From Gloria Sykes today–the IARDC decision against Ken Ditkowsky was wrong and not supported by the facts

Dear Ken,

 
I am most saddened by how the IARDC has treated you and the ISC has sanctioned such treatment: when I saw my Mother on the 22nd of June, 2013, I told her you too were trying to help her.  As you know, she contacted me I believe in Feb. 2010 and begged me to “find” you and “hire” you to “save” her life.  The conversation is stoned in my memory: if you need money to pay (attorney), my Mother told me, take it from my mattress. The next day the mattress was gone and so was the at least $20,000 cash (mostly $100 bills).  You are correct that there is a pack of attorneys who parade around on the 18th floor empowered by a few judges who do what needs to be done to protect them.  For at least 4 years I have learned a lot about this Cottage Industry of Attorneys, complete with Guardians Ad Litem, who use the Probate Division to launder money.  It’s easier than you have described.  
 
As you know every year the court appointed guardian must provide the court with an inventory of the Ward’s assets.  In the Sykes case, Carolyn Toerpe would claim, for example, she paid the property taxes, insurance and mortgage on Mother’s home.  I would object and provide the Court good evidence that the taxes, insurance and mortgage was not paid (in this case, mother’s home was put into foreclosure).  The amount of money equaled at least $18,000.  Judge Stuart role plays so the record gives the impression she gives a damn, but after putting Toerpe under oath and asking a series of question to her, she would then allow GAL Stern to ask questions too.  Satisfied that Toerpe paid the mortgage, property taxes and insurance on the home, approves the inventory: no proof of payments are required.
 
Another example is medical expenses.  My mother has very good insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield and of course Medicare.  However, one year Toerpe inventories medical and medication expenses totaling at leas $10,000.  I objected, providing the court proof that mother has insurance coverage for all of the medical, dental, and pharmaceutical expenses.  Again, the show goes on: Judge Stuart places Toerpe under oath asks a few questions then Adam Stern (GAL) asks a few questions, and the inventory is approved.  Two years ago Toerpe got approved $5000 to pay for dental and new partials for my mother and yet when I saw her on June 22, 2013, her teeth were rotting and she had no front teeth and could not chew.  The loss of weight and rotting teeth evidence no new partials were purchased and the money Toerpe claimed when for my mother’s dental care, was not spent on mother’s health.  Mother has had pyorrhea for most of her life and she had great dental care and healthy teeth until she was forced under Toerpe’s care.
 
This is how the money is laundered under the nose of the Judges and with the Court’s rubber stamp.  One last fact.  My mother’s home was worth at least $425,000: Toerpe sold it for cash for $238,000. Not one penny was inventoried. The home and mother’s assets were a part of a Living Revocable Trust — 
 
Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel admitted under oath that they were paid attorney fees from mother’s assets: Stern $15,000: Farenga $15,000 and Schmiedel $12,000 with Schmiedel testifying that mother owes him and the law-firm of Fischel and Kahn where he is associated yet another over $200,000 (the exact amount he stole from my medical funds/bankruptcy estate from the Lumberman’s settlement).  The law of the Probate is that the attorneys and GAL’s must file fee petitions within 90 days — there has never been any fee petitions filed — until now.  Since the Court converted all of my assets to my bankruptcy estate into the possession of Toerpe and granted Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel to file fee petitions *****
 
So for the sake of this email, let’s do the math. In plain sight, at least $500,000 cash has been laundered through the Probate case of In Re. the Estate of Mary G. Sykes.  Half of it is my money!  Mother had gold and silver coins in the US Bank safe box, but I had at least $350,000 of my own coins stored in the safe box.  Mother had her will and new trust in the box with a laundry list of who got what?  Toerpe did not inherit any of the coins from Daddy or All Bibby — Al Bibby gave me all of his coins.  Daddy left his to Mother and me and Mom left me as the sole beneficiary to the valuables in the box.
 
But the Probate Court is able to live above the Law and so the Cottage Industry of Probate attorneys and guardian ad litem’s are empowered to launder the estates of the elderly, disabled and all people, such as myself, who dare to stand up and say, “No. You can’t do this”.
 
 
I don’t mean to sound so cavalier, Ken, but the end game is always the same in these situations, and I need to stay focused on my next move(s): the end game being that once Stern, Schmiedel, Farenga, and Toerpe have all of Mother’s money (which they already do) and all of my money and assets, which they almost do, then they will either over medicate or suffocate my mother.  Although my mother has her last resting place paid for at All Saints Cemetary in Morton Grove, I am certain Toerpe will cremate her, sell mother’s site (will get at least $15000) and bury mother’s ashes next to her mother (grandma) where there is a lot available. This was of course not my mother’s wishes, but thus far, none of my mother’s advance directives have been acknowledged — and clearly it was my mother’s wish, desire, and intent to have an order of protection placed on Toerpe which would have prevented Toerpe from doing all that she had done.
 
I imagine Ken that had Schmiedel, Stern, and Farenga won the sanction claim against you (the appeal) they would have been each many thousands of dollars happier — and, would have done to you to other attorneys who tried to step in and help the elderly and disabled. That said, now the IARDC and the ISC has sent a clear and loud message to any attorney who would do the right thing, to not accept a probate case where the alleged disabled person has wealth.  It was a sad day for me, and I know my mother, to learn that you have been suspended from practicing law — but it’s a sadder day for all of the people of Illinois knowing that we have no protections from a highly active and aggressive cottage industry of attorneys who are empowered by the IARDC, ISC and of course the Probate Judges who wish to partake in the laundering of the well-earned assets/money of the elderly and disabled.
 
 
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 
BELIEVE (BeLive) LLC
773.910-3310(cell)
 773-751-1310 (fax)
855-376-0040 (business)

 

Advertisements

From Ken Ditkowsky — Still fighting for Mary G Sykes’s human and civil rights

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 27, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Eric Holder , Marty Prehn , “PRESIDENT@messages.whitehouse.gov” , matt senator kirk
Cc: Tim NASGA , NASGA , Diane Nash , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , Cook County States Attorney , “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” , Cook Sheriff , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , GLORIA SYKES
Subject: The WAR ON THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED

To:  Attorney General Holder
Dear General Holder,
A friend referred me to the following:
(2) Money laundering and related financial crime.–The term “money laundering and related financial crime”–
(A) means the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of, or through the United States, or into, out of, or through United States financial institutions, as defined in section 5312 of title 31, United States Code; or
(B) has the meaning given that term (or the term used for an equivalent offense) under State and local criminal statutes pertaining to the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds.  31 U.S.C.A. § 5340 (West)
Reviewing the abusive guardianship cases across the United States a common pattern exists.
1) a senior citizen is railroaded into a guardianship.    In our posterboard case, it is Mary Sykes.   The provisions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.  have been ignored in the effort to obtain control over the body and the property of the victim.    It should noted that mostly seniors with substantial assets are targeted.
2) a senior citizen is stripped of his/her assets.     These funds disappear into the ‘cloud!”      The funds obtained by the perpetrators are clearly illicit.    Except for Mr. Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission few public officials have been know to defend the people (in this case attorneys) who act either for themselves or associates to garner control over the funds of the elderly and thereby either enrich themselves of others.    In the Sykes case over a million dollars in collectibles (gold coins) was taken from a safety deposit box and never inventoried.
3) Obviously these illicit funds are moved – in the case of the elder cleansing victim the movement is to the pockets of the favored.
Thus, the definition is met.     General Holder = Do you agree?
Do you agree the RICO statute concept applies?     Are the proceeds obtained by the abusive guardianship and the corrupt courts such illicit funds so as to be mony laundering?      Do you agree that the usurpers have to address the Federal and State Income tax laws – the breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event – but forfeitures (civil constructive trusts) etc.    Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 a broad brush is appropriate as the only way for a Democratic Society to win the War on the Elderly and the Disabled is to make it pecuniarily unattractive for the bad acting guardians, judicial officials and those who aid and abet them in the struggle.
Getting down to specifics.    1.5 million dollars was exhausted in a few short month in the Alice Gore estate.    (We have no valuation on the gold fillings in her teeth!).  Someone owes to the United States of America taxes and penalties on those funds.   Somehow these illicit funds were translated in an expensive home for ****, etc.   According to the definition this is money laundering.   The culpable people engaged are:  1) the plenary guardian, 2) the guardian ad litem, 3) the judge who assisted the enterprise by entering orders that she knew or should have know were reasonably calculated to separate the family of Alice Gore from Alice Gore.    In addition the IARDC people who fended off Ms. Gore’s family’s complaints are part and parcel of the scheme.     A similar situation occurred in the Sykes case.    This time Mr. Larkin and the IARDC were more overt ****
I do not know if the $60,000 Federal Tax Lien placed on Adam Stern relates to his activities in the War on the Elderly and the disabled, but it that were to be related let me thank you on behalf of the Sykes family, the Community in which Mary Sykes resided before she was taken hostage for this positive step.
The Congress and the Legislature have provided the tools to address this official corruption – What we need now is an Honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation by a Grand Jury of the Alice Gore/Mary Sykes/ Tyler, et al Estates.
Justice for the elderly is wasted when it comes after death!
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Lanre Amu–his Supreme Court Brief

Dear Readers;

Please take a look at the following:

Mr. Lanre Amu did a great job on his brief to the SCOI, and in his brief he mentions “First Amendment” rights about 20 times and he also carefully lays out the facts of why he is alleging corruption against 5 judges.  He is also following my advice to investigate, investigate, investigate and turn it all over to the authorities.

Now, the obvious problem with all of this, if the ARDC is limiting one’s right to evidence (Mr. Amu finally mentions the fact he served notices for the depositions of the 5 judges and his Notices of Deposition were all quashed.  Then he served 5 trial subpoenas and those were all quashed), then what’s a poor black immigrant to do?

In my case, I took the depositions of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Kathie Bakken and Yolanda Bakken. The IARDC failed to show up and just claimed the Notices “weren’t good enough”.  I offered they could come back and cross examine, but they refused.  Nonetheless, they continued to claim “discovery violation” to the Tribunal.  To add more insanity to their behavior, they repeatedly wanted to strike the depositions, but then they used them at trial!  MPD anyone?

There are many similarities.

Now all that Mr. Amu has to do is cite the 5 major cases that are in his favor with respect to First Amendment rights and he will be there:  Peel/Ibenez (advertising credentials on letterhead okay), Citizens United (strict scrutiny standard for curtailing political speech), Loving v. IRS (IRS has no jurisdiction/authority to regulate), Brown Entertainment (Violent video games unrated okay), Gentile (statements made during press conference by attorney protected by First Amendment)

Optional, excellent cases: Alvarez (false Medals of Valor protected by the First Amendment); Virginia Bar Assn v. Hunter (truthful statements regarding attorney’s criminal law blog cases protected by First Amendment), Karavidas v. IARDC (attorneys private activities not within authority of ARDC to discipline), etc.

The only thing Mr. Amu needs is a few cases and he will be there.

During my trial, the ARDC cited and gave me copies of their cases which were not appealed to the SCOI or SCOTUS.  On the otherhand, we did not need any case copies because everyone should be aware (esp. if they are a lawyer), of the First Amendment case which have issued from SCOI and SCOTUS.  These should be famous cases and all lawyers should be familiar with them.

Only a lawyer has the unique ability to spot when law, procedure and case law is not being followed in the courtroom.  To report these activities promptly and substantially accurately protects the public and other lawyers from being sandbagged by miscreant behavior in a court room.

We have two very important rights in this country.  The first is access to free, open and democratic courtrooms, the second (and esp. when that first right fails), is access to a free, open and democratic media.

And being in the media is no piece of cake.  But the reality is, certain individuals, by their own actions foist themselves into the media and public light.  Certainly a judge foists themself into the public light and especially those that are elected.  Next, are the behavior of attorneys in the courtroom.  There has been plenty of negative publicity about many, many lawyers in the courtroom in highly visible cases.

When one starts to judge speech in a courtroom, as Atty. Nejla Lane said during my ARDC trial, the court automatically becomes biased in favor of one side of the story.  At that point, the court automatically loses its credibility as an impartial, blind judge of facts as applied to law.  Accordingly, by its very nature, speech is nearly impossible to regulate.

Take a look at the following case which many are urging Mr. Brewington to take his case to the Supreme Court of Indiana and I hope that he does:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15376113416450889254&q=Brewington&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15

In this case, Mr. Brewington hired a child evaluator (psychologist) and agreed to have him evaluate his family situation during a custody battle.  When Mr. Brewington didn’t like the report, he then sent the doctor many communications letting the doc know in no uncertain terms what Brewington felt regarding the report and he created a scathing blog.  But he did not threaten the doctor with physical harm or any crime against person or property.

The trial court found Brewington committed the crime of “intimidation” with “threats” based upon the following definition of “threat”:

The (Indiana) General Assembly has defined a “threat” as:

an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:

(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;

(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;

(3) commit a crime;

(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;

(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person’s legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;

(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;

(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or

(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.

Ind.Code § 35-45-2-1(c). Whether conduct amounts to a threat is an objective question of fact for the jury to decide. Owens v. State, 659 N.E.2d 466, 474 (Ind. 1995).

Now, I don’t have a problem with the above, except no. 6.  No. 6 is purely criminalizing trash talk and it’s completely subjective.  The last sentence regarding what amount to a threat which can possibly be objective is purely outrageous.  There is absolutely nothing about speech that is “objective”.  Objective is a litmus test, evaluating speech is a matter of preference, bias and prejudice.  To deny that is to engage in day dreaming.

So, poor Mr. Brewster let the doctor know he was unhappy and demanded the doctor change or retract the report.  That was the basis for an “obstruction of justice” count.  It was opined that a scathing blog and string of faxes and letters would prevent the poor doc from coming to court and taking the witness stand.

Let’s go back and read in between the lines here.  We know that probate and divorce courts have their “go to doctors” where you simply get the opinion you want based upon the name of the doc.  Most of the time, therefore, the courts keep “private” or “proprietary” lists.  Even the New Mexico state legislature has had problems with court connected psychologists, such that, in 1995 they were able to pass a bill in the senate that they dress like wizards prior to testifying (true story, check it out):

http://overlawyered.com/2012/01/dressing-psychiatrists-like-wizards-on-the-witness-stand/

the bill stated:

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong…

Perhaps Mr. Brewington should have repeated this story in opening argument or closing.

Mr. Brewington’s story is indeed troubling. Let’s hope he appeals. With respect to emails and faxes, I know where the block feature is, where the delete key is and once in a while I might use those, but most of the time, I ignore/do not read trash talk and tell the sender they are wasting their time. That’s my constitutional right.

For an upbeat story on Free Speech rights, try this case from the Indiana Supreme Court where an apparently drunken woman told the nice police officer in a loud voice where to go and what to do.  The Indiana Supreme Court said the speech was political and protected by the First Amendment:

Price v. Indiana

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19931576622NE2d954_11518.xml/PRICE%20v.%20STATE

The court upheld the drunken woman charge but struck down the other charges of resisting arrest and obstructing justice for her speech.  Apparently she said “F U, I didn’t do anything wrong.”  I wonder if the Indiana Supreme court knew that if you said that statement was in and of itself obstructing justice and disorderly conduct, the Indiana prisons would soon be full to the busting point!  Isn’t that what everyone says or at least thinks at the time of arrest?

This was a 1993 case and I wonder if free speech rights are simply eroding.

Mr Amu’s recent brief can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwOUhueld6RHp4Z2s/edit?usp=sharing

But my hero right now is Indiana’s first lady of loud, drunken, obnoxious speech, Ms. Colleen Price.  “F U, I didn’t do anything wrong” as she was being arrested.

You go, girl.

From a probate victim writing a book, should we mince words?

Dear Readers;

I had a probate victim write me to day and ask the ultimate question–should I mince words.  She opined no one would believe her story, and many probate victims ask if they should write their stories as works of fiction.

My answer.  Heck no!  If you are indeed a probate victim, believe it or not, your story is a precious gift, and you must tell it, if you are a writer or if you know a writer.

And of course, Ken and I must ask ourselves constantly in light of threats from the ARDC, certain attorneys and court, that we must not reveal publicly some shameful behavior we have observed in and out of the courtroom, and we should not tell our truths as we see it, putting aside the Bill of Rights and our First Amendment rights to reveal this insidious evil–the trashing of civil rights and human rights of disableds.

But I always, always ask the Divine Ones for the answer–not the confused, lonely and corrupted souls on this earth about where I need to go and what I need to say, knowing I can have the protection of 1,000 angels, something NOT available to them who hide in fear chasing greed and money.

See my answer to her below.

JoAnne

Dear Friend;

You asked if you should change your book so that it is 1) more believable; 2) more politically correct; 3) less harsh and not your true feelings.  My answer to you is no, no, no.  You must speak your truth and no one else’s. It does no one any good for you to not speak up.  I believe there is a plan and purpose for everything.  You defeat the purpose and plan when you do not go where your heart tells you to go and say what your heart tells you to say, honestly and completely.  It is not up to you to mince your truth because you are afraid, you think the recipient might not take it so well, etc.  You have to put those fears aside and still speak your truth.  It is your truth and not someone else’s.  No one is here to judge you, so let that one go.  The righteous will stand by you and those that are still learning but cannot yet comprehend or stand the truth, will fall away.  You will see.  Your only job is to go and deliver and go and speak out.

 Review the Sarah Barrielles song on this point.

lyrics are at http://www.metrolyrics.com/brave-lyrics-sara-bareilles.html

what does Ms. Sarah have to say on these points?

You can be amazing
You can turn a phrase….. you can start speaking up
Nothing’s gonna hurt you…..(but)
Kept on the inside and no sunlight
Sometimes the shadow wins

There are other songs on this point, but she is right.  Don’t hold it in, get it out.  Speak your truth, your justice–what you need to say.  The only danger is in not speaking up and out.  Not speaking your truth and holding it in, clogs up your throat chakra!
But I wonder what would happen if you

Say what you wanna say
And let the words fall out
Honestly I wanna see you be brave

the people that don’t speak out and don’t say what needs to be said, are all too common.  There are millions of them. But those that are the best will speak out against injustice, evil and greed.

Everybody’s been there, everybody’s been stared down
By the enemy
Fallen for the fear and done some disappearing
Don’t run, stop holding your tongue

and we’ve all done it.  we’ve all walked away when we should have said something, done something, written something.  But you can make up that karma today.  Today is a new day to do something about this.
Maybe there’s a way out of the cage where you live
Maybe one of these days you can let the light in
Show me how big your brave is

And this song goes on with more truths and more sustenance for the soul, most notably:

And since your history of silence
Won’t do you any good
Did you think it would?
Let your words be anything but empty
Why don’t you tell them the truth?

I don’t think I could have said it better.  I know too many probate victims, downtrodden, fearful, maligned, beaten up, abused–who will no longer speak up and out.

Time to stop that nonsense.

On the days when you cannot speak out, publish on a blog what you want to say, please listen to the song Brave by Sarah Bareilles.  She packs a whole lot of wisdom into one 3 minute song.


(they actually play this in the church where I go)

You have been given  a great gift of a life and karma that no one else has.  You survived it.  It’s your experience and only you own it.

Reach in your heart and then write what your heart tells you.  It is actually your obligation to deliver your truth.  It is not up to you to figure out how the recipient takes it or if they like it, believe it or will stand up and support your need for righteousness.

If you write so that you are not speaking your truth, then you haven’t learned this lesson and there will be more lessons.

You have been given a precious and valuable gift, whether you know it or not.  Now you have to tell your truth.

I will for sure promote your book and anyone else’s that tells these stories properly, with the unvarnished truth.

Thank you for all you do for the probate victims.

I wish you many blessings, peace and love.

JoAnne

Copyright notice:  the above lyrics are used based upon a license found at:

https://www.sonyatv.com/index.php/contact which allows for use of Sony/ATV lyrics for personal/noncommercial use on blogs and in other manners.  This is a non-commercial blog which is not sold or otherwise distributed.