From Cynthia Farenga– A special Request to Stop Helping her out

Posted on August 1, 2012 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;
As you may or may not recall, [a special person] sent me a email whining there were “a lot of conflicts in the case” and she had no one to help her out. Poor [entity].

So what did I do? JoAnne to the rescue. I drafted her a very nice Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction/Lack of Jurisdiction and emailed it to her and posted it here.

One would think she would say, “thanks for all the help, I appreciate it.”
But not [this entity]. See her response below.

take care

JoAnne

From: [special person]
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 2:03 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Subject: cease and desist

JoAnne:
I did not authorize you to prepare such a pleading in my name. Cease and desist from preparing and/or publishing pleadings that I did not author in my name.
[special person]

My Response to her:

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: redactedname@comcast.net
Cc: ken ditowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>, Annie Zhou <anniezhou@denisonlaw.com>
Subject: Re: cease and desist? Are you kidding? This the US and we have a free press here!
Date: Aug 1, 2012 2:21 PM

Dear [special person];

There is a disclaimer on the blog that no one is to believe anything was filed or not filed, or anything was prepared or not prepared and I don’t represent anyone involved in the Sykes case right on one of the front pages.

I believe I have a first amendment right to publish what I want and when I want. I believe Ken has already treated you to a litany of First Amendment right cases where people get to publish whatever they want.

I am no longer on the case. You disqualified me and ruined my relationship with my client with the severe disparagement from that one action, which as you are aware was bogus and wrongful in nature.

I will not forfeit my First Amendment Rights simply because YOU demand it. I will write about and comment all I want on the Sykes case no 09 P 4585.

Any interference from you (or whining) will be taken as an action prohibited under the Illinois Citizen’s Participation Act.

Further, you whined at me you “had no help” in an email due to “so many conflicts”–so I helped you with the best thing you could ever do.

This is ONE AREA–jurisdiction–where there is no conflict amongst any of the attorneys involved.

And don’t get Ken going, he will send you and make you a list of dozens of first amendment rights cases from the Pentagon Papers, to Alvarez, to a litany of cases where people get to publish what they want and when they want.

If I were still on the case, I might be limited by my representation of Gloria, but you decided to file a Motion to Disqualify me which was rubber stamped by Judge [x].

So my participation in the case is as an officer of the court, and as member of the free press of the US. You should note that my posts, cross posts and second blog are soon reaching 10,000 views.

I strongly urge you to file and present to the court that document I prepared for you on AN EMERGENCY BASIS. Then the tide will turn and the next 10,000 views can be on a favorable basis.

thanks

joanne

Comments about PURGING OF FILES from Ken and Joanne

Posted on July 26, 2012 by jmdenison

Purging Records is an old Cook County tradition. When I first became a lawyer the Court house was the old County Building. On Floor 3 1/2 like clockwork every single year there were two fires – one on the County side and one on the City side. Each years at approximately the same time the fires occurred and they were confined to one of the two floors.

Today a purge can occur with the click of a mouse!

In these Elder Abuse cases like Sykes there is a great deal at stake. Do your realize that you, I, Gloria, and various assorted relatives will be giving evidence of the United States of America as to the contents of the safety deposit box. As Mary was declared incompetent without a hearing and without the Sodini protections the probate court lacked jurisdiction and once again Stern, Farenga, and Toerpe are out a limb! If I take your money without your permission with the intention of exercising control over the same I commit ‘theft!’ As a million dollars in assets is unaccounted for we have a very serious felony. Aiding and Abeting is not looked upon fondly – in fact law enforcement usually charges the Aider and Abetters.

The Sykes case is ‘big league’ stuff. It is the lynch pin that keeps if pulled will bring down a great deal of incentive for the depriving of grandma of her liberty, property, civil and human rights. Do you think for a minute that without the ‘money in the mattress’ and the contents of the safety deposit box **** would have any interest in Mary Sykes!!

May passing the written test administered by the Illinois Secretary of State could put Dr. Shaw out of business and cause severe economic hardship to a bunch of GALs and other “judicial officials”. I refer to the Sykes case as the ‘son of Greylord” because it is another chapter in the infamous history of Cook County, Illinois.

-KEN DITKOWSKY

A very important point that this blog keeps reminding its readers is that NO SODINI NOTICES were given when the petition was filed.

Ken goes is more details:

However, the important aspect of the Sodini protections (172 ILL App3d 1053) is the actual notice to the close relatives and the providing the alleged disabled person with the knowledge of her rights. This is especially the case since the lack of Jurisdiction has been repeatedly pointed out to the court and the GAL’s and ignored. All should be disciplined. Jurisdiction is an US Constitutional and Illinois Constitutional and due process right that cannot be ignored. It is fundamental to a democratic society (JoAnne Denison)

The 3rd aspect of the Sodini is the most important – notification of the alleged disabled person and the close relatives. This is important as it prevents the ambush of the alleged disabled person and makes certain that at the very least the close relatives have the opportunity to present a defense. For instance, Dr. Patel refused to sign the CP 211 (certificate of incompetency). The close relatives could have confronted Toerpe, Stern and Farenga with the fact that Mary passed a written examination administered by the Secretary of State, etc. Instead there was an ambush and as Mr. Stern reported, he, Farenga and Toerpe just agreed that Mary was incompetent and they and the Court willy nilly deprived her of her liberty, property, civil rights and property rights. This is not what the statute contemplates. The Statute reads:

§ 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. 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. 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.

(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,¹ where 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.

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. IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10

What’s the deal with the [agency] complaints taking sooooo long to be dismissed

Posted on April 20, 2012 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;

One of the issues I have been struggling with is that the [agency] complaints against Ken and myself for simply running a blog about the Sykes case. I just can’t figure that one out.

It’s clearly a blog, it’s clear neither Ken nor I represent Gloria or Mary, we’re just concerned. I also have known Gloria, Carolyn, Fred, Mary G, Scott, Doris and other friends and family for years. I don’t get that. Ken was the family attorney, so why is Ken accused of lying about all of this? If anyone should know about $1 million in gold coins and cash in the mattress, Ken would know. I also checked directly with the friends and family and the gold coins and cash are well known. No one is amused by the cash grab by the miscreants. All the family–with the exception of the miscrants–agrees that Gloria was doing a great and loving job of taking care of her mother for 10+ years.

There’s little to dispute in this case–outside of the 18th floor, where the case suddenly enters the Twilight Zone with time, space and perception being dramatically warped into something bizarre, twisted and unreal. And out of that twisted, warped court room media has flowed a story that is strangely not investigated at all by the [agency] prior to filing a public complaint against Ken Ditkowsky.

So here is his most interesting explanation below.

take care all,

JoAnne Denison

Now from Ken Ditkowsky:

My theory on why the [agency] complaints against us prosper is that fact that there is a great deal of money involved. The value of the commodity goes down if there is a risk of disbarment. Lets take an example. A [entity] for being deaf and dumb and running cover for the [entity] is promised a fee of $100,000.00. this 100,000 can be paid part in taxable currency (check and/or court award and part in under the table funds – or all in under the table funds) The under the table funds can be a discount on a vehicle, discount on real estate, some fungible, gold coins etc.

A referral fee of 1/3 is paid to the sponsor. In Sykes [it may be] believe it is a political person who is receiving ‘nursing home dollars.’ In that case it would be a campaign contribution. (Gloria unearth a bunch of campaign contributions to the person she suspects as being the ‘clout!’ – she has come to her conclusions from a different angle and would probably resist my analysis.)

If the political person receives campaign contributions he/she incurs no taxable income until she/he elects to pay the taxes on the funds. As no one knows that our [entity] has received dollar one he is not going to tell anyone. He has a windfall. All that happens is the disabled person’s estate is reduced and no one is the wiser.

In the Sykes case about a million dollars is not inventoried. Shut you up, me up, Gloria up and no one has to pay dollar one in Federal Income Taxes! Let us go one step further. Why do the [entities] fear an investigation. A trained investigator is going to ask questions. Questions lead to answers. Answers lead to more questions and in the investigator is independent someone is going to have to account for about a million dollars of inventoried treasure trove.

The [entities] for the plenary guardian have filed numerous complaints with the [agency] concerning you and me. Ask yourself why? Ask yourself if the regulators are ‘pure!’ The GSA scandal of recent days should give a clue to the right answer! Also ask yourself why my ‘safe harbour’ (settlement) e-mails were taken out of context and are the basis of the [entity] complaint against me filed by the [entity]. Why is unethical for me to offer the [entity] a release from the Civil Rights claim that I have against them in exchange for them just doing their jobs? As you know I wrote the [entities] and suggested that if they had nothing to hide join and ask for an independent investigation! We have a better chance of having the President appointing either one or us Secretary of State

Of course the [entities], et al all might be pure, sweet and a virgin. It might just be a coincidence that the [entity] complaints against us are given credence even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary and the complaints against the [entities] for the plenary guardian are just tossed! As I said we have a right to differ and I will fight to the death to protect your right to disagree with me.

Do not fall down a rabbit hole!

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Ken Ditkowsky’s Answer to the Complaint filed against him by the ARDC via Cynthia Farenga

Posted on April 19, 2012 by jmdenison

Link below to KD’s Answer, Motion to Dismiss and Affirmative Defenses to the bogus ARDC complaint filed against him for merely calling for an investigation and emailing those that can investigate or help in that and posting to this blog! Imagine posting to a blog to get an investigation started is an ARDC complaint!

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwR1lBd3NjMVVLdVU

Dear Readers;

As you are probably aware, Ken Ditkowsky and I are so far the only Illinois lawyers to protect Mary G and publicly fight the grave injustices done to Mary G Sykes, a woman ripped out of her home by a relative she rarely visited, and now lives isolated in a remote suburb of Naperville. The daughter Gloria who cared for her mother admirably for the past 10 years–an arrangement well known in the family–has been evicted from her home, she was ordered (without a hearing or any due process or service) to stop working on her home to make it habitable after mold damage, then the court froze her $200,000 in Indiana so she is now homeless and penniless.

Why? So the other sister can sell both homes, put the money in a trust that she benefits from!

Watch the video links shown below, sign the petitions, let the world know that you will not stand for an Illinois grandma and American citizen to be abused like this. In the videos she knows what she wants. She wants to live at home until she passes, she wants Gloria to care for her and she wants her property divided equally between her daughters. She is NOT incompetent to that extent.

Kend Ditkowsky and I have been caught up in all of this because we have been working tirelessly on this blog and to inform others of this situation–and those attorneys who will churn fees at hundreds of dollars per hour–want us silenced. They apparently have a lot of clout in Probate and even with the ARDC.

Two complaints remain against myself and Ken Ditkowsky–mainly for publishing the truth about the situation on this blog and in emails, and also to call for an investigation of elder abuse. Apparently, when it’s the court and clout connected attorneys doing the abuse, it’s no longer abuse. And when you stand to be awarded with tens of thousands in attorneys fees, you get to loot what you want from the elderly.

Please read the attached Answer to the ARDC’s complaint and help us out.

thank you.

JoAnne Denison

From Ken Ditkowsky

Dear Gloria and JoAnne;

Sorry that you did not receive this answer, motion to dismiss, and affirmative defense that I filed in relation to the spurious complaint filed against me by the ARDC. As you are aware I have very sensitive to any attempt by anyone that is reasonably calculated to shut me up. What is most disturbing is the fact that in reference to the Request to admit that I served on the ARDC that required them to either admit or deny the basic facts that they claimed were in the e-mails and which were untrue, the ARDC admitted that the administrator had no information to either admit or deny the fact. Indeed, if they have no information they cannot reasonably suggest that anything that I said.

It gets worse. The first pleading that I filed was a motion to dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 619. This motion had three affidavits attached in support. The first affidavit was Gloria’s affidavit. The second was Scott’s affidavit. The third was the ADA verified complaint filed in the United States District Court. All of these affidavits confirmed the fact that every word that I wrote in the various e-mails referred to ARDC complaint filed against me was in fact true and accurate. To my utter surprise the attorney for the ARDC worte in her response to the Motion that there were no affidavit attached in support of the Motion. (This is the very same attorney who without my permission called my client JoAnne. Then when I objected to such an obvious breach, instead of just saying I’m sorry it was mistake she tried to **** her way out of it)

The ARDC has published their spurious complaint against me on their website, therefore, I assume that they will also publish this answer, and thus make available to law enforcement and others the information contained therein including but not limited to discriminatory enforcement of the ethical rules in such a manner as to thwart lawyerly complaints of corruption.

As I state in my answer, Illinois has a wonderful set of laws; however, they mean nothing as no one cares to enforce them. Thus, Mary Sykes has lost her liberty, her property, and her human rights, and Gloria Sykes who has stood strong and tall in attempting to protect her mother has been subjected to the loss of her property, her liberty, and intimidation and harassment. It should be noted that every single lawyer who Gloria has sought help from has been ‘talked to’ by Farenga, Stern, and/or Schmiedel and they have either been turned, or frightened off except you JoAnne and yours truly. The ARDC has received complaints against both of us, and is prosecuting me as I by complaining about the elder abuse/financial exploitation and the theft of Mary’s property am tending to bring the profession into disrepute. Of course the people who are participating are ‘model and ethical lawyers!’

There is a humorous aspect to the ARDC complaint. Even though I am a stranger to the Sykes litigation and have not filed an appearance for anyone and there is no way that I could profit one way or another, the complaint echos the Alice in Wonderland averment that I complain about the theft of Mary’s property and Gloria’s property to secure an advantage in the pending litigation. Indeed, except for the possibility of falling down the rabbit hole there is no possibility for this to occur.

Please publish the Answer etc.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And I would like to note (JMD) that if you follow the money trail, it leads directly to the Plenary Guardian, the GALS’s Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, and the Guardian’s attorney’s Harvey Waller and Peter Schmeidel/Dorothy Soehlig!

I have not received a dime from Gloria in years. I am doing this blog for free. Ken has tirelessly written emails, letters an d posts from this blog–all without pay!

It would appear that Mary G has been fleeced–of her home, about a million in gold coins numerous other relative can verify, as well as other property the family can and would verify if given a chance.

thanks for what you can do for Mary G, 93 years old and professionally abused.

JoAnne

Petitions

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/

Title:

Watch Mary G Sykes–a victim of elder abuse, probate abuse and financial abuse who was declared “incompetent” speak her mind clearly! Amazing footage of what the Illinois court considers “incompetence”!

Amazingly enough, she is supposed to be incompetent and her GAL’s Adam Stern GAL and Cynthia Farenga GAL have conveniently arranged a guardianship where her desires are NOT being carried out. She wants to live at home and have her daughter Gloria care for her in Mary’s home until she dies. Carolyn Toerpe had her execute a will where once Mary’s home is sold the proceeds are put in Trust and Carolyn Toerpe takes it all upon Mary’s death. Now Carolyn Toerpe has had Mary declared incompetent and is seeking to have both Mary’s home and Gloria’s home sold and the proceeds put in Carolyn’s trust. All of this has been done under the authority of the Probate Court of Cook County and GAL’s Cynthia Farenga Attorney and Adam Stern, Attorney. This proves that evil never sleeps.
Sign my petitions at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/
READ her complete story at http://www.MaryGSykes.com
Thank you for any bit of help you can give her!

Legal Disclaimer–
Although this is obvious, no person in this blog has been accused of any wrongdoing, crime or even arrested unless stated otherwise from a website reporting actual arrests and convictions. We are stating our opinions and we have the right to do this. Only the particular author is responsible for his or her content. (So don’t blame me if you dislike some posts from someone else. This site is newsworthy because it is picked up automatically by many other blogs and is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution and violations will be taken seriously with charges under the Illinois Citizens Participation Act. We ARE participating in government here–we are lawyers trying to make a difference to make things better for grandma and grandpa. We don’t care how much money you’re making–directly or indirectly from Probate or a nursing home or home health care wired-in business. Do yourself a favor and get a different job, it’s not worth it. And if you’re someone filing ARDC complaints against this blog, we are all exercising our rights to disseminate important news to protect the rights of the elderly and respect their wishes. Again, go get another job–it’s not worth it.
PS – This blog is primarily for entertainment purposes only and please don’t file any pleadings or documents in court without checking with the sources for errors. My rate to review is $300 per hour. Sorry, but portions of this blog have to be entertaining so we can get the word out. There is most certainly a great deal of (stinging) truth in it, esp. for the GAL’s, the probate court and a society that ignores (thereby condoning) the sleazy world of probate, and in particular the 18th floor of the Daley Center in Chicago, but everyone needs to understand, these are not pleadings, there is no Motion, Response and Reply set by any court, together with extended legal argument recorded by a court reporter and subject to a Motion to Reconsider if errors or new evidence is found. So don’t take it that way. Like a good reporter, do your own due diligence and check with the sources first. Honestly, I have to explain blogs to attorneys? Have they no life? Do they not know how to email me or use the “comments” section at all?

Is the new Jim Crow in American’s Law Enforcement with regards to Senior Abuse and Probate abuse

Posted on April 16, 2012 by jmdenison

From Ken Ditkowsky–all good questions for Law enforcement to consider and reconsider!

APPEAL TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
JIM CROW IS ALIVE AND WELL
At all times relevant Mary Sykes was a well-adjusted female, aged 90 years old.    In approximately 2005, Mary’s older daughter took her a lawyer.   When they emerged a series of documents surfaced that were deceptive and misleading; however, the intended effect was clear. The older daughter was to have full and complete control over the mother’s substantial estate.
Unfortunately for the older daughter Mary discovered what had happened to her when she examined her bank account and discovered that $4000 had been removed from her account by the older daughter.     Mary confronted the daughter and was told “mom, I invested your funds in an IRA”      Even Mary knew that at her age she was not eligible to invest in an IRA and after an altercation Mary sought an order of Protection in the Circuit Court.    The Court personnel helped her prepare the verified petition.
The daughter responded with a Petition to have a guardian appointed for Mary Sykes.     Even though Mary’s treating physician refused to sign the ‘doctor’s report’ the Judge advised the older daughter to find another doctor.     An ethically challenged doctor who would attest to both President Obama and President Bush being in need of a plenary guardian – such as the older daughter- was quickly found and he executed the documents.
The Court appointed two guardian ad litem.   These ‘clout’ rich miscreants immediately joined with the older daughter in her quest and they submitted an agreed order to the willing judge who promptly appointed the older daughter as the plenary guardian with authority to separate Mary Sykes from her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.     The entire story is set forth in the probate file of Mary Sykes housed in the Circuit Court of Cook County 69 W. Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois.
This saga is repeated every single day in Probate and orphan’s courts across the United States of Illinois.    Alleged abusers and other miscreants are given absolute control over seniors with little or no concern for civil rights, human rights, statutory protections or common decency.    In the Sykes case all the protections afforded by Law have been ignored.   A simple precaution such as naming and serving all the close relatives prior to an incompetency hearing for Mary Sykes was ignored and two years later continues to be ignored.
Just for the record the incompetency hearing provides for standard of proof referred to as ‘clear and convincing.’    The agreement of three interested people to the detriment of the alleged incompetent is disingenuous.     Other protections most of which are jurisdictional have been equally observed by avoidance or just distorting the truth.
One of the easiest ways for a dictator or a criminal to destroy dissent is to have opponent ‘put away’ as crazy, incompetent, etc.        Today, as reported on the Blogs and the Report of the United States Government Accounting office is the rampage of Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of the Elderly.    Sheriff Dart (Cook County) sponsored a conference that addressed this serious problem.     The most vicious of these criminal conspiracies is promulgated by the appointment by the Courts of avarice motivated clout heavy individuals who are not burdened by the Judio- Christian Ethic that permeates American Law.    By Court orders, as occurred in the Sykes case, a plenary guardian is appointed (whether the individual needs such assistance of not) and this plenary guardian exercises complete control over the person and property of the victim.
With the aid of a ‘rubber stamp’ Judge, who approves whatever whim and desire of the guardian put before him (the judge) the senior’s liberty and human rights are forfeited.      As long as the money holds out the senior is kept from obtaining his/her final resting place; however, as is indicated in Scott Evan’s affidavit the interim between the guardian’s appointment and final reward may be a living hell!
Lincoln freed the slaves!    You and I by our procrastination have made our senior citizens the new victims of an even more vicious Jim Crow than existed in the 1860’s.       The new Klu Klux Klan headquarters in our probate courts.   A written order signed by judge substitutes for burning a cross or a worn bed sheet.
I urge Law Enforcement and particularly the Sheriff of Cook County and the States Attorney of Cook County to independently and fully investigate the Sykes case   My office will co-operate fully as will friends, neighbors, and family of Mary Sykes.
There are hundreds of people similarly situated who are literally dying for Law Enforcement to investigate the incarceration and looting of their mothers, fathers, brothers et al estates by Court appointed miscreants.    The ‘rape’ of the seniors in the United States is a National disgrace.    The ‘cover up’ is outrageous and a testament to the breakdown of the American culture.    The terrorist threat is from us!    We by our failure to root out the criminals who take advantage of the Justice System to destroy the lifetimes of saving and hard work of our mothers, father’s et al are disingenuous.   Every day that the guardians appointed in the Sykes case continue their nefarious actions is a sad day for every single citizen and another lesson to our children and grandchildren that if you have ‘clout’ it does not matter what the law says.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Legal Disclaimer–
Although this is obvious, no person in this blog has been accused of any wrongdoing, crime or even arrested unless stated otherwise from a website reporting actual arrests and convictions. We are stating our opinions and we have the right to do this. Only the particular author is responsible for his or her content. (So don’t blame me if you dislike some posts from someone else–please leave a comment as to what you think is better.) This site is newsworthy because it is picked up automatically by many other blogs and is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution and violations will be taken seriously with charges under the Illinois Citizens Participation Act. We ARE participating in government here–we are lawyers trying to make a difference to make things better for grandma and grandpa. We don’t care how much money you’re making–directly or indirectly from Probate or a nursing home or home health care wired-in business. Do yourself a favor and get a different job, it’s not worth it. And if you’re someone filing ARDC complaints against this blog, we are all exercising our rights to disseminate important news to protect the rights of the elderly and respect their wishes. Again, go get another job–it’s not worth it.
PS – This blog is primarily for entertainment purposes only and please don’t file any pleadings or documents in court without checking with the sources for errors. My rate to review is $300 per hour. Sorry, but portions of this blog have to be entertaining so we can get the word out. There is most certainly a great deal of (stinging) truth in it, esp. for the GAL’s, the probate court and a society that ignores (thereby condoning) the sleazy world of probate, and in particular the 18th floor of the Daley Center in Chicago, but everyone needs to understand, these are not pleadings, there is no Motion, Response and Reply set by any court, together with extended legal argument recorded by a court reporter and subject to a Motion to Reconsider if errors or new evidence is found. So don’t take it that way. Like a good reporter, do your own due diligence and check with the sources first. Honestly, I have to explain blogs to attorneys? Have they no life? Do they not know how to email me or use the “comments” section at all?