untrained, certified, uncertified or even decertified? She knows that Carolyn took all of Gloria’s during the wrongful eviction action she filed and effectuated. And Gloria wrote LB right away with a number of alternative dates.
What a crazy, out of control case. The parties are supposed to work together on dates. LB should be nice about the dog thing. (Everyone in my building seems to have a dog, and those dogs go to work, and well, I actually like that. We’ve had a chocolate lab, a standard poodle, a German shephard and a few other types of dogs that have come to work with doggie mom or dad and I see no problems).
I personally would NEVER ask anyone with a “service animal”–dog, cat, pocket pooch, bird, whatever, to produce documents and certifications. How rude. If someone needs a service animal that means they have an unfortunate condition and everyone should accommodate with the fewest questions. Gloria is no exception.
Perhaps LB is worried Shaggy will make everyone laugh and smile and not worry about the ARDC’s dumb, trumped up case against an innocent, hard working attorney. Well, that would be a benefit.
Read on for Gloria’s interesting response to all of this…
And again, LB is making a huge mistake to make a civil war out of deposition dates. Most judges would never tolerate such behavior and they would force LB to take a date of Gloria’s choosing if it were brought to the court’s attention. Nastiness, lack of understanding and accommodation against a member of the public is seldom tolerated in court. An ARDC proceeding should be no exception. Someone needs to stop acting shady and start acting like a lady.
take care
joanne
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 9, 2012 3:14 PM
To: probate sharks , NASGA , matt senator kirk
Cc: JoAnne M Denison , Lawrence Hyman
Subject: Fw: Ms. Lea Black – deposition of Gloria Jean SykesTh
From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: aRDC chicago <13125652320@myfax.com>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: Ms. Lea Black – deposition of Gloria Jean Sykes
Ms. Black,
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
Cost of corruption — $55,000.00!
Dear Readers;
As many of you know, corruption in our Cook County Circuit court costs all of us millions and millions of dollars per year. That is what happens when justice is not done.
Attorneys are not just supposed to just “walk on by” when they see corruption, but sadly about as many do as the general public does when corruption is seen. To complicate the matter further, when, as in this case the corruption is reported over and over but nothing is done because it apparently reaches the highest levels in the state, city and county, the costs and problems become harder and harder to solve.
Take a look below and see what corruption costs in terms of me running this blog when there are other consumer protection suits I want to be involved in.
take care
JoAnne
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC.
FEDERAL LITIGATION, PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS
1512 N FREMONT ST, #202 PHONE 312-553-1300
CHICAGO, IL 60642 FAX 312-553-1307
JoAnne M. Denison✬ JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com
JoAnne Cell Phone 773-255-7608
http://www.DenisonLaw.com
✬–Admitted NC (Inactive) & US Patent Bar *–Admitted US Patent Bar
Invoice submitted to:
http://www.costofcorruption.info
May 31, 2012
Come see our website at http://www.DenisonLaw.com. Pay your bill online – click on “Pricing” Tab.
Pay your bill by Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, check by fax/phone/email or Paypal
Payment due in 30 days
Professional Services
Hours Rate Amount
4/1/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.75 $300.00/hr 225.00
Preparing 2 posts for blog.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 4.50 $300.00/hr 1,350.00
Emails regarding the taking of JMD’s computer, court sanctioned
elder abuse, and copyright infringement. (18 emails)
4/2/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 5.00 $300.00/hr 1,500.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC witness list, updating the blog, and court sanctioned elder
abuse. (24 emails)
4/3/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.50 $300.00/hr 750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC Complaint and updating the blog. (16 emails)
4/4/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.00 $300.00/hr 300.00
Preparing posts for blog. (6 emails)
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.25 $300.00/hr 75.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog.
4/5/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.00 $300.00/hr 300.00
Preparing posts for blog.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.50 $300.00/hr 450.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC Complaint (15 emails).
4/6/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.00 $300.00/hr 300.00
Preparing blog posts and petitions post. (4 emails)
4/7/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.50 $300.00/hr 150.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky regarding elder abuse and
the ARDC Interview. (6 emails)
4/8/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.50 $300.00/hr 150.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the table
of torts. (3 emails)
4/9/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.75 $300.00/hr 225.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky and client regarding table of
torts (4 emails)
4/10/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.50 $300.00/hr 750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog and the Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau. (21 emails)
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC.
May 31, 2012
http://www.costofcorruption.info Page 2
4/11/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.75 $300.00/hr 225.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky regarding denying client’s
Motion to Dismiss. (6 emails)
4/12/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.00 $300.00/hr 300.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the ARDC
Complaint. (6 emails)
4/13/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.50 $300.00/hr 450.00
Preparing 2 posts for blog.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.00 $300.00/hr 600.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog, the ARDC Complaint, and events that happened in court.
(13 emails)
4/14/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.50 $300.00/hr 750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog and the ARDC Complaint. (12 emails)
4/15/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.50 $300.00/hr 450.00
Preparing 2 posts for blog.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.25 $300.00/hr 75.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog. (3 emails)
4/16/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.50 $300.00/hr 450.00
Preparing 2 blog posts and revising table of torts.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.00 $300.00/hr 600.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky and client regarding updating
the blog and the response to the ARDC Complaint. (10 emails)
4/17/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.50 $300.00/hr 750.00
Reviewing Attorney Ditkowsky’s pleadings including the ARDC
complaint and Answer.
4/17/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.00 $300.00/hr 300.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog post. (6 emails)
4/18/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.00 $300.00/hr 600.00
Preparing 2 blog posts and reviewing pleadings.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 3.50 $300.00/hr 1,050.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky and client regarding updating
the blog and an answer to the ARDC Complaint. (19 emails)
4/19/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 3.50 $300.00/hr 1,050.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog. (18 emails)
4/20/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.75 $300.00/hr 225.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog. (4 emails)
4/23/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.75 $300.00/hr 225.00
Reviewing emails from Attorney Ditkowsky for blog post.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 0.25 $300.00/hr 75.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog.
4/24/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.00 $300.00/hr 600.00
Preparing 2 blog posts and Legal research regarding Lawless
America.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 4.50 $300.00/hr 1,350.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding Lawless
America, updating the blog, and the ARDC Complaint. (25 emails)
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC.
May 31, 2012
http://www.costofcorruption.info Page 3
4/25/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.50 $300.00/hr 750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding
publishing a new blog post and filings against properties. (13 emails)
4/26/2012 JAD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.00 $25.00/hr 25.00
Obtaining imaged copies of relevant portion of the probate files from
the Cook County Court Probate Division.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 2.50 $300.00/hr 750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding filing
against properties and updating the blog and telephone
conference with client regarding same. (11 emails)
4/28/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 4.50 $300.00/hr 1,350.00
Preparing blog posts and sending 2 faxes to Attorney Black at the
ARDC.
JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 6.25 $300.00/hr 1,875.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding
publishing the entire case record, updating the blog, and obtaining
the court transcripts (38 emails).
4/29/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 6.75 $300.00/hr 2,025.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog and obtaining the transcripts, and (39 emails).
4/30/2012 JMD MARY G SYKES BLOG 1.00 $300.00/hr 300.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC proceeding against Attorney Ditkowsky. (5 emails)
For professional services rendered 72.00 $23,725.00
Additional Charges :
4/26/2012 Photocopies from Court of Court files. 24.25
Total additional charges $24.25
Interest on overdue balance $1,998.33
Total amount of this bill $25,747.58
Previous balance for maintaining blog and defending ARDC Complaints, running the blog, etc. $28,750.00
Accounts receivable transactions
Balance due $54,497.58
Fax to Mr. Kevin Connelly, Sheriff’s dept regarding seizure of attorney laptops for whistle blowing.
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Mr Kevin Connellly
Office of Sheriff
Circuit Court Cook County
Fax: 312-603-6183
From: Admitted Ill., N. Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat. Atty. Reg. No. 34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202 CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642 PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Troy Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, associate of counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address. You will be reimbursed. Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy WILL ✔ will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see fax header )
July 7, 2012
Re: Seizure of attorney laptops in Probate court
And case no 09 P 4585 estate of mary g sykes
Dear Mr Connelly;
I was referred to your offices by Chief Judge Timothy Evans due to the constant seizure and interference by courtroom personnel in court room 1804 (Probate division, where else?) Whenever I simply want to take notes for a client on my laptop.
I think everyone knows that the courtrooms are supposed to be public and the ability of the public to take notes and disseminate news is very important. I am an attorney running a blog on http://www.marygsykes.com/ which appears to be a very corrupt case, with corruption reaching to the highest levels, including the ARDC.
But when I go to court room 1804, the guardians ad litem complain to the judge “I am blogging.” Despite my best efforts to properly train court room personnel on first amendment rights and the rights and duties of attorneys to help their clients and others, they continually deny myself and my law clerk use of a laptop.
You might say, why? There are hundreds of attorneys running around the Cook County circuit court at any given time using laptops, iPad thingies, laptops, whatever. No one bothers them. I practice there and in no other court room am I bothered. I have conducted several trials weeks long and no one said anything when I used my laptop. Opposing counsels all used laptops too.
Keep on asking questions, tho. It’s obvious in this case. Half the file is missing. The court in 09 P 4585 has been acting without subject matter jurisdiction now for about 3 years. The court and the GAL’s are working without authority and are engaging in gross tortious actions. Any day now this will blow and it may very well create a scandal more far reaching than Greylord (yes, I’m old enough to recall Greylord, are you?)
Therefore, I need a response from your offices that attorneys should be allowed to use their laptops to take notes, compare their file stamped pleadings with the record, order needed transcripts, etc.
I also think a 9 volume appeal record is also missing from the courtroom, but I will try to confirm that on Monday.
How is this all happening? And when attorneys are trying to investigate and report the very important news our Probate court is utterly corrupt, we are told “no laptops.”
So please provide me with a proper response or letter indicating I can use my laptop and so can my staff and other attorneys, otherwise, please let me know when you are available for a pre-filing telephone discovery deposition to attach to a CPA (the Illinois Citizens Participation Act) complaint for filing over with your buddies at 219 S. Dearborn.
Thanks
Very Truly Yours,
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC
JoAnne Denison
JoAnne M. Denison
PS– please respond by email or fax. I see that Judge Timothy Evans likes to use expensive $50 per ream colored engraved bond paper. I don’t need or want that. That’s ridiculous when the country is now in a depression. Are you guys kidding? BS is the same on any type of paper, and is probably best left to the cyber junk on the internet. Email and Efax is fine by me.
PPS–you think this case is not corrupt on many levels? Go ask the official court reporters offices who have now provided me with 3 affidavits of “lost” or “untranscribable” court proceedings. If you believe that one, I have some swamp land for you in Florida that can be easily drained and Disney will buy it.
So, just let me know if you are on the side of cleaning up the courts or if you are a SOP patronage worker that fears every day to be thrown under the bus for whistleblowing. You get a choice today. I think Judge Evans made his choice. Too bad it’s now permanently on the internet tagged under “corruption”.
PPPS–copies of correspondence to Judge Evans are attached hereto.
Cc: Hon Pres. Judge Timothy Evans
cc: http://www.marygsykes.com And http://www.marygsykes.blogspot.com
tags: “timothy evans” “presiding judge cook county” “sheriff’s department cook county” “kevin connelly corruption”, “sheriff corruption” “failure to investigate corruption” “cook county corruption”, “seizure of laptops”, “whistleblowing attorneys”, “first amendment rights violated”, “public’s right to know denied”, “missing files cook county court”, “probate court corruption”, “judge jane louise stuart corruption.”
PPPPS– you should be able to google these tags in a day or two and see yourself in the search engines linked to corruption. BUT the best part is most recent posts are listed first, so if you send out a mandate attys are allowed to use laptops to take notes in court and investigate corruption, you will be linked to new tags with your name and that you uphold constitutional rights, you assist attys in investigating corruption and you take the side of whistle blowers. Whatever corrective tags you want, I will use. Guaranteed.
Today’s post on the Hearing–But where is the Law and Where is the Science–Main questions:?
Aside
Dear Readers
While I am writing up now my thoughts and notes, main questions came in from the peanut gallery regarding proceedings in Probate Court that I believe get to the bottom of what is going on.
What I thought was most noteworthy, was 1) the judge admitted Sodini was not going to be used in her court (now, I believe I heard that, but it was fairly shocking news, so I might have misheard; 2) Gloria asked about how a psychiatrist, namely one Dr. Shaw, who never saw her mother in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. is now predicting in Oct. of 2008 simply did not have the capabilities to make or understand a written contract. He primarily did this assessment of something called a “mini mental” which Dr. Patel conducted maybe once or twice per year and was part of her medical records. Now I would call that being a psychic, because well, Mary wears hearing aids that are not particularly effective, but…. Doc Shaw knows better (quack quack). 3) the court also explained to Gloria who pounded Dr. Shaw with proper procedures published by the Alzheimer’s Assn and the Mayo Clinic how numerous competent tests must be conducted and analyzed, together with a contemporaneous finding of a neurological testing for cognitive abilities before a finding of dementia or Alzheimer’s can be made. Oops, sorry, skipped that step.
The judge explained how the Probate Court declares people incompetent by the thousands each year and the only standard it uses is whether the person “can make (logical) decisions and be able to communicate those decisions effectively to others.”
That’s it. No science, no Sodini, no due process. Get a quack and loot an estate–legally.
Thanks for explaining that your honor.
But there are more comments that are worth publishing below.
So have a delicious read on. I left the best comment for last.
JoAnne
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. GenerallyWhy is Mary Sykes not entitled to the protections of the statute? Are there two sets of laws – one for those individuals who are targeted for deprivation of this civil and human rights by the politically elite and those who have no money?Ken Ditkowsky
Subject: RE: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
Dear All,
Again very interesting. I will order the transcripts on Monday and have to leave a deposit and so I must make arrangements to go downtown, et al. That said, I have been barred from bringing in any evidence, witnesses, and *** even though the court transcripts of previous testimony I was allowed to bring in medical reports of Dr. Patel omitted by Peter Schmiedel and company.
I will be writing up my overview of today, but what is clear is,
(1) Dr. Shaw admitted he could not speak for Dr. Patel, Dr. Moctkya, or Dr. Rabin and the court agreed: however, he was allowed to give his medical opinion as to what he believed they meant when they wrote x, y and z.
(2) Dr. Shaw admitted that some prescription drugs cause memory loss, disorientation, et al, and also admitted that none of the doctors he reviewed their reports listed the medications Mary G. Sykes was on the time she was evaluated by them:
(3) Dr. Shaw admitted that a diagnosis of dementia does not mean incompetency,
(4) Dr. Shaw claims that mild dementia and serious dementia are the same,
(5) and today Peter Schmiedel got Dr. Shaw to admit that all mother has is memory loss…
(6) The Judge said that the US Supreme court decision based on an Illinois case that retroactive incompetency diagnoses are not allowed should not be considered, et al,
(7) The Judge said that Sodini does not apply to the Sykes case,
(8) The Judge claimed that there is no Illinois statue that states that a respondent to a petition for a protective order cannot be a guardian,
(9) The Judge said that Toerpe can waive my mother’s rights to medical confidentiallyand, but not limited to,
(10) Dr. Shaw admitted that he may not have received all of the medical reports on mother but that his evaluation was determined on medical reports supplied by Carolyn Toerpe,
oops and,
(11) That he did evaluate mother recently, in April or May 2012 (which I’ve never seen his report) but that he did not know if mother was on any medications, prescribed or otherwise…
The Judge said that I could not impeach him through my cross…
The Judge said that I could not give argument after Peter Schmiedel gave argument as to why the Court should sustain his objection(s)
And finally, Peter Schmiedel said that because he has a certificate of mailing that he knows I was served notice, et al.
Peter Schmiedel then had in the order that I am to be called as a witness on the 16 August because I was on his service list. The Judge then asked to show his service list which he did not have. I have never been subpoenaed for service. I told the judge that I did supply them with a service list and Stuart told me that that was for ‘something else” and that the date my ‘witnesses were to testify” they were put in the hallway and I was handcuffed to a chair and… Schmiedel got that stricken..
Finally, I have court transcripts where the Judge says in 2011 that there is no proof my mother is incompetent only that she cannot make certain decision.
JoAnne was targeted up front as to why she was in court and Judge Stuart said she doesn’t remember JoAnne ever being in court. Accordingly, the deputy sheriff claims that the sheriff can determine whether or not a public can bring in their laptop. Judge Stuart said that JoAnne could take notes on a yellow legal pad.
At a certain point the deputy sheriff was going to take JoAnne’s computer, and the Judge waived her off. JoAnne stayed in the courtroom with the computer on her lap looking at the Judge.
I would like to know as Peter Schmiedel’s witness what I am testifying to … again as his witness….and what rights I have?
Thanks
Gloria Jean SykesExpert witnessesDo not forget the fact that your mother passes a written driving test administered by the State of IllinoisKen DitkowskyFrom Tim LahrmanSubject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. GenerallyDate: Jul 6, 2012 7:43 PMthis is the present day practice of economic eugenics ….. a shit law, very dangerous law —- easily exploited lawthat seemingly supports economic involuntary sterilization — and privateering with impunity.I almost think I would prefer to face a bunch of Somali pirates than a court appointed guardian —— both are stealing you blind and if you shoot and kill the Somali pirate you are an American hero entitled to own and use your gun to defend yourself —— but if you shoot the guardian the headline reads“Crazed gunman with history of mental illness ……..”
Motion for Judgment on the pleadings–by Ken Ditkowsky
Dear Readers;
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Probate case and the ARDC complaint against Ken is the complete lack of procedure and the pressing need to railroad everything and bypass normal and typical procedures. Neither Ken nor I have seen this is any case before, and he has practices for over 40 years and I have practiced for over 25.
I will update the lack of procedures in this case, but my “Table of Torts” surely should be made a law school/CLE classic. Just how much procedure can a court/tribunal ignore while supposedly doing its job?
Read below for lack of procedure in the ARDC on KD’s Requests to Admit, and the fact the ARDC never responded to any of his Affirmative Defenses, which must be denied or they are admitted and a Judgment on the Pleadings is called for and deserved.
But what the heck is really going on. Why are there being made serious mistakes in litigation by the ARDC that are being ignored. There are no cases that say an ARDC tribunal is exempt from the Rules of Court–which according to Bright v. Dicke are not “aspirational”, the Rules of Court are to have the “same force and effect as any Illinois Law.”
JoAnne
Subject: draft of Motion for Judgment on the pleadings – unedited
The Alvarez case that was decided on the same day as the Court rule Obamacare constitutional is precedent that even if I made was totally made up the Sykes case, the Tyler case, the Wyman case et al, I had an absolute right to complain concerning such ‘august’ people as Stern, Farenga, et al. Unfortunately evey word that I have spoken is truthful and the travesty that is the Mary Sykes case is real.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED UPON RECENT RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES IN CASE OF UNITED STATES v ALVAREZ
Are Lea Black and Cynthia Farenga engaging in witness tampering?
Dear Readers;
Apparently this is what the miscreants have in store for Gloria. As you are aware, there is supposed to be set a hearing on the Partition motion for July 6, 2012 at 2 pm. No one knows if Gloria is participating. The entire Probate matter is without jurisdiction, so Gloria has no obligation. I could not find a summons/affidavit in the Probate file when I looked earlier, and as you all know, having previously published a copy of the Probate file from Mar of 2011 to present, it appears no where in there either.
Ken brings up good points below. So where is the summons and affidavit served upon Gloria for the partition? I believe Chase got a general one and I have seen that. How can they proceed without Gloria. What judge would proceed without a duly filed and sworn to Summons and Affidavit.
Perhaps this explains the recent bizarre behavior of LB allegedly calling up Gloria and being nasty to her AND serving her with a summons for her deposition in the ARDC on July 5, 2012, when Gloria has other plans and will not be available. When Gloria said “no thank you” to that date, LB apparently did not take that well and things got nasty from her. Gloria complained to LB’s superiors in Springfield, and got an apology. Gloria sent numerous other dates.
What did the LB/Farenga party plan? A deposition and the next day the Motion on Partition?
Pretty sneaky. No one know what Gloria is doing about July 6, 2012. I have not seen any summons for any of the court (wired) connected doctors that keep on saying Mary is incompetent despite the videos, despite having passed her driver’s exam in Jan. of 2009.
The miscreants want her declared incompetent back to August of 2008. But how can that be with her passing a written driver’s license exam?
This crazy plot continues. No jurisdiction. Doctors that are paid handsomely for about an hour of work ($950 to one doctor according to CT’s 2011 accounting).
Too bad there are now waaay tooo many people besides Gloria noticing and publishing all the dirty little tricks and secrets of this case.
JoAnne
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 2, 2012 4:27 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , NASGA , probate sharks
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA , states attorney , Cook County Sheriff , “Edward C. Carter” , “David (NBC Universal WRC) Silver” , “tips@tribune.com” , SUNTIMES , Joseph Hosey
Subject: escalation of intimidation on Gloria sykes in progress
Gloria writes to Lea Black regarding her subpoena for a Deposition
You go, Gloria!
Subject: RE: ARDC Lea Black — Subpoena deposition for Gloria Jean Sykes–please cross post!
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
From Ken Ditkowsky–the breadth of the First Amendment!
From Ken Ditkowsky:
Yesterday I re-read the ARDC complaint that was filed concerning my protests and communications in regard to Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and the miscreants who acted under color of statute to deprive Mary Sykes of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights. The action taken is not even subtle. It is a heavy handed attempt to shut me up. My protest and exercise of my First Amendment Rights are particularly unpleasant to Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga and those aiding and abetting their conduct. I mentioned the fact that the breach of a fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event!’ When Stern, Farenga et al concealed the isolation and abuse of Mary Sykes by not filing reports to the Court of such conduct and instead defamated and castigated Gloria Sykes and those who protested they breached their fiduciary relationships to Mary Sykes. When the plenary guardian drilled the safety deposit box and removed from it a large number of double eagle gold coins and other valuables and did not inventory the same it was not only a breach of fiduciary relationship but ‘theft!’ If the Federal and STate Income taxes have not been paid – that is tax evasion and possibly tax fraud.
As this has been now disclosed and made public we have called for an honest, comprehensive and complete investigation. There is no just reason for Mary Sykes (aged 93) to be denied her civil rights and there is no reason why those persons who benefited by the non-inventory of the very valuable double eagle gold coins (worth about $3000 each) should not pay the Federal and State of Illinois taxes on the collectibles.
My continued mention of the fact that usually non-inventoried valuables in the possession of a guardian are not reported as income by the fiduciary has generated personal attacks on me from not only the two guardian ad litem, the plenary guardian and her attorneys, but now the ARDC. Indeed, the fact that I undertook an investigation is the sole complaint against me. I am also defending an attorney who is being investigated upon similar charges. My defense to the Gulag is the First Amendment. The following quote is particularly appropriate:
Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government *523 based upon the consent of an informed citizenry-a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the preservation of liberty. U.S.Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, 81 L.Ed. 278; N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1170, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488.
3 Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660; Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292; American Communications Ass’n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402, 70 S.Ct. 674, 685, 94 L.Ed. 925;
Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 522-23, 80 S. Ct. 412, 416, 4 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1960)
Last week there was a protest outside a courtroom near Riverside California instituted by a group of persons protesting similar elder abuse and financial exploitation of senior citizens. I understand that the Media blackout and political censorship of this ‘dirty little secret’ continues just as in a past decade the Gulag florished in Soviet Russia. I hope that in the year 2012 the 4th of July celebration is all form and no substance.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
In response to Gloria’s reply yesterday:
Gloria –
I was just having the very same thought. Rudy Bush wrote me and I remembered the situation with his mother and how her death was handled.
The League of Women Votes had a slogan – “democracy is not a spectator sport!” Indeed, it is not and while we were complacent our democracy was hijacked! Instead of protections for ‘grandma’ we have a gulag! The Supreme Court decision of Buck vs. Bell was the legal precedent for the Holocaust. Today we are more subtle however, like the National Socialists and the Communists we surround our miscreat behavior with Judicial CYA. The distinction between the Sykes case and most of the others is the fact that because no one bothered to follow strictly the statute and provide the appropriate Sodini protections – i.e. naming in the petition the close relatives and giving them 14 days notice prior to the hearing to appoint a guardian the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction and the expropriation of approximately a million dollars of your mother’s (and your) assets lacks ‘judicial cover!’ In my opinion it is pure theft and if law enforcement believes in equal protection we will see some people in jail. If our Federal Government is serious about enforcing taxes on an equal and equitable basis the unreported ‘income’ will be collected from the guardians (plus every penalty and interest due and payable).
We have only ourselves to blame! We have the ballot but *****. We have a right of assembly and free speech (except for me in the opinion of the ARDC). Democracy is not a spectator sport!
From JoAnne:
What do the courts have to say about the First Amendment:
102 S.Ct. 929
Supreme Court of the United States
In re R. M. J., Appellant.
No. 80-1431. | Argued Nov. 9, 1981. | Decided Jan. 25, 1982.
Disbarment proceedings were instituted against attorney. The Missouri Supreme Court, 609 S.W.2d 411, issued a private reprimand. Appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Justice Powell, held that the provisions of the Missouri Supreme Court rule regulating lawyer advertising which prohibit deviating from a precise listing of areas of practice included in the advisory committee addendum to the rule, which prohibit a lawyer from identifying the jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice and which prohibit the mailing of cards announcing the opening of an office to persons other than “lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends and relatives” violate the First Amendment where there was no showing that the advertising was misleading or that the mailings and handbills would be more difficult to supervise.
Judgment reversed.
Most notable quotes from this case:
Truthful advertising related to lawful activities is entitled to protections of First Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Although potential for deception and confusion is particularly strong in context of advertising professional services, restrictions upon such advertising may be no broader than reasonably necessary to prevent deception. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Under commercial speech doctrine, states may not place absolute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information if information may be presented in way that is not deceptive. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Even when communication is not misleading, state retains some authority to regulate; but state must assert substantial interest and interference with speech must be in proportion to interest served. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
In regulating communication which is not misleading, restrictions must be narrowly drawn and state lawfully may regulate only to extent regulation furthers state’s substantial interest. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14
Restriction prohibiting attorney from mailing cards announcing opening of his office to persons other than “lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends and relatives” violated First Amendment without indication that inability to supervise mailings and handbills was reason state restricted potential audience of announcement cards, nor was it clear that absolute prohibition was the only solution. V.A.M.R. 4, Code of Prof.Resp., DR2-102(A)(2); U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1,
Although states may regulate commercial speech, First and Fourteenth Amendments require that they do so with care and in manner no more extensive than reasonably necessary for their substantial interests. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1,
Nothing more fun than playing the game of what’s in the Sykes Probate File today…
Dear Readers;
The following is the probate file for 09 P 4585 between May1 and May 13, 2009:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZG02MkVITlpVcms
cut and paste this if link does not work:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZG02MkVITlpVcms
In any case, there is an accounting filed by CT for 2011 and there is also an Amended Petition for Partition. I have not seen Gloria’s response to this, but there is no briefing schedule, so she has a few more days to prepare this.
With respect to the accounting, it looks fine except it is not explained why Hannah is so sickly and has $1000 in vet bills. She is a young, healthy dog. Her sister, Peanut, whom I have, is in perfect health and I think cost me about $70 in vet bills for just a check up last year. Did anyone see this and wonder why Carolyn can’t take care of a simple 10 lb Pekingese, how can she take care of elderly Mary G?
Interesting.
Further, the mortgage payment doubled and that was not explained. What’s up with that?
She also needs to revamp and refile her Motion to Dismiss or Non Suit for lack of jurisdiction. I saw one in the file at one time. I will be finding that and redoing it for her next court appearance. I have prepared declarations for Aunt Yolanda and Aunt Josephine and published them here and sent them off, but have heard nothing back. All those declarations are necessary for 1) the Probate Court, 2) Gloria’s cases, most notable now the partition that will strip her of her brown house; 3) Ken’s ARDC complaint, 4) My ARDC complaint and a whole host of other reasons.
I’m hoping to get this all done soon so that justice may prevail and we can all go home soon! Yeah!
JoAnne
Fax to Atty Black at the ARDC
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
ARDC
Attn: Ms. Lea Black, esq.
Fax 312-565-2320 From: Admitted Ill., N. Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat. Atty. Reg. No. 34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202 CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642 PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Marianne Buckley, Associate, Of Counsel
Troy Sieburg, Associate, Of Counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address. You will be reimbursed. Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy WILL ✔ will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see efax header )
June 26, 2012
Re: JoAnne M. Denison , In relation to Cynthia Farenga’s Complaint AND
Kenneth Ditkowsky, the Sykes Probate matter 09 P 4585
PLUS my request to open an investigation against Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern, Harvey Waller
Request for subpoenas!
Dear Ms. Black;
Without waiving my representation by Mr. Ditkowsky, who is aware of this communication, attached are two declarations for signature by the adult sisters of Mary G Sykes, namely, Ms. Josephine DiPietro and Ms. Yolanda Baaken.
Their addresses are as follows:
Ms. Josephine DePietro
222 Park Avenue
Bloomingdale, Illinois 60108
Yolanda M. Bakken
1600 N. 39th Avenue
Stone Park, IL
I would appreciate your transmitting these to these ladies to inquire if the declarations are in fact true, and they were never formally noticed by the Petitioner in the above Probate matter as to the Dec 7, 2009 Petition for Guaradianship of Mary G Sykes which was filed by Carolyn Toerpe. This would make the entire matter–the freezing of Gloria’s $272,000, her subsequent eviction, the partition action filed against her home, her continued harrassment by the miscreants–void ab initio.
Thank you for your continued attention and investigation of the above matter.
This important communication was also posted on my blog at http://www.marygsykes.com, and http://www.marygsykes.blogspot.com, so if you lose it, it will be available there. Also, if you do not want to retype it, today’s post provides a convenient link so you can just download a Word file to change as you please or just print out..
Very Truly Yours,
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC
JoAnne Denison
Joanne M. Denison
Cc: Ken Ditkowsky, via email, MaryGSykes blogs.
PS–this is also being sent to you as part of my (our) continuing duty to report serious and flagrant violations of the rules of ethics and relevant state and federal laws to the ARDC.
PPS–I am told by a little bird that Josephine thinks “being allowed” to visit her sister once every two months and a phone call once or twice per month is okay because neither Yolanda or her daughter Kathy Bakken–family members once very, very close to Mary G Sykes–were told they “took the wrong side” in the dispute and therefore they are not allowed to see Mary. I find such conduct of an officer of the court deplorable, but ****. So you might make Josephine aware it is part of her civic duty to step forward and tell the truth–the court has no jurisdiction and Mary is able to go free and go back and live in her own home if she wants. And, no a Guardian ad Litem is not supposed to “take sides”, but report fairly and honestly. Mary G’s sisters used to phone each other all the time. Gloria held parties for her all the time. Now CT keeps her in near total isolation with just handful of visits/phone calls. I am told at a favorite niece’s wedding, the sister’s family table was only about 5 relatives when that side of the family used to have dozens of extended family members visiting Mary (see the Christmas tape links on Vimeo – the links are on the home page of http://www.marygsykes.com.
Direct Links to the Sodini Notice Draft Declarations for the Sisters:
see below.
please cut and paste link if it does not work in your browser.
Yolanda
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSzNuZUpDR1ExMHc
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSzNuZUpDR1ExMHc
Second declaration–Josephine:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwM2ZTVHNQOFZDOFU
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwM2ZTVHNQOFZDOFU
Now, if Ken wants to ‘CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION” and ask the GAL’s to inform the court regarding these declarations, it’s a whole new ballgame.
A Guardian ad Litem, doing her job properly, would immediately, upon seeing Gloria’s documents in the file, or having been served with them, brought them to the court’s attention and start an investigation.
But see my “Table of Torts”. TEN PAGES of questionable behavior, corruption, misfeasance, malfeasance, perpetration of misdemeansors and felonies have occurred in this case and law enforcement and even the ARDC have swept it under the rug. Okay, maybe Atty Lea Black does not do this law and she needs help in this area, but the table of torts that I sent her should have raised some huge, huge red flags, even to the casual observer.
I’m not the one that should be scouring the files and preparing these declarations–she should be, or her staff.
The probate court is upside down right now (see attached picture), and I just wonder if the ARDC isn’t just standing on its head so the view looks good and proper to them.

Is this our Probate Court on the the 18th Floor? Should there be signage when you get off the elevator at floor 18 “Welcome to Wonderwerks?”
Ms. Black, YOU have the ability to change all of this. I know you can do it and let justice prevail.
Another Reason for the Miscreants to start Gulping and back off
Dear Readers;
Now that I have had some time to go back and read transcripts and look over the my computer files (yes, I do have practically all the court orders and documents in my records, so this is a QED, AND I do plan on making those computer files consisting of filed and unfiled pleadings, court orders, court transcripts, etc. complete so Gloria can pursue her claims against the miscreants).
As a result of that and the upcoming July 6, 2012 Hearing on Motion to Partition, I have drafted the below affidavits and will fax them to Lea Black at the ARDC.
Now it is my understand (from a little bird), that Josephine “might be reluctant to sign” because apparently she “took the wrong side” and is allowed to see her sister every couple of months and call her a couple times per month. What? Gloria gave Mary parties all the time and included her in EVERYTHING. Her mom called her sisters all the time.
The most disturbing part of this comment is that it is clearly obstruction of justice and a further breach by the GAL’s of their duty to report to a court fairly and impartially on matters concerning the disabled person.
I, myself, cringe at hearing such comments being made out of the mouth of an Officer of the Court. Disgusting.
When this situation occurs, I will let Ms. Black know and to put in her cover letter to the sisters that it is their important civic duty to come forward and present court testimony (an affidavit is used as an important precursor to court testimony, it allows the parties, their attys and the court to determine if the witness has something worthwhile to say or not), and inform the court fully of the truth before it. It is similar to jury duty, an important and cherished civic right, but perhaps signing that affidavit might be even more important.
Ms. Black should further know these witnesses have been tampered with by the GAL’s.
JoAnne
From Ken Ditkowsky today:
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 25, 2012 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: Request for Information on Incidents of The Use of Chemical Restraints on the Elderly and/or Disabled– from latifa . ring@comcast.net–she is looking for persons experienced with the drugging of elders to put them in nursing homes, keep them from family. Generally these drugs are prescribed by physicians upon a complaint the elder is unruly and agitated. Often this agitation occurs when they are put in a nursing home, personal effects and homes are sold–all to generate fees from lawyers, CPA’s and others that put them there. The worst thing about it is that often these psychotropic drugs (Seroquel, Risperodol, etc.) are hard on the internal organs–heart, liver, kidneys, etc., and over time cause them to fail resulting in the death of the elder. An elder that would be perfectly fine in her own home, without money grubbing miscreants.
From Ken Ditkowsky
Mary G. Sykes,
An alleged disabled person.
Declaration by Josephine DiPietro
The undersigned doth deposes and sayeth
1. I am the adult sister of Mary G. Sykes.
2. That I have been informed that on November 18, 2009, a hearing date of December 7, 2011 at 11 am in courtroom 1804 was set on Carolyn Toerpe’s Petition for Guardianship. On that date the hearing was held, and Carolyn Teorpe was appointed Plenary Guardian of Mary G Sykes.
3. I have also been told of the following requirement under Illinois law:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. 755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
4. No one ever served me with any written notice of hearing 14 days prior to that hearing, either by mail or in person.
5. I was not present at the hearing. (State whether you would have been there had you been informed 14 days in advance.) ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
I hereby declare that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection at the time they were made. Where based upon information and belief, they were believed to be true at the time the statements were made. If I am called to testify, I will give testimony that is the same as stated within this document. I understand that false statements may subject me to penalties for perjury under the relevant Illinois laws and regulations.Further declarant saith not.___________________________________
Josephine DePietro
Dated this ____ day of June, 2012
Mary G. Sykes,
An alleged disabled person.
Declaration by Yolanda Bakken
The undersigned doth deposes and sayeth
1. I am the adult sister of Mary G. Sykes.
2. That I have been informed that on November 18, 2009, a hearing date of December 7, 2011 at 11 am in courtroom 1804 was set on Carolyn Toerpe’s Petition for Guardianship. On that date the hearing was held, and Carolyn Teorpe was appointed Plenary Guardian of Mary G Sykes.
3. I have also been told of the following requirement under Illinois law:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. 755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
4. No one ever served me with any written notice of hearing 14 days prior to that hearing, either by mail or in person.
5. I was present at the hearing only because Gloria Sykes, younger daughter of Mary G Sykes, notified me informally in the following manner there was to be a hearing:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
(State whether it was via an email to someone else, a phone call, etc. or you were unaware that the Petition was being heard on December 7, 2010 at 10 am in court room 1804 of the Richard J Daley Center, 55 W. Washington St, Room 1804, Chicago, IL 60602.
I hereby declare that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection at the time they were made. Where based upon information and belief, they were believed to be true at the time the statements were made. If I am called to testify, I will give testimony that is theInitials_______
Yoland Bakken Declaration
Page 2 of 2same as stated within this document. I understand that false statements may subject me to penalties for perjury under the relevant Illinois laws and regulations.
Further declarant saith not.
___________________________________
Yolanda Bakken
Dated this ____ day of June, 2012
Fax to Hon Timothy Evans, Presiding Judge, Cook County
Dear Readers;
Okay, you know I just couldn’t resist a responsive fax to Judge Evans, so here it is:
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Hon Presiding
Judge Timothy Evans
Circuit Court Cook County
Fax: 312-603-5366
From: Admitted Ill., N. Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat. Atty. Reg. No. 34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202 CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642 PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Troy Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, associate of counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address. You will be reimbursed. Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy WILL ✔ will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( 1 )
June 23, 2012
Re: Seizure of attorney laptops in Probate court
Dear Judge Evans;
I am in receipt of your cursory letter sent my snail mail to my offices.
However, snail mail is very costly to the taxpayers and emails and efax are much more efficient and I strongly encourage you to use those. I promise you I will respond promptly to all communications, generally in a day or two, so do not worry about non receipt of mail.
Further, the USPS readily admits from studies that are decades old and extremely consistent, that only 95% of snail mail reaches its destination in 5 days! I think email easily beats that statistic hands down.
As you may or may not know, this issue is part of a much larger issue going on in the Probate Court right now and we have a very active blog on all aspects of a case which is extremely contentious and appears to be the center of substantial corruption and wiring.
Discussions among the attys that are helping out the client pro bono are lively and active.
The seizure of the laptop has become part of those discussions, and one of the attys on the blog is extremely active and eloquently outspoken, so I thought perhaps you might enjoy his comments. Below is the post for today, of which you are a subject.
Ken Ditkowsky says that Judge Timothy Evans sent me a bug letter
Posted on June 23, 2012
Dear Readers;
As you well know, last December 2011 my laptop was seized when Adam Stern whined to Judge Connors that I was blogging (soon the transcripts will appear on the first page of this blog, I am working on that), So finally, finally I got a response from Cook County presiding judge Timothy Evans after 3 faxes and waiting about 2 weeks. (I guess he has no law clerks or staff).
in any case, see below:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQVh3bm5fbWU3VkE (cut and paste link)
Obviously, the letter says nothing in response to consititutional rights, the ability to best serve your client, etc. but Ken Ditkowsky had an even better anecdote regarding a “bug letter.”
KD’s anecdote:
“Many years ago before the age of computers on every desk, the Illinois Central Railroad ran trains to Southern Illinois. The trains had windows that opened, and sometimes passengers were harassed by insects. On one such trip a traveler was so upset that he wrote to the Chairman of the IC to complain.
In the 40?s and 50?s Banks and large institutions had automatic typewriters – these were typewriters that we very much like player pianos. A secretary would type a master, and then another secretary would fill in the details such as name, address, etc.
Anyhow, our traveler received a letter very similar to what you received, and in the unsophisticated era the personal signature totally mollified him – until he turned the letter over and saw in pencil the words: “send bug letter.”
It is a shame that everyone is watching what appears to be a crime being committed, i.e. a 93 year old lady, kidnapped and robbed and the thieves acting in concert with the judicial system. The Illinois legislature enacted the Sodini protections and made the protections jurisdictional to prevent exactly what has happened in the Sykes case. Now for four years this Gulag has continued in full sight of law enforcement, the highest ranking judicial officials, and the world. Mary Sykes has been totally deprived of her liberty, her property, civil rights and even human rights in full sight. Approximately a million dollars in assets have been illegally sequestered by the thieves who have the temerity to brag in open court of the perfidy! (see Sykes transcripts)
The distinction between Chicago street crime and guardian crime is that the ‘thugs’ are not ‘minority individuals’ not Italian mafia etc. They are ‘clout’ heavy political types who have for many years ‘played’ the system to make their bread at the public expense. By targeting Grandma who they could characterize as senile they are apparently safe as their co-conspirators cover their tracks with CYA letters, intimidation, and deceit! These criminals are just as vicious as the gang member who grabs grandma’s purse and throws her onto the elevated tracks! The only distinction is the the judicial system protects them. Shame, Shame, Shame.
The attached letter from Judge Evans is a symptom of the corruption that gave rise to Watergate, Greylord, Sykes, etc. It is difficult to speak to deaf ears glued onto public officials whose sole aim in life is CYA. Rest assured, at some point in time the right combination of circumstances will occur. How many years did Sandusky prey on male children? How many responsible people watched? What did the public authorities do? How many lives did the SOB ruin?
Why are the public officials who ignored the problem not in the ‘dock?’ Every one of them Aided and abetted the criminal activities while they occurred – each should be independently prosecuted and sent to jail as an Accessory during the fact. Each public official who ignored a complaint letter or other communication had an affirmative duty (parens Patrie) and in ignoring his/her duty assisted in the crime. These elder abuse cases are identical. Today – all the is required of the public officials (who have nothing to hide – those who do should take the fifth) is to demand a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of all the facts of the Sykes case.”
Sigh, now I have to send him a fax saying that his letter was non responsive, I will make the security guy aware of the letter, but the reality is lawyers protect our rights and not security people. I have yet to see a cop or security officer say, you have important constitutional rights and I want to protect those. Nope, their mantra is “an arrest a day keeps the sarge away.”
I don’t think the Hon. Timothy Evans knows that I am serious enough to sue him over this because it is a very important right to be able to take notes in court when needed and to do the best possible job for your client.
So more faxes. I will let you know if I get a real response from him or if I have to go to a federal court district judge to do it.
thanks all.
JoAnne
There were other comments I receive about your letter, but KD”s was clearly the best, hands down.
Kindly let me know if and when you decide to write a responsive letter that protects the rights of attys and their clients in the courtroom, and PULEEZE do not push off YOUR responsibility to “security” who know nothing of these rights, don’t know, don’t care, aren’t being paid to worry about anyone’s rights, and always seem surprised when a lawyer brings up the fact that due process and constitutional rights were supposed to be part of a class and exam passed in 6th grade!
I already had a discuss with the courtroom employees over constitutional rights, and they admitted security personnel knew “nothing about” that (due process and constitutional rights” and they said that was not their job to know these things or evaluate these things.
I agree.
So why are you passing something to a department that knows nothing of these things, readily admits it, and they say they take their direction from the court after the lawyers argue their respective points?
All good questions, but where are the good answers.
Very Truly Yours,
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC
JoAnne Denison
JoAnne M. Denison
cc: http://www.marygsykes.com And http://www.marygsykes.blogspot.com
cc:
Ken Ditkowsky says that Judge Timothy Evans sent me a bug letter
Dear Readers;
As you well know, last December 2011 my laptop was seized when Adam Stern whined to Judge Connors that I was blogging (soon the transcripts will appear on the first page of this blog, I am working on that), So finally, finally I got a response from Cook County presiding judge Timothy Evans after 3 faxes and waiting about 2 weeks. (I guess he has no law clerks or staff).
in any case, see below:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQVh3bm5fbWU3VkE (cut and paste link)
Obviously, the letter says nothing in response to consititutional rights, the ability to best serve your client, etc. but Ken Ditkowsky had an even better anecdote regarding a “bug letter.”
KD’s anecdote:
“Many years ago before the age of computers on every desk, the Illinois Central Railroad ran trains to Southern Illinois. The trains had windows that opened, and sometimes passengers were harassed by insects. On one such trip a traveler was so upset that he wrote to the Chairman of the IC to complain.
In the 40’s and 50’s Banks and large institutions had automatic typewriters – these were typewriters that we very much like player pianos. A secretary would type a master, and then another secretary would fill in the details such as name, address, etc.
Anyhow, our traveler received a letter very similar to what you received, and in the unsophisticated era the personal signature totally mollified him – until he turned the letter over and saw in pencil the words: “send bug letter.”
It is a shame that everyone is watching what appears to be a crime being committed, i.e. a 93 year old lady, kidnapped and robbed and the thieves acting in concert with the judicial system. The Illinois legislature enacted the Sodini protections and made the protections jurisdictional to prevent exactly what has happened in the Sykes case. Now for four years this Gulag has continued in full sight of law enforcement, the highest ranking judicial officials, and the world. Mary Sykes has been totally deprived of her liberty, her property, civil rights and even human rights in full sight. Approximately a million dollars in assets have been illegally sequestered by the thieves who have the temerity to brag in open court of the perfidy! (see Sykes transcripts)
The distinction between Chicago street crime and guardian crime is that the ‘thugs’ are not ‘minority individuals’ not Italian mafia etc. They are ‘clout’ heavy political types who have for many years ‘played’ the system to make their bread at the public expense. By targeting Grandma who they could characterize as senile they are apparently safe as their co-conspirators cover their tracks with CYA letters, intimdation, and deceit! These criminals are just as vicious as the gang member who grabs grandma’s purse and throws her onto the elevated tracks! The only distinction is the the judicial system protects them. Shame, Shame, Shame.
The attached letter from Judge Evans is a symptom of the corruption that gave rise to Watergate, Greylord, Sykes, etc. It is difficult to speak to deaf ears glued onto public officials whose sole aim in life is CYA. Rest assured, at some point in time the right combination of circumstances will occur. How many years did Sandusky prey on male children? How many responsible people watched? What did the public authorities do? How many lives did the SOB ruin?
Why are the public officials who ignored the problem not in the ‘dock?’ Every one of them Aided and abetted the criminal activities while they occurred – each should be independently prosecuted and sent to jail as an Accessory during the fact. Each public official who ignored a complaint letter or other communication had an affirmative duty (parens Patrie) and in ignoring his/her duty assisted in the crime. These elder abuse cases are identical. Today – all the is required of the public officials (who have nothing to hide – those who do should take the fifth) is to demand a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of all the facts of the Sykes case.”
Sigh, now I have to send him a fax saying that his letter was non responsive, I will make the security guy aware of the letter, but the reality is lawyers protect our rights and not security people. I have yet to see a cop or security officer say, you have important constitutional rights and I want to protect those. Nope, their mantra is “an arrest a day keeps the sarge away.”
I don’t think the Hon. Timothy Evans knows that I am serious enough to sue him over this because it is a very important right to be able to take notes in court when needed and to do the best possible job for your client.
So more faxes. I will let you know if I get a real response from him or if I have to go to a federal court district judge to do it.
thanks all.
JoAnne
Some additional questions for Atty Black at the ARDC
From Ken Ditkowsky:
Sent: Jun 20, 2012 12:32 PM
Subject: elder Abuse
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
From JoAnne Denison;
While the GAL’s have repeatedly alleged that KD (and I have seen this erroneously reported on other blogs) state that he allegedly sent a letter to Dr. Patel stating he represented Mary and needed her medical records, I have not seen a copy of that letter anywhere. It should have been attached to the complaint against KD. Did the miscreants forge such a letter? In any case, KD had the authority of Gloria who undoubtedly had the authority of Mary to obtain medical records. I am certain that Gloria was listed as a person to disclose Mary’s medical information to.
Has the ARDC subpoenaed Dr. Patel for those authorization forms? I bet not.
I believe that KD received quite a few medical records for Mary from Gloria nonetheless.
All good questions for Ms. Black at the ARDC, since her complaint seems to turn on all of these issues.
JoAnne
From Lisa Belanger, esq.–a Father’s Day Poem
Dear Readers;
As some of you might be aware, Lisa Belanger is a lawyer in Mass. who has had her father ripped from her by a number of court appointed and connected “professionals”, namely a greedy CPA and lawyer appointed as conservator for her father–DESPITE the fact her dad was a lawyer, has a substantial estate and named her and her sister in Power of Attorney Documents to care for him, manage his affairs when it came time, and be his conservator. But the court appointed “friends” of the court–most notably NYC Mellon Bank who hold this estate.
She has filed an appeal of those decisions and we all wish her well.
But she cannot see her father because “that agitates him.” Of course he is agitated when he cannot see his two beloved daughters and 5 grandchildren and wants to call them several times a day–as he had in the past! He is told not to call them and he has a fit and physically grabs that phone! He won’t let anyone stand in the way of calling his beloved daughters, so what do they do? Physically restrain and drug him–despite the fact he has heart disease and kidney problems and the psychotropic drugs they use are hard on his heart and kidneys!
Now he is drugged and isolated from his daughters and grandchildren. How abusive is that? And it is all done under the gloss of authority of the Mass. Probate Court.
Another case of evil and greedy and severe emotional abuse of an elderly senior.
Please pray for Lisa and her sister Devora and the granchildren and the dad.
JoAnne
A TRIBUTE TO:
MY FATHER—
MARVIN H. SIEGEL
MY FATHER TAUGHT ME:
To Live in Hope
To Have Loyalty, Morals
To Have Compassion, Kindness
To be Gentle When Stroked, Fierce When Provoked
To Fight for Justice for Family, for Others
To Not be Silent When People Suffer at the Hands of Others—
To be Heard in Defending Others
To Right the Wrong and To Not Stop Until Won
And to Be Able to Look in the Mirror When the Day is Done
I Miss You–More Than Words Can Ever Say;
Yet, I will Overcome the Obstacles in Our Way—
Because of What You Taught Me
I LOVE YOU,
LISA
by Lisa Belanger for her father on Father’s Day 2012
More good questions surrounding the Declaration of Incompetency from KD and Gloria
From Ken Ditkowsky:
From Gloria to Ken Ditkowsky, Esq.
Subject: RE: Affidavit 214
True but at the end of the day Dr. Patel wrote Carolyn Toerpe a letter on June 15, 2009 and was clear that my mother was competent so much so that she-mother-instructed him and he-Dr Patel- followed her instructions and refused to sign the CCP form. Then on June 25, 2009 mother met with Mr. Lippmann of the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services. The attorney also found mother highly competant and mother vacated parts of the 2005 trust removing Carolyn Toerpe as Trustee and specifying with clarity that 6016 I was the sole owner and she was to live in her home 6014 until her passing and then it was to be passed down to Toerpe and I 50/50 and all she owned including the cash, coins, valuable furniture, jewelry et al. also split 50/50. All these safeguards, and yet Toerpe and her attorneys have taken everything for their own financial gain including my mothers freedoms and liberties as an American Citizen. So I find that she passed a driving test in January 2009 a little irrelevant when she also filed a verified petition with State employees for an order of protection on the 9th of June 2009 and right under Judge Kirby’s nose Toerpe was able to kidnap mom from the courthouse and bring her to Dr Rabin who signed a Ccp211 in a New York minute a little foolish for the political elite or policing agencies to care about now three yeas after the fact. They are watching my mother slowly die as AS CF PS CT HJW DJS and AB continue to have her drugged, isolated, and emotionally and socially neglected.
I’m completing my book for publication soon and it’s a horrific journey in time where the people mother trusted to help protect her all helped Toerpe and company destroy all people she loves and trusts and slowly murder my Mother in the process.
from Gloira Jean Sykes
Dear Readers:
Of course my question is, how is it that the GA:’s don’t see that Mary is in an unhappy place, she made numerous written directives to come home, she was doing fine with Glroia for 10+ years, and now the State of Illinois interferes with all of that.
I don’t understand why the court and why LB do not see how unfair all of this is, and Ken is right that an immediate launch of an investigation should be conducted–including interviewing Mary away from the miscreants. It is easy for an abusive guardian to threaten the ward with a nursing home “if she does not behave.”
Mary wants to go home and she deserves to go home. With all of the uncertainty, the litigation surrounding the two homes, they are unlikely to sell or to sell for much at all, even perhaps than the mortgages on the property. I would not be surprised if there is a short sale on the brown house, or even on the front house to get those two properties sold. But this is the first step the Commissioner is supposed to take–can the brown house be partitioned, (and Gloria can jump in and ask what she would need to pay to avoid this, what her share it, if garage rights can be sold, etc.) Then the commissioner should decide if it’s worth even putting the property on the market. PS and Chase did great harm to the brown house (despite the fact the GAL’s stood by and have said nothing about that and neither has CT even tho she is a fiduciary to Mary, what’s up with that?), and most likely that damage means the property cannot be sold at a profit. The commissioner should make that determination and that the court should release the property from the Estate because it is a burden and unlikely to realize any profit. Gloria can submit such a report to the commissioner and maybe she will.
It’s soooo sad, when Mary was clearly very happy with Gloria and living in Norwood Park. Gloria was going to fix up her home and eventually live there. Mary could have lived at her home with a companion if the court or GAL’s found that necessary. I know Gloria would have arranged for that.
JoAnne
So why is Chase now asking for a 60 to 90 day stay to lift the stay in bankruptcy?
Hot off the press: see the links:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbmhuZU1GUWtNeFU
if link breaks: cut and paste
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbmhuZU1GUWtNeFU
Two days ago I went to court and heard Chase earnestly plead with the bankruptcy judge, the hon. Donald Cassling to lift the stay in bankruptcy and allow them to promptly file a foreclosure against Gloria’s home. Ah, but this judge is experienced, so he set the hearing for a quick date and quick discovery, two week and just a few days to a hearing Chase claims is needed to preserve its rights in foreclosure. Obviously prompted by the GAL’s with Deborah Soehlig agreeing and encouraging this event.
So what happens next, the very next day they file a Motion to Extend the hearing by 60 to 90 days claiming that’s how long it takes to get one of their own witnesses to court!
Do you think that’s it, or do you think Gloria has some very valid defenses against Chase?
Why did Chase come and break into Gloria’s home, smashing out walls for no apparent reason on both the first and second floors. They claim (Peter Schmeidel?) someone called them and said the home was abandoned, when it was clearly not abandoned, and that they were “securing the premises.” Does that involve smashing out walls? Throwing all of Gloria’s furniture into the snow in the alley in the dead of winter? Does it involve disabling the security cameras in a detached garage not part of that premises? I believe the garage belongs to Mary G’s lot and not Glorias. And what about disabling the security system in the garage and disconnecting the 4 cameras. How is breaking and entering into a garage and disabling a security system part of “securing a premises.” Seems to me they wanted to trash the place, scare Gloria and render her homeless hoping she would go away forever.
All good questions.
JoAnne
PS–nonetheless, Chase will assuredly get 60 to 90 days to go to hearing on their request to lift the stay in bankruptcy. So this is a great time to ask Chase, Peter Schmeidel and anyone involved with Chase the above questions in interrogatories, requests for document and requests for admissions so the matter can properly go to trial. I know I have 33 questions I would like to ask Chase and it’s puppet Peter Schmeidel and I would like to ask the GAL’s what part, if any, they had in all of this.
Another day in court, but this time Federal Court and the playing field is level…..
Dear Reader;
These are my notes from today. They are my impressions and my typing (and btw, Tim Evans still has not gotten back to me on the use of laptops in court, but that is my preferred method for taking notes because I can do it all day with hardly a wrist/hand ache, but writing, I’m good for about 15 min tops. Since Gloria talks a lot, I think it is very important for me to be able to take notes on my laptop! So we all need to put together another fax to him, and then perhaps a declaratory judgment lawsuit. First amendment reigns supreme!)
If you want an accurate transcript, please order one and pay for it and I will publish it here. Lea Black needs more documents for her file that tell the truth, since that virtue seems to be a challenge for Deborah Soehlig today, and in the past I have seen that this is a deep challenge for Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga also.
take care all
JoAnne
Sykes bankruptcy status call on Chase’s motion to lift stay and file foreclosure in circuit court.
Gloria and an atty is in court, it is probably her new one. Should be interesting.
Case is far behind and switched to Hon. Donald Cassling for judge
Court asks parties to identify themselves for record: Richard Bussie, debtor Gloria, Deborah for Estate of Mary G Sykes, Atty Lovejoy and an atty for Chase. No GAL’s. Good,
Lovejoy and DJS start right in. They assert there is a conflict of interest over the $200M being held in Indiana. They explain the stay was modified to allow for a partition. Judge Hollis modified that stay to allow for partition of Gloria’s home, or the brown home.
There is no appeal of that stay according to DJS. (This is a lie, I just found the case on Pacer and Gloria just submitted a very good trial brief on 6/5/12 and I found in on Pacer).
OC’s agree that Judge Hollis already ruled this was a probate matter and did not belong in bankruptcy.
OC explains that there is due an accounting to the Estate of MGS and that the debtor is claiming $200M in Indiana and so is the estate. They claim there is a hearing scheduled on July 12 in Indians, which is 30 day within June 6.
Gloria raises her hand. Oh boy, let’s go! She starts in, visibly shaken, but she is going strong:
But first, her atty RB explains:
There is no true conflict. This is Gloria’s money. It was put into a bank account in someone else’s name via a verbat trust. RB was hired by Gloria to release those funds in Indiana, and he is attempting to obtain those funds. He explains further, the Motion for Relief from the Stay is before the court, and there is some discussion about his certification and he hands a copy of some pleadings to the lawyer from Chase, etc.
He asserts that this is a prima facie case, that the money is in escrow, it cannot be affected by an Illinois Probate court, and he is asking for the to stay in bankruptcy court.
He goes on to explain that many of the bk docts and schedules are in error, were not properly filed and he wants time to correct them and amend the ch. 11 proceeding
We are asking , o prima facie case, money is in escrow fund,
The Chase atty proceeds with how he wishes to proceed with his foreclosure and he needs the stay in bk modified. He? Says he wants the stay lifted pursuant to both houses. (DJS explains the white house and brown house)
6016 has been served in partition action.
The Judge asks about the stay and the status and lifting the stay against one or both houses.
OC talks about a court proceeding in probate last week (Something was done last week in probate? It’s not on the docket. Hmmm.)
They start to explain about the stay, and the foreclosure and partitioning a property which is the interest in the property. DJS explains, I’m not sure how this oges. I’m not sure it will happen.
Beemis says they have no standing in bk and the atty for the Guardian should not be there at all– this is seconded by a statement from Gloria.
Gloria wants to talk. She has been raising her hand, she has been giving the court looks she wants to talk…..
And there we go, the judge starts with a statement, “ma’am, you cannot speak if you are represented by counsel, ….”
NOT.
Gloria starts talking. She (DJS) has no standing, we are appealing the modification of the stay in district court (true). Both Chase and the Estate of MGS come to the court as creditors but they are not creditors,
I prevailed in a lawsuit agains Lumbermans which involved my home, and I wanted to move forward and fix up my property. That is also my home office. They (all Opposing Counsel) came into probate and stopped me from doing that. Six attys I have hired and paid have told me that I have no standing, I have I have not been served, I have not been served at all. They said they had to summons Chase to bring Chase into this proceeding. I find an ambush, and I am now before Judge Darrah (sp). There’s also a 2 1401 proceeding in the eviction they filed against me because they wrongfully took my property which was listed in my bk. No one ever lifted that (the automatic bk stay) to take my property (and wrongfully detain it from my possession).
(Attys) People from probate come in here and they have no standing.
Popjoy came in here and he told me he was collecting a debt and he was my debt collector.
All these issues are part of my Adversarial Proceeding cases. I can prove Chase willy nilly froze all my accounts (wrongfully) in 2009. I can prove Chase has refused my payments. (Wrongfully)
All im asking is that you (consider these wrongful actions).
I know nothing about a hearing on the 12th, they have not served me. I think the probate court must serve me (if they want to partition my property).
Now 3 attys start talking/responding to what Gloria has spewed all over the court.
US federal credit union has the $200,000.
The court: Enough has been raised as to allegations. We need an evidentiary hearing (to lift the stay in bk).
I don’t know. We’ve got a secured creditor who says he has not been paid, and that’s all they need to prove (in order to lift the stay so Chase may foreclose).
They may not be the proper holder of the note (hey glo, ask for discovery)
I cannot indefinitely string them out. This has to be set for a quick evidentiary hearing. I will give every one expedited discovery. Set a hearing on two weeks .
(Attys start to argue about their schedules). The court: I can set this for the 25th starting at 10 am.
The court: the only issue presented will be Chase’s motion for relief of the automatic stay. They will need to establish they hold the note, they have not been paid, they will be allowed to establish defenses to Gloria’s claims.
this will be in the morning on the 26th.
I will set it 9 am on the 25th. 9 to 11, should be plenty of time, by close of business, look at pretrial order, and get those done by 22nd, close of business. One line description of witnesses and what they will testify to.
Split it up an hour apiece. Now popjoy brings up 200,000 and wonders if chase will file suit against those for the deficiency. I don’t have a motion in front of me.
I need list of witnesses and exhibits by the 22nd.
Status terminated.

