What is the effect of the appointment of a GAL and why do GAL’s seem to linger for years?

Dear Readers;

One of the issues that KDD and many, many others have brought up is why are GAL’s running around the courtroom and billing the estate long after a temp guardian and even plenary guardian has been appointed?  It makes no sense, and perhaps we need a change in law on that–that GAL’s need to be discharged once a plenary guardian has been appointed, UNLESS there is a motion to terminate the present guardian pending.  It seems to me these GAL’s hang out too long after a PG has been appointed, often churn up dissent in a family, and bill, bill, bill.

A GAL is appointed to be the eyes and ears of the court. They are supposed to be an independent third party that reports back to the court 1) if they think a guardian needs to be appointed based upon simple questions regarding the estate of the person and finances; 2) if the person objects to the guardianship and wants an atty; 3) who the Respondent wants to have appointed as guardian, if one is to be appointed; 4) if there is in fact a POA appointing a guardian over financial matters and the person; etc.

Of course, we KNOW this is often not going on.  Many people report back the Respondent in a Petition for Guardianship wants an atty, objects to the guardianship, objects to where she is living, and wants to go home. It’s a huge, huge issue in guardianships.

But one the appointment is over, the guardian is supposed to marshal the assets, fight off litigation, conduct a proper inventory and accounting and manage the estate and person properly.

Far too often, the probate courts are using the GAL’s to take sides and churn up problems after a favored GAL has been appointed.

See KDD”s comments below.

From KDD:

I thought this section would interest you.   Farenga and Stern say that they are acting for Mary –  why?   Their function is quite different.
Why are the GALs functioning at this point in time?   They are duplicating the work that is assigned to the plenary guardian.   If these were the eyes and ears of the Court and functioning as the same they should have been with Carolyn when she opened the safety deposit box.   They would have then seen her remove the large bag of gold coins and other collectibles that were worth a million dollars.     As the valuable collectibles were not inventoried they had a duty to report the missing valuables.   It is presumed that one or both of them (Farenga/Stern) was present doing his/her job when the ‘converted’ assets were removed.
Ken Ditkowsky
for more information, see:
1    Wing v. Dodge, 80 Ill. 564, 1875 WL 8798 (1875).2    Hoit v. Snodgrass, 315 Ill. 548, 146 N.E. 562 (1925); Skontos v. Gekas, 32 Ill. App. 2d 330, 177 N.E.2d 873 (1st Dist. 1961).3    Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).

4    Lewis v. Hill, 387 Ill. 542, 56 N.E.2d 619 (1944).

5    Lewis v. Hill, 387 Ill. 542, 56 N.E.2d 619 (1944).

6    Bradshaw v. Lucas, 214 Ill. App. 218, 1919 WL 1599 (3d Dist. 1919).
Differing result after appointment of one who is only guardian ad litem, see In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992).

7    Bradshaw v. Lucas, 214 Ill. App. 218, 1919 WL 1599 (3d Dist. 1919) (requiring trustee of spendthrift trust to pay income to guardian).

8    In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992).

9    755 ILCS 5/11a-14.1, as amended by Illinois P.A. 90-250, effective July 29, 1997.
Duly appointed Public Guardians and the Office of the State Guardian have the power to admit a ward to a residential facility.

10    755 ILCS 5/11a-17, as amended by Illinois P.A. 90-250, effective July 29, 1997.

11    755 ILCS 5/11a-22.
See In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992); Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).

12    755 ILCS 5/11a-22.
See In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992); Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).

13    755 ILCS 5/11a-18(a).
See also Chapter concerning the Rights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities of Guardians.

14    755 ILCS 5/11a-18(a).

15    755 ILCS 5/11a-18(a-5).
See also Chapter detailing the Rights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities of Guardians.

From Ken Ditkowsky–why an investigation is necessary

People who insist on ‘honest’ government are very dangerous to the ‘political elite!’ In addition to calling attention to the new source of revenue for the corrupt political types – i.e. the hard earned savings of ‘grandma’ we are calling attention to the fact that ‘grandma’ is a human being entitled to her ‘liberty’ rights, her property rights, her civil rights and her human rights.
The Elder Abuse and Financial abuse of the Elderly created by guardians as illustrated by the Sykes case also highlights the way we pick our judges and our elected representatives. Cook County Illinois a very few years ago had 17 judges go to jail in the ‘greylord’ scandal. We have two former governors sitting in Federal Prison right now! The fallout from the ‘Rezko’ affair has not settled ****. Other States have problems of a similar nature but somehow the national news media is much kinder to their miscreants. A former New Jersey Governor and Senator managed a firm that misplaced millions of customer funds and he has not even been arrested! If you or I lost fifty cents belonging to a ‘client’ we would be ‘drawn and quartered!’
Unequal treatment before the law is becoming the norm too many jurisdictions. Punish the messenger is the new credo. This scenario will continue until we can persuade law enforcement and the Congress to do an HONEST, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case and the similar cases. The GAO sent Congress a report concerning the epidemic of legitimate Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation cases that it uncovered. The response has apparently been to concentrate the effort to ‘punish the messenger!’
The First Amendment to the Federal Constitution is the core of our democracy. Citizens including lawyers exercising their Rights, Privileges and Immunities can thwart the pecuniary expectations of the miscreant guardians and their judicial/political benefactors. One of the duties of American Citizenship is the obligation to speak out against corruption, especially by the political types. When the plenary guardian in the Sykes case entered Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box and removed the collectibles disclosed by Mary’s younger daughter and younger sister and did not inventory them she committed a ‘taxable event!’ If the plenary guardian did not report the earnings on her Federal Income Tax Return, she committed ‘tax fraud.’ If my calculation is correct with interest and penalties there is owed to the United States of America over a million dollars! What kind of ‘clout’ does the plenary guardian have that prevents the United States Department of the Treasury and the Illinois Department of Revenue from ‘getting their share of loot!’
The League of Women Voters pointed out the “Democracy was not a Spectator Sport” – thus, we have to demand an HONEST, complete and Comprehensive Investigation of why Grandmother is being actively deprived of her Liberty, her Property, her civil rights, and human Rights.
Ken Ditkowsky


Good news on two fronts–1) Judge Stuart will not make more decisions until the Court of Appeals rules on Sodini Jurisdiction; 2) In Re Tiffany recent decision supports respect for jurisdictional requirements

Dear Readers;

Atty Ditkowsky has brought to my attention a great new case from the Illinois Court of Appeals — In re Tiffany (posted below) where the Ill. Ct. of Appeals made it clear that procedure in court must be followed and not ignored; and yesterday in the Sykes case, Judge Stuart, at the end of the hearing on voiding the Apportionment agreement and the issues of Mary’s incompetency will be delayed until after the court rules on the jurisdictional requirements having been met in the Sykes case.

That’s a very, very smart decision by the court.  It is likely the best decision that Judge Stuart has made in this case, and one that Judge Connors should have made long ago.  It looks like Judge Stuart “gets it”.  If further looks like why didn’t CF and AS file a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini notices) long ago and end the (unfair) reign of terrorism on the Sykes family, and in particular, Gloria.

I am very glad that the case is now moving along on the proper basis.  As soon as I get a copy of the order, I will publish it.

Ken has some very important words of wisdom below also.

Kind Regards to all  of you in Probate,


Dear JoAnne,
The jurisdictional question is a knotty one for the miscreants.   Up to now they have been getting away ignoring the failure to give notice.   A little lie here or there and a total lack of notice can be justified by an ‘indulgent’ court talking about waiver, estoppel etc.    As indicated by the Tiffany decision reported today in the advance sheets (In re Tiffany W., 2012 IL App (1st) 102492-B (September 21, 2012) the Appellate Court has made a definitive statement –jurisdiction is NOT a technicality and it will not be sweep under the rug.   
What this means is that cases like the Sykes case are in for an examination at some time in the foreseeable future.   Mr. Schmiedel, as an example, has admitted in the Sykes transcripts that the Sodini notices were never given.  (I believe he made that admission before Judge Reynolds, among others).   This admission if addressed by an appropriate Court in the same manner as the jurisdictional issue was addressed in Tiffany, the lack of notice is fatal.   It therefore follows that the proceedings that he, Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern are presently conducting against Gloria and her liberty, property, and civil rights  are not only ultra vires but intentionally intended to under color of statute to deprive her of her constitutionally protected liberty and property rights.   In fact, this places the three amigos exactly in the same position as Attorney Barry.   The ARDC prosecuted Mr. Barry!   He was charged with railroading an alleged incompetency into a guardianship!   [I am being prosecuted for protesting that action on behalf of Farenga, Stern and Schmiedel! and saying that “Greylord is alive and well in Cook County!”)
As for Gloria, I understand that she came up with a new line, to wit: ‘in Judge Stuart taking appellate jurisdiction over Judge Mulhurn’s decision (almost four years ago) she (Judge Stuart) is defaming Judge Mulhurn by suggesting the Judge Mulhurn was not doing her job.   There is no question that it is as gross an insult as possible for Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and Stuart to even suggest that Judge Mulhern did not take Mary’s rights into consideration prior to entering a final order in the prior Sykes adv Lumberman’s case.  It should be noted that  Judge Connors concurred in a decision that rendered improper a  735ILCS 5/2 1401 brought two years after a final order had been entered.   The Appellate Court (with Judge Connors concurring) took into consideration a little legal concept known as ‘full faith and credit!’.   Now four years later the three amigos appear before Judge Stuart and tell the Court that Judge Mulhern was incompetent and did not do her job and therefore Judge Stuart ought to overturn the ‘final order’.   They ask Judge Stuart to act as an Appellate Court and deprive Gloria of her civil rights and no-one is concerned!  
In my opinion the proceeding that was reported to have occurred yesterday (October 3, 2012) in Judge Stuart’s court represents an arrogance of the part of guardian ad litem Farenga, Stern, and Attorney Schmiedel.   This arrogance is demonstrated by their stated disrespect for the legal process in promulgating such an outrageous proceeding.    Why the ARDC does not act against persons who railroad grandma into guardianships is a mystery, but the Sykes case illustrates how the personages referred to in the Government Accounting Office Report and in other publications are able to get away with this and similar outrageous  conduct.    
Even though the legal profession (represented by the ARDC) suggests that the demand for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case is unethical and sanction-able,  As a citizen of the United States of America I respectfully request that the United States of America and the State of Illinois do an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case, the Gore case, the Tyler case, the Wyman case, and the thousands of similar cases that are similar.  
Ken Ditkowsky


2012 IL App (1st)102492-B
September 21, 2012
No. 1-10-2492
In re TIFFANY W., Alleged to be a Person ) Appeal from the
Subject to Involuntary Administration of ) Circuit Court of
Psychotropic Medication ) Cook County.
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) No. 10 COMH 1713R
Petitioner-Appellee, )
) Honorable Robert W. Bertucci,
v. ) Judge Presiding.
Tiffany W., ))
Respondent-Appellant). )
JUSTICE HALL delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Hoffman and Rochford concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 In her original appeal to this court, respondent Tiffany W. challenged the July 29, 2010,
order of the circuit court of Cook County, which found her to be a person subject to involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication under section 2-107.1 of the Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1 (West 2008)). On
appeal, she contended that: (1) the State did not comply with the notice requirements under
section 2-102(a-5) of the Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/2-102(a-5) (West 2008)); and (2) the
No. 1-10-2492
State failed to establish the elements necessary to administer medication to a non-consenting
person. In response, the State argued that the appeal was moot because the July 29, 2010, order
had expired. We agreed with the State and dismissed the appeal. See In re Tiffany W., 2011 IL
App (1st) 102492-U.
¶ 2 On July 17, 2012, our supreme court denied leave to appeal but issued a supervisory order
directing this court to vacate our order dismissing the appeal as moot, reinstate the appeal and
consider the case on the merits. In re Tiffany W., No. 113839 (Ill. July 17, 2012). In accordance
with the supervisory order, we vacate our prior order and address the merits of the issues raised
on appeal. The relevant facts are not in dispute.
¶ 3 Respondent Tiffany W. was 39 years old at the time of these proceedings and an Army
veteran. She was previously diagnosed with schizophrenia and suffers from delusions and
paranoia. She had been hospitalized on numerous occasions, including at least three admissions
within the year preceding the hearing. As the result of a fall from a ninth-story window when she
was 32 years old, respondent Tiffany W. suffered permanent damage to her brain and spine. She
is confined to a wheelchair and suffers from quadraparesis and dysarthria. Tiffany W., 2011 IL
App (1st) 102492-U, ¶ 3.
¶ 4 In 2009, respondent Tiffany W. stopped taking her psychotropic medication. Thereafter,
her behavior and demeanor diminished, resulting in delusions, including the belief that she is
either a man or God, frequent outbursts involving inappropriate and abusive language, and a
decreased ability to care for her own hygiene or health. Dr. Sean M. Blitzstein, respondent
Tiffany W.’s treating psychiatrist, filed a petition seeking an order for the involuntary
No. 1-10-2492
administration of psychotropic medication in order to treat respondent Tiffany W.’s illness and to
improve her quality of life. Tiffany W., 2011 IL App (1st) 102492-U, ¶ 4.
¶ 5 At the hearing on the petition, testimony from Larry W., respondent Tiffany W.’s father,
and Dr. Blitzstein, her treating psychiatrist, revealed that when respondent Tiffany W. took her
psychotropic medication, she was able to live in her own residence with the assistance of
caregivers. Without psychotropic medication, she became agitated easily and delusional and
generally was unable to care for herself. Dr. Blitzstein opined that respondent Tiffany W. did
not have the capacity to decide for herself whether to take or refuse the medication. Tiffany W.,
2011 IL App (1st) 102492-U, ¶¶ 3-4.
¶ 6 Following the hearing, the circuit court granted the petition and ordered the administration
of psychotropic medication to respondent Tiffany W.
¶ 8 On appeal, respondent Tiffany W. contends that the State’s failure to comply with the
written notice requirement under section 2-102(a-5) of the Mental Health Code requires reversal
of the circuit court’s order. She further contends that the State failed to establish the elements
necessary to administer medication to a nonconsenting person.
¶ 9 I. Standards of Review
¶ 10 Whether there was substantial compliance with a statutory provision presents a question
of law, which we review de novo. In re Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d 1061, 1072 (2nd Dist.
2011). A reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s determination as to the sufficiency of the
evidence unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Laura H., 404 Ill. App. 3d
No. 1-10-2492
286, 290 (4th Dist. 2010). A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where
the opposite conclusion is apparent or where the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or
not based on the evidence. Laura H., 404 Ill. App. 3d at 290.
¶ 11 II. Discussion
¶ 12 We begin by reviewing the pertinent portions of the Mental Health Code. Psychotropic
medication may not be administered involuntarily to an adult respondent who is receiving mental
health services, unless it has been established by clear and convincing evidence that all of the
following factors are present:
A. The respondent has a serious mental illness.
B. Because of said mental illness, the respondent currently exhibits: deterioration of
his or her ability to function, as compared to the respondent’s ability to function prior to
the current onset of symptoms of the mental illness for which treatment is presently
sought; suffering; or threatening behavior.
C. The illness has existed for a period marked by the continuing presence of the
symptoms set forth above or repeated episodic occurrence of these symptoms.
D. The benefits of the treatment outweigh the harm.
E. The recipient lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision about the treatment.
F. Other less restrictive services have been explored and found inappropriate.
G. Any testing or other procedures for which authorization is sought are essential for
the safe and effective administration of the treatment.
See 405 ILCS 5/2-107.1(a-5)(4) (West 2008). “Clear and convincing evidence” is “that quantum
No. 1-10-2492
of proof that leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the fact finder about the truth of the
proposition in question.” In re John R., 339 Ill. App. 3d 778, 781 (5th Dist., 2003). Clear and
convincing evidence is considered to be more than a preponderance but less than is required to
convict an individual of a criminal offense. John R., 339 Ill. App. 3d at 781.
¶ 13 Before a respondent can make a reasoned decision about medication, he first must be
advised as to the risks and benefits of the proposed course of medication. In re Louis S., 361 Ill.
App. 3d 774, 780 (4th Dist. 2005). Section 2-102(a-5) of the Mental Health Code provides in
pertinent part as follows:
“If the services include the administration of ***psychotropic medication, the physician
or the physician’s designee shall advise the recipient, in writing, of the side effects, risks,
and benefits of the treatment, as well as alternatives to the proposed treatment, to the
extent such advice is consistent with the recipient’s ability to understand the information
communicated.” 405 ILCS 5/2-102(a-5) (West 2008).
¶ 14 The requirements of section 2-102(a-5) are to “ensure that a respondent is fully informed,
but also ‘to ensure that a respondent’s due process rights are met and protected.’ ” Nicholas L.,
407 Ill. App. 3d at 1072 (quoting John R., 339 Ill. App. 3d at 784). Strict compliance is
necessary for the protection of the respondent’s fundamental liberty interest in refusing invasive
medication. Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1072. “Verbal notification is insufficient and the
right to receive written notification under section 2-102(a-5) cannot be waived by a respondent.”
Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1072; see John R., 339 Ill. App. 3d at 784 (written notification is
particularly important where the respondent refuses to discuss the risks and benefits of the
No. 1-10-2492
medications with his doctor).
¶ 15 The petition stated in pertinent part as follows:
“The patient was provided in writing the risks, benefits and side effects of each of the
medications requested, as well as alternatives, by Dr. Rishi Kumar, PGY-2 Psychiatric
Resident. This was done on June 11, 2010 and documented in the VA charting system.
The patient became agitated, refusing to read or discuss them, but they were left in the
patient’s room. The patient was again given written information about the risks, benefits,
and side effects of each of the medications requested on July 29, 2010, by Dr. Blitzstein.”
At the hearing, Dr. Blitzstein was questioned by the assistant State’s Attorney as follows:
“Q. Doctor, has the respondent been given written information regarding each of the
medications you’re seeking including the risks and benefits of each medication?
A. Yes, she has. She has been given it on two occasions. On June 11th by my
resident, who was working with me at the time, and also today.
Q. By who?
A. Oh, by me today.”
¶ 16 The reference in Dr. Blitzstein’s petition to “alternatives” indicates written notification as
to alternative medications but not as to any nonmedical treatment options. See Nicholas L., 407
Ill. App. 3d at 1073 (knowledge of alternative medications did not address other medical options
or nonmedical treatment alternatives). The State did not call Dr. Kumar to testify, and Dr.
Blitzstein only referred to written notification of the risks and benefits of the medication, not
written notification of the treatment alternative options, in his testimony. The circuit court did
No. 1-10-2492
not make a finding that the State had complied with the written notification requirement. We
conclude that the State failed to comply with section 2-102(a-5) of the Code.
¶ 17 Case law from other appellate districts holds that the failure to comply with the
requirements of section 2-102(a-5) compels reversal of an order for the involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication. See Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1073. In Laura
H., the reviewing court determined that the State failed to comply with section 2-102 (a-5) where
the documents did not address the risks, benefits or alternatives. Because the State failed to
present any evidence that the respondent was informed in writing of the risks and benefits of the
proposed treatment, as well as alternatives to the proposed treatment, the court held the
involuntary treatment order was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Laura H., 404 Ill.
App. 3d at 290-91. In Louis S., the State’s failure to present evidence that the respondent was
informed of the risks and benefits of the proposed medication required reversal of the order.
Louis S., 361 Ill. App. 3d at 780 (citing John R., 339 Ill. App. 3d at 783).
¶ 18 This district has not addressed the precise issue raised by respondent Tiffany W., i.e.,
whether the failure to provide the respondent with written information as to alternative treatment
options requires reversal. In Nicholas L., the appellate court noted the absence of cases where an
order for the involuntary administration of medication was reversed solely on the basis of the
failure to provide written notification of the alternative treatment options to the respondent but
concluded that reversal in such cases was required. In reaching that determination, the court was
guided by the holding in John R., that “the failure to provide written notice compelled reversal
because the ‘Code’s procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential tools to
No. 1-10-2492
safeguard [a respondent’s] liberty interests.’ ” Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1073 (quoting John
R., 339 Ill. App. 3d at 785). Because the “law is clear that failure to strictly comply with the
[Mental Health] Code’s written notification requirements in general compels reversal,” the court
held that “failure to provide written notification of alternative treatment options compels
reversal.” Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1073.
¶ 19 The court in Nicholas L. also rejected the State’s argument that the respondent was
required to prove that he was prejudiced by the failure to comply with the written notification
requirements of section 2-102(a-5). The court pointed out that the harmless-error rule did not
apply in right-to-written notification cases. Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1074 (citing In re
A.W., 381 Ill. App. 3d 950, 957 (4th Dist. 2008)). However, this district has recognized that the
failure to strictly comply with even mandatory provisions of the Mental Health Code can be
harmless error. In re Karen E., 407 Ill. App. 3d 800, 812 (2011) (citing In re Nau, 153 Ill. 2d
406 (1992)).
¶ 20 In Nau, the supreme court determined that a defect in the notice of hearing required by
section 3-611 of the Mental Health Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 91½, ¶ 3-611) did not warrant
reversal. The court determined that the respondent forfeited the error by failing to raise the issue
in the trial court. Even if the court had considered the error, the respondent received actual
notice of the hearing, which allowed him an opportunity to prepare for and be heard at the
hearing, thus satisfying the purposes behind section 3-611. Nau, 153 Ill. 2d at 418-19. Likewise,
in Karen E., this court found that the failure to provide the verbatim transcript of the proceedings
required by section 3-817 of the Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/3-817 (West 2008)) caused no
No. 1-10-2492
prejudice where the parties agreed to a stipulated statement of the facts from the proceeding.
Karen E, 407 Ill. App. 3d at 812.
¶ 21 Unlike in Nau or Karen E., the purposes behind section 2-102(a-5) were not satisfied in
this case. Not only must a respondent be fully informed, but compliance with section 2-102(a-5)
is necessary to ensure that a respondent’s due process rights are met and protected. Nicholas L.,
407 Ill. App. 3d at 1072. Strict compliance with procedural safeguards is required because the
respondent’s liberty interests are involved. Louis S., 361 Ill. App. 3d at 780. Unlike in Nau, the
legislative purposes of section 2-102 (a-5) were not achieved in this case. Requiring strict
compliance with the written notification requirement is a necessity and not merely a formality, in
this case. Compare Nau, 153 Ill. 2d at 419. Therefore, the error is not forfeited.
¶ 22 Moreover, in light of the second issue raised by respondent Tiffany W., the failure to
comply with section 2-102 (a-5) is not harmless error because it goes to whether the State proved
one of the necessary elements of section 107.1(a-5)(4) of the Mental Health Code. In In re Linda
K., 407 Ill. App. 3d 1146 (4th Dist. 2011), the reviewing court reversed the order requiring the
involuntary administration of medication to the respondent. The court agreed with the
respondent that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she lacked the
capacity to make a reasoned decision about the proposed treatment because she was not provided
with the “statutorily mandated written information about the side effects, risks, benefits, and
alternatives of the proposed treatment. Linda K., 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1153. Likewise in the
present case, absent its compliance with section 2-102(a-5), the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Tiffany W. lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision about the
No. 1-10-2492
proposed treatment. Therefore, the State failed to satisfy all of the necessary elements of section
2-107.1(a-5)(4) of the Mental Health Code.
¶ 24 The State’s failure to comply with the written notification requirement of section 2-102(a-
5) of the Mental Health Code requires that we reverse the July 29, 2010 order, requiring the
involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to respondent Tiffany W.
¶ 25 The judgment of the circuit court is reversed.
¶ 26 Reversed.

Great news from the “other daughter”–Notice of Appeal now on file

Dear Readers;

Good news all around.  You can now see how to properly file a Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement and Request for the Record Preparation to appeal a Motion Denied by the Probate Court

Appellate Documents to file an Appeal Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)
Great Job!  Keep on going, younger daughter.


Status of Cases–Sykes, Wyman

1.  In Re Mary Sykes:  Next court date October 3, 2012.  MTD Denied August 16, 2012 and Notice of Appeal must be filed in 35 days, then a docketing statement 14 days after that.  Recommended additional actions:  Because jurisdiction is in issue, family should file a Motion to stay the sale of Mary’s house and partition of other daughter’s home.
2.  In re Wyman.  Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction filed.  In briefing schedule.  Sharon Rudy’s assistant asked for extension of time on Friday to file Responsive Brief and that was agreed to as long as she emails me copy of brief on Monday and grants me the same courtesy when necessary.  Hearing to be held on Sept 28, 2012 at 11 am.  All are invited.  Judge Fabiano’s courtroom 217 in Rockford, 400 State Street courhouse.  All pending asset sales are on hold until jurisdiction can be determined.

Ken Ditkowsky responds to the Wyman book “Against Her Will”

 From KDD
The review (which is in quotes) is excellent.    Ms. Johnson captured the essence of the book and the problem with the words:  “Most of all, Against Her Will sounds a warning to all of us who are getting older; we’d better wake up and realize the system is rigged against us”     It is as long as the system gives carte blanche to those who prey on the elderly and protects them we – the elderly and our friends, neighbors, and those who love us – are in deep trouble.   Those who attended the ARDC discipline hearing seeking to punish me for speaking out heard Ms. Black tell the panel that what they (the ARDC) were doing was to attempt to make the public forget about ‘Greylord!’    By silencing you and by silencing me Ms. Black pointed out that this dirty little secret will remain out of the public eye and we can be distracted by the ‘Peterson’ trial.    On the other hand if the public is aware of the Wyman case, the Sykes case, the Tyler case et al. they might be upset and thing less of the 2nd oldest profession.   Indeed!
It is indeed fortunate that we still still live in America and the Law of Land is disclosed in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the statutes enacted by our elected representatives.   In United States vs. Alvarez the Supreme Court rejected the very arguments that the Illinois ARDC made to the disciplinary panel.    However, the proof is in the pudding!    Does the law of land mean more than ‘covering up’ the abuse, and the financial exploitation of the elderly?
Atty Ken Ditkowsky
KDD has been invited to be on “Cooper’s Corner” a cable show centering on probate and elder abuse and financial exploitation.
I will let you know when it airs.
Below is the link to the Book Review he is speaking of:

Drugs commonly used in Nursing Homes are off label use and Dangerous to Seniors!

Dear Readers;

As you are aware the seniors that are in nursing homes and don’t want to be there are often drugged so they don’t escape and don’t vociferously complained.

Nursing homes are one of the largest users of off-label psychotropic drugs which are dangerous and contraindicated for the elderly and those with heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, dementia, etc.–because it makes all those conditions worse.

Lisa Madigan has just won an important victory and that is Mega Pharma has to stop lying about these drugs and warn doctors to not prescribe them to the elderly and those with heart disease, dementia, kidney disease, etc. because they are in fact, very dangerous.

And just to let you another dirty secret of mega Pharma.  They don’t work.  That’s right, you might obtain some temporary relief after a few weeks, but studies show if you were schizophrenic (delusional with hallucinations) before taking such drugs, after 5 years, approx. 20% of patients are, and the brain damage is not reversible.

For a good book on the high pressure marketing of drug companies, read the book or see the movie “Love and Other Drugs”, rated R.  The movie, not the book.

Drug companies use patented drugs when other natural remedies are much more effective and cost pennies, because you can’t patent a natural remedy.  Then the drug companies bribe and inundate docs with all sorts of slick marketing.  Since most docs don’t do any real research or read clinical studies since med school, it’s easy to push them toward expensive, ineffective, harsh chemical drugs that in the end do very little. 

My thanks to Lisa Madigan for uncovering this corruption in the drug industry.  But these drugs should be banned at nursing homes.  They just shouldn’t be there at all.


August 30, 2012


Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined 36 other attorneys general to announce the largest multistate consumer protection settlement ever with a pharmaceutical company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., over its unlawful marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

The record $181 million settlement with Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, alleges the company improperly marketed Risperdal, Risperdal Consta, Risperdal M-Tab and Invega, all antipsychotic drugs. Illinois will receive $8.3 million under the agreement.

In a complaint filed today, Madigan and the other attorneys general allege Janssen engaged in unfair and deceptive practices when it marketed Risperdal “off-label” for certain treatments and conditions that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved.

The complaint alleges Janssen promoted Risperdal for off-label uses to both geriatric and pediatric populations, targeting patients with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, depression and anxiety, though those uses were not FDA-approved and for which Janssen had not established that Risperdal was safe and effective.

“Janssen falsely marketed this drug to extremely vulnerable patients in spite of any recognized medical evidence that the drug would be safe or effective for individuals with these conditions,” Madigan said.

Following an extensive, four-year investigation, Janssen agreed to change not only how it promotes and markets its antipsychotics but also agreed to refrain from any false, misleading or deceptive promotion of the drugs. In addition to the record-setting payment to the states, the settlement addresses specific concerns identified in the investigation, including restricting Janssen from promoting its antipsychotic drugs for off-label uses.

Additionally, over a five-year period, Janssen must:

  • Clearly and conspicuously disclose, in promotional materials for antipsychotic drugs, the specific risks identified in the black-box warning on its product labels;
  • Present information about effectiveness and risk in a balanced manner in its promotional materials;
  • Not promote its antipsychotic drugs using selected symptoms of the FDA-approved diagnoses unless certain disclosures are made regarding the approved diagnoses;
  • Require its scientifically trained personnel, rather that its sales and marketing personnel, to develop the medical content of scientific communications to address requests for information from health care providers regarding Janssen’s antipsychotics;
  • Refrain from providing samples of its antipsychotics to health care providers whose clinical practices are inconsistent with the FDA-approved labeling of those antipsychotics;
  • Not use grants to promote its antipsychotics nor condition medical education funding on Janssen’s approval of speakers or program content;
  • Contractually require medical education providers to disclose Janssen’s financial support of their programs and any financial relationship with faculty and speakers; and
  • Implement policies to ensure that financial incentives are not given to marketing and sales personnel that encourage or reward off-label marketing.

Joining Madigan in today’s settlement were attorneys general from: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

ARDC Prosecution for the 3RD type of Currency in the Nursing Home Biz? The trading of beds!

Dear Readers:

See below.  Ken is very concerned he is being prosecuted and singled out because he has made sooooo many public statements about the third currency in the nursing home biz.  In case you didn’t know, the nursing homes are filled with grandmas and grandpas just begging to go home.  Conversely, in other countries this almost NEVER happens, unless the senior is truly homeless AND has no family.

How did we get to this?

The nursing homes say it is “pure coincidence.”  Excuse me for not being naive, but I go to nursing homes, I know people that are in there via my church, my friend’s elders, etc. and I can tell you right now, about 80% are begging to go home.  They want to go home.  They want to be with family.  What I don’t get is these people are not the untouchables.  Why is there no one to help them accomplish this?

From what Ken says, you can buy an investment in a nursing home group of beds, and you will be given profitability from that.  Now you and I know it’s a scam, but apparently those in the biz get their investors from the houses of worship who are older and have dough and are not likely to stick around 10 years to see the sale in a biz that is undocumented.  So, like a good Ponzi scheme, for the first two years, the investment pays off at 20% per year, then it tapers down to 10% per year, and the owners of the scam keep the last 25% saying the home has changed, there are no profits, but when the building land and property is sold, you will get your return and then some.  Of course, that never happens.

Ponzi is alive and well and he must have established the 3rd oldest business–investment scams to give the 2nd oldest business plenty of work!

In any case, all of this is a taxable event.

Getting back to our seniors, what happens when grandma and grandpa protest this scheme AND THEY MAKE SENSE?  Come up with a BS, mini mental scheme to put them away and put them on strong psychotropic drugs such as Risperdol, Halodol, Seroquel, Libirum, etc.  Those drugs should be banned from sale to nursing homes!  Gimme a break.

Back to Ken’s position.


From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 10, 2012 8:49 PM
To: Mary Waddell
Cc: “Edward C. Carter” , matt senator kirk
Subject: Re: Thank you again

That you for your support.    I am going to win this ARDC thing.   I am going to win because I am right and we still live in the United States of America.

My investigation of the Sykes and related matters has not terminated.   This morning I was visited by a lawyer who has represented the nursing home crowd and has close ties with them.   Apparently in addition to the Rothner/Kaplan grand jury investigation, there is a new Morris Esformes grand jury investigation.    Esformes and his son were called before a Federal Grand Jury in relation to some prescription drug overcharges to Medicaid and Medicare.    I copied Mr. Carter of the AG’s office so that he can give the information to the IDR investigators who are doing a parallel investigation on behalf of the State.

Once again I got confirmation of the three currency levels that are used by the Cabal to evade taxes.   I’ve given this information to law enforcement previously and they seem uninterested.   What is interesting was the ARDC attorneys questioned me concerning my e-mail in which I furnished the AG’s office of the non-cash currency – i.e. the nursing home bed barter, and the opportunity barter.   Both are very difficult to prove for law enforcement, but have resulted in millions of dollars transferred sans taxes.   As at this point in time I am paranoid I wonder if the ARDC attorneys had a motive that was unexpressed in their effort to ‘shut me off!’   I do not know one way or another, but as I do not believe in coincidences it seems to me that with certain health care provider investigations now disclosed to before a Federal Grand Jury and me spouting off about extra legal currencies – ****.   The fact that I was questioned concerning an e-mail that disclosed this situation sets up a red flag.   The fact that I was asked if I felt the need to repent for doing what any human being and citizen is expected to do sets up a second red flag.  I make no accusation!   I am just exercising my First Amendment Right to discuss this unusual situation with a ‘friend!’   Some people in authority might not approve, but the US Supreme Court in Alvarez made it clear that the US. Supreme Court approves.

Ms. Waddell, it now appears that the nursing home cabal  has been now reported to trade in the opportunity to gain pecuniary advantages.   I was alerted to this situation in the Sykes case when a cabal owned entity was recommended by the guardian ad litem to supervise visitations by Gloria and Aunt Yo.   Why did Mr. Stern (as an example) want supervised visits.   I saw one of the bills that Gloria Sykes received – she was charged for the supervision of Mary’s dog!.    After my niece was fired from a Speech therapy job, I asked a couple of questions and received an admission that indeed, my niece was terminated as the result of ‘her publication’ of the 3rd currency.   (She did not know anything about the 3rd currency, but she got credit  – as she had already lost the job and I did not want her working for these people I did not correct the impression – until now!)

We have our hands on a major miscreant situation.    I have suggested that people write their elected representatives and law enforcement.   Maybe we will find an elected representative who really cares about the elderly and who has learned the lesson that Democracy is not a spectator sport.   I would like to know if my being questioned on the nursing home currency was coincidence or something more sinister.   The nursing home industry is a billion dollar industry and with government involved the health care industry in spades, doubled and tripled well connected nursing home owners stand to make a fortune at taxpayer expense.   It is obvious that the individual political operative does not care – Carolyn Toerpe did not inventory a million dollars in collectibles.  Not only is the United States and the State of Illinois not seeking to collect the taxes but the ARDC is working to shut me up.

Thank you again for your support.

Ken Ditkowsky

A Great Big Thank You from Ken to all his Supporters

Thank you
Every good deed is properly punished.   I attempted to do what was expected of me as a human being and as a lawyer.   It obviously affected the sensibilities of some of the political elite who feel that the elderly are ripe targets for abuse and exploitation.   They thus attempted to separate me from my Civil Rights and my human rights just as they had done with Mary and Gloria Sykes.   When I refused to be intimidated that went after my law license.   The law licenses is not necessary for me to do my duty as a citizen and as a human being – but the loss of it could be nightmare, and a gross inconvenience.   As I am 3/4 plus one *****.
Now that the trial phase of my nightmare has ended, all we have to do is wait for a decision.   This decision could come at any time; however I am informed that it will come in about six to twelve months.   When the decision comes down Ms. Matson will notify you of it.   In my opinion that United States constitution demands that I be vindicated.    The Alvarez case (recently decided by the United States Supreme Court obviates any doubt as to my rights!
As I told the ARDC attorney as long as the Good Lord allows me to live on this planet and as long as the Stars and Stripes is proudly displayed as the flag of the United States of America I will continue in the effort to save senior citizens from predators whether they are court appointed or operate under more primitive motivations.      I also intend to exercise my rights under the First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to the fullest extent possible even if it offends such luminaries as Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, etc.
I appreciate all the support and the efforts expended on my behalf.    I particularly appreciate all who attended the two day attempted lynching.     Thank each and every one of you for your loyalty, your friendship, and your support.    When the chips are down you know who your friends are – thank you again.
Our work is just beginning.    We have to access all law enforcement facilities so that we take the profit from the miscreants.    A good starting point is alerting the IRS as often as necessary to the fact that the breach of a fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event!’    Thus, when Carolyn did not report or inventory the million dollars in Au (Gold) coins she created a taxable event.    With interest and penalties the United States Treasury has a very nice windfall.   As Ms. Farenga exposed her and Adam Stern’s culpability ****.    Law enforcement can act only if they know about misconduct.    Democracy is not a spectator sport and our job is to help those in authority to ‘do their assigned tasks’ for the benefit of the public.
Thank you all once again.
Ken Ditkowsky


From Joanne:
And if you get a chance, please check out John Wyman’s book on Amazon — “Against her will” — it details his mother’s struggles, his struggles and the family desperation lumbering under yet another Illinois Probate Court clearly acting without jurisdiction since July, 2009!

There is no doubt the effect on the family is one of demonizing and terrorizing them.  We have stopped the sale of further assets, but eagerly await the court’s determination of jurisdiction.  Let’s see if Judge Fabiano will do the right thing.  I have also asked OPG Sharon Rudy to do the right thing and rather than file a Response to my Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit for lack of jurisdiction, she SHOULD JOIN WITH ME AND DO THE HONEST THING AND DISMISS THAT LAWSUIT!

Exactly what I predicted will happen. Evidence barred by one party is eventually presented….

by the other party.  Of course, you could argue that’s not fair, and it gave Ken a distinct disadvantage, but when you think about the hypocrisy of it all, it shows extreme bias.
As in all case, the underlying facts (without excessive analysis performed), are always crucial to any determination of justice. Simply because you tell one party “don’t go there”–despite the fact these are crucial facts–means the other party, in order to prove its facts, simply has to go there.
Same thing happened with Ken’s trial.
I could also argue letting the ARDC put on its case, and then saying they didn’t have enough time to allow for Ken to bring in his witnesses, was also unfair, except for the fact, the cross examination of the witnesses was brutal.
At the end, one had to wonder, what is it about all the fuss regarding appointing a GAL anyway, since they seem to do so very little–they’re more like a public defender with about 200 cases per day–and why are they getting paid anything anyway, other than a small stipend?
From Judy Ditkowsky–she had some great observations:
Dear Scott,
I understand your frustration at not being allowed to testify.  BUT the fact is that Osorian had disallowed all testimony which he judged to be underlying the ARDC case.  You were not allowed to be in the courtroom for most of this.Nevertheless, the excellent cross examinations of Ken and of Larry Hyman of the ARDC witnesses caused the three lawyers/guardians Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga  to admit that they were guilty of failure to exercise any of their powers to protect Mary.  Farenga even had to admit that she had only seen Mary in her office, because Naperville was too far for her to travel to and Adam lived closer.  Farenga and Stern admitted that they were not present when Carolyn had the safety deposit box drilled, so that they had not protected Mary’s potential interest against Carolyn, even though they knew that Mary had initially accused Carolyn in her initial action of stealing $4000.  Farenga admitted that (representation by) most (guardians ad litem) end after a few months and do not continue with no pay for three years and five months.  In the cross examinations it was brought out that Schmiedel knew that the Lumberman suit was against Gloria only and Mary had no part in it.  Stern made numerous factual admissions which showed that he was not acting in Mary’s interest at all.  But most important  was that the arrogance of Mr. Apostel  (or whatever his name was) allowed Ken to bring in just about everything that Torosian had previously disallowed!!! The result was that Ken got to make his closing statement during the redirect questioning of him as the adverse witness, and THEN Larry was able to make his own closing statement that the three : Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga,  could have merely blocked all Ken’s emails FOR ALL THE USE  they made of them to investigate anything whatsoever.  The implication was that their discomfort was clearly the result of their inaction and time wasting.  Their witness, Dr. Patel, clearly indicated that he, an ordinary family physician, did NOT see anything in Ken’s letter that he thought required him to take action; thus, the letter did not in fact contain anything implying that it was mandatory no matter how the guardians, the attorney for Carolyn Toerpe, OR the ARDC wanted to  parse it.  Only persons who were looking for trouble could even imagine that there was trouble.In the meantime, even Orosian, seeing my demeanor, had to see that Apostel was doing his best to drive Ken into a stroke.  I saw him take immediate though subtle action, once he saw how distressed I genuinely was (I got up and gave Larry a note, and I suspect that I was pale and possible shaking)  and Ken’s color all too slowly did go back to normal.  I do not think Osorian wanted 911 ambulances or a corpse in his hearing room.  He and Hilliken could see that Ms. Black was wagging her fanny at them and emphasizing her bosom to Apostel  every time she consulted with Apostel.   These hearing officers, and hearing officer Mrs.  Williams could see Ms. Black rolling her eyes and making faces like a pre-teen.   Both  men doubtless have much prettier and younger females whose shoes (with six inch heels)  fit doing the same in their offices all day long and are not in need of or in awe of her attempted stimulations.  Ms. Williams probably had my reactions to Ms. Black’s activities.

Until much after the hearing, I was under the false impression that the three hearing officers were employees of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.  In fact, they are pro-bono lawyers from big firms — at least the two men are from large and probably national law firms and I missed which firm Ms. Williams is employed by, frankly, because I thought these were the activities that qualified them for a paying job as hearing officers, not their current affiliations.  Taurig-Greenberg, of course, represents many politicos, including, in the past Abamoff, and all of the Indian tribes he was setting against each other.  I think it might have been involved with either Rezko or Cellini but I have not researched that.  Nevertheless, if you noticed, the men’s suits did not come off the sale rack at TJMaxx, Cosco, J.C.Penney, or the like.  Hilliken’s tonsure probably cost what Romney’s, Clinton’s, Kerry’s did.  These are the kind of people who CONSTANTLY have to guard their own personal assets against their own financial managers, their former wives, their former trophy wives, their feuding step-children — and there have been plenty of well publicized cases in the last few years of heirs and heiresses and other business titans who have been dispossessed by family members.  Also, they also probably have to appear occasionally in court, and certainly have to manage the way their cases are run.  If THEY THEMSELVES happen to guess wrong as to which political or economic powerhouse to displease, they could also be hauled before the ARDC.  Maybe they were not favorably impressed by a twenty eight year old twerp almost pornographically rhapsodizing about the “Disciplinary” powers he had been granted.  You and I don’t know anything about the fond family relations that may OR MAY NOT exist in hearing officer Williams’ family, or what depredations her immediate or extended family might have suffered in the recent or more distant past from over-reaching governmental agencies.

So, until they make their finding, which could be tomorrow but is more likely to be six months or a year distant, we do not know what they are going to do.  We do know that in theory, this was not a trial of the ARDC; the hearing officers, however, do have the power to make a finding in which they denote that they expected not to have to use the second day of the hearing at all, and were reserving it only for emergency purposes. Instead  they were forced to listen to the Administrator attorneys wasting their time pretending that an investigation of someone accused of miscreant behavior was properly made by asking them under oath whether they were miscreants for hour after hour, whether they were forced to listen to the administrators’ lawyers reading to them as if they illiterate after they had been told not to, whether they thought that it was appropriate for Ken’s arrival ten minutes late on Thursday would be mentioned when they (the hearing officers)  themselves did not enter the courtroom until 9:40 AM on Friday, and when Black was herself late several times after breaks (when there were no possible issues of traffic or holdups at the front desk).   They may well have noticed that hours were spent detailing a sanctions motion which was declared a non-entity by an appeals court, and they could mention that.  The superiors of Black and Apostel (or whatever his name is) had OFFICIAL eyes and ears in that courtroom as well, such as the lady in purple in the desk behind me, the security guard and even the court reporter.

In short, your support was much appreciated.  Both Ken and Larry are experienced courtroom lawyers.  Drew Peterson was convicted by the fact that Brodsky and his cohort over-reached and allowed in testimony which totally incriminated their witness beyond a reasonable doubt to the one person who took the attitude you or I as a juror would take when faced with a defendant already adjusted guilty by the 11 other jurors — the defendant MUST be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  I did take that position in the one jury trial I was a juror in, which cost eleven other people, many of whom made little more than minimum wage, two days work instead of only a day’s work for the pittance of seventeen dollars a day… and they were very gracious about that because they too wanted to be sure they were doing justice).   When Ken and Larry decided that the case had been made by the unforced errors of their opponents, they did not continue the game and take a chance that they might make forced or unforced errors.  They made points by ending early (a 20 minute instead of a 30 minute closing statement)  and that donkey Apostel surely lost even more points by taking advantage of Osorian’s invitation to use up a few of those ten minutes.

So if the panel is straight, they had all the evidence they needed that the proceeding was a waste of time and money.  If they are not straight, no facts would change their minds!

Judy Ditkowsky

Dear Judy;
I have to agree with all you said and then some.  The case clearly was about the fact Ken was trying to help Mary and bring justice to the table in his own way.  Either a person’s emails are protected first Amendment speech (he did not advise anyone to commit a crime, or hide a murder or anything serious), or they are not.
Either they “get that” or they don’t.  Perhaps Ms. Black was urged on to do this (moronic) duty of a waste of time 2 day trial because the Appellate court, in reaching their decision to overturn the $5,000 sanctions award said in the end to report all of it to the ARDC and let them make a decision.  Of course, the real question is, why did not the the Court of Appeals tell the ARDC to investigate the allegations of lack of jurisdiction in Mary’s Probate case–a most serious error–together with the wrongful sanctioning of an attorney that had never even filed one piece of paper there.  Those would be the miscreants to investigate, not Ken who was cleared of the alleged sanctions violation.
In the end, I suspect nothing will be done well, because it is Probate.  And Probate is too messy, complicated and time wasting for most other attys who have important paying clients and matters.
That is JMHO.  If Mary wants justice, a sister or daughter will have to file the Motion to Dismiss properly (which has been done) and take it up on Appeal (waiting for that), because we all know there is little justice going on in Probate.
And the miscreants depend upon that.
Now from Ken:
As I citizen of the United States of America you have the right to write to the powers that be – i.e. the Illinois ARDC, the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, the Supreme Court itself, the United States Attorney, and the Bar Associations and express your opinion on the conduct of the case and the conduct of the people engaged in it.
Contrary to the statements of the ARDC attorneys, the Supreme Court in the Alvarez case ruled that the First Amendment is alive and well.    You do not need anyone’s permission to write to the powers that be and in fact you should express your views.    Contrary to the statements of Ms. Black the border of the United States has not receded and Illinois is not part of the Soviet Union.
What has happened in the Sykes case is a travesty!   The retribution against Gloria Sykes is outrageous, and in my opinion the prosecution by the ARDC against me absolutely chilling.   If you noticed the ARDC attorneys stayed far away from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alvarez!   They also stayed far away from Sodini!    This 1988 decision was well known to Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and the judges.   It has been reported to me that in some courtrooms the judges are actually making inquiry of the applicants for guardianship if the Sodini requirements were made.   That is big progress!  Had the Sodini requirements been observed many of the cases that pollute the landscape would never have occurred.
Let me reiterate – just agreeing with me is soothing to my ego and makes me feel proud; however, I am the choir!   If we want to preserve our liberty we have to make our voices heard.  As it was pointed out by Farenga in her testimony – she and Stern were aware that Carolyn was drilling safe deposit boxes and they were uninterested in making certain that Carolyn did not loot the boxes – neither could take the time to ascertain what was in the safety deposit box!    However, both were Johnny on the Spot to deny the word of family members!    It is interesting that Carolyn has never denied the fact that she took a million dollars in collectible Au coins and never inventoried them.   It is also interesting that the ARDC never investigated that fact before calling me a liar.
No one talked to Gloria, Aunt Yo, the Biddy Estate etc.
Similarly no one ever took the time to follow through on the Petition for a Protective order, or the Edward’s Hospital fiasco in which Mary was brought to the hospital having lost 10% of her body weight.   Even though Carolyn admitted to family members her neglect of her mother, Farenga (and ultimate the ARDC attorneys) failed to do a scintilla of investigation.   Indeed, no one was interested in the fact of Mary’s isolation and her younger daughter and her elderly younger sister were deprived of even telephone contact with Mary.
Indeed – if you care about the elderly and their financial exploitation, I believe that more has to be done than lecturing the choir.
that said – I thank everyone for their support.   I appreciate the fact that so many have expressed it.   I am a minor player in this drama.   As I stated in open Court = as long as the Good Lord (Lady too, can’t be sexist here–JMD comments) allow me breath I intend to exercise my First Amendment Rights.   I will not be intimidated as it is my duty as a human being to speak out and continue to speak out until this nefarious situation is resolved.   I respectfully submit that democracy is not a spectator sport and most importantly participation in the democratic process is a human responsibility.
Ken Ditkowsky

Trial of KDD–A Shameful Act by the ARDC has NOT gone unnoticed

Dear Readers;

One of the first things that Ken did was to email everyone he could and thank them generously for his support and I know that I thank everyone (I can still be next thru such a fiasco, but I know that I will have Ken by my side and I have a few choice speeches for the ARDC lawyers they don’t seem to care about grandma and grandpa as much as they do the pitiful likes of Stern, Farenga, Stuart, Connors, Waller and all their co-conspirators.)

In a way, the ARDC was putting grandma and grandpa on trial yesterday and making it clear that if the legal system set up a Gulag for them, then they had better knuckle under and just be held down and shot up with Risperdol, Halodol, doped up with Seroquel and the likes and just shut up and take it.  So what if they’re left lying in their own excreta for hours in an awful nursing home like some stories I have heard–despite the fact they had money put away for in home nursing care or the govt could pay and much less than a nursing home at five to seven grand a month to the clout.

Ken is right and I’m proud of him standing up to such injustice.

I wish I could have been there for the whole trial and blogged about it, but I bet there was a set up between AS and LB as usual to kick out my blogging, but no matter.

Through the grapevine, I have heard:

Comments, some catty, but hey what’s life without catty comments from the chicks out there:

1) the tribunal was very uncomfortable, shifting all the time and moving about, whenever Ken or his atty Larry made a speech;

2) LB’s shoes were clearly too big and she fiddled with them as if she had to keep them on correctly so she could run out the door at any minute;

3)  Apparently LB wasn’t paying close attention to what she was saying because she listed one of Ken’s unethicals as attacking criminals for their criminal behavior (Freudian slip, perhaps)?

4)  The commission said Ken had no one to testify in his behalf, but everyone in the audience was there for Ken and if asked to step forward would have gladly provided an entire dump truck load of manure on the miscrants and provide a halo, golden robe and wings for Ken.  At any given time, there were between 10 and 20 people in the audience from recognizable Probate action groups.  I didn’t see a single person there for the miscreants.

5) apparently Ken was threatened with being disbarred for being 15 min late (boy are they a crabby bunch), but the other daughter pointed out the tribunal was 30 min late the other day. But that won’t work with them, one of the members is just a member of the public, so you can’t bar them from being a person, but then again, perhaps CF and AS can have them put in a nursing home, drugged and then filch all their life savings in Probate attys fees.  Larry never did ask about the average Probate bill from the attorneys, private and GAL circling the place like sharks in a school.

My 16 year old daughter just got up so I have to go.

take care


From Ken Ditkowsky–

I am moved by your loyalty and friendship as well as the loyalty and friendship of everyone who have undertaken the effort to protect the elderly and their families from government fostered exploitation and abuse.   The officialdom does not want to acknowledge that the elderly are the new Jews of the 2012 Holocaust and as the ARDC attorneys summed it up–  if lawyers do not co-operate in the ‘cover up’ of the policy of denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, civil rights and property the public will be reminded of Graylord and the corruption of the second oldest profession.
One of the reasons that I focus on the Sykes cases is that it is a “lodestrone”.   The death of your mother was so typical of what was reported in the ‘underground press!’ as a common event.   Yes, we have an underground press because the mainstream media is unwilling to to expose the people Gloria Sykes referred to as the “whores of justice.”   Indeed, your mother’s protests were just too compelling for the Court appointed guardian and as she allegedly had the ‘loot’ under her control you mother’s life became expendable.   Thus, she was terminated and set for a quick cremation!
According to the Illinois ARDC, to think or speak of the alleged criminal conduct in a manner that someone might hear and prosecute the miscreants is unethical conduct on the part of a lawyer.   I am not making a ‘joke’  this is exactly what Ms. Black and her 2nd chair argued to the commission.   At this point in the proceedings I was extremely ‘spent’ but I was still shocked that in the United States of America any agency of the government could hold our American Constitution is such disdain!
Your experience and that of so many of the targets and their families have been deprived of their liberty, property, civil rights and human rights and our elected representatives are disinterested.   Law enforcement could ‘care less’ except that certain agencies will spend the last drop of taxpayer money to protect those who are court appointed and engage in what must appear to strangers to be a public policy of elder abuse and exploitation.
No – Mr. Bush – I am not ‘cowed’ and I will not shut up!   In 1936 people like me did nothing and were cowed.   The 1939 they were marched into the ‘gas chambers!’   Democracy is not a spectator sport, and those people who fail to take cognizance of history are doomed to relive it!    I am reminded that the inventor of the guillotine was its first victim!
Ken Ditkowsky


Debriefing from the other daughter and Scott

Dear Readers;
Please thank these two individuals for letting me know what was going on today.  As you know, I was kicked out of the trial and I am assuming it was a SLAPP violation except for the fact, I think the trial skills of the Administrator and staff are somewhat lacking.  Just my humble opinion.  I have to say when LB was standing up there and asking essentially, over and over, “Is there any basis for saying (you are a liar, you didn’t serve notices, you are lying about the laws and case law” blah, blah, blah–f course the miscreants were going to put down their heads, not look at the hearing panel and say “no.  I’m brilliant.  I don’t lie and I would make sure there is jurisdiction and  I served summons and complaint for the partition and the apportionment.  Duh.  Is she kidding?

Gloria informed me that CF’s body language was not good.  Like PS and AS, there was a lot of slouching going on and none of them looked at the hearing panel.  Of course, you have to do that when you are lying.  Your eyes typically and involuntarily dilate when you lie, and liars on the stand never look at the judge.  But I digress.
Apparently, Dr. Patel found his way to the 11th floor of the ARDC offices (I hope he got paid $400 per hour for that, I have to talk to him about being an expert witness), and he said he got the letter from Ken and did nothing with it.  What else is new?  Dr. Patel heals people. He isn’t interested in their family disputes or court disputes for that matter.

None of Scott Evans (close family friend to Mary), the other daughter who was told to show up at 11 am or any witnesses for Ken were used.  The other daughter and Scott think it’s because Ken only scheduled 2 days so how it works is that if the plaintiff uses up 2 days, that means the defendant gets 0 days.
Sorry, that’s not how it works.  The subpoenas served on every person should say the trial begins on day one and continues from day to day until it ends.

I do patent and trademark work and do trials in Law Division (highest dollar value) of the Cook County Circuit Court.  All parties are heard.  There is no, we scheduled it for 7 days and the defendant does not get to go on trial. That is impossible.  The trials continue from day to day until the plaintiff rests, then the defendant typically asks for a directed finding, then the defendant puts on his case.  Since I have heard from Gloria and Scott, then Atty Hyman told me it was over, I assume it is at the point where KDD asked for a directed finding, made a closing argument with respect to Plaintiff’s case, and it is over for now.

KDD should have reserved his right to put on his case and his witnesses.  But what is the point?  The other daughter will testify, the subpoena was defective, the Sodini notices were defective, she was never served with a proper summons and complaint for the Partition or Apportionment action and it was too late, blah, blah blah.  I saw little of case law going on in this proceeding. It was really legal light. (my apologies to Leah Black, but you know….)

So keep on checking back.

I am going to check with Larry tomorrow for his details.

But in the meantime, the body language reports continue. Other daughter says that CF was looking down, slunched over and looked down (obvious sign of lying).  She says that Dr. Patel said he did nothing with the letter from KDD other than dumping it into the file (which you know from yesterday he had problems leafing through without the help of his “office manager”.–love those docs!).

If LB is bringing a case against KDD for writings with “an obvious disregard for the truth” she needs to watch more cable and Dish TV.  Everyone knows there is a ton of BS in the world, and no reason to get uppity about it.  Officer Cammeron was not impressed, neither was anyone else. But they all keep the emails “just in case.” Has she heard that pixels bounce around in cyberspace for free?  That’s right, no obligation and no cost.

Oh, and here’s something funny.  While I know body language is important, and Scott knows it too and so does the other daughter, being a reporter, at one point they all got bent out of shape over this and told the witnesses they could not even glimpse into the courtroom for that!  Amazing.  I have heard you can’t listen to another witness’ testimony, but body language?  Are they kidding?  I’m not even sure that is right.  The reason for exclusion of witnesses is to make sure testimony is fresh and truthful.

But to say you can’t even look at body language?  That’s not in any rule I have ever seen.  Makes the ARDC look corrupt.  Oops!  I can’t say that any longer according to Atty Hyman.  I have to say that makes it look like the person has deviated from laws, morals or ideals.  I can do that.  I have quick words in Wordperfect.  I’m glad that someone is using technology.

Does this indicate a cover up too?

Just asking.

Mr. Hyman has officially informed me that “corruption” is a pejorative term and I shouldn’t use that in speech (way to go!) or I guess on this blog.  So like Ken who says “frugal with the truth” for lying, I guess I have to define corruption as not adhering to a set of ideals, laws or morals.  We need a new word because the miscreants just can’t handle it.  I would tell them to put on their big boy and girl Pullups, but perhaps that’s too pejorative too.

I really need to write a whole new dictionary based upon probate.  Maybe the Probate Sharks will help me with that.  I see my stuff on their blog right away, and I am glad for that.  Bless them and all the other probate blogs pointing out corruption or a “failure to adhere to a set of ideals, laws or morals.”

I really didn’t know I need a whole new dictionary (besides Wikipedia) for being a lawyer and blogging, and for using pejorative terms such as “corruption” and “lying”.  Okay, that’s funny.  LOL.

I know you are all waiting–the trial of KDD

Dear Readers;

Okay, this is a blow by blow from yesterday.  Because I am atty, and because I am running a website, I might have a few restrictions more than the average bear, thank you Yogi.

BUT, I have heard from the other daughter, Scott Evans and Atty Larry Hyman (who has asked I say on the blog he is a great atty and he is–definitely hire him), the trial is over and I get to blog about it and let you know what happened.

See below.  You’re gonna love it.


Ken ditkowsky. The evidence will show no jurisdiction. (Came in late to opening argument already in progress and darn, I missed the $13 deal at Lakeshore Athletic club.)

KDD continues

the evidence will show that the guardianship petition was never heard, and the notices were never sent out or complied with.  No jurisdiction means no judge or GAL is acting with true authority..

PS will argue that Ms. Sykes was in the courtroom, but HW did not serve her properly either.

Why did he not bother to serve her properly?

I have the right and the responsibility to bring this to the attention of law enforcement and when any citizen of the US has had their rights, their human rights, their civil rights, their right to life and liberty taken away without due process, then I have the right to complain to anyone and everyone.

the flag is my right to complain.  I can complain as loud and bitterly as I am able.

How can this happen in the US?, why is this happening?

I have a right and a duty to bring this to the attention of the authorities.

I am still complaining about this.  There are people sitting right here who are complaining about this in the courtroom (referring to the people from NASGA, Probate Sharks, etc.

Speech ends.  I believe LB or Apoltol whines about the fact that Ken went into Jurisdiction and that will not be part of this proceeding.

First Witness:
The Administrator calls Peter Schmeidel

LB asks him for a brief description of his background.


I’m an atty.  I attended John Marshall law school.  (Note to Larry and KDD are in parenz–What I want to know is if PS and AS worked at the OPG, were they buddies there?  Did they work together?  Was one the supervisor of another?)

Employment history.  Worked at people law office as an attorney

worked 11 years at public guardians office ultimately in charge for 7 years

I mostly practice guardianship and probate.

I am testifying pursuant to subpoena

I represent carolyn toerpe.

Mary was adjudicated and there has been ongoing contention litigation.

Mary has other living Sykes relatives.

I could swear at this point he referred to Gloria as Claudia.

He then explains what a guardian of person does vs. guardian of the estate.  The guardian of the person makes day to day personal decisions such as where the ward goes and what she can do, etc.  The guardian of the person takes them to doctor, etc.

Guardian of the estate is responsible for financial side.  They are responsible for the assets and inventories and accounting.

Assets and inventories done

Carolyn T was and is Plenary Guardian

Fist retained.  Early 2010.  Feb 2010.  Mary already had been adjudicated.

LB: when was the first time you met KDD?

PS:  At end of April 2011.  I received a letter from him.  Before that, no contact.

LB: look at Exh. No. 3

Have you seen the letter before.

This is a letter I received address to Dr. Patel which was copied to me and 2 other people, including the two court appoint guardian at litems.

I received it end of April 2010.

Is it a fair and accurate copy?  A:  It is

LB then reads this letter into the record.

Did I read that correctly?  A: yes

Other documents were enclosed with it.

What is this document?
A letter.  This was an attachment.  It is a true and accurate copy.

Next page


What is this document?

A.  Entry of medical record.  Med exam June 5 2009.   I also received this.  It is a true and acc copy.


A: It is a 2 page document, report of physician form.  Filled out in guardian ship matters it is a ccp 211, it is an option of the doctor, of whether that person can make personal and finanacial decisions.

This was filed out by dr. barry rabin.

Was this attached to the letter and this is a true and accurate copy?


This is a form prepared by Mr. Ditkowsky seeking to enter an appearance.

Q.  What is this attachment?  Is it a true and accurate copy?  A: Yes

there were no other attachments.

No objection to admit the letter.

With respect to 2637.

Q: Had this appearance form been filed?

A. It had not been filed.

Mary had already been adjudicated disabled, she was adjudicated in dec 2009,

Q. Could Mr. D. File this appearance form?

A.  Mr. D. Would have had to go thru a procedure.  There is a procedure.

She could not have the ability to contract, so they would have sought leave of court.


Q:  Have you received any email correspondence from Mr. D?

A.   I received numerous emails.  From Mr. D.  Sometimes daily.  Sometimes 5 to 10 per day.  In total probably over 100, perhaps over 200.

(The objection should be ***seeks facts not in evidence**–If LB wants these in evidence to talk about she should have them there to talk about instead of just speculating a number).

KDD makes general objection.  Good, but overruled.

A. In general the emails complained about accusing us of being corrupt, not turning over assets, accusing us of intercepting mail, etc.

Witness then starts in on jurisdiction and lies and says that was addressed in appellate brief and appeal was denied.  (Get him on that great big lie, it was dismissed on formatting!  The Order Dismissing is on the blog).


Q. About halfway down the page, it is a forwarded message.  Talks about disapation of the Mary Sykes estate.

A. I saw it Feb of 2012. It was on my computer.

My email is on there.  Kd sent it to me.  I had received many emails before.

KDD: no objection to this email.

What are you moving into evidence.

The entire exhibit 25.

No objection.

1393.  A. that’s the second page of the email.  Looking at the last paragraph.  You reported to me that judge stuart gave lip service to demands of gal’s and PS.

PS took a risky course of action.  They then talk about the relationship between the bankruptcy proceeding and the forceable action.  Gloria agreed to leave the house on a date certain.

KDD objects to the emails containing heresay.  It is all overruled on heresay.
Once you file the bk, there is a litigation stay, including guardianship litigation, I had filed a partition action. (No you didn’t, that came later).
We were attacking an apportionment agreement.  Mary syes entered into an apportionment agreement, which Gloria received all the money $750,000 (not correct– she received $500,000. $1.3 million was the settlement total, $500M went to attys, $200M to pltfs bridge loan funds and gloria was left with $500M.

We could not proceed with the partition action, we could not proceed with the apportionment agreement, due to the automatic stay in bankruptcy so we sought to lift it.

(Ask him if he served Gloria properly with a summons and complaint for either proceeding–the partition OR to invalidate the apportionment agreement.  Gloria will testify she was not served.  Or, she was served the famous Pizza flyer by CF’s husband who is not supposed to serve anyway.  There is also no motion or grant of a special process server in the file.  And, the file’s a disaster with 80% of it missing.  )

Judge Stuart entered an order…..

Gloria had transferred funds that were supposed ly withheld from the settlement and those were in Indiana, and Gloria wouldn’t say….,

He is getting so convoluted.

The bankrupcy judge agreed to lift the bankruptcy stay.  It said we had the right to pursue the partition action.

(He forgets conveniently that the federal court the partition is held up because chase has a court date in October 2012 to get live testimony on the fact that while Chase is foreclosing, Chase no longer ownes the mortgage–that is all screwed up.  Deborah Soehlig at least admitted to Judge Hollis during a bk hearing that no one had any idea how to do this partition because it is so complicated, and that her firm didn’t know how to do it.  At least she was being honest.  The partition proceeding is a complete mess.  The mortgagee must be a party to it, but Chase sold the mortgage, Chase is not the mortgagee any longer.)

CT must comply with all orders.  CT received a modification of the stay to proceed with the eviction order?

Q.  Was this modification order entered?  Judge studart had violated the automatic stay?  The letter was many months after the automatic stay had been lifted.

Q. Any basis to say that the modification order was wrong?  A.  Absolutely none.

Exhibit 27.

In the middle of the page.

Q.  Have you seen this email before

A.  It may have come from Mr. Stern.  I recognize it as coming from Kenneth Ditkowsky.

A.  It’s not from him.

A.  LB will seek to have the email admitted via mr. Stern later.

Q.  Mr. Ditkowsky said you intercepted mail and that was a crime.

A. Maybe in jan 2011, there was a hearing and judge stuart asked me to send orders to Gloria.  Gloria she did not want to be emailed documents from court.  I sent an email to her.  I was supposed to give Gloria the contact information re dr. shaw.  I also sent her orders because that judge had not approved the first or second current account.  First current account and the inventory were still unapproved.

On the envelope, there was a  little yellow thing (sticker) from the post office.  In court the next time, it came back.  Then Gloria accused me of intercepting her mail, but in reality it just came back in the mail.  I mailed it out and it came back is not intercepting Gloria’s mail.

Q.  Is there any basis to accusing you of intercepting Gloria’s mail?

A.  Absolutely none.


No further questions

KDD cross examines.

Q.  Are you aware of 755 ilcs 11a et seq. In general.  It is the statutory scheme for probate and it talks about the notice requirements.

A.  Yes, I am very familiar.

I am very familiar with the venue provision.

Q.  The venue provision requires that if mary were living with CT, then she would have to be served in Naperville.

Q.  Isn’t it true that they did not follow any of rules in appointing carolyn toerpe.

Hearing Chair; Let me state this.  We will not making this a trial of what is going on in another court.

We cannot give you anything that would give you an advantage in another court.

(At some point KDD nails PS on the fact that KDD is not a party and never has been a party to the Sykes probate court.  He has no other case in which he can “gain an advantage.”)

(He said there were 100 emails of complaint).

I have no other case pending in which I am a party in any other court.

Back to questioning PS.  If venue is correct in the place where you live?

Discussion ensures over “gaining an advantage in a court”.

Do I have any pecuniary interest in the Sykes cases?  A. No.

Did I ever file any claim seeking anything in the Sykes cases?  A. No.

But PS is trying the “I don’t like what you’re asking, so I’m going to ignore and say what I  want to diversion tactic.  Nice going, buddy.  KDD’s on yr butt.  And Ken, it’s okay to tell the witness the day will go much faster and he will be excused much earlier if he would just answer the question directly and you intend to get all your questions answered.  It’s not hard).

Q. Who filed a Petition for Guardianship?

A.  Petition was filed on behalf of CT

Q. Was there a petition to have Mary Sykes declared incompetent?

A.  Says lots of stuff, does not answer the question, but finally he admits it.

Q. Was there a petition for Gloria Sykes to become guardian?

A. Not sure if it was ever heard.

Q. But there was a Petition for guardianship.

A.  It did not name either the two sisters.

Q.  Was gloria syskes ever served with a copy of the petition?

Q.  do you have a copy of the document.  Is there is a copy of the document.

Q.  Is there a copy in the court file?

Q.  (Is the time, date and place) on the Petition?

Q Is there a certificate of mailing in the court’s file?

Q.  Did you find a certificate of mailing?

He doesn’t recall any of this

Q. Did you send out a notice to gloria?

A.  I had nothing……

Q.  Have you read the Sodini case?

A.  Is it your position that Sodini allows a person to be allowed to be found incompetent without notice to her two sisters?

Hearing chair sustained the objection to asking about Sodini and notice.

(Go back and ask if the complaints you received by email were about the fact there was no jurisdiction.  Then it would relate to direct examination, otherwise call him in your case and ask again.  What a dweeb).

Q.  When the motion came for hearing, was she represented?

Q.  When mary sykes was adjudicated, was this done pursuant to procedure of the probate act?

A. Yes

A.  When mary sykes was served, she may have been residing with Carolyn.

(Ask if a copy of the summons is in the file or the affidavit of the server?  It is not.  Judge Connors did not review these documents prior to holding the hearing, as most judges normally do.  She would have seen that Mary’s Avondale house was listed, but Mary had resided in Naperville for many long months and by then Carolyn declared Mary would never go home)

A. It is my memory she was residing with Carolyn at the time. (Good, her Chicago address is on the summons)

A. There was a summons issued for mary sykes.

I believe that there was a summons that was served in naperville.

The sheriff was directed to serve many sykes on Avondale?  A.  I don’t know where the sherriff was directed to serve her.  And that was gloria’s residence.  Gloria’s residence– from time too time.

Apportionment orders.

Was there an order.  There was an ordered entered in law division that was approved.  We call it the lumberman case.

It was about gloria and mary sykes.

This is the one at 6016 n avondale.

Did you research this lawsuit before you filed it? (Referring to partition action)

Lumberman’s sued only gloria syskes.  Mary was added as a counterplaintiff.

The initial lawsuit against gloria sykes.

Then her mother was added.

The lawsuit was a suit for declaratory judgment (of no insurance).  It was suit based upon an insurance policy.

Gloria had taken out a policy on 6016 n. Avondale where she lived.  Mary sykes was not on the policy.

(Make sure you make it known that Mary did not live there–she lived at 6014.  Mary’s house was 6014 and Gloria’s house was 6016 and the adding of Mary to the property at 6016 was as a testamentary convenience.

Final order entered in Oct of 2008, this probate proceeding was in Jun 2009.  Was there ever a petition file was 5/2-1401?  Was there any request for post judgment relief?

After 30 days is a judgment entitled to full faith and credit?   A.  Generally.

All sorts of objections as to giving a legal opinion.   (When Ken asks a question about a legal opinion, it is blocked, when LB asks a question, Ken objects and it is always over ruled, indicating clear bias from the tribunal.  Even the Probate court is more careful (Judge Stuart) to avoid this type of bias.)

Q.  Glorias proceeds were frozen.  What was the legal basis for that.

A.  Before I was in the case, there was a motion filed with JMC and the assets were frozen until further order of court.  This $272,000 was only a portion of what Gloria received.

Q.  Was any appeal filed.  A.  No appeal filed.

Q.  Were any post trial motions filed?  A.  No post trial motions.

The court  just took and entered this order.

Q.  Isnt’ it true that the only way to attack judge mulhern’s order is by appeal, or 1-1401 that alleges due diligence and a meritorious defense.  Otherwise it is entitled to full faith and credit, correct?

A.  In most circumstances.
During the time of any disability, then the time to bring it, the order is stayed (tolled?).  And there was also a contract.

A contract with a disabled is always voidable.  (I’m not sure about that.  It seems to me once a Guardian is appointed, then the person is represented and the tolling of limitations stops.  The only exception is, if the ward becomes able bodied again, then she will also have the right to sue at that time.  I suspect this witness is again being frugal with the legal truth).

That is what we are attempting to void.

There was fraud perpetrated and Gloria got her mother to sign a document and Mary did not have that capacity.

This was based upon the testimony of dr. shaw.

Q.  Was the opinion Dr. Shaw made before or after this contract was done?

A.  Dr. Shaw examined her.
(Mr. Frugal with the Truth isn’t saying Dr. Shaw finally examined her in fall of 2011!  Not 2008.)

(All of Dr. Patel’s records and information are heresay–Dr. Patel did one mini mental in 2007) ask him to explain what a mini mental is.  Then ask him about Mary’s hearing and if it were tested and if he knew Gloria was told Mary had to go to learn how to hear again and how mini mentals are contraindicated for those with hearing or vision problems! It’s all on Wikipedia).

Exhibit 3.  Dr. Patel says she makes sense.  This was June 2009.

The order was entered October 2008.

KD points out MS makes sense when conversing on any topic PS adds she had been diagnosed with dementia.

KD nows tears apart the letter and it doesn’t say he represents Mary Sykes.  A. Based upon this letter I joined to get sanctions.

KD: At the time you joined in sanctions, you knew that I had not filed an appearance.
A: yes

KD: You knew I was never in front of Judge Connors (JMC). A. You were asking for leave to do that.

Q. You also knew that before the petition, I had never even been in that courtroom.

A. I am there most days of the week, I don’t recall seeing you.

Q. Yet you joined in a rule 137 motion and it was overturned due to lack of jurisdiction.

PS doesn’t recall it was overturned due to lack of jurisdiction (yeah, right) another big lie, he is looking down, won’t look up.

KD:  You claim 200 emails.  Q. Did you file any lawsuit over the 200 emails?  Did you file any complaint with the police?  Any email asking not to send you emails? A. All answers to these are negative or don’t recall.

Q.  you’re aware that because mary sykes relative were never served, there is no jurisdiction.
A.  Witness denies this and is looking down at his hands.

No redirect.  PS storms out of the courtroom looking down.  He always does this when he is caught.

The Administrator calls Adam Stern;

Now, this is where it gets boring. AS will have to answer basically the same stuipd questions that PS did.–OMG I predicted that and I was WRONG!

AS is sworn in.  Let’s see how much Ken can go after him in a half hour.  I am an atty.  Attended Valp school of law 1994.  Briefly worked for legal service of NW Indiana and in Mar of 1995 I was employed by Cook County OPG, until may 2002, then I went into private practice, 5 years and then sole practitioner.  I practice primarily guardianship and probate law.

I was appointed special guardian ad litem in 2009.  I had been appointed gal probably about 800 or 900 cases.

Q.  How many of those involved estates of elderly persons.  A. Over ten years, my guess would be about 200, 250 cases.

Q.  What are duties.

A.  In August of 2009 JMC or Judge Maureen Connors appointed me special guardian litem out of an issue that arose regarding mary’s placement and could I assist.  Cf was the other gal and she was out of town or unavailable.

Q.  Did you continue in your role as special guardian.  What are other roles.  At this point there are two GAL’s and we share duties. (No, both are in court or are supposed to be there, and they churn the bill all the time.  Often CF does not show up and says she has a dental appt for her kid.  The kid must have no teeth by now.)
The gal makes recommendations to the court regarding what is in the best interests of the ward and is the eyes and ears, according to case law.

Carolyn Toepe filed for guardian.  Exhibit 1

Q.  Is this the petition for gal that carolyn toerpe filed?  Yes,

A.  admitted into evidence.

Q.  What happened after carolyn filed this petition. A. There was a court date and I was appointed special gal.

Q. eventually a cross petition was filed by gloria syskes.  A.  I believe it was with the OPG (on it).  They eventually amended this to gloria and kathy bakken.

Q.  What is the general process.

A.  Initially you file a petition,
the alleged dp needs to be notified, a summons has to be served,

then the court appoints a gal and then informs the dp of  their rights, etc., the notice gets sent out and then the judge hears the information and makes a decision.

A an Illinois doctor examines the disable person.  With respect to the notice, the notice should be in writing.

A. Is life testimony required?  A.  No.

Q.  How common is it for live testimony?  A. Probably ten to fifteen percent of the cases.

Q. Was there a contested hearing regarding the issue.

A. Gloria filed a cross petition, in her petition he alleged that mary was disabled, but in court she vacillated.  Mary sykes did not contest the petition for disability.

A. Was there live testimony.  A. No live testimony from a doctor.

The Ct had a doctor fill out the CCP 211.  And there was also a neurological report, that also supported the need for adjudication.

Gloria also asked for adjudication.  (Dr. Amdur–but Gloria did not pick him, although AS says all the time she did.)

Objections on heresay, LB explains she is not going to use this for the truth of the matter asserted.  Just using it to explain the procedure.

A. Mary sykes was found incompetent.  There was no live testimony.

Q. Was dr. amdur’s report used to adjuciate mary sykes disabled?  A. Yes

Exhibit 2.  Is this the doctor’s report of dr. amdur.

Is this an accurate copy of this report.

Objection heresay, foundation, they just said they’re not submitting it for the truth.  I don’t see it as a verbal act.  LB counters it was used to declare Mary incompetent and it is a court document.  It is admitted over objection.

Q.  How did mary syskes get to be appointed. A.  It was on cross petition of mary sykes.  Read back the answer

yes, it was on the request of mary syskes.

Q.  When did the court enter the order?  A.  dec 10th 2009 by  JMC.

Q.  Was there an issue with her appointment?   When did the hearing take place?

A. In nov of 2009 hearings were held regarding care plan of both petitioners.  After those hearings, judge appointed     Carolyn over Gloria (Wrong.  Gloria’s hearing was Nov. 18th, and Carolyn’s was on Dec 7th, she didn’t have her oath or bond and it was late so they entered and continued the appointment to dec. 10th.  Duh.)

Q.  Was there an appeal.  A.  The appeal was dismissed, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  The document is on the blog.  A 341 non compliance dismissal.

Q.  Did you know of KD prior to all of this?  A.  No, never met him or heard of him.

First page of exhibit.

Letter from KD.  Q.  When you received this letter 2632.  What was attached to it. Can you look at other pages?

Q.  Was the appearance form been filed April 2010 letter?  A. Not sure, but I think no.

Q.  Did you contact mr. Ditkowsky? A.   I called to talk about the letter and the attachments hired by family and friends and he went on that he had a right to represent mary sykes guaranteed by the constitution of the the US of america.

He told me he represented her previously.

I contact PS who was the atty for the guardian, I drafted a motion for the court, I think asked for sanctions.

I visited mary sykes over the weekend.

I was curious if she knew who Kenneth Ditkowsky was.  Foundation overruled.  I met with mary sykes, and asked her if she knew him.  Objection.  Chair: Lay some foundation.

Q. When did you meet with mary syskes?  A. May 25 2010
Q. Was anyone else present?  A. Initially the daughter and the son in law,  but I met with mary sykes alone.
Q.  What was the purpose?
A. To ask Mary about KDD
Q. What was the result?
A. She did not recall who he was.
Q. Was there a hearing (on the petition for sanctions).

Exhibit 4.

Q.  What is this document.

A.  Transcript of the proceeding on jan 2010.  I have reviewed the transcript.  Is this an accurate copy of this transcript.

KDD.  Objection (to line of questioning)  This is already in evidence.  Transcript is in evidence.

Q.  On the 6th page 1510 starting at line 10, counsel what is this additional appearance, and I want to prepare and represent her.  I sent it to everyone to let them to let them know I am going to be representing her.

Q.  Did Mr. Ditkowsky tell the judge he represents mary sykes.  (Objection, stupid question, the court knows who has filed an appearance and who did not, come on now)


Q.  What about the sanctions?  A. Mr. KD was allowed to file a response to a motion on sanctions.  And to send a copy of the order to 2 individuals.  Mr. KD did not file a response.  He did not file a response, he filed a Motion to Vacate order appointing guardian, numerous pleadings (FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE), and other documents not responsive to the motion for sanctions.  (He filed pleadings indicating the court had no jurisdiction under Sodini and rule 137, and the latter is what the Appellate court determined.  JMC had no jurisdiction over an atty that had not filed anything in her court.)

Q. Was there another hearing?  A. that was in June 2010.

Look at Exhibit 5.  Transcript June 2011.  A. This was date of next hearing.

LB. Move exhibit 5 into evidence.  No objection.

Q. Exhibit 6, is this the order entering sanctions against KD?  A. yes, on june 23rd.

Move exhibit 6 into evidence.  No objections.

Exhibit 7.  What is this document?  This is the court order from Judge Flemming.  This is the amount of sanctions.  This is an accurate copy of that order.

Move to enter into evidence. No objections.

Q Was the sanctions order entered later overturned?  A. Yes, it was.

Q.  Is this the appellate court order vacating sanctions against Mr. Ditkowsky?  A. Yes.  It is an accurate copy.

Move to admit exhibit into evidence.  No objections.

Q.  Since being special GAL, any email communications from KDD?  Yes

Q. When did you first get these?

A.  That weekend I started getting emails.  The number varies.  Some days I receive numerous emails, some days none.  I have saved 200 eamils.   (Ask him if he saves them and prints them out?)

Q.  Do those emails make accusations about you and the GALS and the judges in the case?  A.  Yes.

Exhibit 7.  Q.  What is this?  A. This is an email dated Oct 7,2011.
Q.   How did you get the email. A.  I get numerous emails.  I send them to others and they come to me.
Q.  Do you recognize the email address.  Whose email address.  A. KDD
Q.  Had you received emails prior to this?  A. Yes
Q.  Is this an accurate copy?  Yes.

Move into evidence?

Objections?  KDD:  It says email from gloria.  I don’t see Mr. Stern’s address on this.

Q.  Have you received emails from KD where his name does not appear?  (Come on now, even a 2nd grader knows this is impossible!  The email is altered.  The peanut gallery is snickering).

Q.  Did you recieve this email.

A.  Objection.  Foundation.  That it came from Mr. Ditkowsky.  There are conflicting lines as to who sent the email from gloria to AS.

I think that a proper foundation exhibit 11 has not been laid and cannot be laid with respect to this piece of paper.

On top it says from Ken, on the bottom it says from Gloria.

It seems to have been altered.

(As him to pop open his laptop and show it to you).

Object to the reading of this.  If there is a particular question.

(LB: wants to start reading this again.  She is waste of time.  No question pending and just the reading of a document.)

LB:  I don’t know the point I stopped. … she starts reading…

Deprive a citizen of his or her civil rights, invites corruption…

Not accounting for a bag of gold coins.  When stern visited the pg home, stern had a duty to report unusual activity to the court.  The doctor shopping.  The federal court is not an appellate court is not an appeal court for the probate court.    …

This is polluting the probate court….  I am not playing dead or going away…

At the very least they are accessories to criminal conduct….

Finally a question.
Q.  Is there any basis to KD said there was “doctor shopping”, any basis to lack of “jurisdiction” any basis to mr. Ditkowsky’s actions in not accounting (objection, that’s not what he said).  AS answers all in the negative–no basis to any of this.

KDD.  Objection, LB is asking him opinion as an expert.  She has not put him up as an expert.  Is there any basis that for more for a legal conclusion.

She is trying to call him as an expert and she cannot do that.  It’s imporper.

Q to AS:  Is there is ant basis you did something improper in Probate court.

A.  I do not think so.

Q.  Is there any basis to KDD’s statement that wire fraud, mail fraud and rico going on.  A. No.

Q.  Have you tried to intimidate KD or any other atty?  A. No.

Q.  Are you aware of CF intimidating any other atty.

A.  I am not aware of cf (LIAR) of cf intimidating any other atty in the sykes case (LIAR–CF said she wanted me removed because didn’t want to get “papered to death” meaning I would represent Gloria vigorously and she didn’t want to have to deal with that.  Then she started maneuvering to make the my disQ procedure longer and longer out.    And then she got Gloria in a tizzy.  Gloria’s still in a tizzy over that one).

Q. On Dec 27 burglary..

KDD:  Object on foundation.  Best evidence.

Exhibit 12 is admitted over objection.

Dec 21, 2010.  There appears to be a letter that Mr. Ditkowsky was to send to the ARDC.

To ARDC.  There must be a great deal of money involved in Sykes, the harassment of Gloria continues on a daily basis.  The actions against Gloria are……

An email detailing more mischief.  The illegal injunctions entered in circuit court.  These communications resulting in rehabilitation to her home tied up and stopped, and payments not accepted by the mortgage co….

The frustration the public has with us.  9th day of 21 day stay.  The voidable order freezes ms. Sykes accounts, and now with the burglary.

I have no idea what the ARDC can do to keep this from happening.

1960’s starts talking $25, and starts with a Greylord story.  This was called “selling the judge” Dec 28th fiasco, would have not occurred if the judge were made aware of some of the fact.  The stuff which was the subject of the burglary.  If I were paranoid, I believe that…..

Involves a great deal of money.

Q.  Does the Sykes case involve a great deal of money?

A. AS, laughing, no.  The estate has no money.  The only great deal of money is the money gloria took from her mother.  (Oh, a dodge),

Q.  Any basis to say she (Gloria) was ambushed in court.  A.  None.

Q.  Are you aware of judges receiving bribes in the syskes case?  A. No, no,,

LB reads:  Feb 11, 2012, mother isolated again.

Q.  How did you first come to see it (this email)? A.  It was sent to me by Mr. Ditkowsky.

Q.  Is this a true and accurate copy.  A. Yes

Ask that this be moved into evidence.

No objection.

LB:  About 5 sentences down, after reading and doing my own investigation….

Posterboard elder financial and abuse case……

(Get him to admit that Gloria was taken care of by her mother for 10+ years)

The very person.  Any elder abuse?  To you knowledge?  Have you participated in any financial exploitation?  AS answers no to each of these.

Has CF or CT engaged in any of these? No, no, no.

(You should get him to admit that there was no hearing date set on the petition and no one got notice of the hearing…  The hearing date was not set in 30 days as required by law…..  Judge relies on reports on GAL (BUT is this clear and convincing evidence, doctor’s reports are hearsay, so where is the clear and convincing evidence) And what of the fact there was a conflict bet Gloria and Carolyn and perhaps CT kept Mary from court. )

Q.   Is this  an accurate copy of the email?  A.  Yes.

Objection. From KDD:   I don’t know if this is an original email from me.  Best evidence would require him to produce the best copy.  Data copy stored in a computer.  Any printout that this reflects the data accurate accurately.

I don’t know if this true and correct or not.

There is an original beyond the printout.

LB: cites Rule 1004(3) original in possession

Farenga should testify as to where the fax/email came from.  What about the underwriting and the fax encryptions.   What about that asks Mr. Chair?

There are obvious marks, circles etc. on the document.

Mr. Stern you notice e circled.  Was that on the document.  I received the email with the stuff on it.  I did not receive the cynthia farenga stuff on it.

Was the bottom fax line removed?

Admitted except the fax description and the handwriting.

LB starts to read again:

Time is short and getting shorter, gold is over 1500 per oz, that means there is almost a million in conins, a class 1 felony.  A gal is the eyes and ears of the court.

Q.  Did mary sykes own gold coins?

A.  First in aug of 2009.  Sometime after mr. Kd letter, he started raising this issue.  I wasn’t informed of the gold coins before this.  KD was the first person to raise the issue of the gold coins.

Q.  Did mr. Ditkowsky ever give you any proof of the gold coins?  A. I did ask family members about it.  And I asked other people about it.

Q.  Did you steal any gold coins belonging to mary syskes?
A.  I have not seen them.  I have not assisted anyone else.

Exhibit 17.  Email dated may 11th.

Q.  Have you seen this email.  A.  I have seen the email, not the cf printout, I have seen the email.

Q.  How did you come to see the email? A. It was sent from KD .  May 11.

Q.  Except for the writing, is this an accurate copy, A. yes.

Same objection.  The note on the bottom.   Forwarded message to KDD.

It’s clearly an altered document.

Chair wants to admit it.  He says the testimony as to foundation is sufficient.

LB reads on:  First paragraph, even at this late juncture….why does the case require 2 GAL’s….. there is a large cache of gold coins that is uninventoried and can be split.

Is there any basis blah blah.   (Why wasn’t this investigated) Good admission, AS has not be paid, and he has not been paid any fees.

(Have you asked the FBI or any other investigator to look into the cash and gold coins)

new witness, police officer tom.  It is after lunch and I missed a bit going to the bathroom and getting a drink but I didn’t want to leave KD alone.  Everyone else left and went to get drinks and food during a half hour break.  I don’t understand how the ARDC gets away with this.  In Circuit court the court reporters have a union and they don’t go for more than 3 hours, with a one hour lunch break.  If the court wants 4 hours, they have to get another court reporter for the afternoon.

Starting at about 5 min after testimony beings.

Q.  What contacts did you have with the Sykes family in Naperville?

A.  I looked into all our prior contacts.  We had 13 prior contacts.  We had all well being checks.  Assess her independently.

One court appointed guardians came with us as well.

13 calls prior to that.

Q.  Any indication there was any basis for abuse of mary sykes?  A. No.

Q.  When did you first meet Mary Sykes?

Early 2010.  Myself  and rita manning.  We went to the adult day care.  We observed her and then we spoke with mary for about 30 minutes.

Q.  Were you able to ask her living arrangement?  Did you see any signs of abuse?  A.  I did not see any signs of abuse.

A.  We were all introduced to here, she again asked who we all  were a few minutes later and she had to ask adam stern who he was even tho she had met him several times before.  (what about her hearing aids)

A.  Her physical health appeared to be fine.  She could not appear to recall things we told her minutes earlier.

A.  She said that her husband would pick her up soon, but then she remembered and she said he was dead.

A.  We then prepared police report.    After meeting with mary syskes, we discussed this  with KD via email.

Q.  What about the emails from KDD?  How often would you get emails from him?
A. They come in cycles, we would get a bunch for awhile, then nothing, and then we get a bunch more emails.   Aprrox, not sure exactly.  I have about 1000.  Some are from other people, some are from him.  I don’t know the exact number.

Q. What is the general subject matter.

A.  There is some conspiracy.  But we really have no interest to sykes because her home isn’t in naperville and she has no real property here. we really don’t have an interest.

(Not in our jurisdiction).

We weren’t interested.

Q.  Email jan 17, 2009.  How to pay off your congressman.

How did you come to see this email initially.

When did you receive this email.

Jan 17, 2012.  Do you recognize that email?  A. Yes

Q.  had you receive emails on prior occassions?

A.  He might have another email address.

I recognize the email as from KDD

Move exhibit 24 into evidence.

LB then reads an email:

I suspect the plenary guardian has dipped into mary’s money and will not spend dime one.  Someone will have to account and that will be the million in cash gold coins and jewelry.

Is the email similar to other emails?  A.  Yes.

LB reads more.  “Two gals were appointed and they decided that Mary was incompetent and Mary rubber stamped her decision.  Then her incompetency was rubber stamped.”

Email talks about financial exploitation.  Everyone profits, the judge, the gals’ the attys.

They are going over the emails.

( I don’t understand the relevance of the police officer in napervilee got emails?  What’s the deal there?)

Objection.  Mr. Cammeron’s email address is not the one.  His email does not appear on the printout.

LB will try to lay more foundation.

Q.  Is this your email address from Tom Camerron?

I forwarded what was sent to me to Adam Stern (I don’t’ get this, what is Adam supposed to say)?

That was on my email.

I asked that there should be something going on in the court proceedings.

TC testified that the email is true and accurate to the best of his recollection.

(Why is there Prudential security in there?  I don’t get that?

There always seems to be one of them here. Do they get paid more for that?  There’s always 2 of them)

Q.  Do you have the police report.  KDD.  Objection  We did not get a copy of this police report and we did not know that was to be used in evidence.  (Larry should have objected to facts not in evidence).

LB: this was produced in April and is bates stamped pages 1929 to 1936

She struggles to show KDD a copy.  The hearing Chair does not get a copy.  She’s supposed to have a copy of the report for everyone and he’s not supposed to be testifying to facts not in evidence.

LB is looking at the report

Q.  commander this is your report you used before you came into this room, correct?  A. Yes.

Q.  It included not only talking to ms. Sykes but also ken ditkowsky?  A. Yes

Q.  After all your investigations, you did not charge anything, and you informed kd that you were not going to charge anyone.  A. Yes

Q.  Based upon your own investigation nothing was going to happen.  A. Yes.

Q.  Throughout the course of the 13 different visits, each time you found ms. Sykes to be in good condition.  After an officer makes a visit, they have to make a report.

And in these reports, did you find any abuse?   A. No.

Larry Hyman cross examines.

Q.  You have never met KDD before today in court, correct?

A.  I either spoke to him on the phone or via email.

Q.  Did you send any email to spam folder.  A.  No, you never know when an email might become important.

Q.  Did you find that what Mr. Ditkowsky was doing, did this violate any laws?  A.  It did not .  If found it annoying , but not harassing.

Q.  You know that there is a criminal statute that if people make harassing phone calls or emails, that is a violation of the law.  Are you familiar with that law?  A.  Very familiar.

Q.  There are plenty of people in naperville that are annoying, they make annoying or harassing (communications, then) you would make a decision or you would go to the states atty.  Was that done?  A. Yes.  Q.  But out of that, no charges were filed, correct?

Q. these emails didn’t affect your day to day operations in your dept.  A. No.

Q.  Other than clogging up your inbox.   A. Correct.  Q.  It doesn’t prevent you from investigating allegations of abuse?  A. No.

Q.  You found them annoying, you found them informational.  You were aware, there was an ongoing dispute.  A.  I was from the emails.

Q.  You never had to arrest gloria, right?  Nope.

Q.  At any time that you had gone thru the emails, did you ever ask mr. Stern, whom you learned was the gal, did you ask him to ask the court stop this lawyer to stop sending me this stuff?

A.  I believe gloria was the one that was cautioned not to send me anything further.

Q.  Are you aware of any trips of ms. Mary sykes was taken to an emergency room?
A.  We searched the fire dept. records and found one.  (That doesn’t mean she was taken by car, duh).

I only show one in the fire dept’s records.  There was only one.

Q.  That corroborated that assertion of mr. Ditkowsky, correct?  A. Yes

Officer excused.

Discussion ensues over calling Mr. Stern.

We did not want to keep ad am stern here very long.  We discharged mr. Stern until later.  He’s a 10 minute cab away, then we can call AS and then.

Judge stuart will be here at 3:30 and cynthia farenga.

Then mr. Harmon addresses the court.
I have my own I have to be back to my office by 4:45.  My partner is involved in some case.  Then tomorrow I have to be at a relative’s funeral at 1 pm.

From Mr. Chair:  Condolences for the family member.  I was asked for leave to file an appearance.  I will not change the proceedings.  The parties need one day total.  We sent the second day to be safe.  Mr. Hyman you just filed your appearance this morning (what does THAT have to do with anything, the guy just died last night and they have 24 hr rules, you know.  Larry Hyman might not get into Jewish heaven, ya know what I mean.  They’ll put him with the Roman Catholics or worse, the Protestants).

Hearing Chair: We will not reset any times.  We go the full day today and then the full day tomorrow.  No excuses.  (Interesting, courts change time for attys all the time and then just take another matter in between.  I don’t get this.  Those people come to work every day.  This has been going on for about a year.  As many judges have told litigants when an atty has to do something, everyone just has to adjust and deal with it).

We intend to go to 5 today.  And then 9:30 to 5 pm.  You can file an appearance earlier today at the last minute and I am not changing the schedule..

Take a break until a quarter to two.

Oooh.  Bad Wifi.  Nothing available.  Only 2 bars.  Why am I not surprised?

Prudential security is here two guys.  They get extra pay for coming to the proceeding.  If I had my building guy come to a proceeding in my offices , it would be a short Mexican that can also fix a faucet and a toilet.

Recess, waiting for adam stern.  LB and LH working out some stipulations on evidence.  (Finally, that is what they should have done yesterday to not hold anything up).  Make people pop open laptops then to be sure that emails are from KD and no one else and where did they go, etc.

If anyone’s coming tomorrow, there’s $13 parking at the Lakeshore Athletic club over on I think it’s Water Street, just around the corner.  I don’t know of any cheap parking around here.

LB to chair, just gimma a minute or two, we are tring to expedite questions.

We are working out the authenticity of emails.  This is regarding Exhibit 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 38 –all without objection.

One of the points made by the miscreants is that they have no 2 yr statue of limitations on 1401.  But if the court lost jurisdiction on her in Dec 7, 2009, then the statute is not tolled.

LB goes to exhibit 18.  Specifically 1333 on that exhibit.  At the bottom, original message from KDD.   LB reads: As you are aware the NASGA and the friends and family that there is something wrong when a Protective order entered against CT, yet she was appointed (paraphrasing), it suggest impropriety.  Serious neglect, admitted by the GAL.

Q to AS:  Did you engage in impropriety.  Did you defend any neglect.  (Nah, he just did nothing).

Q. Is the isolation to prevent inquiry into her gold, cash, jewelry, etc.  A. No.

A.  She has been made available to anyone any time I have been asked.

Q.  Any basis to prevent inquiry into her competency? Any basis is to isolate?  A. No.

Q.  Are there any gold coins, jewelry or money that has not been inventoried?  A. No.

LB reads on:  Yesterday afternoon I received a telephone call.  I was notified that the court was to appt me as gal district court judge.  I was notified that the court would appoint me as GAL in this case.  I would like the court….

Q.  Are you aware that KDD was to appoint him as guardian ad litem?  A.  A motion was filed, GS, SE and SF filed a motion requesting that KDD be appointed as gal, it was dismissed as moot because the underlying complaint was dismissed (he leaves out the fact it was without prejudice and Gloria is working on filing it again.

LB reads on:  I would appreciate that you provide the following:

reports to authorities. In dec 2010 mary was taken to edwards hospital having lost 10% of her body weight, this was report mr. Stern and Farenga.  Q.  Did the PG wait until mary was seriously ill before taking her to the hospital.  A. There was a conversation with a cousin who related to several others.  We found there was no factual basis to it.

Q:  Did the pG make you aware of MS illness.  Did you report it to the court?  A. There was nothing to report.  At 92 she is going to get sick and have illnesses.  Harmon objects that this is purely speculative.

Same email.

No. 3.  Mr. Ditkowsky.  Concerns regarding non inventory.  It has been alleged that the gold coins were kept in the box.  In the box were cash, gold coins, etc.  It is assumed that the PG removed the contents.    Any basis to the valuables alleged to have been stolen?  A. No.

Q.  Did the PG empty the safe deposit box  without a court order?  No she did not do it pursuant to a court order.  (The answer is yes, she did it without a court order, she had it drilled out and she removed the contents, even tho Gloria’s name was on the box).

(Ask him if Gloria’s name was on that )

LB asks about Mary not getting legal representation.

A. I am not aware of anyone keeping mary from having legal representation.

Exhibit 20.  It is clear that the sodini notices were never given.  The probate court is without jurisdiction to seize those assets.

Then Ken’s siloquoy about how lawyers should be honest and candid rather than sneaky and sleazy.

They should have rectified the problem in an expeditious manner.

The fact the Soldini is ignored is one of the most serious issues in the Sykes case.

There was a great amount of communications sent in the guardianship abuse cases by mail and wire.

Then he talks about separating a victim from his or her property.

Fiduciaries should be interested in his or her property.

The US atty might wish to bring a RICO case.  A month to finish the trial, but the IRS filed a lien and my client and I received nothing.  But federal prosecutors can whisper *** to scare others straight.

Q.   Are the notices be required to be given prior to a hearing.  A.  Yes, but written notice NO.  ( Are you kidding.  Look at the statute, it has to be written.  You list the names and addresses and then you serve by mail or in person.  It does not say list phone numbers and voice mail addresses).  A.  But it’s not my part to send it out.  It is the petitioner’s responsibility.

Q. How did you take Mr. Ditkowsky’s statement of scaring other miscreants straight.

A. I assume miscreant is referring to me.  He always refers to me when he uses the term “miscreant” (no, he does not, you are one of several).

Q.  How did you take the story about federal prosecutors?

A.  As a threat.  (But how can you threaten someone with valid legal action?)

Q.  Please look at 21.

(Why would he take this as a threat when AS alleges he did nothing wrong?  Who is threatened?)

LB reads on:

The expose will follow.  The intimidation and harassment is memorialized in stone.  The court had no jurisdiction to rubber stamp ….. the isolation from friends and family are part of any conspiracy to shorten mary syske’s life (what about excluding gloria, kathy and yolanda).

A.  I don’t report everything to the court.  I might report severe ilnesses where people have long term illnesses.  Q.  What types of illness.  A. Long term psychiatric hospitalizations I might report.  Or neglect by the guardians.

Q.  Have you been part of any attempt to isolate or shorten her life?  A. No.

Q.  Are you aware of any attempt to deprive her of stimulation?  A. No. (What about low functioning adult day care?)

A.  Ihave not harassed mary nor has anyone else.  I have not harassed anyone.

Lb is sniffing, why is she sniffing.  Second sentence.

LB reads on.  They have prevented you from employing an attorney.  Extreme lengths they have gone thru. Is that true?  A.  No.  Gloria sykes has had numerous lawyers.

A.  I attempted to determine if she wanted a lawyer.  She did not.  She is a very confused woman with a high degree of dementia.  (What about the videos?)

1252.  Second to last paragraph.  Says with the videos on the internet they cannot be altered or oppressed.

(Ask him about videos.  She does not seem to be highly confused and demented).

Talks about the Jerman standard.

Have you seen the videos.  When did you see those videos.  I saw them in late 2011.  How did you come to see the videos.  Had they been ( produced them in court–the judge said–I can’t look at that in court.  )

what did you do after seeing the videos.  Then I contacted cf.  Did you have the internet.  No and I did not attempt to have them removed.  (But PS did, and he admitted it on a transcript.  He got some removed from youtube.  I put them up on Vimeo where you can’t get them down.  Let’s see if LB shows them to the tribunal.  She will if she’s honest.

Exhibit 28

email starts KDD to AS start with last paragraph.  I have copied PS without the sodini notices, there is no jurisdiction, and when it is examined, it will be examined by the clear light of hindsight.

The federal courts are not tolerant.  That said, if you do not unwind this problem, Ms. Sykes will seek a court order to hold you in contempt and damages.  Monday is a court holiday.

Q.  Were you involved in an illegal partition in the Sykes case.

A.  No.

How did you take mr. Ditkowsky’s statement that Ms. Sykes would seek a court order.

A. Two parts to that.  I know the actions in probate court did not conflict with the orders in bk court.  I know it was all proper.  I was frustrated.  This is a continuing pattern.  There is another action in BK court, it never ends, I am called upon to defend or refute.  Any tribunal anyone can try to find or defend.  It takes away from my family and my work (wait a minute, isn’t this your work , probate and mary and gloria)

oh, now we are to safe harbor.

LB reads, as a courtesy to mr. Stern and mr. Schmeidel….  This investigation they cannot quash and they have no clout.  An intentional violation of the automatic stay.

Q.  Do you have clout?  A. Laughs,  I don’t think I have any clout.  Judge Hollis lifted the stay so that the guardian can continue the action in probate court to Partition (but wait a minute, the mortgagee has to be part of the action and you notified Chase, but Chase no longer holds the note on 6016, you didn’t mention that, now did you Mr. Stern.)

Exhibit 34.  In the middle of the day, an email from kdd, subject illinois supreme ct writs.

She reads:
The continued  isolation from her family and friends,…. promulgate elder abuse.  The isolation is to create isolation, desperation, and loss of will to death.  This means they intentionally can accelerate the date of death. ….  How do you justify the decision to isolate Mary to accelerate her death?

Q.  Any basis to saying mary has been isolated?
A.  Many people think that there is no guardianship and they can see or call the ward whenever, but they have to make a reasonable request.  There is no isolation plan in place.  Everyone has to work with the court and the guardian’s wishes.  Some people are willing to work within those parameters and other are not.

Q.  Were there actions reasonably calculated to create depression and loss of the will to live?  A. No.

Q.  Were you trying to commit homocide.  A.  Absolutely not.  Offended by that statement.

Q. Any basis for the isolation?  A.  I have tried to set up visitation and work something out.   It has worked to everyone’s satisfaction (3 years, are you kiddin?  Kathy was told she can’t see mary because she took the wrong side. Josephine is terrified if she does just a bit wrong, she will be cut off too) Stern is lying.

LB email;  Now they talk about the 2 gal’s. the gals’ are joined at the hip and keep friends and family away.

AS says he talked to mary and she says she does not want representation.

LB continues reading the email:  AS called me up and threatened me.  My wife overheard the phone conversation and she was shocked at his threats and how he wanted me to stay away from the case.  Stern was then joined by phone calls from Schmeidel and Farenga, threatened me and tried to keep me from looking into this case.

He suggests the estate and the loot is the basis for all this.  Talk to the Coopers, they suffered a similar experience.

Q.  Is there any basis to this?  A.  Mary did not want a lawyer was a truthful statement.

Q.  Is there any basis that you called up KDD and threatened him.  No basis to that statement.

Q.  Have you seen any greylord type of activities (what about coming from the judge’s area all the time and then the transcripts show coaching between the court, PS and the gal’s., JMC helping Carolyn with her health care plan and trashing Gloria’s, other than that, nope).

Dr. Patel is on the phone.  KD state his objection for the record.  They are setting up for phone testimony.  So how does the panel determine if the witness is lying.  Can the witness see any documents?  It’s crazy!  No exhibits, just a call in?  Yeah right, More of the same Probate same old same old, deviation from the proscribed Rules of Court, Civil Procedure…

Phone testimony has to be either agreed to in advance, or its simply cannot be used.

witness–Dr. Patel, over the phone!  This should be interesting.  Now we have the court reporter sitting in the witness seat, they have a phone headset from the 1970’s and what’s that?  A safety pin holding up the court reporter’s mic.  Now that’s something I have never seen.  What a court room!  What a mess.  KDD objects to the witness on the phone routine.  LB’s kidding.

Court reporter is present in Dr. Patel’s offices.  Dr. Patel is sworn by her.

Oh and of course we have some ancient phone system that they’re going to use.  1970 for sure.  No matter.

Okay we have the witness.  Jeff Torosian, the Chair, introduces himself.

There is a court reporter with him as well.  So he has to get on speaker phone.

Madam court report rose pisano, what company and phone pullman usa court reporting, 312-346-1626.

Can you swear the witness.

dr. patel is sworn.

Lb, state name and spell it for the record.    Please give us a brief description of your background.  My name is Dr. Patel and I graduated form college in Bombay India in 1973.  Did residency in england from 1972 to 1977, then came to US and started a family practice.  Have been at resurrection med center since 1980.  He does family medicine.  7447 w talcott ave, suite 216 chicago, 60631.  I am board certified in family medicine.  I am testifying pursuant to subpoena.

Q.  Do you know Mary sykes.  A.  She was my patient for several years.  She was a patient in 2004.  She was my patient in 2009.

Q.  Did you receive correspondence from kenneth ditkowsky.    He is looking for the correspondence.  Let’s see if he can find it.

Exhibit 3 was faxed to your office, did you receive it.  Dr. Patel, what exhibits are you flipping through?

A.  I did receive Exhibit 3.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to look thru this.  Is exh, 3 also in mary sykes’ chart?

Q. Did you have time to look at all this?

He obviously does not recall.  (Fax machines can screw up),

LB: exhibit 3, the first page should have some numbers on it. 2632.  It’s a letter from KDD to dr. patel.    Letter form kenneth ditkowsky.  The date says April 30, 2010.    Is that the date of the letter and that letter is addressed to you.

2633.  Do you see that document?

Dr. Patel wants to ask office manager about all the faxes he gets.  LB tells him he can’t do that during his testimony.  (See?  That’s why this is never done.  He wants to ask his office manager about records, he can’t find anything in his own files without assistance, and most of all, he just doesn’t care and probably has BS himself from the IDPR and in no way wants to help the ARDC, maybe even if they do pay him his $500 per hour for testifying, which I bet they didn’t).

bev asked why isnt he here and it’s probably because they won’t pay his $500 per hour to be here (Larry, ask him how much he charges to testify), The court reporter is directed to take away all papers except for the Administrator’s exhibits.  Exhibit 3 is several pages.  He isn’t sure what he is look at. First he is directed to find the KDD letter in Mary’s records.  Then he is directed to look at the package from LB.  He is obviously confused and can’t do it.  If he were in court, LB could lay the docts side by side.  No dice with this phone call thing she wants to pull.

If he was board certified in the 1970’s that means he is between 70 and 80 right now!  It will be sometime next spring before he finds the 11th floor of the Prudential towers.  It’s a difficult place to find and get to, unless you’re in a cab nearby.

Did you receive a fax earlier this week.  He can’t find it.  He needs his office manager to help him out, yadayada.  The hearing chair says he will have to call him to come in downtown to testify.

Dr. Patel is asked to have the court reporter show him the documents. Turns out she left.  Okay, this is realllly funny.

The Chair stops all this and directs LB to get him down to court to testify.  Like that will happen.  As Ken says, it will be Spring before Dr. Patel finds the courthouse.

AS is called back in to testify.

Mr. Stern is still under oath.  (As if that helps his statements.  He still looks down, avoids eye contact with the panel, etc.  Smooth Move, ex lax!)

Exhibit 36, moving right along.  It’s 3 pm.  In the middle of the page Feb 24,   cites some case and LB reads on:

It is now clear that the Sykes has to presented as part of the UN efforts to preserve human rights.  There are numerous human rights violations (with sykes and the elderly in the US).  AS rule making is an intolerable derrogation to mary’s human rights.

All but $4,000 of mary’s money has been dissipated. I have a real fear for mary’s life.  They do not need mary any longer.  Mr. Bush’s mother was murdered.  Abortive attempts to continue an investigation of the Sykes case, farenga, stern and others got the court to enter orders without first obtaining jurisdiction.

To speed up death is to engage in murder.  If there was any good faith, then mary could freely talk to her mother.  Requiring a gestapo agent to be present to talk to mary is absurd.

Q.  Are you aware of any violation of mary’s human rights.  Were the sisters denied visitation.  A. No and no.

Q.  Have you made any arbitrary rules in the syskes case?  Has mary’s estate been dissipated?  A. No….

No, no, no.

Q. Have you received pecuniary benefit?  A. absolutely not.  Were you trying to intimidate mr. Ditkowsky?  No.

Q.  Are you aware of anyone speeding up mary’s death?  A. No.

Q.  Any basis to a gestapo being present to give up state secrets (but he is laughing, and it makes a point)

emai from KDD entitled reflections/promise.  LB reads

That email states, everyone has always wondered, if I were in NSG during 1936, what would I have done.  What I do as a cat or jew or arian having the right hair color, size and texture, and I would have behave diligently. I have now had the opportunity to observe my mettle.

From the look of her face, I must have met her expectations.

I refused to succumb to their…..

I was sanctioned $5,000 for exercising my first amendment rights.

The court lacked jurisdiction.

I am working on a civil rights lawsuit against stern, schmeidel and farenga.

42 usca 1983.  The complaints by stern and schmeidel have born fruit and I need to exercise my first amendment rights.  The safe idea is to accept a punishment and close my eyes that a senior citizen has had her rights taken away.  The other path is to stand up to the ARDC and exercise my first amendment rights.

Mary sykes had a treasure trove, not inventoried.

PG is a fiduciary, a fiduciary taking funds creates a tax liability.

I am glad that I am glad that I am standing up, and I encourage many others to also do it.

How could this happen in America?

I am asking law enforcement to investigate diligently and honestly.

Q.  Any proof of substantial treasure trove?

A.  No proof.

Q.  Have you protected anyone who has stolen funds?  A. I have not protected theft of the funds.

Exhibit 39.

Blog posting.  From Ken Ditkowsky.  Why sykes is such an import case…

From Denisonlaw.com?  Denisonlaw.com?  What are they reading?  What the heck is going on.  Everyone in the peanut gallery is snickering because they know the email didn’t come from there, it came from http://www.marygsykes.com.  All the posts come from there.  My firm website is denisonlaw.com.

Now a fight over the blog..

This will be admitted into evidence.  You have not tied it up that Mr. Ditkowsky.

A blog printout.  Are you kidding.?

At least I didn’t get booted out.  Yeah!

LB says I am not a witness.  Yeah!

But she can’t keep the blog out.

Discussion ensures over the blog.  Ken finally pipes up and says he doesn’t know if it’s from that blog.  Hearing chair says he’s gonna admit it.  LB pipes up and says I’m on the witness list (but I don’t have a subpoena)

the more I think about all this, the more I think it was a set up from AS to get me to have to stop blogging.

Well it worked.  LB didn’t know she was being set up but AS does it all the time.

He figures out a way to stop my blogging.  Another SLAPP from the miscreants.  They are getting more subtle.  They think I won’t think or notice it.  But you can bet I’m faxing LB tonight and pointing out their lies, lies, lies.

He gets the Probate court to do it, he gets the judge to motion the deputy to do it.  He knows how to shut someone up.

Such a little *******

How not to conduct a trial

The other day, I witnessed first hand why one should not ask for telephonic trial testimony.

First of all, it’s expensive.  You need to have a court reporter at both ends of the hearing.  In this case, one court reporter was downtown, while another was at the witness’ office on the North Side of Chicago.

The Witness clearly did not understand what was going on and what he was expected to do.  The court, via a telephone link, asked the witness to be sworn and that was done.  But after that, the witness could not figure out the exhibits, and when he fumbled with them and his own files, it was clear the matter was a lost cause.

Next the court asked the court reporter to hand exhibits to the witness, it turned out the court reporter had left the room and had transcribed nothing!

Word to the wise:  Unless the testimony is short and without exhibits, DON”T ever ask a court to do a telephone deposition.  It only turns into a mess.  Hearings are somewhat okay by phone, but there is simply no excuse for the attorney asking for an evidence deposition in advance.

Oh, and if your witness is a professional, PAY the professional their typical hourly amount for testifying.  The professional knows all the attorneys are getting paid–except her or him.  It’s insulting.

If you want your witness to do a good job, pay them and have them come to court.

Just a suggestion


Going to the circus. Day 1 of KDD trial before the ARDC tribunal

Dear Readers;

While I can’t tell you what is going on at trial until it is over, I can tell you about format and formalities.

The reason I can’t tell you what I’ve blogged is because the witnesses have been sequestered, although I don’t know why because THERE WAS NOTHING GOING ON TODAY THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN HASHED OUT OVER AND OVER ON THIS BLOG.

What’s interesting, is typically all the witnesses are warned not to talk about the case, and that they have been sequestered.  That did not happen.

I got kicked out about 2:30 pm, well, because you know me.  But primarily it was due to snickering from the peanut gallery (the audience) and neither the hearing panel nor atty Black could figure it out, so I guess we were all out of order, and I got kicked out because I might be a witness which is crazy because no one told me I was on any witness list.  Ken already confirmed I am not on his, LB never told me I am on hers.  I have not received a subpoena, and it’s too late for her to subpoena me (7 days advance notice is standard), so I have no idea what she is thinking.

It gets even worse.  If I stick around, she can call me, because, well, I’m there.  BUT if she kicks me out, then to get me back she needs a subpoena.  Hmm,sometimes life is hard and just not fair.

Anyway, I faxed her about a number of issues in the case, which I won’t relate right now, because I don’t want to be accused of influencing the witnesses or a tribunal or anything, but I gotta tell you, this is about the worst put together case I’ve ever seen.  It’s not organized.  Exhibits were not agreed to in advance, which could have been easily done.

It sure ain’t federal court.

I wish I could go tomorrow, but so far, I’ve been banned.  And I blame Adam Stern, as usual.  He always seems to figure out a way to throw me out of the court or get my laptop taken away or whatever.

I’ll let you know what I hear tomorrow.  All the peanut gallery is there, all the major blogs, from Probate Sharks to NASGA, but no one types like I do.  Such a shame.


take care


What makes a Court a Court?



(if  you are having problems looking at these documents, download the Gdrive software from Google.com)

Dear Friends;

Today Atty Ken Ditkowsky answered the question for me, “what makes a court a court?”  why do we even have courts?  after all, they’re expensive.  the lawyers can be a pain in the butt.  I personally don’t understand sometimes why I have a Sullivans in my office that is 4″ thick and just filled with small print of all the laws, rules and regulations simply pertaining to mostly the Rules of Procedure in court–and that’s only Illinois.  Do people realize we have 5 sets of rules just for our own Cook County Circuit Court? 1) the Illinois legislature; 2) the Illinois Supreme Court; 3) the First Judicial District (Cook County and Suburbs) 4) Cook County Rules and 5) Local Rules for the Daley Center.  You don’t have to wonder why lawyers are nutz.  There’s 4″ of nutz for a Chicago lawyer to worry about.  But I digress, let’s get back to the concept of the court system, in general.

How did that all happen?  Long ago we had the justice with a sword, the machete, the guy that was bigger and meaner, we had brawls in the street.  But somehow our large brains (and perhaps the urgings of women) got everyone to agree, violence is not the solution–we must be civilized.  We must have Rules.  Then, we have to go to Court.

Okay, got that.  And the legislatures passed laws, and we formed the US based upon the principals of democracy, due process, a constitution guaranteeing the people rights, whereas before only the royalty and nobility had rights.  As in Alice in Wonderland, once a royal said “off with your head” you were a goner.  That concept wasn’t that long ago.  Of course, we could include the Magna Carta in 1215, but how many of us recall that document?  And it wasn’t allowed to be in general use by the public in England until the 18th century.  Not exactly a coup for the average Joe and Jane out there.

Many have already told me that perhaps Jurisdiction and all the rules is “a technicality” (thank you Scott).

But I have to vehemently disagree.  Many things are technicalities, and I know probably 90% of them in general legal practice.

JURISDICTION IS NEVER A TECHNICALITY.  It is a right that the people have fought for for millennia over the whims of the nobility and wealthy.

We have “due process” in the US, and if you know of a soldier or someone that’s fighting now, that’s exactly what they’re supposed to be fighting for–the rights endowed by our legal system to protect the commoner from oppression and whims of the nobility or “clout” (okay, I have to admit I don’t believe in war or violence, but that’s for another day, another debate).

In any case, Ken Ditkowsky is right and the ARDC and the miscreants are wrong.  So utterly wrong, I have no words for all of this.

Scott Evans asked me the other day if calling the miscreants “criminal” was over the top and if so, how so.  I had to tell him, not only is it right on point, but it is probably an understatement.  In my view, they are certainly America’s “Most Wanted” at this time. What is going on in our Probate court is worse than Greylord.  Not only have they commandeered our most precious asset in the US for piracy–our Circuit Courts, BUT they are the worst form of criminal, forming evil, greedy cabals, not investigating the financial abuse and exploitation of seniors, they create the crisis in our country where seniors are left to languish in nursing homes, alone and isolated while millions are squandered on probate attys fees, GAL fees, nursing home fees.

So, Ken I send you 1,000 angels for tomorrow.  You can do this.  You can fight for those that have no voice, for seniors that have asked for an independent attorney, for seniors that have asked for a family attorney that they have loved and respected for years, for seniors that are competent and have advance directives but those directives are ignored in Probate Court.  For our only last hope of civilization and that is due process.

Do it, go for it.  I am by you 1000%


Major Victory for KDD!–Justice Connors admits Lack of 14 day notice IS JURISDICTIONAL!



Dear Readers;

One of the things I have noticed in Probate Court is a total lack of respect for our laws.  I have seen judges say they’ll grant an Order for Possession against relatives and other beloveds living in the residence of a disable person, merely to get them out and sell the house for attorneys fees.  I have seen it myself.  These people have rights, and should be treated with respect, in addition to legal respect, which is their due process right to a hearing and notice of a hearing before they are dispossessed.

Continuing on that theme was Justice Connors’ deposition.  She completely stumbled through the Probate statute.  She had not reviewed this case at all, it was clear.  While she admitted that Sodini was in fact jurisdictional, she thought there might be exceptions when in fact, Buttercup, the Illinois legislature eliminated those exceptions.  Further, she admitted she did not inquire into the summons and complaint before appointing a Plenary Guardian!  Almost all judges I have seen do that.  They always ask the attys appearing before them, was the defendant or respondent served, let me see a copy of the summons and complaint, is this where s/he resides, etc. and so forth.  The court simply cannot take jurisdiction without service of a proper summons and complaint.

Judge Connors never looked at that issue (on purpose).  She did not know that Mary was at Carolyn’s and CT had declared Mary was no coming home, which means Mary needed a summons for Naperville, not Chicago, and further, that is jurisdictional too!  Then the whole case had to be moved to Naperville.  That is Constitutional Law 101, first week, first year.  That’s where all law students begin.

Ken pointed out the fact that the hearing date was supposed to be set within 30 days of filing a Petition for Guardianship.  That was not done.

And then we have the notice to close relatives issue.  That was not done.

Justice Connors excuse for all of this is that the “other daughter” wanted to “fight everything”.  Okay, but this is a court of law, correct?  And instead of having street brawls and turf wars, civilized society looks to its court system–but ONLY if the court system has integrity.  To flout the laws with corrupt courts invites anarchy and violence.

LB also made the misstep, in my opinion, in that she only asked about if Judge Connors thought she did anything corrupt and made it clear that would only include “taking bribes” or taking money.  But corruption is more than that.  It can just be one serious or a series of minor deviations from the law.  I believe corruption is severe where jurisdiction is lacking and the court looks the other way.  Jurisdiction is our most fundamental of all rights as US and Illinois citizens.  It protects us from railroading, wired courts, corrupt courts, etc.

Here, it turns out we have two grounds to defeat jurisdiction, as pointed out by Ken: 1) the summons was directed to the wrong address and 2) no 14 days Sodini notices were served on the elderly sisters.  Serious, fatal errors which demand an immediate dismissal of the entire case or a non-suit

Then we have a whole series of deviations from law, due process and procedure; 1) parties were not allowed to speak at hearings; 2) the other daughter is and has been constantly sushed up.  generally the court gives parties equal time, but not in in THIS courtroom; 3) repeated handwritings from Mary she wanted independent counsel, and the court ignored those; 4) GAL’s and opposing counsel that outright lie about facts in the case all the time (see my 10 page table of torts on this website) 5)  the other daughter repeatedly asks for discovery and that is denied; 6) the other daughter’s discovery requests are denied; 6) the other daughter’s notice of lack of jurisdiction is written all over–apparently by the court–with notations it is too late, etc. when in fact the court must take a serious look at jurisdiction each and every time it is brought up.

The other daughter needs to do an Emergency Motion to Reconsider and get the deposition of Justice Connors back in court where she admitted that 14 day notice IS jurisdictional–together with the numerous other missteps apparent from the record.

Justice Connors shows clear bias against the younger daughter because she “fights over everything”, but as long as the younger daughter does it in court, that’s supposed to be the place for it, isn’t it?  And the younger daughter does have some serious gripes with the court that are clearly being ignored, namely, jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is not a complex issue–you either have it or you don’t.  And if you don’t have it, the case must be nonsuited or dismissed.

Of course that means huge liability for all the attys involved and the parties they represent, but that’s the way it is.  Don’t go and fight in a courtroom if you’re not going to do honor and justice and put those big kid Pull Ups on!

take care all



From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 5, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Tim Lahrman NASGA
Subject: Supplement to motion

In reading the Connors deposition it is apparent that she reveals that 1) even though she was in the Probate Division dealing with incompetency for eight years she is not familiar with the statute that she administered.   2) that at this point in time everyone is aware that Mary Sykes (and Gloria Sykes’ ) rights were grossly violated by Connors, Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et all.
Corruption is much more than just taking bribes.  As law enforcement and media all have copies of Connors’ deposition everyone can judge if there is corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County.     
To fill in the gap between the admissions of the Administrator and Connors’ deposition I filed the following supplemental document
In the Matter of:                                                            )
            KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY,                )
                                                                                    ) Commission No. 2012 PR 00014
                        Attorney-Respondent,                          )
                                                No. 642754                 )
Supplement to Motion for Finding
            Now comes the respondent Kenneth Ditkowsky and moves to supplement his Motion for a Finding upon the following basis:
1.      That on Tuesday, September 4, 2012 the written transcript of the Evidence Deposition that the Administrator, noticed and took of the Honorable M. Connors was delivered to his office.    A copy of the transcript connoting the words and phrases of the parties is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.
2.       That the respondent herein desires to Supplement the Motion for a Finding with the Evidence Deposition as the Evidence Deposition contains material that bears upon the rationale for granting the Motion for a Finding and eliminating the need for a trial in this matter.
3.       That the respondent is charged by the Administrator of making false charges against judicial officials.    The respondent’s defense is that he has an absolute right to express his opinion pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution even if that opinion were to be dead wrong and terribly critical of judicial officials.   Further, the respondent asserts that he had a duty to speak out pursuant to the Himmel decision especially when for three years a Court has deprived Mary Sykes of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights without the Court having jurisdiction.    The Sodini case 172 Ill App3d 1055 (1988)  has been cited for the proposition that if the notices required to be provided to the near (close) relatives of the alleged disabled person are not provided there is no jurisdiction vested in the Circuit Court.    Justice Connors on page 35 acknowledges the applicability of Sodini.    A copy of the Sodini decision has been spread of record in these proceedings.  See also 755 ILCS 11a – 10, 755 ILCS 11a – 11.   
4.      That with Judge Connors evidence deposition in the record, there are no disputed facts.     As the Administrator cannot produce evidence of the prior 14 day notice to the close relatives, i.e. the two siblings of Mary Sykes and Mary Sykes’ younger daughter as a matter of law there was no jurisdiction vested in the Circuit Court to adjudicate Mary Sykes incompetent, appoint a plenary guardian, or maintain two guardian ad litem.    
5.      That in its responses to the 237 Notice, the Administrator admits that it has no evidence that the Sodini requirements were ever complied with.   This admission is ‘fatal’ to this disciplinary proceeding as the record irrevocably discloses that for three years Mary Sykes’ liberty, Civil Rights, Human Rights, and property rights were taken from her in derogation of Federal and State Law.    Worse yet, the civil rights deprivation continue to this date.    It is and would be ethically challenged for respondent not to have raised a hue and cry as to this horrible travesty of justice that is currently promulgated in the Circuit Court of Cook County.      In recent years 17 Cook County Judges were sentenced to jail for corruption.
The Evidence Deposition
6.       That the evidence deposition which is attached to this supplement to the Motion for a Finding is a revelation.   In particular, while this panel, the Administrator, the respondent, and the witness are all bound to known the law, on Cross–examination the respondent inquired of Justice Connors if the procedure for appointing a plenary guardian was jurisdictional.  (See Transcript page 35.)   The witness admitted that the Sodini (statutory) procedure was jurisdictional.    The significance, of the admission is to lay to rest any argument that if the procedure was not followed the Court could act with jurisdiction.   On page 35, the witness further admitted that if the procedure was not followed the Court could not acquire jurisdiction.
7.      That on page 34 and 35, the witness affirmed the mandatory requirement the petition filed has to name the close relatives.    The record reveals that this was not done.    The two siblings of Mary Sykes were not named.
8.      That on page 42 the witness admits that the word “shall” used the statute is mandatory.    (Thus a question is raised as to whether the Sykes case should have been heard in Cook County, as at the time of the filing Mary Sykes was residing in DuPage County.)
9.      That in the Administrator’s response to the 237 notice the Administrator admits that he has no evidence of the Sodini (statutory service) on the ‘close relatives.’      Thus, the Administrator cannot prove that any ‘legal proceedings’ i.e. proceeding in which a Court had jurisdiction were proceeding for the three years that Mary Sykes was ‘held’ illegally under the ‘cover of statute’ by Justice Connors, Guardian ad litem Cynthia Farenga, Guardian Adam Stern, and the wrongfully appointed plenary guardian.     This conduct on the part of officers of the Court was and is reprehensible and per se corruption that is repugnant to the Illinois and United States Constitution and general laws.   
10.  That the Administrator is required to prove that the actions of the respondent were ethically challenged by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’     735 ILCS 110/5 is clear in condoning and encouraging the actions of the respondent, and therefore if the principle of Equal Protection of the Law is applied these disciplinary proceedings must be dismissed, and the panel must order an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation as to how such a deplorable and disingenuous situation as has occurred in the Sykes case can have occurred under the Illinois Judicial system.
            Wherefore the respondent moves for a finding and a dismissal.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Pro Se
5940 W. Touhy Avenue, Suite 230
Niles, Illinois  60714
Ken Ditkowsky


Ken Ditkowsky is sharing and caring again! Get a copy of Justice Connors’ Deposition transcript

Dear Readers;

the link: (if you have problems with the links and cannot view, download the Google software)



See my comments below and thanks to Ken for bringing this travesty of justice to all our attention:

Justice Connors deposition–my comments

At the outset, KD had told me the agreement was for an “evidence deposition” but the introduction (and perhaps this is just bad lawyering) does not state that.  I would argue then that Justice Connors has to appear because it was waived if not asserted at the beginning of the deposition for the purposes of presenting evidence at trial.

P.10 Justice Connors states that here case load in Probate was huge (oh, gimma a break, m’lady.  Most afternoons you have nothing in that courtroom.  You work half days most of the time).

P13.  The appearance form is introduced with a letter.  KD objects because it is not clear that appearance form was ever sent with a letter to Dr. Patel.
P.14.  Ken does his job and objects on the grounds of heresay and authentication.  There is no evidence the appearance form belongs with the letter.

P.16 LB asserts that the Appearance form was sent with the letter and KD does his job and objects.  Justice Connors says in court that KD told her that he sent the letter when the record indicates otherwise.  In her haste to cause trouble for KD, when Judge Connors asks “did you send the appearance form to Dr. Patel”, KD does not answer, but nutty CF does by saying “yes he did, your honor”.  Way to go, babe.  Guess the court reporter figured out you, Ms. Farenga, were not an extension of KD’s mouth.

P.19 KD is making an objection for the record, and LB interrupts him.  Interesting.  He is allowed to object and state a reason.  If LB wants to say he need not state a reason (not advised, you can waste time getting down the wrong track and then your opponent can come up with a litany of reasons later.  Best to ask to keep it short and to the point.) LB should just say, I’d prefer if we skip reasoning and just everyone say “objection.”  That is a valid preference.  She does not say that.  Instead she argues with his grounds for the objection, which is not proper.

P.22 LB starts in with a number of emails and KD objects due to foundation, heresay, best evidence.   LB should have taken KD’s deposition first and had him pop open his yahoo emails to show they are on the server, print them out in front of the court reporter and then label them.  That’s the only true way to authenticate a public email is to find it on the server and print it out in front of a court reporter.

P.26 LB line 19, you gotta read this.  KD objects to emails on the grounds of heresay.  LB responds that they’re not being admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.  LOL.  So why is she asking questions about them?  Is she withdrawing them as a basis for her complaint against Ken?  If these are in fact the operative documents, she MUST 1) provide foundation (time, date, place); 2) authenticate or have the witness swear they came from his or her business records; 3) make sure they do not contain heresay which is defined as a statement out of court which proves the truth of the matter asserted.  She has to bring it “into court” by having CF first testify she received the email and printed it out and kept it in the ordinary course of business.  Now, technically CF can’t do that because it is copyright infringement BUT CF could keep the URL and use that and a summary in her own words.  LB can find it and print it out because she is technically a court being a hearing board or agency and courts do not infringe copyrights, far as I know.

P.28.  KD continues his standing objections on the emails based upon foundation, authentication, Best Evidence, etc.  Now at this point, an atty should think about whether to make these standing objections.  The reality is, one of the reasons you make standing objections is to primarily save time and effort. But making a lot of objections often gets your opponent off track and they forget questions and do little follow up–it’s just too much trouble.  LB is a got atty, so taking the latter tack is often a good idea.  Make her work.  Make her forget, make her want to go have a coffee break and get off by 5 pm.

P.36.  KD cross examines Justice Connors.  He gets her to admit that Sodini is jurisdictional.  However, it’s interesting that on line 8 she says “there may be exceptions.”  No, nice lady, Sodini does NOT say there may be exceptions.  They say the notice is MANDATORY and NO EXCEPTIONS and NO EXCUSES.  Duh.  The word “shall” is used.  Sodini discusses this at length.

P. 38.  KD questions MC (Justice Connors) regarding where venue is proper.  MC says it’s Cook County because Mary has property there.  Okay, this is scary, that’s not what the SCOTUS has said on residency.  It’s well known residence is presence in that county and a permanent intent to remain there, so once Mary leaves with Carolyn and Carolyn tells others Mary is not going home and she is keeping her, the temp guardianship has to be transferred to DuPage and guardianship entered there.  Duh!

But getting back to my main point on this question is that Atty Apostol is objecting!  What’s up with that?  Only ONE atty gets to question and that SAME atty is the only one to make objections. No two on one.  This isn’t hockey, you know with 1400+ ice brawls per year.

P. 40.  Hey KD, what up with this, Atty Apostol is continuing to interject.  What’s wrong with this guy?  LB is questioning and Apostol is objecting?  Come on now.

LOL bottom of page.  JMC admits sometimes in the petitions the Petitioern does not know all the close relatives.  Is she kidding?  CT did not know Mary’s sister 1 and 2?  Hah!  Mary talked to them on the phone ALL the time.  Does Justice Connors ever ask when she gets a petition if the Petitioner knows all the close relatives?  Carolyn knew them.  The Petition was deficient and fraudulent without all the close relatives (defined in the statute as adult parents, children and siblings).

P. 42+.  KD does a great job on getting JMC to admit Mary was entitled to counsel, she was entitled to a Notice of Rights, she was entitled to live testimony and clear and convincing evidence, she was entitled to a 6 person jury.  KD should have followed up with “how many times has ANY OF THOSE happened in your courtroom?”  NEVER.  I have never seen that in probate court and I have spent days and days there watching and listening.  Based upon the video tapes I am absolutely certain, that Mary, if questioned apart from Carolyn would want an independent atty, live testimony from a doctor that carefully examined her, etc.  All these rights were violated–over and over, the guardianship was railroaded.

P.46.  Ken gets out a meat cleaver and takes a whack at the jugular vein of JMC.
Now recall above, KD accuses the court of “doctor shopping.”  JMC denies this above.  But on p. 46 he nails it—on a transcript “get another doctor” when Mary’s doctor won’t say she’s incompetent.    (C.f. p. 23 JMC is asked, is there any basis for claiming you advised “doctor shopping” A: None whatsoever.  Bottom of page.)

P.47.  JMC incredulously advises on doctor shopping.  In fact, she continues to recommend it.  Way to go babe. (If you can’t get a CCP211 you like from doctor no.1 , then FIND A DOCTOR, just like when I go to CVS and can’t find my favorite nail polish, I go find what I want at Sally’s–and that’s not nail polish shopping around?)

P.50, line 14, KD asks if many Respondents are “cowed” in court or “taken aback.”  JMC replies that many Respondents are outspoken and it depends on the effects of their dementia.  Is she gonna read this?  She is clearly presuming that if a Respondent is cowed, they’re demented, and if they are outspoken, that’s another form of being demented.  Clearly she presumes dementia no matter how the Respondent replies in her courtroom. (If you go to court, be prepared to spell “world” backwards, that’s all I can say).

P.53.  Ken is asking all sorts of questions as to whether JMC recalls the problems with the POA for CT and no accounting, if she recall the problem with the lack of accounting on the safe deposit box–and it had Gloria’s name on it too, as well as numerous other issues.  JMC says she can’t recall and is getting clearly nervous and defensive.  At this point, I would have calmed the witness down and told her “it’s okay to say you don’t recall rather than speculate and get it wrong.”

Once that happens, then the witness will start freely remembering they don’t recall and then your opponent has a non witness on those issues.

You pin it down.

P. 53.  JMC admits that an accounting is appropriate procedure after a guardian is appointed and POA’s are terminated.  Good admission. Why was this not done?

P.59.  On the issue of other daughter’s visitation.  JMC waffles on whether the other daughter could visit and then she says she was told the other daughter upset her mother.  KD’s perfect, right on question–Before you “banned the other daughter”, did you hold a hearing?

Yeah, I wanna know that?  Why doesn’t she hold hearings on the ”banning visitation” issue and get feedback from both sides?

P.60.   KD gets JMC to admit Mary can get her own lawyer, then she takes it back and says JMC must appoint a lawyer for her.

There is a notice and a statute that says a Respondent can get an atty if they just ask, so what exactly is JMC’s standard for getting an attorney for someone?  Does she follow the law as written, the court’s official notices as written?  Those say the Respondent just has to ask, she just has to say she wants an atty.  That’s what Mary did in not one but two handwritten notes to the court.

But Judge Connors doesn’t like that standard (Respondent just has to ask for an attorney).  Heck no, JMC says she would appoint an attorney for a Respondent if “I truly thought the person needed an attorney.” (Line 13).  Whatever happened to the Respondent’s needs and the Respondent’s requests?  I guess that is not important to JMC.

Next, KD gets on the issue of what doctor a Respondent can utilize.

P.63.  JOC admits there is “no way” she will let “other daughter” care for Mary.  And why not?  This other daughter is not a felon, she is not under a Petition for an Order of Protection like CT.

P.67 to 68.  JMC basically admits that a summons for Mary for her home in Chicago is void if she is living in Naperville and CT was temp guardian and said Mary would not be returning, more or less.  It is wrong and Ken is right.  The Summons on Mary is defective.  No proper Summons admitted by JMC, there is no jurisdiction on that grounds either.

He is doing good with, did you hold a hearing on that issue?  Did you hold a hearing?

These are very good questions to ask JMC.

P.70.  JMC is getting a bit stubborn.  KD asks her if the 14 day Sodini notices are not served, then there is no jurisdiction.  She replies she is not there to speculate.  Oh, but my little Judgy buttercup, yes you are!  You are an expert in this field, you can educate the ARDC, Ms. Black and Mr. Apostol on these issues.  They are not experts.  The line of questioning is entirely appropriate and relevant.  I wanna know how you Judgy types in Probate get away with skirting clear laws when the FED courts on the 14th floor never do.  Jurisdiction and 5 day notices, 10 day or whatever are inviolate on that floor, and the defendants get HEARINGS on issues, not just conclusions from a court appointed, buddy system GAL.  I never hear the judges on the 14th floor saying, you can have an atty if I think you really need one in this case, just let me take care of you……  Heck no to that one.

But no matter, KD will not push it and I agree, best to just lead her thru the statute like a little week old puppy learning to walk after opening its eyes.

P.73 KD goes after the fact Judge Connors issued a restraining order to prevent the other daughter from fixing up 6014 (this is a typo in the transcript), WITH NO BOND, as required per statute.  If the other daughter was going to do $100,000 in repairs, a $50,000 bond would have been typical and mandatory in any other court, or the judge would not grant a TRO or Preliminary Injunction.  JMC skips this part.

P.75.  KD goes after JMC on the Illinois CPA or anti-SLAPP litigation which protects a person’s First Amendment rights. JMC admits she heard of it.  Good for her!  Way to go!

P.76 KD asks if he can accuse JMC of being corrupt (based upon her complete lack of following court procedures and statutes).  THIS IS GOLDEN–She has no comment on that!  LOL  (The word corruption is defined via Wikipedia as any deviation from ethical or moral ideals.  It’s not just about paying money in a case.  It can also be not following the laws as written.)

P. 81.  After a long path, KD gets JMC to admit the only way you can invalidate a court order is by following Illinois Compiled Statutes sec. 1401 and doing it within 2 years with due diligence and a meritorious defense.  I think this took several pages.  He read the transcript into the record where she said she didn’t have to do that.

P. 83 long debate between KD and JOC that “his client” (hmmm, interesting) “fought any inquiry into the ownership of funds” at every turn.  Well okay, except for the number of times the other daughter tried to explain it to the court, her numerous pleadings in the file, the times that Brodsky could and did explain it to the court.  Been there, done that.  Over and over.  Yes, except for those numerous explanations which are on the record.

P. 84.  A sister testifies in court as to a bag of coins a foot high and 6 inches wide, and JMC does not recall that testimony?  JMC can’t recall the theft of a million dollars from Mary’s estate?

P.85.  KD questions JMC on seizing property of the “other daughter”.  That there must be a citation to discover, that there must be a hearing, a two step process.  You can see at the bottom of the page a paragraph of waffling from JOC–it is clearly not an answer to the question of what the legal process was and was it adhered to in the format prescribed to by the Ill. Legislature:

Counsel, we’re In a very
18 unique situation. We’re dealing with the assets of
19 a disabled person.
20 This woman needed this money to live,
21 to provide for a caregiver. She wanted to be in her
22 own home. I would have loved to have placed her In
23 her own home and given her 24-hour care, but your
24 client wouldn’t allow it.
1 We couldn’t get to the bottom line,
2 was any of this money hers or not? If it wasn’t her
3 money, counsel, fine, it was not Mrs. Sykes’ money,
4 it was her daughter’s money.
5 That’s great. Keep your million
6 dollars. All we wanted to find out was was this part
7 of her money so we could get this money and pay for
8 this woman to live in her own home, but we could
9 never get to the bottom of it because your client
10 fought all along the way. That’s all I wanted to
11 find out, so.

This is despite the fact that it was explained by the other daughter in open court numerous times, she put it in pleadings, I believe two lawyers explained it to the court.

P.93 The piece de resistance of the entire deposition.  JMC says, well, perhaps the sisters were not notified, but they were present in court.  All that would have happened is that I would have vacated the case and we would have started all over.

What a lie!  No, you can’t.  Mary would have been free, free to move to another state, free to get the heck out of Dodge before it was too late.

The only way you get jurisdiction according to SCOTUS is by having a presence in that jurisdiction and an intent to remain there permanently.  The other daughter would have had Mary out of state so fast Mary’s head would swim and that would be the end of greedy, corrupt, over reaching jurisdiction!

And Ken, you know you led her on to voice a judicial opinion directly CONTRARY to what Sodini held, you dirty dog!  Being present in court on the day of adjudication does not give sufficient notice to the sisters and the Illinois Supremes held that Probate notice of hearing requirements must be strictly adhered to and notice is mandatory in order for the court to obtain jurisdiction.  In fact, they go into a whole monolog in Sodini on how just telling someone about the hearing is not enough, doing it less than 14 days in advance is not enough, and they make it clear that deviations from the notice requirements of 1) written notice by Petitioner, 2) of time, date and place of hearing; 3) served on close relatives, defined as adult parents, siblings and children; 4) served in person or by mail — there is NOTHING optional about any of this.  They specially said that “some exceptions” rule was overturned by the State Legislature when enacting the new Probate Act.   Judge Connors knew that and chose to ignore and confuse the ARDC with the change in the law that happened years before.  Disgusting.  Utterly disgusting.  She knows these laws.  She CHOOSES not to follow them and then says “oh, well.”

Other than that, excellent job at upholding all our civil rights and our right to a hearing, our right to live witnesses the other sisters could have cross examined, etc.


corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal.

From Gloria–Great comments on the trial of Ken Ditkowsky for helping Seniors, proposed legislation, etc.

Sent: Sep 3, 2012 7:25 AM
Dear Tom,

I am the youngest daughter of Mary G. Sykes: with all due respect we are legislated out of our protection zones and, unlike Micky Rooney or other celebrities who have been defined as having been “abused” and ” financially exploited” and placed into conservatorships and guardianships for protections from the perpetrators, my Mother and simply too many other innocents who are elderly and or disabled fall quietly into the grasp of the politically elite’s business as usual scam for financial gain! It’s been over 18 months since I was last able to speak to and or associate with my mother and the perpetrators have been able to target me in retaliation to shut me up and in doing so have rendered me a pauper and homeless: the game is one that is recognized in this damned reality of court sanctioned guardianships. Meanwhile where is my mother? Where is her voice? How does she appeal and escape the horrors of the guardianship she was forced into upon her objections as she intelligently stood before the court — unknowingly and without service of notice and or legal advocate, under the guise that her petition for an order of protection again her eldest daughter Carolyn Toerpe was to be heard and Toerpe would be stopped from taking control of her finances and person! Instead the court appointed Toerpe her plenary guardian! How does this happen?  It happened because the court and its appointed officers agreed to the guardianship because they knew that my mother’s estate was worth over a million dollars and that my estate too worth over a million dollars could and would soon be theirs for their own financial gains: but my mother fought back and did digital recordings and hand wrote notes and she directed me to find and retain attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky who, I did find and did retain to help me and friends and family get to the truth and save my mother’s life and then without notice or any rational Kenneth Ditkowsky too is threatened and sanctioned by the same court who, as my mothers superior guardian, needed to silence my mother and ultimately Ken and all people sho sought justice!  Sufficient perscription drugs and unethical medical doctors easily and without exams then step in and sign compency reports and there’s nothing more to say or do: the elderly and disabled are doomed to a hell no human being should experience: it appears that my mothers only way out is death itself and that Tom is why legislation is not the answer but the problem!

I suggest you fly I to Chicago for the ARDC hearings in September 6 and 7 and then and only then you decide …. What I find very interesting is that all these so called advocacy groups to stop guardianship abuse have been silent in the Ditkowsky case and so far none of then have responded to the invitation to witness first hand the power and control of America’s political elite of all people should step up and stand up to them and say “No you cant do this to Mary G Sykes, Gary Harvy, Erna,  the loved ones  of Jane, Annie, Lucinda, Brian, Lu, Rudy, Holly, Batbara, Holly et al or to Tim, Danny, Gail, et alia! Words are meaningless and wasted paper: our actions however do speak!  I invite you to participate in the witch hunts of guardianship abuses on the 6 and 7th September at the ARDC in Chicago and challenge you and others who say they want to stop the abuses — your presence is action and a sign to the political elite that we will not stop until we save the elderly and disabled from the horrors and whores of justice and our American Courts and the court appointed guardians whose intentions to exploit, abuse and ultimately murder are sanctioned by those who are paid by our tax dollars to protect!

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope to meet you in Chicago next week! I’ll be one one carrying the sign outside the ARDC that says, Please Help Bring My Mother Home! And so I ask, Please help save my mothers life and In doing so you help save the lives of millions,

healthy regards,

From J. Ditkowsky–an important observation–Stern writes all the orders!

From: “jdit
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 7:47 AM
Subject: ps: reminder of what the previous email is about!

If the States Attorney of Cook County were to do her job, she would investigate this Sykes case and they would find:
1) there was and is no jurisdiction for a dollar of Mary’s money to be spent.   Carolyn’s appointment as plenary guardian is void!
2) the void orders promulgated by Stern, Farenga et al are all aiding and abetting the theft of Mary’s property (and also Gloria’s)   They GALs are accessories.    They are presumed to know the law and in particular the statute under which they were appointed.
3) Felony theft has occurred!
4) the Criminal Divison of the Circuit Court of Cook County is still functioning.
Have you noticed that Stern writes all the orders!
Ken Ditkowsky
(edited for typos only)
Plus, I would love to know why AS writes all the orders and why CF hasn’t been showing up.
Will their excuse be CF reads the blog, but AS doesn’t so he writes orders and appears in court.  We know CF reads the blog because she seems to be the one squaking about a post or something other from the blog she doesn’t like.
So, in the end, will AS be the “innocent spouse”? (This is a dumb IRS rule, btw, that won’t work for an atty, because an atty is presumed to know the law)

Before the Trial of Ken Ditkowsky, he should call on the Miscreants to step forward…

and admit that on December 7, 2009, the Sykes probate (pirate) court lost all its jurisdiction.  This will include Guardian ad Lietem Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmeidel, Harvey Waller, Deborah Jo Soehlig and Amanda Byrens.

THEY ALL KNOW THAT THE COURT HAS BEEN ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE DECEMBER 7, 2012 when Carolyn Toerpe failed to serve any notice of the December 7, 2009 hearing upon the adult sisters and other daughter of Mary.

No dispute.  All on the record and all well established fact.  The declarations are published here.  There is no filing of the notice together with a timely Certificate of Service.
No matter what Judge Stuart says, the issue is clear and just–THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED NON-SUITED and Mary allowed to return freely to her home and her other daughter who care for her lovingly for 10 years!

PS–Ken, if they are not in court at the start of the hearing, ask the Hearing Panel to get them on the phone.  Tell their receptionist just who is calling them to ask about jurisdiction in the case that is starting against you.

Now for my comments on Ken’s emails

If you are going to steal, what difference does it make if you have a court without jurisdiction?The miscreants should be called upon to step forward to Judge Stuart and do the right thing and admit the court lost jurisdiction on December 7th, 2009 before you put on evidence during your hearing that was the case and it gets in a transcript someplace.  they should be also called upon to admit that the ARDC complaint was only based upon your finding out their “crimes” and my posting it.

so far the Probate court (and I was thinking Pirate court when Mary’s other daughter made that typo!  –that was assuredly an LOL/Freudian slip– makes all the family coming forward to report abuse and theft “shush” up so it never gets on a transcript.  the court reporters only record the judge and miscreant attys then.

none if it then is on the record.  Not only do the miscreants use the Prob/pirate court to clean the transcript record, they then cleanse the court file, an a list of the 80% missing files in the Probate court is also a crucial issue in your trial and argument, so don’t miss that one.  Perhaps you should ask your tribunal to kindly step across the street and ask Judge Stuart to show them the file cart that has about 80% of the file missing.  No orders are left from 2009.  13 large heavy volumes of appellate record.  Professional cleansing.  And don’t let them blame the other daughter or the other Sykes family–we’re putting everything we have on the internet and they can just pop open a laptop and see that too!

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 2, 2012 9:10 AM

A Court speaks only through its written orders, thus, if there is no written order your sister acted ultra vires.
However, if there is no jurisdiction even the written orders are void.
Now tie in the Jerman case and apply the presumption that “lawyers and Judges are presumed to know the law” The GALs, Carolyn’s lawyer and the Judge all know that the order is void and when they act upon it they act illegally under color of statute.   The de facto officers of the Court act in violation of 42 USCA 1983.    Let us go one step further.   The venue section of the statute also uses the word ‘shall.’   That means the venue is mandatory and In re: Sykes 09 P _____ is even in the wrong County!
Ken Ditkowsky
From: the other daughter, summary
Missing assets:
1) the Beneficial annuity now worth about $1000,  maybe more
2) GE stock worth quite a lot– I was also a beneficiary.
3) Toerpe had mothers name removed off of the pension checks and
4)Toerpe emptied all if the accounts at the Pullman Bank (Pullman is now US Bank in Norwood Park) and so mother no longer has any accounts in her name.
5) Two if the three accounts I know of at Pullman bank had my name listed as joint owner was also removed. The three accounts had at least $20,000 at the time Toerpe kidnapped mother. Toerpe wrote mom only had six thousand (in an inventory?).
The crimes are too great to even care about any more because Attorney Schmiedel teaches how to determine financial exploitation to other attorneys: obviously he knows how to cover up and churn assets with a holy veil of the permission of the Prirate (sp) court.
From Me:  I laughed when I saw the misspelling of Probate court and she’s right, tho it might be a freudian slip, the miscreants are operating in nothing but a Pirate Court!
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 1, 2012, at 11:45 PM, timlahrman@aol.com wrote:

In re McCormack’s Estate, 50 NYS 2d 274 – 1944

How this document has been cited

Although a court-ordered withdrawal of funds from the Totten trust to be used for the depositor’s support amounts to a revocation to that extent, a committee or guardian cannot exercise the depositor’s right to revoke
– in Successor Trustees of Tentative Trusts: Trust Law Phantoms and one similar citation
Without a court order, the committee was without authority to terminate the trust by withdrawal of the entire fund on deposit with the bank
– in Gorfinkel v. FIRST NAT’L BANK IN YONKERS, 1963 and one similar citation
Should the depositor become incompetent, may his guardian reach the funds and if so, for what purpose?
– in Trusts
The above quoted statement, as well as the one by Bogert, apparently has its genesis in a few early New York cases.
– in Community Property-Management of Special Community of Incapacitated Spouse
—holding committee, upon appointment, has neither the power nor duty to close a Totten trust account under the guise of collecting the incompetent’s assets, may not change the registration by restoring it to the ward’s sole name, nor withdraw the funds and place them in a new account in the committee’s name as fiduciary
– in Successor Trustees of Tentative Trusts: Trust Law Phantoms
This case was treated as a tentative trust even though there was a trust agreement In the signature card of Hlbernla Savings and Loan Society which held the account.
– in Legal bulletin

Emails are are an assurance of nothing!

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, the vast majority of what the ARDC is complaining about KD involves the use of  emails CF didn’t like.  The only problem with emails is that either all parties stipulate to them at the onset of a trial, or you are left with evidential problems that are near insolvable.

Unlike a document that can be examined for type, font and signature, an email comes from and only exists truly in cyberspace.  For the best evidence of emails, the examining atty should ask the witness to pop open his or her laptop and show how that email still exists intact on a public server such as hotmail, yahoo, msn, or the popular favorite today, gmail.

For that reason, I have at my firm a “denisonlaw” separate server that tracks all incoming and outgoing mail.  Despite the fact that unlike my paid for mail box at earthlink, it is hopelessly clogged with spam, I can get an original of everything in or out of my firm for years and years.  It is on a public server (I forget the name of the company), and everything in or out may be comfirmed. This is esp. easy since I always send out via that server.

Ken has Yahoo, I believe so it should be easy to prove with a simple search in court.

Now the easier thing to do would have the ARDC stipulate and print out exactly what they will use.  Also, (based upon my experience in Federal Court and Law Division trials of Cook County Circuit Court), the attorneys should stipulate before hand all evidence used.

This entire process at the ARDC seems quite antiquated to me.


On of the things that KD will be using to accomplish the problem of unauthentic or adulterated emails will need to be via the “best evidence” rule which does not mean is this or that the best evidence of something, but whether a party brought the original.

So where is that original?  It exists on a public server and KD, I believe should be able to step out in the hall with each email and be shown it on the PUBLIC SERVER the party propounding it wishes to use.  Ken should not have to do that, and he should be prepared with a legal memo and technical memo (I’ll vouch for it, with my many years writing software patents and background in Fortran IV and C++ program — and yes, I did get A’s) but emails are a total disaster in courtrooms such as the Daley Center that have no WiFi access and are still resting on printed documents.  Justice simply cannot be accomplished with such a system in today’s email based world.

The best evidence rule is a common law rule of evidence which can be traced back at least as far as the 18th century. In Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33, Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was “the best that the nature of the case will allow”. The publication ten years later of Gilbert’s enormously influential Law of Evidence,[1] a posthumous work by Sir Jeffrey Gilbert, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, established the primacy of the best evidence rule, which Gilbert regarded as central to the concept of evidence. The general rule is that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists, and is not unavailable due to destruction or other circumstances indicating unavailability.

The best evidence rule is also thought to be the basis for the rule precluding the admissibility of hearsay evidence, although the two rules are now quite distinct.

Now that you know about emails and public servers and the “best evidence” of presenting a printed out email in court, see Ken’s Comments below:

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Saturday on the American Reconstruction Project

I would strongly object to any email introduced unless and until someone could pop open a laptop and show how the original still exists on a public server.

otherwise anything printed out or popped down is subject to simple QED tampering.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 1, 2012 9:39 PM
To: “gloami@msn.com”
Subject: Re: Saturday on the American Reconstruction Project

I did not suggest that this gal was going to or should run for the U S House of Representatives  –  however, the word of warning is noted.
I’ve noted that the ARDC has taken some of my e-mails out of context.   This is the problem with e-mails.   In addition there is no privacy.    I addressed this e-mail to Gloria even though it was intended for someone else and Gloria had nothing to do with any statement made therein.    This masks who I actually sent the response.    Technology in the hands of an amateur such as yours truly is like putting a loaded gun in the hands of a child.   The e-mail that was allegedly sent to me which I am responding to can also be altered.  The author could have written the Martin Luther King assassination, and referred to *****.    The words CIA could have been KGB or they may or may not have been in the original.
With the volume of e-mails that have been sent back and forth it is impossible for a litigant to know if the words and phrases that are repeated in the e-mails are accurate.   For that reason, on September 6/7 any e-mails that are tendered as evidence have to have a strong foundation and most importantly the ‘best evidence’ is the original e-mail.   Please do not allow me to forget the foregoing.  Thank you
Ken Ditkowsky

How to shoot the messenger effectively…….

Dear Readers;

Below Ken is summarizing the amazing abilities of Ms. Leah Black and the ARDC to shoot the messenger.  Ken did nothing wrong, but he shouted it from the rooftops that the Sykes court was without jurisdiction, that the proceeding was railroaded (as Jay Dolgin already had pointed out to me) and a million dollars in assets was missing.  So what did Ms. Leah Black do?  She shot the messenger, got tired and dropped her gun when the miscreants walked up to claim impunity.

And if anyone can help, I need a ride and will pay for parking. (My car got a bad wheel bearing on a holiday weekend!  Horrors.) I’ve given a ton of people rides to court before, so I hope someone will volunteer to pick me up on Sept 6, 7th, 2012 and off to the Prudential towers.

From Ken Ditkowsky;

I do  not know who are how many will attend my disciplinary hearing – many people have called and e mailed that they will be there to support me.   I do not know if any will show.   All I know is that I will be there and I will put on a spirited defense based upon 735 ILCS 110/5, the First Amendment, and the statute.

Regulatory agencies have an intimidation about them even to people who are not regulated by them.   This is how they remain in existence.    The Greylord scandal and the ARDC’s lack of due diligence should have caused a major shake-up.   17 judges going to jail should have motivated Ms. Black before she filed a disciplinary complaint against me to have read 755 ILCS 11a – 1 et seq.   The mandatory (jurisdictional) nature of the words and phrases of he Statute should have gotten her all excited and demanding that the Commission investigate Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, Judge Connors, Judge Stuart et al.   When Ms. Black heard about the non-inventory of the collectibles she should have called the States Attorney and the IRS to investigate.    Ms. Black has a Himmel obligation, just as I do – but ******.
I’ve copied the Tribune and the Sun-Times – they and the other media outlets (and law enforcement) voice little concern that a 90 year old lady was taken from her home after she filed a Petition for protective order and stripped of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.    They could care less that this 90 year old has been isolated from her younger daughter and her siblings.   Indeed – no one cares that the exploiters are a million dollars richer today than they were prior to their abuse and exploitation of Mary.    Indeed – NO ONE CARES!    except to silence everyone and anyone who might expose the perfidy!
 It is sad – everyone of us could be a Mary Sykes!  All we have to do is live long enough to be victimized by the privileged political elite.
Ken Ditkowsky

Mother Government and Martha Mitchell and the dissidents

Dear Readers;

As one email to KD pointed out, it was not that long ago that Martha Mitchell herself, the wife of the US Attorney General was viewed as a “dissident” and thrown into a psychiatric locked down hospital against her will!

BUT Martha Mitchell is now famous:  see below:

Martha Mitchell effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Martha Mitchell effect is the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician mistakes the patient’s perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly.


According to Bell et al., “Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness,” due to a “failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician.”[1] They note that typical examples of such situations, may include:

  • Pursuit by practitioners of organized crime
  • Surveillance by law enforcement officers
  • Infidelity by a spouse
  • Physical issues

Quoting psychotherapist Joseph Berke, the authors note that “even paranoids have enemies.” Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, especially patients with a history of paranoid delusions.

In the Wyman case, Carol Wyman called the nursing home a “snake pit” and everyone said she was delusional, although Rockford was known for having some of the worst, foul, smelly dirty nursing homes with equally bad staff in the nation.

Turns out, for those of you not as old as Ken or I, it was an accurate reference to a famous and 4 star 1948 movie staring Olivia de Haviland. One of the main antagonists in the movie  is a cruel, provoking nurse who sends the patient from the highest levels of functioning mental illness right into a deep crisis mode and a straight jacket.

But what did those around her at the Rockford nursing home do and say?  They said Carol was “delusional” based on the fact they didn’t get the reference, and it was her intelligent biting comment on her unwanted incarceration.

In the Sykes case, CT was estranged from the family, knew little about her mother and did not interact with her well at all, so when Mary was taken to the doctors, they thought she was “delusional”, when in fact, Mary was only telling the truth!  She was gardening, she was walking the neighborhood (I know, I saw her frequently), other family did let her help with the bills and write out checks because it made her mom so very happy.  Instead CT told all the medical evaluators her mom was delusional!

So, I think it is best that Dr. Shaw clearly explains what the “Martha Mitchell” effect is and so must you, Ken, explain all this to your tribunal on Sept 6th and 7th so they don’t get the Martha Mitchell effect and think you’re as nutty as CT who is the true pariah of the family.

Even paranoids have enemies.

thanks for reading.



Ken Ditkowsky waives a right to privilege at the ARDC hearing

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, Ken Ditkowsky has an ARDC complaint against him mainly for calling for an investigation that $1 million in assets belonging to the Estate of Mary Sykes is missing!  The GAL’s run to court and scream, “crazy lady” and “no gold” “no assets” (meaning the other ladies in the family that confirm the bag of gold coins collected since approx. 1950 when gold was $25 an ounce–affordable for the middle class to collect), then you split up the loot in secret, sell the house, let one miscreant benefit from that, and the judge is always told there were no gold coins or cash in the mattress.  You conveniently forget to mention that the guardianship was railroaded, meaning it had to be slammed through the Probate Court so fast that the Sodini notices (written notice, from the Petitioner stating the date, time and place on a hearing for incompetency were never served giving the Probate Court actual jurisdiction).  This is despite the fact that jurisdiction is such an important due process concept that it MUST be brought to the court’s attention by any attorney involved in the proceeding.

Getting back to Ken….

Because his case involves one of the most fundamental and basic rights in the US-the right to publicly speak our minds, and speak our mind on issues of how grandma and grandpa should be treated, Ken is inviting us all to be there or be square.

He will be “on trial” for his scandalous activities of speaking out against corruption in Probate Court, lawlessness and lack of jurisdiction in the Sykes case.  That’s Sept. 6 and 7th, at the offices of the ARDC, the Prudential Building in Chicago starting at 9:30 am.

Why is Ken soooo upset about what is going on in Probate and why is the ARDC so sensitive it is willing to trample on Ken’s civil rights?  Because he asks the stinging questions of whether it is right to strip our seniors of their human and civil rights, drain their estates with attorney meddlings, running around in “probate court” filing documents and pleadings, well, let’s face it and be honest, benefit mostly the attorneys and a court that looks full of “important activities”.

Today in Rockford, I got a chance to talk to a family involved in probate, an over extending OPG (atty from the Office of Public Guardian), a GAL or Guardian ad Litem, both of whom were looking none too happy.

What I learned from family today is, they can put grandma in a home by getting the “right MD” to do a CCP 211.  Then they drug her at a dirty, smelly nursing home so she can’t get out. You might say, why doesn’t she just leave if she knows she does not want to be there and is competent?  Drugs, that’s how.  This woman was held down and injected with strong doses of Halodel–a most strong tranquilizer, if she didn’t take her regular pills, consisting of strong antipsychotic meds such as Seroquel, Librium, Risperdol, etc.  Of course, all this is illegal, but the Illinois nursing homes do it all the time to separate grandma and grandpa from a valuable asset–a home that is paid for in full!  And mega Pharma is complicit, providing a steady supply of these expensive drugs to the nursing homes without question, with seeming absolute impunity.

Imagine the terror when grandma wants to come home, you want to get her home, she is in  a squalid, filthy nursing home she desperately wants to get out of, put into the nursing home with a CCP211 that is a lie, bought and paid for by a family member with a long documented history of abuse, and she refused to take dangerous antipsychotic drugs such as Seroquel, Lexapro, etc. so they hold her down and shoot her up with Halodol–and all the drugs are strongly contraindicated for her due to her fragile elderly condition!  Caring family members who witness this are terrified.   The senior is terrified.

It happens in American, the land of the free(?) each and every day.

Want to know why this happens?  Greed, evil and corruption in the Probate Court.  Provisions of the Probate code ignored, eviscerated, and trampled upon by greedy attorneys and their equally greedy and evil family members.  Find an elder, find a paid for house, get a paid-for CCP 211 from an MD, and bingo, you’re there.  By putting a senior in a nursing home, long term and well known statistics indicate they only last a few more years–far less than they would at home.  You get your money fast–just like those commercials for settlement proceeds.

I personally, think it is unethical, immoral and any atty should be summarily disbarred for putting a senior in a nursing home to get ahold of an asset to churn an atty bill in probate, but that is currently the way it is done throughout the country! Probate courts sell homes all the time to pay atty fee and nursing home fees.  It’s a deadly, greedy tie in. Our elderly seniors simply don’t stand a chance.  Grandma is no longer lovingly cared for in her own home or that of a family member until she dies.  No money in that.

What has been pointed out to me is that doctors have gone to prison for medicare/medicaid fraud where they entice the homeless to enter a nursing home by giving them a small amount of cash, the older homeless person enters the nursing home, medicare/medicaid pays, and the doctor gets a kickback!  Those doctors have actually gone to prison for medicare/medicaid fraud.

What’s the difference between that and a lawyer that does it?  The lawyer GETS AWAY WITH IT.  Not only that, while the doctors only got a few thousand dollars for dumping a homeless person in a nursing home, the lawyer gets a boatload of cash in a paid for home.

The lawyers tells the family the home “must be sold” now because after the lawyer gets a CCP211 statement of incompetency from some miscreant in the family, one or both seniors get into a $5,000 to $7,000+ per month nursing home, the nursing home then liens the house and tells the family the house MUST be sold!

But wait, like a bad, late night TV show, it gets worse and worse.  Next thing you know, apparently in Rockford, they tell the family that there is a “75% rule” to sell the home, and that apparently is code for the fact it will be a private sale, to a wired in “friend”.  Either  a friend of the court and/or a friend of a relative can buy the home for 75% of it’s value if it’s “hard to sell.”  Hmmmm, never heard of that one.  Apparently, the home of an elder is not in prime real estate sale condition.  Seniors like their homes the way they are.  They might paint, and do general upkeep, but they don’t have the latest kitchens and baths, latest floor coverings from Home Depot, granite countertops and fancy sinks, so now the house can’t be sold at a premium, so the Rockford courts (and I thought the 18th floor of the Daley Center in Chicago was bad), wait until you hear this one, have cocked up the “75% rule”.  And I am told the family has no say in this sale.  The Guardian and the GAL/OPG just push em thru the courts on a regular basis and tell the family “it must be done this way.”

Docs get prison for dumping the homeless in ratty nursing homes for a few thousand in kickbacks.  BUT lawyers apparently do it “looking busy and important” in probate court while at the same time, raking in the cash and dough!  Lawyers get $100,000 or more when grandma’s house is sold because the probate case was “so long and hard, with all the family discussions, fights, etc.”–yeah, fights the attorneys churned during the probate proceeding.

Doesn’t anyone see the need to pass federal litigation that no senior should have to sell the house she lives in to pay Probate Court attorney fees?  That would put the proper chilling effect on the entire process.

The highlight of my day today was, when I brought up the fact that a case was clearly and facially without jurisdiction–even from a casual glance of the Probate file it is clear that no one in the family received the Sodini notices of the hearing because it was moved 3 days earlier and again, the Petition for Guardianship was deficient on it’s face (not all close relatives were named), when I told the judge I wanted summary argument, this was an emergency, she said, “what?  it’s not an emergency, it’s been going on for 3 years!” I replied, “indicating even more the urgency to dismiss the case and remove the senior and her family from an abusive, burdensome and oppressive guardianship that has stripped this woman of all her legal and civil rights.”  No reply from the judge on that one.  The GAL and OPG wouldn’t even look at me, and just looked down.

No one was happy.

We need to start calling on the attorneys in these cases to do the right thing, come forward with the lack of jurisdiction as officers of the court should do–be honest, call for an investigation of these corrupt cases, and most important and right now, call to dismiss the Probate case and free Mary Sykes!  On September 5 and 6th we need calls to the ARDC to dismiss the case against Ken Ditkowsky for speaking out against this evil form of corruption snaking around our very own Illinois Probate Courts!

Ken is a hero and not a pariah!


PS–I am going to fax this to Atty Leah Black at the ARDC and tell her (for the gazillionth time) that the problem of greed, corruption and lack of jurisdiction is truly endemic in the Probate court and Atty Ken Ditkowsky is only telling the truth.

PPS–I’ll drop her a copy of Wyman’s “Against Her Will” book in the mail tomorrow also.  She needs to read it.  I now have about a dozen copies.

And Death appears to be the Only way Out…….

Dear Readers;

Here is an article submitted by anonymous donor:



It explains the problems with our current system of Probate, that the Probate courts do not monitor the use of Seroquel, Halodel, Resperodel, and other dangerous drugs used to put perfectly healthy, happy seniors out so they cannot complain they are in a nursing home when they want to be in their own home.  It also explains how the Probate system is corrupt and forces seniors to sell their homes to pay massive attorney’s fees to strip them of their rights and dignity.  The judges ignore wards such as Mary who had advance directives and wanted to live in their own home until death.

Once stripped of their rights, it is easy to sell their assets, drug them, isolate them, dump them in dangerous nursing homes, provide generous payments to all the attorneys involved in the guardianship so they have little reason to complain–or investigate.  They know who greases their palms, and sometimes it ain’t pretty.

The systems are corrupt and must end.


From Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky–where is the First Amendment when you Need it?

From the Boone Tavern, Berea College
As children were admonished “TRUTH, JUSTICE, & THE AMERICAN WAY”  however, all bets are off when we there is a senior citizen in sight who can be abused or exploited by certain  favored persons appointed by the Courts as guardians/guardians ad litem etc.     Even an attorney, such as yours truly cannot escape the wrath if he speaks out.
On September 6/7 2012  I will be tried on disciplinary charges by the Illinois ARDC.    I am charged with exercising my First Amendment Rights, associating with persons who opposed the interests of Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel and objecting to the fact that for three years the Circuit Court of Cook County has been acting without jurisdiction.     It appears that the aforementioned lawyers had neglected to vest the Court with jurisdiction ( In re: Sodini – citation omitted) by following certain mandatory criterion required by the State of Illinois prior to depriving a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, and civil rights.      It further appears that I committed the heinous crime of speaking in public in writing words and phrases that were critical of Ms. Farenga, Mr.  Stern, Peter Schmiedel and the presiding  Judge who appears to have been conducting proceedings in the courthouse without jurisdiction for three years.
The foregoing complaint will be addressed, but,  a new complaint has arisen.     The Illinois Supreme Court delegated to the Illinois ARDC the duty to root out ‘ethically challenged’ lawyers and it is supposed to stand as a beacon of honesty and legal propriety.    In reviewing my prosecution it occurred to me that I have a Himmel[1] responsibility  to report some grossly improper conduct on the part of the ARDC lawyers who are conducting my prosecution.   
Charge 1:    Improper conduct toward a witness.     Mary’s “Other Daughter” (“OD”) daughter is a key witness and the person who is expected to testify that the mandatory statutory notices were not provided to the near (close) relatives of Mary Sykes as is mandated by statute.    In particular,  the mandatory venue was ignored, the petition filed faulty as it did not disclose the people who were required to be disclosed, the mandatory 14 day written notice was ignored,  and Mary’s protections mandated by statute were ignored.     After Mary’s other daughter had been disclosed, the ARDC attorney, Ms. Lea Black,  sought to take the discovery deposition of that daughter.    A ridiculous dispute occurred that I characterize as grossly inappropriate.     The net was Mary’s other daughter and Ms. Black, after some unpleasant conversations did not meet so that the other daughter’s deposition could be taken.       As is pretty typical for these Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation  cases  Ms. Black ignored the more conventional method of compelling an independent witness (not a party) to appear.   She filed a motion to bar me from calling Ms. Sykes as a witness.     The Disciplinary Panel denied her motion; however, but did not erase the gross defamation on the American Judicial System or the public demonstration of unfairness.
Charge 2:    Denial of an Accused a fact witness.        It is axiomatic  (Supreme Court Rule 191) that affidavits (sworn documents) must be signed by someone who has knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit.     ARDC attorney , Ms. Lea Black,  was permitted by the ARDC panel to verify documents required by law to be verified, ergo,  she represented that she has personal knowledge of the facts (and can testify to them).     Ms. Black thus became a person who was named on my witness list.      The ARDC filed a motion to bar me from calling Ms. Black as a witness.    The ARDC panel denied the motion, but could not erase the stain and the defamation of the Illinois justice system.
Charge 3.     Attempt to bar public records key to the defense of these proceedings from being produced at trial.
If the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is revoked or suspended for these disciplinary proceedings the issue in this case is very simple.    Does the record of the Circuit Court in In re:  Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 contain a petition that discloses the ‘near’ or ‘close’  relatives of Mary Sykes – i.e. her two siblings and her two daughters.     (It does not).     Did the Clerk of the Circuit Court when the case was filed set a date for hearing thirty days after the filing?  (She did not).    Did the notice of hearing (in writing) get served on the other daughter and Mary’s two siblings 14 days prior to the date of the hearing?  (It was not).    Is there some evidence of this service, if any?   (there was  not).      (The panel has limited the number of Requests to Admit that I can serve on the ARDC so that method provided by the Supreme Court of Illinois to address all these key facts is not open).       Interestingly, the States Attorney of Cook County has filed a petition to quash my subpoena of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.     The panel has not ruled on this outrageous motion as of August 29, 2012.       The America Justice System was unique in that a defendant has always been afforded the opportunity fully defend his rights, privileges and immunities.     The States Attorney (of Cook County) is one of the Judicial Officers charged with protecting the rights of citizens, yet she appears in this Disciplinary case to thwart the efforts of the defense.  
It is respectfully submitted that when Circuit Court Records are examined in the Sykes case and the Petition filed by Mary Sykes for a protective order against the person appointed as plenary guardian surfaces, along with the perfidy that other daughter has had to endure it will be more than appropriate to refer to the Sykes case and the related cases as the “Son of Greylord!”         Citizens have filed complaints to the ARDC concerning Farenga and Stern.     It is my understanding that Judge Connors has been the subject of at least one Judicial Inquiry Board complaint in relation to this Sykes case.    HOWEVER,  the ARDC in setting its example of the proper for lawyers has not prosecuted either Farenga or Stern.      The conduct out lined supra that I charge has occurred and is of record in my disciplinary case is worthy of investigation and inquiry   — Unless, last night the concept of Due Process, Civil Rights, and Fairness were abrogated the charges that I make are very serious.

[1]   Mr. Himmel was a lawyer who was disciplined by the ARDC for not reporting a ‘bad action’ on the part of a brother lawyer.

Deed in Trust–Clear violation of Statute of Uses

Dear Readers;

As you might or might not know, in 2005 Carolyn took Mary to Atty.  Haggerty for a bit of “estate planing” that obviously benefitted Carolyn in the long run.

But in her haste for greed, Carolyn did not know and did not consider that the Trust was actually invalid due to the “Statute of Uses” which prohibits the trustor and trustee from being the same entity, thereby creating a false trust.  This is a concept that came from a law passed by Henry VIII in 1529 which broke up the concept of using trusts to avoid taxes by the landlowners.

Clever lords, they passed laws earlier saying that only a beneficial interest in land could be taxed and not the legal ownership, and then the lords created trusts where non-taxable entities held the beneficial ownership.

Well a few created trusts where both the trustor (the person granting the item or land to the trust) and the trustor (the person controlling the trust) were one and the same.  Henry VIII needed to fill his coffers so poof that was gone.

Today, the US courts, including Illinois still adhere to that precept:  where the trustor and trustee are one and the same, the trust is a fake and a fraud and can be voided.

Now Carolyn had her own sister evicted, a certain “Gale Gatekeeper” (she has asked me to and I have no problem with, using a pseudonym for her, and I believe this one fits), based upon the trust document, so the eviction proceeding, for that and other reasons (the trust said that Mary had to be found incompetent by her own personal physician–a certain Dr. Patel–which he refused to do) is completely wrongful and voidable.

see the below link.



for more information on the Statute of Uses, check out the detailed article on Wikipedia, the source for all things obscure but still in use today.
take care

PS–if you are having problems viewing any document on this website, go to google and download the “drive” software which will make viewing, printing and downloading a snap.  If you do not have a gmail account, you will have to sign up for one.  If you click on it and still have problems such as “no permission”, write me and I will change permissions to public.  Sometimes I do forget.

Appeal of the Disqualification of JoAnne Denison

Dear Readers;

As you know, last Thursday, the Probate Court DENIED Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini) on the grounds it had been brought up numerous times before and denied.  PS argued the appeals court denied it–which is not true and I the order denying it was published on a post, but I will put it on the blog.

At this juncture, Gloria CAN appeal my Disqualification a couple of years ago.  These motions can be appealed at the time they happen, according to Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 306 (7) or they can be filed when a motion which can dismiss all grounds or claims is decided.  So this gives Gloria another chance to file the appeal if she wants.

In any case, here it is.  If it doesn’t help Gloria, perhaps it can help someone else.  Just do a search and change the names.


take care and have a great day.

In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
A Petition under Sup. Ct. Rule 306(7) to
appeal Probate trial court case:
No.: 09 P 4585
To: See attached service list:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on________________ 2012, we filed the following
documents in the above entitled cause, a copy of which is attahced hereto:
JoAnne M. Denison,
Attorneys for Petitioner, Denison &
Assocs, PC
Prepared By:
JoAnne M. Denison, Atty. No. 14,867
Denison & Associates, PC 1512 N
Fremont St, #202 Chicago, IL 60642
phone: 312-553-1300
fax: 312-553-1307
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
A Disabled Adult
Appellant, JoAnne M. Denison,
Disqualified counsel for Gloria Sykes,
Daughter of Mary G. Sykes
Appeal from the trial court in the case of:
No.: 09 P 4585
Now comes the Petitioner, JoAnne M. Denison, disqualified counsel for an
interested party, Gloria J. Sykes (“Gloria”), in the above captioned matter, wherein Ms.
Gloria Sykes, is the daughter of the above disabled adult and Ms. Denison herewith
Petitions this honorable appellate court to respectfully reverse the two trial court’s orders
dated 1) December 10, 2012 where the trial court judge ruled Ms. Denison could not file
an appearance on behalf of Gloria and 2) on August 16, 2012 this same trial court
(different judge) recently denied Ms. Sykes’ Motion to Dismss/Non suit on the grounds the
Trial Court lacked Jurisdiction (Soldini). The undersigned former counsel of record believes
that both the decisions were in error–that the trial court has acted without jurisdiction since
December 7th, 2012 when the Petitioner failed to serve 1) written notice; 2) to adult
siblings and children; 3) notifying them of the time, date and place of the hearing on the
Petition for Guardianship; 4) by mail or in person–all of which are strict jurisdictional
requirements under the seminal case of In re Soldini.
The trial court further rubber stamped the motions of the Guardian’s Ad Litem,
Attorney Stern and Attorney Farenga, when Ms. Denison was disqualified for only
notarizing one document for Mary G. Sykes (“Mary”)! She presented evidence to the trial
court she never represented Mary, she had sent Mary no bills, and had no time records of
representing her. Ms. Denison had, in the past only represented Gloria.
Simply notarizing a document is not, in and of itself, grounds to disqualify counsel.
Additional details for the grounds for this Petition are set forth below:
1. This appellate matter arises out of a Motion to Disqualify which was granted and
made final on December 10, 2009 against Attorney Denison and her firm, Denison
& Assocs, PC to appear in the above captioned proceeding in the Probate Court of
Cook County, First District. Exhibit A1, Order of December 7, 2009, attached
hereto. On December 10, 2009, this order was modified to add the words “final
and appealable.” Exhibit A2, hereto.
2. Ms. Gloria Sykes was a Counter Petitioner in the above captioned matter for
Guardianship of her mother, Mary G. Sykes. Exhibit B, Amended Cross Petition of
January 18, 2009, attached hereto.
3. On or about November 10, 2009, Ms. Gloria Sykes and Ms. Joanne Denison, a
licensed Illinois attorney, came to an agreement that Ms. Denison would represent
Ms. Gloria Sykes in the above matter because the matter had become hotly
contested and Ms. Gloria Sykes was experiencing difficulties with her then counsel
of record arguing and winning motions.
4. On or about November 12, 2009, Attorney Denison attempted to file her
appearance in the above captioned proceeding and Mr. Harvey Waller, Counsel for
the now Plenary Guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, elder daughter of Mary Sykes, together
with Guardian Ad Litems Attorneys Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern, objected to
this appearance on the grounds that Attorney Denison had previously notarized a
document which Mary Sykes had signed.1 All of opposing counsel–Attorneys
Farenga, Stern and Waller claimed that Attorney Denison would need to be called
as a witness during a trial to determine apportionment of assets in prior filed
litigation between Gloria and Kemper Insurance which was settled in August 2008
and all the settlement documents were approved by the litigation judge at that time.
The transcript of November 12, 2009 is attached hereto as Exhibit C, see pages 4-
5. The Order of November 12, 2009 sets a briefing schedule of five days to file
Motions to Oppose Counsel and five days for Denison & Associates to respond.
Exhibit D, attached hereto.
1While Attys Waller, Schmeidel (they represent or did represent the Guardian) told the
court the Agreement notarized was a private agreement between the parties and a section 1401
motion was not required to set aside the Apportionment Agreement, this was in fact not true, but
the Agreement was reviewed by a Law Division judge and entered as an Order. It is not true
that the Apportionment Agreement was merely a private agreement–it was a Court Order and in
order to change that court order, a section 1401 proceeding had to be filed by either the GAL’s
or the Guardian within two (2) years from the date of the order–an action none of the attorneys
have taken in time. The Order was notarized, reviewed by the Law Division Judge, and then
entered in August 2008. Now two (2) years have passed and it is too late to contest the
contents of that Court Order.
6. On November 17, 2009, Attorney Denison filed a Preliminary Memorandum,
attached hereto as Exhibit E, pointing out 1) she never represented Ms. Mary Sykes;
2) her law firm records show that she never represented her and provided copies of
time sheets for the month in question and computer records; 3) and an email
submitted to the court indicated that she never discussed apportionment with either
Mary or Gloria Sykes–she only discussed the amount of the settlement and the
attorneys fees with Gloria Sykes; 4) the notary clause only stated the signatory
appeared before the notary and was known to the notary and then signed the
document. The notary clause did not state whether the signatory was of sound
mind or competent, and no assessment was made at that time to any of those
issues. All of these facts indicate clearly that Attorney Denison would not need to
be called as a witness at trial. Attorney Denison voluntarily provided this informal
discovery to all opposing counsel well in advance of the hearing on the merits.
7. On November 19, 2009, Attorney Stern filed a Motion to Disqualify Attorney
Denison. Exhibit F, attached hereto. Attorney Denison submits that such a motion
was frivolous in nature and only calculated to prevent Gloria Sykes from using an
attorney she knew would be vigorous and vigilant in defending her and representing
her interests.
8. On December 7, 2009 date a hearing was set and the Motion to Disqualify was
argued. A transcript of the argument is attached hereto as Exhibit G. During this
argument, opposing counsel argued a series of “what if” scenarios and the circuit
court then granted opposing counsel’s Motion to Disqualify her. Exhibit G, pgs. 12-
15. The court found that it would need to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue
and Attorney Denison asked for an evidentiary hearing to be held instanter. The
court indicated this would be possible at the next available hearing date.
Immediately subsequent to this hearing, Attorney Farenga, when drafting the order,
said that she wanted two (2) months to seek discovery of all the issues, then a status
date would need to be held, and only after that an evidentiary hearing could be
held–meaning Gloria would be denied counsel of her choice for months and
months–long after a plenary Guardian was appointed for Mary.
9. Such a request is further evidence that the Motion to Disqualify Counsel was
primarily a means to deny Gloria Sykes counsel of her choice who would defend her
case vigorously. While Attorney Denison first requested to file an Appearance on
November 12, 2009, no discovery was served by any opposing counsel, despite the
fact the hearing was held nearly one month later on December 7, 2009. On
December 10, 2009, Attorney Denison informed the court to what had happened
with GAL Farenga and requested that she wanted to appeal and to make on that
date, the decision of the court full and final and subject to appeal. Transcript of
December 10, 2009, Exhibit H, hereto.
10. On December 24, 2009, Attorney Denison submitted a Motion for Reconsideration
attached hereto as Exhibit I. That Motion was either not argued or only partially
argued and then the court ruled that the Motion could not be filed. Exhibit J,
Transcript of December 29, 2009 Hearing, attached hereto, pages 1-13.
11. Two years have passed since Ms. Denison was initially refused representation of
Gloria. When Ms. Denison attempted to file a Petition for Appeal, Gloria
prevaricated on whether she wanted to appeal. The deadline passed and counsel
waited for a decision which never came. It became apparent that Attys Stern,
Farenga and Waller, by agreeing to file and prosecute a Motion to Disqualify Ms.
Denison, had seriously damaged that attorney client privilege, with the client
repeatedly claiming both publicly and in private that Ms. Denison had been
(rightrully) disqualified, not understanding what Ms. Denison and other attys were
telling her about the situation–name, it is an improper and frivilous disqualification
for merely notarizing a docment.
12. A major grounds for the disqualification, that Ms. Denison might be called as a
witness, has never happened. A hearing scheduled to invalidate the apportionment
agreement–the basis of the disqualification, began on July 13, 2012, was continued
to August 16, 2012 and Ms. Denison has not appeared on any of the witness lists.
13. However on August 16, 2012, Ms. Denison was finally able to convince Gloria to
file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit based upon the Sodini case. After becoming
involved in the case and helping Gloria once again as much as Ms. Denison could,
Ms. Denison strongly encourage Gloria to file a Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit based
upon lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini). Another attorney, Mr. Ken Ditkowsky discovered
this case and further, that no written notice of the original hearing date of
December 7, 2009 had ever been served on the adult siblings and children of Mary.
Declarations signed by Gloria and Mary’s adult sister, Yolanda, are attached hereto.
This clearly violates the holding in In Re Sodini that service of these written notices
by the Petitioner are jurisdictional in character.
14. The order denying jurisdiction is further attached hereto as Exhibit A3. It should be
noted by this trial court that on the day this Order was entered, Gloria initialed and
approved it in one version. Later it is obvious that Atty Stern crossed out some
verbiage and changed it after approval. That altered order, which was not
approved by Gloria, is
WHEREFORE, Attorney Denison believes that there was absolutely no grounds for
her disqualification other than opposing counsel filing a frivolous motion and arguing it,
and she earnestly requests that this honorable court of appeals GRANT the instant Petition
to Appeal her December 7, 2009 Order disqualifying her on the grounds the trial court lost
all jurisdiction on that date–and jurisdiction is vitally important to a case it may be brought
up at any time. Ms. Denison desires a court order to represent any Sykes family member
without interference from the trial court. It was not known in December of 2009 that
proper Sodini notices had not been served upon the close relatives.
Respectfully, even if the undersigned attorney’s appeal or Petition is denied for any
reason, she is respectfully requesting that the ARDC be directed to investigate the entire
matter, including the actions of Attorneys Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel and Waller for an
appropriate resolution of the question, just how does a Probate trial court with not one, but
TWO Guardian’s ad Litem continue on a case clearly lacking jurisdiction for over 31
JoAnne M. Denison
Attorney for Petitioner, Gloria Sykes
Prepared By:
JoAnne M. Denison, Atty. No. 14,867
Denison & Associates, PC
1512 N Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
phone: 312-553-1300
fax: 312-553-1307
I hereby certify that the foregoing Petition to Appeal of the Disqualification of
JoAnne M. Denison has been served by the method indicated below to the following
counsel that has filed an appearance in the above cause of action:
Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Fischel & Kahn
155 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60606 via email and USPS first class postage prepaid
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave., Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Fax 847-866-8885 via email and USPS first class postage prepaid
Adam Stern
105 W. Adams St.
Chicago, IL 60603 via email and USPS first class postage prepaid
on this August 24, 2012
JoAnne M. Denison

From Ken Ditkowsky, a summary of the case

For a summary of the case–

The starting point in any legal case is the statute.   The case law is all very interesting, but, to understand what you are doing you have to go to the statute.    The Statute that you have to address is 735 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.
  This is interestingly enough exactly how I started with Judge Connors in my cross examination of her.     The statute is either mandatory or permissive.    A permissive statute is one in which the judge has some discretion.    For instance, if the statute states that a certain act ‘may’ or ‘will” be completed by a certain day the Judge and the Court system have the right to set it for another day that is reasonable.    However, if the statute uses the word ‘shall’ the legislative mandate and delegation to the Court is specific.     If the statute for instance says that a particular hearing “shall” set a place and time for hearing with 30 days of the filing of the incompetency petition   (11a -10) that is mandatory.    Thus, on the 40th day without this criterion being met, Judge Connors noticed that the Petition was defective and the CCP 211 was not filed.    What is the effect of it?
If we apply a liberal interpretation of the statute, this does not mean that the hearing had to be held on that date – it means that the time and place had to be set.    This does not mean that there could be no continuances.   It meant that as long as a time and place was mentioned the matter could be continued.
Do not Jump!     Carolyn was appointed as a temporary guardian.    By statute this is a 60 day job.    Thus, 60 days after the appointment Carolyn is once again a peon.       Thus, after approximately 60 days this is a rudderless situation.
As the Court had appointed Guardian ad Litem,  these individuals’ duty was to report to the Court such ‘technicalities’ as lack of jurisdiction, loss of jurisdiction etc.      The statute further provides that the CCP 211 need not be filed with the petition – however, it must be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing.    This provides some ‘leeway’ for a petitioner to fudge a bit.    Upon examination of the certificate of incompetency might reveal as an example that the respondent appears borderline, but in fact is ****.    This allows a physician to amend and qualify his opinion so it is more accurate.
The Petition was filed @ July 20, 2009.     Even though the statute stated “upon the filing of a petition *** the clerk shall”    No court date was set.    It is very clear why no date was set.     Mr. Waller recognized that your mother was competent and unless a ‘hack’ or a ‘prostitute’ could be obtained to sign a CCP 211 (certificate of incompetency)  the facade could not occur and Mary would not be deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and/or her human rights.
Assuming that a doctor could be found to sign the CCP and the petition required by section 8 could be filed, this petition required that ‘near’ relatives be named and specifically required that adult children and adult siblings who were alive be named.    Again the word ‘shall’ is used.    The Sodini case addresses this principle.    It points out that Section 10 provides the jurisdictional (use of the word shall) that 14 days prior to the hearing the near (I have been referring to them as ‘close”) relatives have been be given written notice.      This was not done so there is no jurisdiction and all the orders of the Circuit Court are VOID.
It is an axiom that Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Court, so the issue of waiver is also eliminated, unless, the waiver is in writing or memorialized in some very definite manner.    An ambush such as having everyone in Court for discussion of a ‘care plan’ and them sneaking in an appointment of a plenary guardian is a ‘naked’ Fraud on the Court.     Sodini rejected such an approach and it is hard to conceive of a proper Judge who would participate in such a sham.
The Statutory process is further set out.      The burden of proof that the petition must meet is ‘clear and convincing.’     This is the highest civil standard of proof.    Assuming an unbiased and non-wired Court this means an unbiased judge is strictly limited in the help that he/she can provide the petition.    For instance, Judge Connors statement on August 31, 2012 is totally inappropriate.   Representative Akin’s recent statement is benign compared with Connor’s statement.    Adam Stern’s nomination of Dr. Shaw and Dr. Amdur are equally offensive and clearly in derogation of the Statute.
Section 10o b provides that the Court in its discretion may appoint counsel for the respondent (Mary); however the court ‘shall” appoint counsel on respondent’s request.    The request may be either oral or written.   It would be helpful if you have at your finger tips the ‘chapter and verse’ of Mary’s requesting an attorney and Mr. Shaw telling the Court that he talked to her and she did not want one!   For instance, the record shows that right after Mary was bench served she demanded an attorney be appointed for her and that was refused!
To guaranty that the Civil Rights of the respondent are protected the Statute goes one step further.    The Venue provision of the act again using the word ‘shall’ requires that venue shall be in the county in which the respondent resides.    Your mother resided in DuPage County.    Thus, why are we in Cook County?     Assuming that Naperville is in Cook County,  the statute further says that the respondent has to be served with summons and shall be explained his/her rights.      In the Sykes case the summons was placed with the Sheriff; however knowing that Mary resided in Du Page County (abet against her will) the Sheriff was directed to serve Mary at 6014 N. Avondale, Chicago, Illinois (Cook County).
It is very interesting that neither guardian ad litem appears to have informed Judge Connors of these discrepancies.    From her deposition it appears that Judge Connors was not really interested.     That fact is really troubling.
Now with that background, it is the inescapable conclusion
1)  As there was no proper petition filed, there is a jurisdictional deficiency
2)  As there was no service upon the ‘near’ relatives (also known as close relatives) there is a jurisdictional deficiency.
3)  That as there was no hearing (see docket) there is a jurisdictional deficiency.
This is the primary and first line of inquiry.      The Second line of inquiry goes more to culpability than procedure.      The words TRO, injunction, citation etc are all thrown in the mix as if they all had some magic.      They do not.    Illinois has an Injunction Act.     Generally ‘sua sponde’ injunctions are at the very least ‘bad form!’    In the Sykes case we have a bunch of them.     Similarly probate citations are not favored instruments.     Not only do we have them popping out, but the jurisdictional procedures appear to be lacking.     The activity of the guardian ad litems in regard to the injunctions and citations is very troubling.    The job of the plenary guardian is to muster the financial affairs of the incompetent.     Why are the GALs all over the place going after your assets?      Very suspicious.
I can hardly wait for Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern to tell us how all of this happened.      It also will be interesting to heard from the GALs how it happens that Ms. Troepe does not deny certain facts and they are publishing to the ARDC and others that we are all liars and misrepresenting when we allege from our own personal knowledge the existence of some valuables that have not been inventoried.
I hope that this quick books view of the  guiding statute is helpful in your presentations.
Ken Ditkowsky