Okay, let’s rehash the law of who is famous and who is not……..

Dear Gloria;

Thank you for your very kind response regarding what I am doing to try to move along the dismissal/nonsuit of 09 P 4585, which Ken will agree should have been dismissed 2.9 years ago, right?

In any case, I know you and CF have your panties in a bit of a bunch over the pleadings I draft for you completely pret a porter–ie, ready to wear or use.

I did Cynthia’s because she asked me for help in an emailing whining she had no help.

I did yours well, because I think you need to file that and I wanted to make it easy for you.

I know as a reporter you were told “don’t ever use anyone’s likeness or name without permission”, blah, blah, BUT it isn’t as simple as that and the newsworthy exception is very broad.  I assure you I am not using your name (which you keep on telling me and Ken you’re famous anyway so it shouldn’t be a problem) to trade off or palm off some sort of success or promotion for myself.  You would tell me that wouldn’t work anyway because your name and fame well out shrowds mine at any time.  And well, personally, I don’t care about fame, money, blah, blah, or I wouldn’t be doing this and Ken wouldn’t either. (In fact, I still have to figure out how to pay rent this month, oh well, that’s another day for sure).

Also, the companies that produce those shows are not in it to test the bandwith of that case law.  They aren’t looking to get to the edge or test the waters because that would be expensive and a waste of time outside their focus.  BUT when you have a lawyer doing a blog, what do I care.  You think CF’s gonna sue me with the famous 10 page table of torts she’s involved in?  Gimme a break.  Right now, except for the last little squeal, she’s laying low on a case that has been sans jurisdiction for 3 years now!

I’d worry about you, except there’s the fact you mostly like to do cases pro se, you write motions with no less than a dozen unrelated topics in them, you give spontaneous speeches to the court also with no less than 10 unrelated topics in the speech, you don’t trust or listen to lawyers, so that’s an easy one there.  Not worried.  It’s okay tho, because in the Probate case, I personally enjoyed a lot of your speeches with 10 unrelated topics, but I was there for entertainment value and blogging, not lawyering.

Plus, I think it’s somewhat duplicitous don’t you, for me to be in the area of law and afraid that someone will sue me over something stupid?  Well, I see other lawyers whine about getting sued for their tortious behaviors and I think they need to put on big boy under pants.

Besides, the levels of views on the blog today was outstanding.  My dear readers must really love all of this–so for them, I’m going to publish your comments AND everything everyone has been whining about all over again.

You didn’t think I was a weenie lawyer, did you?  Naw, I still got all my teeth.

take care

JoAnne

PS–and while I’m publishing all this stuff again, I want to esp. dedicate it to Gloria, Cynthia and Lucinda who need a real lesson in First Amendment rights.  See Alvarez case and the Pentagon Papers or just watch the movie.  Yep, just checked, Pentagon Papers is on Netflix, as well as Daniel Ellsburg’s “Most Dangerous Man in America” and another documentary I have not seen (Shouting Fire, I put in in my queue).  Your homework is for Gloria, Lucinda and Cynthia to watch these and get back to me tomorrow.  That’ll keep you all up!  I also like the Wikileaks guy and you should read his bio on Wikipedia.  Another one of my heroes.  I think they’re doing a movie or there was a book or something.  He’s great.

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 6:46 PM
To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” , Lucinda , NASGA , “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , Tim Lahrman NASGA , matt senator kirk , LUCIUS VERENUS , states attorney , Sherrif Dart , Elaine NAsga
Cc: scott evans , “k_bakken@att.net” , Chicago Tribune , savage@suntimes.com
Subject: RE: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

Dear All,
I have been involved in the publishing world since 1983 and the broadcast industry since 1975 and there one rule any reputable journalist must obey:  never publish a person’s likeness or name without prior permission in writing (rights agreements) unless of course that person is a public figure such as politicians, the Pope and/or Brittany Spears.  What we can do and we do do legally is used documents and or publicized recordings of men and women, to thoroughly report stories. That said, a reputable writer/author/reporter will not call a person x, unless there is evidence which the blogger, reporter, et al, produces along with the statement, and most of the time we don’t say it, we quote someone who has given us permission to publish their name and likeness and obviously what they have said.  That said, today’s journalist or blogger crosses the line often, and all to often uses adjectives to describe a person or persons that may appear to defame, but in the Sykes case, there are over 12 volumes of verified court documents where Cynthia Farenga and her colleagues have defamed and discredit me with ease, in order to create the appearance of their client, Carolyn Toerpe being the good daughter, and I am the bad daughter and my mother in her petition for an order of protection was ‘confused’ as to which daughter is which.
I’m a human lie detector, or so I’ve been called by colleagues who has, in the past been able to point to people’s lies and get them to ultimately tell the truth.  The truth, you know is not always spoken, but often in the eyes, the actions, the reactions and body and facial movements of people.  What drives me up a wall is when people LIE to me, LIE to the court, LIE for their own personal gain.  I was once standing before Judge Stuart, and I appeared before her only after I rattled off my customary I do not waive my rights to jurisdiction, and then the Sodini requirements, attorney Peter Schmiedel was lying about documents filed, and blabbing as he does, puffed up like a peacock and arms tightly crossed in front of him  (sure sign of a person who doesn’t believe what he or she is saying).   I blurted out, “LIAR” and as mouths dropped, Schmiedel backed off from the bench and mumbled, “I’m going to sue you for libel…”.  Adam Stern rushed to his rescue and said, “He didn’t say that…” and I dropped the documents I was holding to disappear from the bench.  Judge Stuart gave me an opportunity to leave the courtroom, where I was able to compose myself.  There are serious consequences to the LIES we tell and in the Sykes case the life of a once vibrant, loving, healthy, active, involved woman, my mother, is at stake.
I’m not defending JD: nor am I taking the side of Lucinda, who I do respect.  What is needed her is a sense of civility for all people, even people we don’t agree with.  I personally would love to get Cynthia Farenga in a room and ask her questions.  I’m certain she wouldn’t agree to that: she wouldn’t wont to go down that rabbit hole as there’s no telling what will bite her.  That said, a hard truth is better than a soft lie.  The hard truth is this:  Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern agreed to disregard, cover-up, destroy the ‘truths’ in the Sykes case in order to comply with an agreement between them and Toerpe and Toerpe’s attorneys  for financial gain.  Hiding behind what they believe is ‘immunity’ they will and have stopped at nothing to cause me great harm, financial loses, and in their sociopathic minds, silence me and walk away with the Lumbermen’s money, my home and my  mother’s home.  Although the Illinois Probate Act of 1975 mandates that after the appointment of a guardian, the GAL’s are automatically dismissed, in order to protect the law firm of Fiscal and Kahn, who made a similar agreement, CF and AS have lied to every Judge since, every law enforcement agency and even the political elite, telling them that notices were served, they were reappointed to the case because of me (transference is a clear sign of LYING and guilt), and meanwhile, Toerpe had retained five attorneys from Fischel and Kahn, Leslie ? for the adversary in the bankruptcy court, and of course Harvey Jack Waller and his son:   Technically my mother is paying for 10 attorneys to keep her isolated, drug her, steal her home and her estate, destroy all people my mother loves and trusts, and, ultimately, murder her!
Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Amanda Brynes, and the other two male attorneys from Fischel and Kahn, have not put in for one dime however, which is curious, don’t you think?  There is a confidential settlement agreement which lays out how each of these attorneys will get paid, and I will make that available at the proper time: I refused to sign the agreement and AS, PS, CF and my attorney at the time JB attempted to file an in camera statement stating that I am bi polar and mentally ill.
What I’m trying to say is that JoAnne Denison can write her little head off as long as she doesn’t put words in my mouth, in another person’s mouth and when she uses adjectives, she backs it with evidence.  FYI Toerpe stopped me from paying the mortgage on 6014 and then she stopped paying the mortgage on 6014 and claimed in her inventory she was paying, but I am certain she is paying attorney fees instead.  Law firms like Fischel and Kahn do not work for free and they do not have a pro bono department: a friend called and was turned away.  “Times are tough,” she was told, et al.  Ironically, I talked to attorney Peter Schmiedel about hiring him in October/November 2009 and his firm declined to take my case.  I watched him defend for Elizabeth on the Lydia Taylor case and was impressed.  In fact in that case he argued the Struck case to get his client visitation: in the Sykes case he attempted to use it to stop me from associating with my mother.
I don’t like JD’s tactics, but I am mad as hell at the trickery used by Cynthia Farenga, ADam Stern, et al.  I don’t think JD is trying to influence any person as the Probate Court has dug in and is sanctioning this lawlessness.  I also thin that we need to be civil and present the “truth” the “facts’ in a professional manner.  Name calling is childish: the documents speak for themselves.
Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel have spent a lifetime over the past three years defaming and discrediting me, attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky and even JoAnne Denison: it is their cottage industry of ‘business-as-usual’ sanction by the Court.  That said, at least JD is publishing the transcripts, documents filed with the court and proven over and over again that there are and were not Sodini notices and therefore, the Court has held proceedings without jurisdiction.  The orders are void.  There is no guardianship and that is what is important.
Show me the proof and I will present in a reputable forum, but CF, AS, PS cannot provide one ounce of evidence.  They got the court to deny me a right to have witnesses or bring evidence to the attention of the court, meanwhile they’ve froze my assets, stole my homestead and a good portion of my property of my estate and the worse thing, they won’t let my mother see or talk to me and have perpetrated undue influence on her that is damming.  They’ve told my mother that I ‘abandoned’ her and that I ‘stole’ her home, her property, and all her money.
I will be filing documents tomorrow, and at the end of the week, and next week too.  There was and is no Sodini notices and Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel know this.  No one is trying to ‘influence’ the ARDC or the Court.  We just want an honest investigation.  The truth leaves tracks and it’s time to go down the rabbit hole.  Unfortunately for Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel and Deborah Jo Soehlig and Amanda B, and Joel Brodsky, what respectable investigators will find will bit each one in the ass — the truths will also save my mother’s life.  That is all I care about.
Does anybody want to join me in saving my mothers life?  Saving her life will save the lives of thousands of innocent elders and disabled people!
JD take my name off of and take Cynthia Farenga’s name off the document you wrote.  Now you have a template for any victim or hero to use in cases like the Sykes case.  It’s just that a template.
God bless us all.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:19:23 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

Thank you for your comment directed to Ms.Denison.
No attorney can ever stand quietly when he believes that an injustice is being done.    It is my opinion that you are misconstruing Ms. Denison’s actions and postings and thereby doing her an injustice.   What we have in the Sykes case is a situation in which a senior citizen has been deprived of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights in complete derogation of the ‘Rights of Man’ and the United States Constitution.   (The Illinois Statutes and Probate Act also are violated)
What has happened in the Sykes case is beyond belief – In point of fact any fair minded person looking at the record, reading the transcripts etc would remark:  “HOW CAN THIS OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”  (I believe that you and your organization have expressed this sentiment and have worked to attempt to allievate this terrible fiasco)
In fact anyone looking into the case has to notice on day one that the case is not only unusual but basic civil rights were and are ignored.  The Illinois Legislature in order to address the issue of seniors being railroaded into unwanted and un-needed guardianships set up some jurisdictional criterion.
From day one the two Guardian ad litem (i.e. Ms. Farenga and Mr.Stern) ignored the jurisdictional criterion and it appears joined the plenary guardian in actions which in my opinion are deplorable and unconscionable.  If you want a taste of what was promulgated read a random three or four of Gloria Sykes’ e-mails.
The net effect of the actions taken by the GALs and the plenary guardian has been to deny not only Mary of her rights, but Gloria Sykes as well.   What is particularly interesting is the fact that what was done was done without jurisdiction.   Required basic jurisdictional steps have been routinely ignored.   The one jurisdictional challenge was by me and it was successful.
Ms. Denison has requested Ms. Farenga to do what a lawyer (or judge) should have done on Day one – as there is no jurisdiction – ask for dismissal of the case.  In my opinion it is a procrustean application of political correctness to suggest that requesting a court appointed GAL to correct a mistake (whether intentional or not) is not entirely appropriate.  Is  Ms.Farenga  such an ‘august person’ that like the queen of England it is treason to suggest that she cannot be wrong?   I do not think so.    Moreover – drafting a document so that Ms. Farenga can effortlessly correct the problem of lack of jurisdiction and continued violation of Mary Sykes’ civil rights is also entirely appropriate.
No one ever said or posted (or implied ) that Ms. Farenga attorned, agreed, or signed the documents that Ms. Denison prepared.   In fact Ms. Farenga refused to participate in the remediation.    In fact Ms. FArenga refused to participate in the call for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.   We ‘peons’ do not understand such complexities.   All we understand is it is wrong to deny grandma of her liberty and property.   It is wrong to attempt to intimidate.   It is wrong to bear false witness.   It is wrong to loot grandma’s estate.   We do not accuse Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, or even Ms. Troepe of anything – all we ask is for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation.
Instead of the necessary investigation that will vindicate the Sykes family, the Sykes neighbors and the Sykes friends, we have gotten intimidation in the form of sanction motions (now moot and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction), complaints to the disciplinary boards, and violations of our First Amendment Rights.  One of the attorneys retained by Gloria Sykes pointed out that every attorney has been threatened with disciplinary proceedings and possible loss of his/her license.   Even the Gulag of Russia were not that brazen!  The brown shirts were more subtle!   (yes I know you are part of choir – but a lawyer has to pompous – it is part of the definition)
It is unfortunate but the Sykes case is not isolated or unique.  The September GAO report details a bunch of similar cases and people writing to blogs have reported even more.    Mr. Wyman published a book concerning his mother’s experiences and several other have started blogs.  I am starting to avoid railroad crossings and I check the showers to make certain that water is the liquid that is being delivered.
Let me leave you with the parting thought:  If Cynthia Farenga is in good faith she has nothing at all to fear from an honest complete and comprehensive investigation hy law enforcement.    If Cynthia Farenga is in good faith she is aware that the Sodini protections of the probate act were not afforded Mary Sykes and therefore as they are jurisdictional she will either sign the documents drafted by Attorney Denison or draft her own so as that Mary Sykes can be free and Gloria Sykes can get her life back.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: Michigan Advocacy Project <michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com>
To: NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com; Kenneth Ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; JoAnne M Denison <joanne@denisonlaw.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

TO: JOANNE DENISON, Attorney

RE: YOUR COMPOSING AND INTERNET POSTING OF A FAKE LEGAL DOCUMENT (“MOTION TO DISMISS” to Cook County, IL, Probate Division), IN WHICH YOU ASCRIBE AUTHORSHIP OF THE “MOTION” TO ANOTHER ATTORNEY (WHOM YOU HAVE PUBLICLY DEFAMED IN THE PAST), TO FURTHER YOUR OWN AGENDA:

https://marygsykes.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/for-cynthia-farenga-motion-to-dismissnon-suit-for-lack-of-sodini-jurisdiction/

Along with readers of the “marygsykes” blog, National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse-e-group members and numerous other recipients of the email (below), I have read your recent display of defamatory sarcasm against one of several attorneys involved in Mary G. Sykes’ guardianship proceedings.  Despite your intrepid, illusory wordsmithing, I “see through your brain like I see through the water that runs down my drain.”  *

You have been attempting to influence the course of probate and attorney disciplinary proceedings in less-than-admirable ways.  (Purportedly, due to lack of “standing” with the court at this time, you cannot file the “Motion” you wrote and the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) is investigating a complaint about your professional conduct.)  While some people might suggest that you have every right ‘under the U. S. Constitution’ to declare and foster denigrating opinions about others to the world, without consequence, I disagree.  Regardless of your views about the court’s ‘jurisdiction’ and authority to supervise this vulnerable person’s care and estate, intentionally ‘putting words in someone else’s mouth’ to intimidate or coerce that person (‘official’ or otherwise) into taking an action that s/he has not elected to take independently is ethically unsound.  More specifically, were your intentions true, you might have simply called Cynthia Farenga, Attorney/GAL, on the phone and discussed your idea – or written a proper letter to her – or made an appointment at her office.

Perhaps you have taken a mini-course in Anti-Defamation Law and hope to outwit your perceived legal opponents by writing scathing commentaries, unchecked.  Perhaps you plan to produce a bundle of biased letters for the IARDC, as distractions from attorney conduct issues.  Perhaps you just believe that recklessly libeling anyone who does not vociferously agree with you or your legal protégé du jour is ‘OK’; I don’t.  (If I had not read my phrases on the “marygsykes” blog, extrapolated without context or permission, I might have reserved comment at this time.)  A ‘for entertainment only’ disclaimer on a blog entry does not suffice when misrepresenting the intentions of others in print, no matter how imaginatively.  “Entertainment” like this is bad for guardianship victims and their families, everywhere.

I am copying Ms. Farenga with this letter; please do not construe this common courtesy as an expression of allegiance toward any party or the court.

Sincerely,
Lucinda P. Lambert

* Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”

P.S.  Kenneth Ditkowsky originated the Denison email.  As NASGA’s Moderator passes Mr. Ditkowsky’s emails through the e-group, this so goes this “Reply All,” with exception of Ms. Farenga.

From JoAnne:

Sorry, but with my own blogs I don’t follow the one above.  No offense.  Just no time.

BUT, I did respond to Lucinda as follows:

Dear Michigan Advocacy Project

I can answer that.  You know, I really hate to do all the typing work to get all my pleadings done.  I would like someone to type up all my Motions, Notices of Motion, Certificates of Service.  Ken will attest to the fact, it just drudgery.  I like typing the argument best and reading and using the cases.  The rest is well, busywork.

Cynthia Farenga asked me for help.  She said she had no one to help her because “there were too many conflicts”.  There aren’t because as officers of the court, we have to ensure that everyone’s constitutional rights are attended to.

The post makes it clear that I am helping Cynthia out and I did the document for her to help her out. She needs help.

Um, this is a blog.  There is no “public defamation.”  I did not call another atty any per se defamatory names such as slut, whore, addict, etc.  Did you know that courts are starting to say even calling someone gay isn’t defamatory?

In any case, you seem to have a lot of anger, but not a lot of direction, and certainly not anything much legal to say.

Blogs, the news and all sorts of publications are protected by the First Amendment.

Further, you seem to ignore the fact that I know Gloria, I know the family and I know what I am saying to be true.  And why are you trying to protect poor CF and the Ill. ARDC lawyer.  Do you think they are toddlers wearing their Tinker Bell pull ups?

They can deal with what I say.  And in any respect, it’s not particularly scathing.  With respect to the average journalism out there you see on the evening news, cable and what not, I’m pretty Marvin Milktoast.

But if it gets you reading, go for it!

thanks for emailing me with your concerns.  i do appreciate your reaching out.  I don’t know if I can answer all your emails because I’m busy protecting Mary and Gloria, but we’ll see if I can help you out too.

Peace,

JoAnne

PS–And what kind of an Advocacy project are you when you promote courts that operate without due process, constitutional protections for years.  You need to think about this before you seek to “help” people.
PPS–I’m not sure I understand your concerns that I am “improperly influencing” a bunch of (corrupt) attorneys?  I really don’t get that.  I think you can improperly influence someone of limited or fragile mind, such as a child (not my kids, they were all smart alecks and brats), but an adult?  an attorney? are you kidding?  CF last I looked was a big girl.  And Leah Black at the ARDC is a big girl too.  What you said is kind of insulting to them, in a way.  I hope you see that.  It’s as if you’re assuming someone snatched their brains away and we should all protect them for that.  Hmmm maybe you do have a point, but not in the way you might have thought.  Peace.

PPPS–any psychologist and linguist will tell you sarcasm is a valid, useful and necessary form of communication in any society.  It’s only teachers that don’t like it because it makes the whole class laugh.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: marygsykes <donotreply@wordpress.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [New post] For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction

New post on marygsykes

For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction
by jmdenison
Dear Readers;
Below inline and via a link you can find the entitled motion I sent to Cynthia today.
We are all hoping she will file this motion and do the right thing.
If it were me, I would hate to do it, but I would do it.  I have had to do this before, and it’s a killer thing to do, but an atty has to explain to the client why s/he will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and then do it.
It’s horrible.  It’s a do over or start again, but it MUST be done.
Let’s wait and see what happens.  If she does it, it will most likely be the end of this blog.
JoAnne
PS – if Cynthia does not do it, I will send another to Gloria and then to Kathy and then to whomever is an “interested party” to attack that jurisdiction.  This is a serious, constitutional, due process flaw in the case ab initio.
PPS – the link:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTmJQdU5IU1dPYkU
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTmJQdU5IU1dPYkU
link to exhibits:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbE9CQmNhelBnQjg
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbE9CQmNhelBnQjg
Attorney Code _____________
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION
To: See attached service list:
Please take notice, that on _August 1, 2012, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Jane Louis Stuart or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SODINI JURISDICTION, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________________
Cynthia Farenga
Guardian Ad Litem
Prepared By:
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
cfarenga@comcast.net
Attorney Code #14,867
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
EMERGENCY
MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI
JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON
PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP
This motion is brought by Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga (“Farenga”) pursuant to Probate Code 735 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f) requiring written Notice for any Hearing on Guardianship be provided by the Petitioner in the matter to all close relatives (as defined by the Probate Act) and served no less than 14 days in advance of the hearing.  The onE and only necessary ground for this motion is that Petitioner, Carolyn Toerpe, and her attorneyS of record, failed to serve ANY close relatives as required under this Probate Code section with ANY written form of notice 14 days in advance of the hearing date, as declared in the attached pleadings recently brought to my attention.
The grounds for this motion are:
1.      The Illinois Probate Act 755 ILCS § 5/11a:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.  755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
2.     The Illinois Probate Act define the required notice be served upon adult children     and siblings of the Respondent.  In the above case, Mary G. Sykes has two adult     sisters, Ms. Yolanda Bakken and Ms. Josephine DiPietro, as well as a daughter     Gloria Sykes who should have been served under 755 ILCS § 5/11a.
3.     Attached is a declaration, Exhibit A, from one of the elder sisters, Ms. Bakken,     attesting to the fact that she was not served in accordance with 755 ILCS § 5/11a     (f).
4.     Attached hereto is a second declaration, Exhibit B, from the adult daughter Ms.     Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”) attesting to the fact that she was not served any Notice of     Hearing on Petition as provided for in 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f).
1.     The case, In re Sodini, (cite) (Exhibit C, hereto), makes it clear that these notices are     jurisdictional in nature and must be served strictly in compliance with the procedure     set forth by the Illinois State Legislature.  In Sodini, the adult sisters were not served with proper notice and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  (Cite).
2.     WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that
a.     The above cause of action be dismissed/non suited for lack of jurisdiction;
b.     All orders, including an Order to invalidate Ms. Gloria Sykes’ Power of Attorney be voided Ab Initio.
c.     All orders freezing Gloria’s assets be voided Ab Initio
d.     Mary be allowed to freely return to her home.
e.     Carolyn Toerpe be barred from conducting any mental or psychological examination on Mary G. Sykes.
f.     Carolyn Toerpe be permanently barred from ever filing an Illinois CCP 211 or its equivalent until further order of the court and for good cause shown, bearing in mind she instigated, continued and fomented a Probate Cause lacking jurisdiction since December 7, 2009 or nearly three (3) years, causing great harm, stress and hardship to Mary G. Sykes and her immediate family;
g.     And for any additional relief and remedies deemed proper by this honorable court.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________________
Cynthia Farenga, GAL to Mary G. Sykes
Prepared By:
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
cfarenga@comcast.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned herewith certifies that a copy of the foregoing Pleading entitled MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP was served upon the following parties on this ___ day of July, 2012 by the methods noted below:
Mr. Adam M. Stern
111 W Washington St, #1861
Chicago, IL 60602 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Ms. Deborah Soehlig
Fischel & Kahn Ltd
190 S. La Salle St, E 2850
Chicago, IL 60603
via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
Ms. Gloria Sykes
6014 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
___________________________
Cynthia R Farenga

Advertisements

From Gloria today—

To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>,Date: Aug 1, 2012 1:41 PM

If you all will please note my mother wants to die in her home, not the home of an named abuser.  It is her wish and like my father, she has that right.  All of my father’s care for the last two months of his life was paid for by either medicare or blue cross blue shield. No money was spent from his healthy estate and my mother didn’t have to pay one dime.  But then, the POA for Health Care naming me was like the petition for an order of protection my mother had verified by the State, was ignored.  Apparently and according to Toerpe, mother’s only wishes and dreams are the wishes and dreams Toerpe has for her — and as long as she and her partners in this crime financially benefit.  It’s sad when evil so obvious is ignored by the men and women of law enforcement who, by the way, are paid from our tax dollars.  Another words, they work for us and therefore, they should respond to our request.  In any event, this legal document the POA of Health Care is just another example of the competency and determination of my mother to free herself from the abuse and neglect Toerpe began to perpetrate upon her as started in 2005 when Toerpe took my mother to attorney Michael Hagerty and they worked together to draft a document that would confuse even another attorney at first sight, let alone a 85 year old woman.  That 2005 naked trust was vacated and a new will was generated, but Toerpe kidnapped my mother on June 30, 2009 with the help of retired Judge Gloria Coco and deputy sheriff at the Harrison Street Court and never served with the petition for guardianship, mother was denied legal counsel, was denied the right to pursue the order of protection petition against Carolyn Toerpe, and was denied her right to contest the guardianship: she was however, placed in the custody and care of her named abuser and financial exploiter and everything Toerpe did and is doing, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern is or has accused me of.  No evidence is needed and the evidence against Toerpe is swept under the table for a nice fee, I am certain.  

No person in the wrong can stand up to me, a woman in the right who keeps on a comin’!!!!  Of course, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel are probably planing another ambush where they get Sheriff Dart’s deputies to handcuff me to a chair and threaten my freedoms and liberties and spit on our Constitutions as if they are trained dog-fighting Pits.  Of course, all of these criminal acts and treasons against our Constitutions are sanctioned by the Court, by Judge Jane Louise Stuart and also, Chief Judge T. Evans.  And obviously Sheriff Dart’s deputies were given permission to aggressively remove me from my homestead based on a letter written to the lawyer for Dart’s outfit by attorney Peter Schmiedel who reported that there were not pending legal actions and that the stays in the bankruptcy court for the Homestead and equity were lifted.  That Sheriff Dart knowing his men were in the wrong has not done anything to correct the problem says that he is a hypocrite, too.  He spoke before at least 100 law enforcement and elder care men and women in 2010 and said he was prepared to do what is necessary to stop abuses of the elderly: in the Sykes case he is a co-****.

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
[edited for typos only].

From: gloami@msn.com
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; dmsilver@me.com; timlahrman@aol.com; anniezhou@denisonlaw.com; wmrcls@hotmail.com; verenusl@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; yostwright@aol.com; pahah@verizon.net; scottcevans@hotmail.com; k_bakken@att.net; ildbambic@govabuse.org; wwdovew@aol.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com; gloami@msn.com
Subject: RE: Sykes case FW: [marygsykes] Please moderate: “A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria”
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:56:42 +0000

Attached please find the copy of the note Cynthia Farenga faxed to Judge Stuart.

see links at:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVnpBTjc3NThMS1E

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVnpBTjc3NThMS1E     

Also note in the letter she states that my mother is not living in her home: this is true because Toerpe kidnapped her on June 30, 2009.  I have a August 2009 digital audio recording of my mother asking me to pick her up and bring her home.  When I came to pick mother up, Toerpe had hid her at a McDonalds.  Kathie is witness to this horror.  I will make available the hour + visit digitally recorded for publication after I file the reply brief tomorrow.  Again, you will note how competent and rational mother is.  Toerpe, however held mother in a chair and would not let her up to move around.  Fred Toerpe kept his hand on her shoulder.  Again, Kathie witnessed this.  Toerpe and my mother was aware I was taping and Toerpe’s reply was, “It won’t make any difference”. This is evidence enough that the guardianship was a done deal.  I’ve been denied the right to bring evidence into the court of my mother’s extreme competency.  That said, I will make it public by the weeks end and I ask that all people post and cross post.  I will provide you with a series of photographs of my mother and me to lay over the top if anyone wants to put the visit on youtube. That said, it’s haunting.  It’s haunting.  The police were called and there was nothing they can do.  They found my mother hiding at McDonald’s under Fred Toerpe’s custody.  The police report found mother lucid but ‘confused’.  I’d be confused too, as Mother hadn’t been to a McDonald’s in over 50 years!  

 
Attached to the note from Cynthia Farenga is a copy of the POA for medical care.  The document was filled out by my mother in front of attorney Mr. Lippman, (he gave her the form: she met with Lippman on 25 June 2009 and vacated the 2005 trust and named her friend Marlene Kroll executor) and it was witnessed by neighbor and long time friend, retired LT from Chicago Fire Department, Chuck Maderer.  Kelly Yost notarized this document.  An affidavit by Chuck is also attached.  All of this can be posted as a reminder that the truth leaves tracks.  
 

That the Court sanctions these criminal acts against the elderly and disabled are crimes beyond comprehension.

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
[edited for typos only]

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:09:26 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com

“The Sodini notices were never served on my Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, or me, and at no time was there a scheduled guardianship hearing: Carolyn Toerpe was appointed guardian based on an agreement between her and Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern:: my mother was not present, but when she was present in court, she objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga when asked admitted my mother objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga also admitted my mother had not been served the 14 day notice: this acknowledgement was faxed to Judge Connors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”
Rather the vilifying everyone in sight – the expenditure of the same amount of time generates a Motion to dismiss using the above quote.    What is the big deal?
In the upcoming ARDC hearing I will want you to testify as to the quoted facts. If you have a copy of the acknowledgement I would like it.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
I am leaving out one email from Gloria because it goes on and on over and over about how I am not her attorney and I don’t represent her.  While I have patiently explained to her before that it is obvious from the blog, there is already a disclaimer to that effect, her thoughts somehow get stuck on that topic on a fairly  regular basis.  So for the 100th time, I can’t represent a client and do a blog. It’s not possible.  I am doing the blog as an attorney, an officer of the court, and as a member of the press because my blogs and cross posts are nearly up to 10,000 views since November of 2011.  What is on this blog may or may not be in the court files.  Blank, unsigned and unstamped pleadings posted on this blog should be further researched unless the are clearly labeled as found in the court’s files.

And believe me, this is much, much shorter than what Gloria wrote.  Saved you all time!

A letter from Ken to Mr Moossy, Head of Civil Rights Division

Mr. Moossy is the head of the US department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Ken wrote him a letter on July 31, 2012 to bring to his attention the “cavalier dismissal of the Request for an honest investigation” regarding the Sykes case. Below are links to two PDFs containing the contents of this letter.

sykesblog–moossy-ltr-jul31-civ.rights

sykesblog–moossy-ltr-jul31-civ.rights2

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

A CALL FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION

Ms. Farenga,
 
I thought about your last e-mail this morning and it occurred to me that you actually might not know that the Sykes case is not only a serious matter, but, an innocent senior citizen has in fact been deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights.    Indeed, it is possible that you might not know that the Illinois Legislature enacted the statute described and interpreted by Sodini to protect against exactly the type of situation that has occurred in Sykes.    (Indeed, it appears that jurisdictional protections appear to be honored by non-compliance in many cases such as Tyler, Wyman, etc  – the GAO report of September last confirms this theory)
 
The problem that you face – or will face is the fact that like Justice Sotomeyer the public is getting ‘sick and tired’ of lawyers claiming innocence for bad deeds that are clearly prohibited by statute.   Too often Judges have stated when confronted by a lay person – “ignorance of the law is not excuse!”   Members of the 2nd oldest profession also use the excuse of I did not know the law and other members are sympathetic as they impose strict standards on the public.    The Sykes’ treatment of Gloria Sykes is an example. Thus, while you, Stern, and Schmiedel ‘cut corners’ and act under color of statute to deprive Gloria and others of their civil rights you and the Court demand that people like Gloria Sykes strictly comply with the Rules.    Want an example?   You, Adam, and Schmiedel were well aware when you filed the sanction motion against me that the Court had no jurisdiction!   The net was you wasted your time, my time and the Court’s time.    Further you will spend hundreds of hours in defending a very viable civil rights suit that could result in a seven figure verdict against you personally.  
 
A second example is the Sykes case itself.   You, Stern, and Schmiedel are well aware that the Petition to appoint Carolyn as plenary guardian is defective, and that the required jurisdictional notices were never written or mailed.    Thus, as a matter of law the Probate Court for over three years has operated without jurisdiction.   The ‘cover-up’ is the Son of Greylord and ultimately will result in some sort of serious prosecution of the culpable.   How could you not know of the jurisdictional problem?   Justice Sotomeyer’s decision in Jerman answers the question – you are presumed to know the law and that presumption is very strong.   Clout only works for a short period of time – it works until the ‘clout’ is required to account.   All that said, Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes have a very viable civil rights suit.    [as the court has no jurisdiction there is no immunity and what would be absolute immunity for you as a GAL does not exist in the Sykes case]
 
There are many more examples of the Sykes guardian and guardian ad litem acting sans jurisdiction.   An injunction was entered without the prior filing of a verified petition and without the mandatory bond.   The citation proceeding is flawed!     You as a seasoned lawyer owe a duty to the ‘ward’ and to the ‘court’ to prevent such misconduct.   You have a great deal of temerity even suggesting that you are an innocent and that the only misconduct that you know of is that of Gloria Sykes.   Such a rationalization is obscene!   
 
A while back – after the decision of the Appellate Court throwing out the sanction for lack of jurisdiction – I offered you the simple proposition (Safe Harbor e-mails) of you reporting the facts to the Court in exchange for my just forgetting about the Civil Rights remedy that I am entitled.   Your rejected the proposition.   This of course was your right.   I called upon you to join with me and call for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case – if you had nothing to hide.   Again you and Stern rejected the call.   A simple review of the facts, the docket, the transcripts of the Sykes case and the reason for the rejection is obvious.  
 
No, I am not going to make any more offers of settlement – I have written law enforcement and others demanding a full complete and honest investigation.    Mary Sykes is in her 4th year of captivity.  Over a million dollars in her assets have not been accounted for and certainly not inventoried.   (For the record – I was Mary’s attorney and wrote up her will – I know what her estate consisted of and I know exactly how many double eagles she had and what they were worth – I could care less whether the guardian – who had the safety deposit box drilled shared with you and Stern the ‘booty!’    By your e-mails and non-action you have aided and abetted Income tax evasion)   I am appealing to you as a human being to reach out to Gloria Sykes and the organizations that support Mary Sykes and ‘free Mary Sykes!’   Join with Ms. Denison, and the organizations that support Mary and Gloria Sykes and request a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of not only the Sykes case, but all the cases in which similar events as have occurred in Sykes are rampant!   
 
Right now you are ‘young’ and do not face the avarice that many senior citizens are confronted.   Instead of finding themselves in the bosom of loving families, they are confronted by children who cannot wait for grandma to die before seeking to loot her estate.  Even more troubling is the appearance Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern who aid and abet the scenario and when confronted by the consequences of *** come forth with ” Gloria did it!”   The climate that you helped create is a cancer and will be something that you most probably will personally confront in your household as you have demonstrated to your children and grandchildren that it is OK to deny grandma her liberty, her property, her civil rights and human rights.    Newton point out that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and this is one of the primary laws of nature.    Today we recite the law by – ‘what goes around comes around’    
 
Thus, the joining with me, Denison, Sykes and the Anti Elder Abuse organizations in calling for an honest investigation of the Sykes case you act in your own best long term interests.    Even at this point in time – doing the ‘right thing’ will provide you with great benefits; however, *****     The decision is yours and we all will fight the death to preserve your right to act inappropriately and in derogation of your own best interests.
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And I need to add that Ms. Farenga, you need to do an Emergency Motion for Tuesday to non suit this Probate case due to lack of jurisdiction, attach YB’s declaration and Gloria’s declaration, although I’m sure Gloria will be there in court and Ken and I will be glad to draft up the order for you, and serve the Motion by personal service on each of the adult siblings and children as Illinois Probate Law dictates, and LET MARY GO FREE back to her own home!  You know there is no jurisdiction, AS knows there is no jurisdiction.  Perhaps the other sister’s affidavit will be in my mail today, I’ll go check.  Gloria will just testify.  Hopefully it won’t last an hour as she lambasts you and AS for your outrageous behavior!

Please draft the motion and personally serve it on Monday to all the adult children and siblings of Mary Sykes.

Ken, we need calls to Non Suit on an emergency basis and get the FBI/police to investigate bank accounts.  Where are the gold coins!

String of Emails between Ken and Cynthia tells it all…..

Dear Readers;

Something has happened that I never thought would happen, and that is a string of emails between Atty-GAL Cynthia Farenga and Atty Ken Ditkowsky!

I simply cannot believe that CF, a clearly ethics challenged atty is writing KD, an attorney that has been clamouring for an investigation since he first became aware of the Sykes Probate case 09 P 4858 and noted many problems with the case 1) an excellent long term care giver (Gloria) was chosen as guardian over a barely there, somewhat estranged sister (Carolyn), 2) the case was railroaded with a clearly deficient Petition not naming all close relatives (I just got a case like that and the response was oh well–oh well nothing, it’s jurisdictional, babe and an extremely serious fatal deficiency); 3) no discovery,e ven though discovery was asked for; 4) claims of gold coins being in the estate, safe deposit boxes drilled out and looted even though the Plenary Guardian knew that another sister’s name was one it—-oh go see my table of torts for further information of a long history of irregularities in the case.
So please read on below.  Cynthia is amazing in wondering and worrying about this blog.  The information on it is growing.  On Monday I should have up a page of “Important Documents and Evidence against the Miscreants” which will have things like my Table of Torts, the Declaration of Sister 1 saying there were no Sodini notices, etc.

My advice to you Cynthia (and this goes for Adam, the other GAL) is to waltz your butt into court on Tuesday with an emergency motion served to Gloria and the sisters by fax, email and personal delivery (yeah, pay the $50 to get the motion out to the burbs where these ladies live or drive them out yourself and apologize like a big girl) to nonsuit/dismiss and attach the petitions of Sister 1 and Gloria and ask the case be nonsuited because there is no jurisdiction.  There is absolutely no proof in the file that attorney Harvey Waller served Sodini notices, which are jurisdictional with the following 4 elements 1) it must be in writing; 2) it must be served on close relatives (adult siblings and children);  3) it must state the time, date and place of hearing and 3) It must be served by Petitioner 14 days in advance of the hearing.  None of this was done.  The GALs are supposed to attend to these details.  You and GAL Stern did not.  3 years of this nonsense against Gloria and her mother who do want to be together.
My advice to you is to nonsuit the case and join KD and myself in calling for further investigation and a complete asset search of CT.  Heck, do Gloria too and it will show she is not the miscreant in all of this. It will take an FBI officer minutes to look at bank accounts statements, balances, etc. over the last two years.  How did Carolyn pay for her daughter’s fancy wedding and finish up remodeling her house when she is a retired school teacher and her husband was out of work for years?  Pull the tax returns from the IRS and do a comparison!

Your job was and still is to ask questions and protect Mary.
You seriously failed in that.  But don’t wallow in pity–get going!

JoAnne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 27, 2012 2:29 PM
To: “cfarenga@comcast.net”
Subject: Re: Assorted

It is interesting that you think you did not do anything wrong.  You did and continue to do quite a bit wrong.  As an attorney and as a ‘human being’ you should know what you did wrong.   The first thing you did wrong was to have denied Mary Sykes her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.

Please allow me to be more specific.   [KD response start] The Statute requires that prior to a guardian ship proceeding being held Mary Sykes and all her close relatives are entitled to a written 14 day notice.   As an attorney you should be aware of this jurisdictional criterion.  Thus, it appears that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction.  The de-facto appointment of Carolyn Troepe is therefore flawed. I trust that you are aware that this makes certain actions undertaken not only questionable but patently illegal.   As an example how could Mary (and Gloria’s) safety deposit box be drilled and the content’s removed.   The contents included jewelry and collectibles.   I estimate the value at over a million dollars.    As this million dollars was not inventoried it appears that someone other than Gloria dis something wrong.   It also appears that the total isolation of Mary from her sister and her daughter were also wrong.   [KD response start]The aiding and abetting this conduct was also wrong and in my opinion makes you and Adam Stern Accessories during the fact.    If you want details read the ADA complaint filed in Federal Court.    

[KD response con’t]Of serious concern are your statements concerning Gloria Sykes.  You cannot point to a single act of hers that was wrong.   As a citizen – you know one of those little people protected by the Federal and State Constitutions – she has every right to resist the attempts by you (plural) to deprive her of her liberty, her property and her civil rights.   The reason I am adamant in my defense of Gloria and Mary is the simple fact that I believe in the principles of American democracy!    I would be such as vigorous in defending and standing up for your rights!   If you had done a scintilla of due diligence you would have discovered that Gloria had a serious insurance claim.   Lumberman (Kempers) denied the claim and she sued.   After years litigation they offered her and she accepted a settlement.   As Mary was placed on the title by Gloria to complete her estate Mary was as an afterthought brought into the Lumberman case.    Mary had and has no interest in the property as she has (had) her own home and therefore with the aid of an attorney she signed away her share of the settlement.    As Gloria would say – the statements that you made to the Court were all intentional and knowing untruths (lies).

I do not care if you pay the taxes due for the breach of fiduciary relationship, nor do I give a damn if you got dime one of the ‘loot’ from Mary’s estate.   I will leave it to law enforcement to figure out you culpability.

You keep making statements about the corruption in the judiciary.   As you are constantly upon on the 18th Floor, you must have knowledge of who, what and where.   As my practice is general I would not be privy to whether or not your allegations of corruption are true or false.  I do know however the the Sykes case has a massive jurisdictional problem.   The entire guardianship fiasco in Sykes is clearly without jurisdiction.   Gloria and her aunts were not served with the 14 written notice.   Gloria has filed an affidavit to that effect, and I am informed that Aunt Jo has also provided an affidavit.  Mr.Stern in an e-mail disclosed that in lieu of written notice he, you, and Ms.Troepe agreed that Mary should have a guardian.   Mr.Schmiedel is quoted in the transcripts as pointing out the application for a guardian was also deficient and no written notices were sent out.

On a level playing field a Judge first checks to see if he/she has jurisdiction and then if he/she does not it is ‘game over!’   Why this has not occurred in Sykes is a mystery.   It should not be as the Sykes case has two Guardian ad litem who are aware that the jurisdictional criterion has not been met and each has a duty to report that fact to the Court.   It would seem to me that that failure is not only wrongful but a serious breach of fiduciary relationship on you part.  You are not alone however – Mr.Schmiedel as an officer of the Court and Mr. STern as a guardian ad litem also are culpable.

If there is a word that you do not understand, Ms. Sykes can explain it to you.   I understand that she was an elementary school teacher in another life.    Your ‘clever’ repartee is not appreciated.   The Sykes case is a serious matter.   A senior citizen has been isolated from her family, her activities, her friends and her life with the aid of two guardian ad litem.    This same senior citizen has had too many trips to the emergency room and too little contact with her former life.   There is serious question as to whether this senior citizen was incompetent – it is my believe that she was indeed competent but railroaded by clearly unconscionable means into the loss of her liberty.

Ms. Farenga – if you had a scintilla of ‘good faith’ you would join with me in requesting law enforcement to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.    

Ken Ditkowsky

 

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Dear Ken,
I  know that you believe your friends throughout every level of law enforcement will soon be at our doorstep. I happen not to believe that since as far as I can tell, the only one who may have acted inappropriately is Gloria. I note you did not answer the question of why you are so eager  to protect Gloria when Mary was allegedly your client.Just what is it about Gloria that impels you to violate your ethical duty to Mary in the event of even a potential conflict between them? Again, using your own logic, how do we know you all aren’t in a a conspiracy to share any funds that Gloria may recover in this litigation?  [KD response start] I have a very viable civil rights (42 USCA 1983) claim against you, Adam Stern and Schmiedel.   As you singled me out and filed a sanction motion against me in a Court that lacked jurisdiction – under color of statute you violated my civil rights.   That should be a 6 or 7 figure verdict. [KD Response end] Very odd. Only you and JD have been paid, but JD continues to post invoices left and right claiming  hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees, yet we are supposed to think that all of your hands are clean? Running a blog is not a legal task. Who is the client that JD proposes to bill upwards of $55k plus interest for running a blog?  [KD response start]Why is that any of your business.  The use of a Blog and communication is a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.      It is my understanding that the National Socialists do not have any candidates running in the current election cycle – ergo, their proposed legislation has not been enacted and the Citizens of the State of Illinois are still free to object to the acts of denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights.  [KD Response end] [JD response—the reason you have not been paid is because you are acting without jurisdiction and engaging in malpractice and malfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty.  It’s hard to get paid when you are ultra vires and committing continuing torts on a routine basis.]
You will all continue to run off at the mouth. There will be no nice view of the prison courtyard for us because We have done nothing wrong. The corruption of Greylord proportions, the corruption of the entire probate division, judges and attorneys, the accusations against Judge Evans and Justice Connors–this is all your imagination. JD’s and Gloria’s. One day in court at the beginning of this mes (sic) Gloria told me she’d pay for care giving in order to bring her mother home pending the resolution of the guardianship. She retracted the offer the next day. You can post, email, fax, blog and do whatever, but in the end, I feel sorry for you. There is not a single fact of wrong-doing you have found (as opposed to your made-up accusations), nor will you. There is none.  [KD response start]Last I heard, it was a crime to take possession of ‘grandma’s’ property without her consent.    Indeed, according to Justice Sotomeyer lawyers are supposed to know the law and to be aware that Court operating without jurisdiction issue void orders!    Persons who knowingly  act pursuant to void orders get free orange jumpsuits! [KD Response end]  
Though I’m busy writing my own book, I feel the need to let you know  that we realize these accusations are all phony. In the meantime, when the IRS knocks on my door, I’ll invite them in for tea and crudites, answer their questions and sit them down to read all of the lunatic postings that are on line. I will be glad to pay tax on the income from my book, however. [KD response start]Unfortunately and unhappily the averments that have been made are all true and correct.    You can blame Gloria Sykes for the troubles of the world, but that does not solve any of them.    My dear friend – if you look in the mirror you will see the person who bears the greatest culpability for Mary Sykes loss of her liberty and her property.   You also will see in the same image the person who failed to report vital information to the Court and/or condoned conduct that is deplored by all civilized peoples.    I sincerely hope that when the IRS comes calling you can be glib and confident; however *****[KD Response end]

From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: cfarenga@comcast.net
Cc: “NASGA” <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “probate sharks” <verenusl@gmail.com>, “JoAnne M Denison” <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>, “states attorney” <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>, “Cook County Sheriff” <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>, “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “scottevans” <scottcevans@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:25:24 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Ms Farenga,

Please send me the file that you have from the Secretary of State.  The information that I have that in late 2008 or early 2009 Mary and Gloria were going to California and Mary needed her license renewed.   She could not do so as it had lapsed.   Therefore she was required to take the written as well as the driving test.  She passed the written test with flying colors but had to retake the driving portion.  It is interesting (but not unusual in Illinois) that this little fact does not appear on the Secretary of State record.

I grieve for you as to your tale of woe having allegedly not been paid.  Being part and parcel of the looting of a senior citizens’s estate is a breach of fiduciary relationship and a taxable event.  I know what Mary sykes had –  remember I did her Will.  She discussed her Estate with me and I remember a good amount of detail.  I even know the number of gold coins!   Your aiding and abetting the non-inventory of the assets of the estate makes you an accessory!   I let the US Attorney explain to you the consequences at a proper time and place.

Unfortunately Attorney fees must meet the criterion of being ‘necessary’ and provide some benefit to the ward.    The services that you performed were worth absolutely zero to Mary in that:

1) The simple protections that the State affords to Mary – as Mr. Stern reports in an e-mail – were obviated by you, Stern, and Troepe agreeing to appoint Carolyn as the plenary guardian.  If you have been reading JoAnne’s postings at this point in time you have been educated to Sodini and know that this technicality is jurisdictional.   As you should know – no jurisdiction no ‘cover’ of statute and the ‘loot’ is taxable!   

2) you aided a abetted three plus years of abuse to Mary, including an episode that placed Mary in the emergency room having lost ten percent of her body weight.

3) you aided and abetted Mary from having contact with her sister and her younger daughter.

4) you aided and abetted  efforts that were calculated to kee Mary from being represented by counsel and having a day in Court.   I would call this aiding and abetting the deprivation of Mary Sykes’ liberty interests.

5) you aided an abetted in the ‘rape’ of the civil and human rights of Gloria and Mary Sykes.

As the Court has no jurisdiction (Sodini) you are at best a ‘de facto’ GAL and as such you have no immunity.  Of course to the extent that your conduct violates the law you are culpable and have to answer to law enforcement.   As to Gloria, JoAnne, and myself at a proper time and place you will answer in damages.    (Had you seen that the Sodini protections had been afforded Mary – we would have no remedy against you personally – but using Stern’s words – this “technicalilty” *****

Ms. Farenga – a while back I asked you to join with me and requesting a complete, honest and comprehensive examination by law enforcement of the Sykes and related cases.   You and Mr. Stern refused.  It should be very clear that you do not have the ability to intimidate Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison or myself.    We are not going away and win, lose or draw before the ARDC and where-ever you choose to complain for you and Mr. Stern (and Ms. Troepe and Mr. Schmiedel) this is not going to end.   Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison and yours truly have no intention of meekly marching in a ‘box card’ to be later herded into the gulag.   EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A TERRIBLE WRONG HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY FARENGA, STERN, SCHMIEDEL AND OTHERS WHO HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED THEM in denying Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights.

Tomorrow is a new day – Sykes, Denison and I do not seek revenge or even recrimination – we seek the freeing of Mary Sykes and that she be allowed to live out the few days that she has left in the bosom of those who care for her.  How can you as a human being rationalize that Mary has been and is being separated and not allowed contact with her younger daughter and her younger sister!   (The million dollars in assets that have been taken from Mary is irrelevant to Gloria, JoAnne.   It may not be to the IRS or IDR.

If you recall several years ago Gloria begged you to join with her to free Mary and get Mary out the abusive Gulag!   You responded with one of your “Gloria did diatribes.”   At that point in time it was no harm, no foul situation however, you rejected Gloria’s magnanimous offer.   Too bad.

One more point – I do not know what the United States Department of Treasury’s policy is on those who aid and abet the evasion of Federal Income Taxes; however, I suspect that they will be fair and just.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:05 PM
Subject: Assorted
Ken,
Just as soon as I return from visiting my hositalized relative, I’ll send over the secretary of State’s file on Mary’s driver’s license issue dates and test dates. Presumably you haven’t seen the file, because Mary did not take a test in 2009 and her last license was issued in 2005 (working from memory, or 2006 at the latest).
How ironic that Adam and I have in fact been working without payment of a dime thus far, while you and JoAnne have both stated in open court that you have received fees. JD said she received $20k or $25k. [JD response—and I have also done about $180,000 in work or more to root out corruption—time I could spend on other cases and other matters, while you two fiddle on 3 years in a case without jurisdiction]
You can fabricates more “facts”, as you all will, but I continue to question why you, who once allegedly represented Mary, are so anxious to see that Gloria gets all of the settlement money w/o expressing any reservation. Maybe, Ken, you folks are the ones who have a financial interest in this matter and seeing to it that Mary does not receive any money so that Gloria can.Perhaps you are expecting to share with Gloria? [JD response—that’s inane, KD and I call for an investigation and you do nothing.  If we call for an investigation one or all parties can be investigated.  We never said only investigate CT.  You are twising words] Your  theory about Adam and me makes no sense, as we have said before. Adam and I did not know about any alleged money trove, be it gold coins or cash in the mattress and frankly, why would we? Gloria’s OWN cross-petition does not disclose such assets.  [JD Response—Gloria has complained over and over and I know I sent you emails about the gold coins and YOU AND AS REPEATEDLY TELL THE COURT “IT IS A FICTION OF GLORIA’S IMAGINATION”, and you do not tell the judge that Ken Ditkowsky, who did the estate planning for the Sykes for years, lists those gold coins in his estate inventory which lists and information are business records and should be brought to the court’s attention for further investigation]

I know that you are imagining these “facts” [JD Response–how do you know that—have you investigated?  Nope, not one piece of discovery has been served on Carolyn—and you could have done that back in Jan 2010 and prevented misery for all of us, esp. Carolyn because at that time she could have put them back and not spent them], but I occasionally feel the need to tell you that we know they are demonstrably untrue. And you should be ashamed to be putting the law license of a young lawyer, Annie, in jeopardy, as yours and I would guess JoAnne’s will be [JD Response—this is really interesting, it shows how little CF investigates.  Annie is a law clerk and that is on our website.  Cynthia, do you ever read anything?  Annie will be please tho that you think she writes well enough to be a lawyer.  I think her non-lawyer status is clear from her writing, but *****]. Now J has this young woman on the bandwagon commenting on an area of law she seems to have no background in, and parroting JD’s tone when she makes blog entires (sic). You really should be responsible enough to leave this phony expose to yourself and JD and not to stain a young lawyer’s reputation. If you are so sure you’ll be winning a gold medal for your Greylord- like expose, leave her out of it now and promise her the credit in the future. [JD Response–Cynthia, if you don’t do the work and don’t use your own name, then there will be no credit in the future for you.  Plus, it is important that if someone writes for the blog, that person is identified.  Anyone can write and post anon junk.  The web is filled with cyber junk.  I encourage integrity.  And it’s obvious all you’re trying to do is intimidate and bully around another person–not going to happen, babe.  Annie has read the Probate Act end to end and she has read Sodini.  If you have something to say to Annie, put it on the blog.  But right now you and AS have no jurisdiction to do what you’re doing and the world knows it.]]
CRF
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <timlahrman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:29:10 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction

The State of Illinois does not have jurisdiction in Gary Indiana, Cleveland Ohio, or even Milwaukee Wisconsin.    A subpoena stops at the State line.   An Illinois Judge’s order stops at the State line.   An Illinois judgment cannot be enforced in Indiana.

Our friends in writing threatening letters to people outside the jurisdiction of the Illinois are acting without any immunity whatsoever and it is my opinion can be prosecuted in the County of the State where the victim resides.    It is further my opinion that as the Sodini requirements for jurisdiction to vest in the Circuit Court Probate Division have not been met there is no immunity for their acts even though authorized specifically by a judge’s order.    The judge to act as a judge must have jurisdiction.    this is the reason most judges make inquiry as to jurisdiction as issue one.

The fact that a guardian ad litem sends an unauthorized subpoena does not vest the Court with jurisdiction over the person.    A subpoena must be served and must be served within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

In re: Sykes is a case for the ages.  I have never seen so must ultra vires conduct in any case prior and have never seen so much disconnect on the issue of jurisdiction.   Since Jerman the presumption of lawyers knowing the law is in the forefront and all these actions undertaken without jurisdiction are going to have serious consequences.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Comments about PURGING OF FILES from Ken and Joanne

Purging Records is an old Cook County tradition.    When I first became a lawyer the Court house was the old County Building.   On Floor 3 1/2 like clockwork every single year there were two fires – one on the County side and one on the City side.    Each years at approximately the same time the fires occurred and they were confined to one of the two floors.
Today a purge can occur with the click of a mouse!
In these Elder Abuse cases like Sykes there is a great deal at stake.  Do your realize that you, I, Gloria, and various assorted relatives will be giving evidence of the United States of America as to the contents of the safety deposit box.   As Mary was declared incompetent without a hearing and without the Sodini protections the probate court lacked jurisdiction and once again Stern, Farenga, and Toerpe are out a limb!    If I take your money without your permission with the intention of exercising control over the same I commit ‘theft!’  As a million dollars in assets is unaccounted for we have a very serious felony.   Aiding and Abeting is not looked upon fondly – in fact law enforcement usually charges the Aider and Abetters.
The Sykes case is ‘big league’ stuff.   It is the lynch pin that keeps if pulled will bring down a great deal of incentive for the depriving of grandma of her liberty, property, civil and human rights.    Do you think for a minute that without the ‘money in the mattress’ and the contents of the safety deposit box **** would have any interest in Mary Sykes!!
May passing the written test administered by the Illinois Secretary of State could put Dr. Shaw out of business and cause severe economic hardship to a bunch of GALs and other “judicial officials”. I refer to the Sykes case as the ‘son of Greylord” because it is another chapter in the infamous history of Cook County, Illinois.
-KEN DITKOWSKY
A very important point that this blog keeps reminding its readers is that NO SODINI NOTICES were given when the petition was filed.
Ken goes is more details:
However, the important aspect of the Sodini protections  (172 ILL App3d 1053) is the actual notice to the close relatives and the providing the alleged disabled person with the knowledge of her rights.   This is especially the case since the lack of Jurisdiction has been repeatedly pointed out to the court and the GAL’s and ignored.  All should be disciplined.  Jurisdiction is an US Constitutional and Illinois Constitutional and due process right that cannot be ignored.  It is fundamental to a democratic society (JoAnne Denison)
The 3rd aspect of the Sodini is the most important – notification of the alleged disabled person and the close relatives.   This is important as it prevents the ambush of the alleged disabled person and makes certain that at the very least the close relatives have the opportunity to present a defense.    For instance, Dr. Patel refused to sign the CP 211 (certificate of incompetency).    The close relatives could have confronted  Toerpe, Stern and Farenga with the fact that Mary passed a written examination administered by the Secretary of State, etc.    Instead there was an ambush and as Mr. Stern reported, he, Farenga and Toerpe just agreed that Mary was incompetent and they and the Court willy nilly deprived her of her liberty, property, civil rights and property rights.    This is not what the statute contemplates.    The Statute reads:
§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.
(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.
(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1 where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.
(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.
(e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT
You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is:
If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.
You have the following legal rights:
(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.
Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.

(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.   IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10

Sons of Greylord, born of the Illinois ARDC

We are all aware including the De-facto guardians ad litem that there was no petition that meets the Sodini requirements and certainly no notice.   The net effect is:

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

 
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
130 East Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601 -6219
 
Attn:  Leah Black, Esq.   RE:  JoAnne Denison in relation to Cynthia Farenga
 
Dear Ms. Black:
 
As you are allegedly investigating the spurious charges that Ms. Farenga generated against Ms. Denison, and that she and Ms. Stern generated against me,  it stands to reason one of the first items of business on the agenda of any person connecting an ‘honest’ investigation would be to ascertain if Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern’s appointments were viable.     Holding oneself out to be guardian ad litem when the Court appointing you has no jurisdiction is not in the best traditions of the bar!     Indeed, it is a material misrepresentation of fact in the nature of fraud.
 
What Ms. Denison is asking is whether or not the ARDC was interested enough in the facts of the Sykes case to ascertain if the ‘jurisdictional’ protections that are mandatory statutory criterion were complied.     Our investigation of the docket and the record indicate that 1).  The petition filed by Ms. Troepe was defective in that it did not disclose all the close relatives, 2) Mr. Schmiedel and Mr. Stern both admitted that there was no compliance with the Sodini requirements    – an ‘ambush’ in which another subject is to be discussed does not meet the Sodini requirements, and as these requirements are intended to protect an alleged incompetent (disabled person) from exactly what has happened in the Sykes case, the requirements cannot be waived.   Indeed, if Mary was indeed incompetent she did not have the capacity to waive the requirements.  3) there is no notice of incompetency proceedings and/or proceedings for the appointment of a plenary guardian filed in the court record and no return of service is reported on any of Mary Sykes’ close relatives.
 
Thus, unless the ARDC was able to in its search of the record to ascertain something we could not find that contradicts the admissions of both Stern and Schmiedel Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern are not duly appointed anythings – they are at  best volunteers!       The proceedings in the Sykes case without  are extra jurisdictional.     If the ARDC did an investigation the ‘declarations’ that you refer to in your letter would be in your file.     In the documents that you furnished me there were no such pleadings, petitions, motions and/or certificates of service.      As you affidavit suggests that you did a complete search the net effect is that Ms. Farenga’s complaints against Ms. Denison are not only inappropriate but ‘fraudulent!’    How such action by Ms. Farenga  is condoned and allowed to continue is *****.
 
Of course, if as we suspect that the Sykes incompetency proceeding is one of those proceedings reported by Solzhenitsyn the facts are secondary to the result!       The record of intimidation and frugality with the truth by the ‘de  facto’ guardians’ ad litem is now legend.     Just about every ‘internet site’ that exposes ‘elder abuse/ financial exploitation of the elderly’  has posted examples of the perfidy that has taken place in the Sykes case.     Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga are feathered players in the vitiation of ‘grandma’s rights.’   Ms. Denison and I individually and as her attorney would appreciate copies of any statements that were taken by ARDC investigators  that could give any credibility to any claim that the protections that were mandated to be provided Mary Sykes and other persons similarly situated were indeed provided.    As of this moment 100% of the evidence points to the fact that the mandate of the Illinois Legislature and the Appellate Court of Illinois are being ignored and senior citizens – such as Mary Sykes – are systematically having their liberty, property, human rights and civil rights confiscated.   It also appears that any attorney who complains of the abrogation of justice is the subject of either ARDC discipline or harassment.    This creates another wonderful image for the legal profession and the administration of justice.   In fact it is the ‘son of Greylord!’ 
 
Of course, it the Sodini protections were not afforded Mary Sykes there was no jurisdiction in the Circuit Court of Cook County and the ARDC  (and its Administrator) under its own rules and under the Supreme Court rules is mandated to bring charges against the attorneys who have ‘railroaded’ Mary Sykes into a situation in which she has been deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil rights, and unfortunately even her human rights.   I have previously called upon the ARDC to join in the call for a complete, honest and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter.    The silence is deafening!
 
Yours very truly,
 
 
 
Kenneth Ditkowsky