From Ken Ditkowsky — a summary of the miscreants

Posted on August 2, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 7:47 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , 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”

“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. ” [Gloria’s comments, Ken’s reply]

taking these words out of the context of the sentence that they were in, these words could be defamatory. (Let us ignore innocent construction and the opinion arguments -also let us ignore the fact that Farenga and Stern are public officials – the spurious ARDC complaint against me verifies that statement) Can we prove these words? Yes, we can do it by strong circumstantial evidence reciting the following facts:

1) Cynthia Farenga is obsessed by who is getting paid and what.

2) Cynthia Farenga squeezes the buffalo on the nickel so hard that the Animal Rights groups are suing her for cruelty to animals, however, she has filed no fee petition.

3) Cynthia Farenga knows all about the million dollars in assets that we taken from the safety deposit boxes and the assets that we taken from the house and has not reported the same to the Court. At the very least Farenga was aware of the serious allegation and could have verified the same with a scintilla of effort, yet she never reported the same as an allegation.

4) Cynthia Farenga refuses to join in an investigation of the Sykes case, ergo she and Stern are hiding something.

If you need more proof of a cover-up, Brodsky suddenly turned on Gloria when she refused to sign a ‘settlement agreement’ that essentially was a concession agreement. He was so upset that he went around trying to recruit family members to join in reporting to the Court that Gloria was bi-polar. I suggested that Gloria would have been proven more than bi-polar if she had signed the settlement agreement. That of course earned me a bunch of complaints to the ARDC.

Members of choir – like it not it is my opinion – that I would not be surprised if at some point in time Farenga or Stern confirms the ‘hard truth’ of the statement in brackets below:.

[WHAT WE NEED IS AN HONEST, COMPLETE, AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATON BY LAW ENFORCEMENT SO THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH WILL BE ON THE TABLE FOR ALL TO SEE, HEAR AND PONDER. JoAnne Denison called for Cynthia Farenga to do the ‘right thing’ and inform the court that the Sodini protections were not afforded Mary Sykes and therefore as matter of law the Probate Court had no jurisdiction to appoint Troepe as plenary guardian or to do some of the terrible things that it has done.]

from Ken Ditkowsky, edited for grammar and typos only.

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

Posted on August 2, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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

From Gloria today—

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com> [Edit Address Book]

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

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!

Form to get any Probate case dismissed for lack of Sodini Jurisdiction or proper Notice to Close Relatives

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;
One of the things I have noted by listening to dozens and dozens of probate case is, as in the Sykes Probate case, the court seldom or never asks the following questions to properly attain jurisdiction over the Respondent (alleged disabled person).

Illinois law requires 1) the Petitioner 2) must serve written notice (by mail or personal delivery) to 3) close relatives (defined as adult parents, children AND siblings) 4) informing each of the date, time and place of the hearing.
If this is NOT done, it is a serious and fatal flaw, and the case MUST BE DISMISSED OR NON SUITED, and the Petitioner and court MUST START OVER.
So, how do you do that? With an emergency motion. An emergency motion is one that is defined as one that is not on the court’s regular calendar and was not served with notice either 2 business days in advance when served by personal delivery or 7 days when served by regular mail. The court does not currently accept email service, but many litigants and attorneys don’t mind or they prefer email service and that’s okay–as long as you have a written agreement to that effect.

But an Emergency Motion is entirely appropriate for someone living under a guardianship where every day of freedom counts. That means all you have to do is file with the clerk’s offices, drop off that pleading with the court (bring a stamped courtesy copy for the judge to the court room and put it on the docket there) the day before, fax or email it the day before and bingo, you should be able to get relief in court the very next day! Be sure to let the Respondent know, and any attorneys that have filed an appearance. The attys can be served by email or fax, but confirm with a phone call and tell them it’s very important to get over to court ASAP. Generally, with a filing like this one, the judge will be asking to get on the phone any atty that has not showed up and s/he will wait for them to show.

Jurisdiction is a very serious matter folks, and it leads to malpractice suits against all the attorneys involved, the guardian ad litem and even the judges. Jurisdiction has to be fixed swiftly and immediately.

for the link to a PDF version of the form:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwaWU1aFBZRjUtbDQ

for the link to the WPD version of the form

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweGwwemJ6cEw1NUU

for the link to an RTF version of the form:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwREt4ZS1LQ0dHYmM

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

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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

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

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

take care

JoAnne

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

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

My Response to her:

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

Dear [special person];

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

joanne

Calls on Gloria to do the right thing and file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Apparently Gloria has some reservations regarding filing the Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit, even though it is very necessary and inimical to the proper administration of justice in Mary Sykes’ Guardianship case.
In this case Ken is encouraging her to use my draft or write her own–neither will matter.
Of course, those of you that know Gloria, know that she believes she must put per personality into any writing, so let’s see what she comes up with.

It’s okay to be better than me, Gloria! I don’t mind.
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky

Gloria rewrite the motion but file it. …[edited for extraneous information]

Let us get on the next step:

“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 Cnnors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”

I understand that the guardianship hearing was dated December 2009 – there is a gap between August and December.

The usual procedure is that when you file the original petition, there is a hearing date set. This is the reason that the Court has ignored the oral statements and avoided the Sodini issues. The movant then and there serves a copy of the petition on the alleged incompetent and the close relatives. (this passes the test of Sodini). A hearing is held on the date that is scheduled or on a subsequent continuance date.

In the Sykes case, the ccp 211 was not filed with the petition and no hearing date could be set and apparently none was set. The petition did not disclose the close relatives and therefore was also defective. The entire guardianship scam was intended to avoid for Carolyn an embarassment of a protective order and most importantly the return of the funds and property from the safety deposit box. In fact Carolyn did not desire a hearing and when she placed the petition for service on Mary she intentionally gave a cook county address knowing that she had taken Mary to live with her in DuPage County.

In late August 2009 the Court was getting impatient with the fact that there had been no CCP 211 filed rather than dismissing the proceeding did something very strange. She asked Carolyn’s attorney as to the lack of a certificate of incompetency. She was told by Carolyn’s attorney that Mary’s doctor refused to sign. Then our ‘unbiased judge’ made the famous statement to the effect that Carolyn ought to go out an find a doctor who was willing to prostitute himself. (Of course she did not use those words – but the meaning was clear!)

Immediately thereafter Mary was bench served. I have assumed that the bench server duly read her all the statements required, including the fact that she was entitled to a lawyer. Mary requested a lawyer – however, GAL Adam Stern thwarted that effort! GAL Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn’s lawyer were upset that Gloria might use the Lumberman settlement to help her mother and therefore the TRO fiasco was successfully commenced and Gloria’s rights were violated.

Mr. Schmiedel disclosed these facts to a judge, who just ignored them. Mr. Stern attempted to avoid the issue entirely by a bold assertion that Gloria (and/or her attorney) had agreed to the guardianship of Carolyn. Gloria cut him a new GM with her outrage at the alleged frugality with the truth. However the fact remains that Mary was denied a hearing by the agreement of GAL Adam Stern, GAL Cynthia Farenga, and Carolyn. |

As I understand it these are the facts! Gloria if they are true let us bring them to Circuit Court’s attention and move to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Then, move forward with appropriate lawsuits to 1) obtain the work product stolen from you during the forcible entry and detainer action, 2) obtain remediation for interference with you repairs to you home, etc etc.

This case has gone on long enough. We have called for a law enforcement investigation as the civil rights of everyone are being abused when a Court continues to enter orders without jurisdiction. What is occurring in the Sykes case is the nadir of the jurisprudence and is rightly called the “SON OF GREYLORD!”

Gloria – or anyone else – correct any of the facts that I have wrong. Farenga claims “truth” is on her side. OK when were the notices sent out? When were they received? When was the hearing held? Who was present? Who testified? Ms. Black in the Request to Admit denied that a hearing was not held? The docket does not show a hearing and no one seems to know about it other than Ms. Black. Maybe the Sodini compliance’s were all accomplished in a parallel reality – how do be access that reality?

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Joanne’s continued communication with Diane Saltoun-Illinois Executive Director Attorney General

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Below is a fax that was sent to Ms. Saltoun yesterday. She is being kept updated about the fight against corruption in the Sykes case 09 P 4585

FAX_20120801_1343785279_36

A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

The RTF version of this has been sent to Gloria and KD has strongly recommended to her she file it ASAP.

The next version will be for Kathy.

I would love to see each of Cynthia Farenga, Gloria Sykes and Kathy Bakken get to court and motion this up and all present it on the same day.

And Adam, I would never leave you out. Let me know if you want me to do one for you too!

thanks

JoAnne

Attorney Code Pro Se

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 the ___ day of August, 2010, 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,

_______________________________
Gloria Sykes, daughter,
Pro Se
Prepared By:

Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com Attorney Code # Pro Se

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 Gloria Jean Sykes, daughter of the above Respondent, who is an interested party and should have been named in Exhibit A to the Petition for Guardianship filed by Carolyn Toerpe in the above proceeding and is made 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 undersigned 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,

_______________________________
Gloria J. Sykes, Daughter, an interested party
to Respondent, Mary G. Sykes
Prepared By:
Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com

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

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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

Carolyn Toerpe VS Gloria Sykes 7/13/2012

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Below is a link to the full transcript of the proceeding on 7/13/2012 between Carolyn and Gloria in eviction court.

Carolyn vs Gloria-Carolyn FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. TRANSCRIPT

It is clear that this Judge clearly understands that what Carolyn and Fred Toerpe have done IS WRONG. Here are some highlights in the transcript:

Page 24: Attorney Soehlig does not want to cross examine Gloria.

Page 32: Judge Garber makes the decision that Fred Toerpe’s actions are wrong.

Page 52: Carolyn Toerpe’s testimony starts

Page 60: Judge Garber grants the rule to show cause and found Toerpe in contempt of the court order:’You are not the Gestapo here, m a’am. You’re not to make the decision when the Judge has already made the decision where she can move.”

He reminds her of the contempt later on.

For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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

link to exhibits:

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).

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

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case.

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

In this email, Gloria explains a number of obvious mis steps and bias against her and her mother by the GAL’s from the very beginning. The GAL’s were never impartial, but showed clear bias.

Oh Scott, it gets better. Adam Stern just happened to be sitting in the courtroom in Cynthia Farenga’s absense and Judge Connors, who after she admits she doesn’t have the file on the Petition for the Order of Protection (and the only reason Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, Scott, Dorris, Suzie and I were present on August 26, 2009, was to support mother in obtaining the protection order against Carolyn Toerpe), and notes on the record that mother was not served and is not present, appoints Stern to (1) procure all of the police reports on Toerpe and to investigate mother’s assets (for a reverse mortgage because Toerpe said Mother had no money to live in her home). The odd this is, that before Toerpe started to financially exploit mother to the extent that she is the Plenary Guardian, et al, Mother lived comfortably in her home. The mortgage was paid on time every month, property taxes and insurances were paid, phone was paid, electric was paid, gas, et al, and Mother ate well, and we traveled the United States together….. Mother was so active in the Community that out precious moments together were first thing in the morning when we walked out pooches, and from dinner time until we walked the pooches at 10 pm or so each night. Looking back and reading the verified court transcripts, the Guardianship appointment of Toerpe was a done deal on June 30, 2009 when Toerpe kiddnapped Mother from the Harrision Street courthouse and took her out of state and hid her and kept her out of Illinois so she couldn’t pursue the protective order. Neither Adam Stern or Cynthia Farenga were ever at Mother’s home and Toerpe made certain that she took Mother to Farenga’s office.. as well as all the court friendly doctors who signed fradulant CCP211 reports where Toerpe signed PhD after her name.

Once Cynthia Farenga showed up on the 30 August 2009, she believed Toerpe had mother medicated enough, or enough undue influence was perpetrated on the 90 year old woman, that Mother would coward, but she didn’t. She corrected Adam Stern when Stern went on a rampage accusing me of abusing her, and then when Farenga told the Court the same, Mother stood up to all of them and spoke her mind. Mother has never wavered, and so, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel hired Dr. G. Shaw to testify that mother is not only incompetent now, but she was also incompetent and unable to handle her affairs on October 18, 2008, or so. This testimony is in complete opposition to Dr. Patel’s medical reports where he clearly told Toerpe he would not sign the CCP211 because my mother instructed him not to. That my mother ‘makes sense’ out of any topic” and can “communicate on any subject matter”.

But let’s go one step forward, the Court orders Toerpe has to bring mother home on September 4, 2009 and Toerpe, knowing that I’m fixing up my back yard, yes my back yard at 6016 for a huge welcome home holiday party for mother, calls me and tells me she will be bringing mother home early, but in about one hour. But Toerpe is already in the home (6014) and she drove her daughter’s car just so I wouldn’t notice that she’s already there. But her plan is thwarted because I have ‘workers’ around the house, and he sees Carolyn through mother’s kitchen window as he is fixing a leak on the exterior faucet. Toerpe then calls me and demands I tell her who the “black man” is along side the house! I immediately return to 6014 and find Toerpe in the refrigerator, looking through food which I just bought for the party. Toerpe tells me that she will buy all of mother’s medications at Walgreens (and mother can no longer get her medications from her neighborhood pharmacy where she and Daddy have gone for over 30 years!). Mom and I hug, but mom is very quiet and looks sickly — she’s lost a lot of weight.

Then Toerpe walks mother out to my backyard as if mother is a cripple, and she she leaves, Mother tell me that she doesn’t want to go over to Carolyn’s home any more: that it’s weird over there. I go back to the home and watch Toerpe get into Kristin’s car, and all Toerpe has are her purse and keys. Toerpe didn’t bring any of mother’s beautiful summer clothes I bought Mom back with her, and even kept all of the winder clothes including coats and jackets Toerpe took from Mother’s home in August. Cynthia Farenga said to make a list and she would get the clothes back, but Farenga never planned on getting mother’s property back from Toerpe because she had already agreed to Toerpe’s payment plan for Farenga’s services.

I can go on and on, but I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the States Attorney’s office with the following documents and evidence:

(1) That I had just purchased a ‘flashy new Lexis”

(2) That I had gone bankrupt twice.

(3) That I dictated the letter mother wrote on September 20, 2009 and the letter

Mother asked Cynthia to give to the Judge.

(4) That Yolanda Bakken slapped Toerpe in the face and tried to kidnap Mother in August 2009 when visiting on a court order.

(5) That Scott Evans wrote the Toerpes a threatening letter.

(6) That Doris Evans is a threat to Mother’s well being

(7) That I abused my mother and,

(8) That I financially exploited my mother.

Then I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the court with Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as ordered by the Court and provide proof of the $26,000 she took from mother in 2006 and set up a joint savings account in Toerpe and my mother’s name: then of course, proof that there was a CD or a IRA account opened in January 2009 with the $4000 Toerpe took from mother’s bank account. Then prove to the States Attorneys office that Toerpe didn’t double pay the mortgage in July, August, September, October, November and December of 2009 so it would appear that Mother had no money in 2009!!!..

I can go on with request but this is a start. Until you prove all of the above Cynthia Farenga, I think that you have a problem on your hands. Of course, you believe you are immune from any lawsuits, but I got a feeling that if one person from the State’s Attorney’s office is just a little interested in proving me wrong, they’ll check it out. What they will find is that Toerpe’s been stealing money from my mother for a very long time and it’s because my mother caught her in Feb. 2009, Toerpe set a course to take control of mother’s person and finances to cover up her crimes. Then lucky Toerpe, she hired a lawless attorney who would murder his own mother for money as he ripped off seniors in Indiana on remodeling and reverse mortgages: then Harvey Jack Waller was blessed to have you Cynthia Farenga appointed and now I’m back to the beginning of the case.

The question is Cynthia Farenga, in absence of any evidence as you have none to your malicious allegations, how do you continue to get away with these crimes against the elderly, disabled, and all people the elderly and disabled trust and love? That said, I know your husband and once in a while you buy and sell estates of Wards of Cook County, and your husband Michael Crowley does your dirty work and serves fraudulent documents on people’s financial advisors and institutions, and you had me served with a Pizza Flyer, too, but who do you sleep at night? Your daughter appears to be a lovely young woman (the internet is great for ***). Does she know who you really are? Does she know that you lie, cheat, steal and will murder in order to earn your living off of the elderly, disabled and all people who stand up for the truth and justice?

So Scott, if there were one person at the Illinois States Attorneys office willing to steal across the LINE Cynthia Farenga drew in the sand (as she keeps moving is), I know for a fact that soon after the investigation there would be a grand jury asking Carolyn Toerpe some serious questions. I know that Toerpe, however will coward and she will turn Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel in as they are orchestrating all of this by using our courts as their weapons of choice.

But now I’m way a head of myself. Let’s go back to the court transcripts ……

FYI the Court Reporter from the date Kevin Salam testified refuses to call me back and the Official court reporter’s office cannot help me get the transcripts from Salam’s testimony. Similarly it took six months-for me to get the transcripts format eh Domestic Relations court in and regarding the petition for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe.. That said, the records are available for any one to read and they are a good read.

FYI Ya got three days to turn over the documents Cynthia Farenga as I am prepared to publish an article — If you have any of this evidence, and proof of course of the Sodini requirements met, you may be able to prove your claims as I always give both sides of the story. As it is, the transcripts and court docket show exactly what I and other people, including Ditkowsky have said. You, Cynthia Farenga are a liar and a fraud — well, those are my words. I will retract and apologize once I have the above documents and records in the hands of the Illinois States Attorney — and available or the public to examine.

Have a beautiful day all. I have just started… Watch me!

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

(edited only for typos and grammar)

My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Directior at the Illinois Atty General

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

See below. This fax was accompanied by my famous “Table of Torts” and the Probate Docket table of missing court orders, pleadings and transcripts that won’t be transcribed (note, I never said “can’t”). Those are posted on my page of “Important Documents” and I note more than half the probate file is missing and apparently has been “cleansed”. GDS bless my scanner!

In line is below, or click for the link.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcnNGSXZuZU9La1k

I want to make this easy peasy for everyone!

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Diane Saltoun
Executive Inspector General
IAG
fax 312-814-8444

From:                     Admitted Ill., N. Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison,    Pat. Atty. Reg. No. 34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC   FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202   CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642   PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Troy S. Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, associate, of counsel

For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy WILL ✔ will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see fax header )
July 27, 2012

Re: In re Estate of Mary Sykes, 09 P 4585

Dear Diane;

While the above case has a long, long history, much of which is documented on a blog to be found at http://www.marygsykes.com, the reality of the situation is that this probate proceeding boils down to garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and malfeasance by attorneys and the court. The court has clearly, for 3 long years, been working without subject matter jurisdiction. In probate court, the Illinois legislature has stated in the Sodini case that in order to take jurisdiction, the court must ensure the following requirements have been met that notice on any hearing for incompetency: 1) be in writing; 2) that the Petitioner serve the notice; 3) that the notice contain the time, date and place of the hearing; and 4) that the notice be served upon “close relatives”–ie, adult children and siblings.

In the above case, the Guardians ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern will admit that no proper written notice was ever served in the case and/or they cannot produce proof of service at all. In one transcript (all transcripts are published on the blog), counsel for the Guardian admitted no Sodini notices were served upon “close relatives.” Judge Connors knew at the time she was appointing the plenary guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, without proper notice being served, and Judge Stuart has admitted in her written notes on pleadings that it is “too late” to contest subject matter jurisdiction, which is utter nonsense since subject matter jurisdiction can be brought up at any time–even on appeal.

To add to the obvious corruption, cronyism, embezzlement (there is estimated to be $1 million in gold and silver coins missing from Mary’s estate), when another attorney (Ken Ditkowsky) and myself complained about the lack of jurisdiction, the railroading of the proceeding without discovery–one of the GAL’s has filed ARDC complaints against us–merely for calling for an investigation. Leah Black at the ARDC is handling that and has not given up. The proceeding against Ken Ditkowsky is clearly another railroaded proceeding built upon corruption and cronyism and Leah Black has done nothing to clean up the court system.

See the attached “table of torts” the miscreants have engaged in. See the attached list of missing files and know that more than half the file is missing because all of the appellate volumes are gone.

Someone is systematically cleansing the Probate files and Judge Evans and security is doing NOTHING about it.

No response.

And then when I go to court to blog about the case and the corruption and cronyism, the miscreants have the court bailiff tell me not to use or open my laptop!

When I first contacted your offices regarding corruption in the courts at the Daley Center you said you “needed proof” actual proof of corruption.

I don’t see how 70% of the file missing PLUS the lack of subject matter jurisdiction could establish any less proof to conduct an investigation.

And I know your buddies at the FBI could look at this case in minutes and come up with a determination that the plenary Guardian is spending tens of thousands of dollars on house remodeling and a fancy wedding for her daughter, whereas back in Jan of 2009 she was struggling with bills and her husband was out of work. All we need is an asset search done in 2009-2012 for Carolyn and Fred Toerpe.

What more evidence do you need?

I will continue to publish the blog speaking out against corruption in our court system.

Please look at the attached and all the information I will fax you shortly. This is a case that could be bigger than Greylord–what is being done to deprive grandma and grandpa of their civil rights and how the Probate court (routinely) operates.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

cc: Ken Ditkowsky and http://www.marygsykes.com blog.

Answer to a Question from Scott Evans and the significance of lacking jurisdiction/Sodini notices

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Question from Scott Evans:

Gloria,

That was an excellent recap of the first few months of the case. It is chilling to read.

It begs the question, something Tim said a year ago, about going back to the beginning.

Are there Court actions that can be entered into given the string of not just technically wrong, but completely incorrect actions by the opposing lawyers?

I bring it up because of all the emphasis on the Sodini aspect of the relatives not being properly noticed, events which followed the ones you just wrote about by only several months. To me, they appear to be more provable, more serious, more compelling, more powerful than Sodini. Do these glaring gaffs that you refer to have a name, a case law background?

Since Sodini can be brought up almost 3 years after the fact, can’t these other issues?

I did a REPLY ALL on this in order to garner wider responses and ideas. ~Scott

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:35:48 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sykes Case Jurisdiction
To: scottcevans@hotmail.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com
CC: elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; k_bakken@att.net; timlahrman@aol.com

The significance of Sodini is jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction everything done in the Sykes case is void. The guardian ad litem are ‘de facto’ and therefore as there is no guardianship their actions are unauthorized. As there is no jurisdiction their is no guardian ship. No guardianship means that the drilling of the safety deposit box was not authorized and was a garden variety larceny by trick. Citatons to discover assets are also ‘ultra vires’ and therefore all this nonsense of questioning Gloria as to her assets, seizing her assets is just garden variety common law fraud, theft, false imprisonment and criminal contempt of court.

Similarly the non-inventory of the assets removed from the safety deposit box is theft! In addition as the mails were used to commit the fraud our friends are guilty of 18 USCA 1341 (mail fraud). There are least two predicate action and therefore the government can charge each with RICO. Of course, theft as well as breach of fiduciary relationship are taxable events. All of our friends are guilty of conspiracy to evade the United States Income taxes Carolyn is guilty of tax fraud.

Keeping Mary against her will is kidnapping on the criminal side and false imprisonment on the civil side.

On the other hand, had the Sodini notices been given the guardians have 100% absolute immunity. Farenga and Stern have discretion as to what they report to the Court, and the Court can issue ‘wrong and unjust orders’ until the cows come home. Sodini is the lynch pin!

With two of the three necessary close relatives filing affidavits that they did not receive the 14 day notices required to obtain jurisdiction over Mary and her estate any judge who takes his/her duties seriously would order an investigation. Most judges do not like to enter orders that are beyond their jurisdiction.

What makes this case the ‘son of greylord’ is the fact that every judge has had the jurisdictional issue raised and each avoided the issue liket he plague. The lawyers who are presumed to know the law admit that the Sondini protections were not afforded to Mary and ‘no one cares.’ An honest investigation would find out why the Judges are reluctant to determine if they had jurisdiction! An honest investigation would require Carolyn to produce the inventory that Mary kept in the safety deposit box. An honest investigation would find out why Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al. are so afraid to participate in the investigation and why they mislead the Court on a regular basis. An honest investigation would look into Judge Connors dates in December 2009.

Sodini goes back to Day One. If Sodini was not complied with each of the guardians (including the GALs) is guilty of theft etc.
from Atty Ken Ditkowsky

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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…..

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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/

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED

Posted on July 26, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

An elderly sister of Mary G Sykes has signed and mailed her declaration back to our office stating that she did not receive proper Sodini notice. This is GREAT news because now we are one step closer to proving how corrupt and unjust the case truly is. JoAnne has already faxed copies of this Affidavit to Lea Black. Now we wait anxiously as we wait for Mary’s other elderly sister to mail us back her declaration. Justice MUST prevail!

Below is a copy of the signed declaration!

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28 – (cut and paste if link does not work)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28

Updates about the Court banning the use of laptops

Posted on July 26, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

A couple of weeks ago, JoAnne Denison sent a fax to Kevin Connelly (Head of security at the Daley Center) and Judge Evans. Just a quick recap, the fax basically talked about Judge Stuart banning the use of laptops in her courtroom, which is a direct violation of everything a democratic society should stand for.

To no one’s surprise, there has been no response to that fax. No explanation, no discussion, nothing. So of course, JoAnne sent another fax to them today. Let’s see how long they will ignore this one (link provided below)!

JoAnne’s fax to Judge Evans

Comments about PURGING OF FILES from Ken and Joanne

Posted on July 26, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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

Lea Black’s Petition to BAR Gloria from testifying at Ken’s proceeding against the ARDC

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

As ridiculous as this sounds, it is true. Lea Black (ARDC) has filed a petition to BAR Gloria from testifying on the basis that she was “uncooperative” in setting up a place and time for her deposition. Gloria has gone to the lengths of transforming a suite room into a conference room to appease Ms Black. Does that sound uncooperative?

Ken puts it eloquently as to what the ARDC is essentially doing by filing this motion:

“I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution

2) Circuit Court Judges and court appointed lawyers ignoring the jurisdictional limitations of the Courts and in particular those designed by the legislature to protect senior citizens. A judge has a duty to determine if he/she has jurisdiction. In the Sykes case it appears that (using the words of Adam Stern) ‘it is a technicality!’ I just hope that at some point in time Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al have to personally address that technicality.

3) Objecting to the non-inventory of over a million dollars in assets belonging to Mary Sykes! LG asked Mr. Evans if he considered that theft! It makes no difference if Mr. Evans considers it theft or not! Theft is unauthorized control and except in these probate cases that is unauthorized control It is also a taxable event. I calculate that with the taxes due, interest and penalties at this point in time the conspirators owe in excess of a million dollars to the United States of America. (Mr. Dubow – the accountant informs me that the interest is 5per cent per month up to 25% of the tax due. The fraud penalty – for the breach of fiduciary relationship and the concealment – is 50%. The tax is 30%. Ms Toerpe should be sleeping very well at night knowing that at this point in time she and the conspirators to evade the legitimate income taxes owed to the United States of America can help Mr. Obama make a dent in the debt!”

Banning someone simply because setting up a deposition proves a bit difficult is UNHEARD of. It’s simply not a reason. But of course, desperate times call for desperate measures. Judicial corruption is about to be exposed and Lea Black is doing everything she can to hinder this.

Below are both the motion to bar Gloria Sykes and Ken’s response to that motion. It should not be long before we get news that Lea Black’s motion is DENIED if there is even an ounce of justice in the justice system.

Motion to Bar Gloria

Response to Motion to Bar Respondent’s Witnesses – 07-24-2012

ARDC Petition to BAN Gloria as a witness in Ken Ditkowsky’s case against ARDC

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

As hard as it to believe, LEA BLACK has filed a petition to BAN GLORIA from testifying at Ken’s hearing against the ARDC. And the ridiculous reason they gave was that Gloria has been “uncooperative” in regards to setting up a time and place for her deposition even though Gloria attempted to appease Lea Black by renting a suite and agreeing to convert one room into a conference room among many other accommodations. The basis of this

Ken puts in eloquently about what the ARDC has essentially done by filing this petition:

“I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90 plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution

Below is the motion filed by the ARDC. Feel free to laugh at the ridiculousness of the basis of their motion. I have also attached Ken’s response to the motion. It should not be long from now that we receive news that the ARDC’s motion BE DENIED if the justice system even has a drop of justice in it.

What exactly IS the definition of theft? LB was asking Scott the other day.

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

I am told that during Scott’s deposition the other day, he was asked if he thought the non inventorying of $1 million in gold coins constituted theft (objection–witness is not a lawyer and cannot formulate legal opinions).

I can’t believe LB asked Scott if he considered the noninventorying of $1 million in gold coins to be theft or not! that’s a complete hoot.

first of all, you’re right about who cares if scott knows the legal definition of theft, but second of all, it begs a better question and that is, why would LB want to even consider bending the legal definition of theft.

okay, so if I see a million dollars in a safe deposit box with your name on it, can I just use it for a little and put it back, or,
maybe if I move it here for awhile or there for awhile, you won’t mind now will you,
or I’m just using it for a bit until Mary is no longer incompetent and then she’s gonna get competent and say what I did was fine because she likes me and I’m her beloved daughter Carolyn.

hmmm. i’m not impressed.

if it looks like a theft, sounds like a theft, smells like a theft and quack liks a theft, then it’s a duck?

joanne

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:06:18 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Larry – indeed, copy it and sent it JoAnne and anyone else who wants a copy.

I always hated to hear lawyers start a sentence with I have been practicing law for 2000 years and I have never seen anything like this; however, I’ve only been practicing law for five decades and I have to admit that I have have not seen a petition like the petition that LG filed to bar me from presenting Gloria Sykes as my witness in the ARDC proceeding that seeks to punish me for complaining of judicial corruption. If the law were applied uniformly the United States Attorney is in real trouble as he not only complains about corruption, but he even sends corrupt judges to jail.

If I were to approach you and tell you that the ARDC attorney after doing everything possible to create an acrimonious relationship with Gloria, and after Gloria attempted to appease her by renting a suite, converting one room into a conference room etc, the ARDC attorney filed a sanction motion (Rule 219) to bar me from using Gloria as a witness in defense of the frivolous and spurious complaint that the ARDC authored – would you believe me? Well it is true! JoAnne, Larry will send you the Motion so that you can verify that what I say is indeed not my being delusional!

I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90 plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution

3) Objecting to the non-inventory of over a million dollars in assets belonging to Mary Sykes! LG asked Mr. Evans if he considered that theft! It makes no difference if Mr. Evans considers it theft or not! Theft is unauthorized control and except in these probate cases that is unauthorized control It is also a taxable event. I calculate that with the taxes due, interest and penalties at this point in time the conspirators owe in excess of a million dollars to the United States of America. (Mr. Dubow – the accountant informs me that the interest is 5 per cent per month up to 25% of the tax due. The fraud penalty – for the breach of fiduciary relationship and the concealment – is 50%. The tax is 30%. Ms Troepe should be sleeping very well at night knowing that at this point in time she and the conspirators to evade the legitimate income taxes owed to the United States of America can help Mr. Obama make a dent in the debt!

Oh well! four years ago we were promised ‘change!’ This change did not come from Washington, but come via Naperville! The new National Socialists are a bonus! As law enforcement is quiet concerning our demands for an honest, comprehensive, and complete investigation maybe we ought to start a fund at BOA to purchase brown shirts, and jack boots so that all our new found friends can be in uniform as they goose-step to the Daley Center.

JoAnne – it all fits into the grand scheme of things – The golf course that Betty Maltese purchased would make a wonderful camp. Mr. Schmiedel can rave over the progress that grandma is making as she learns to breathe MIC. The ARDC does not believe that the last sentence is protected speech – fortunately they are the only ones – and the United States Supreme Court has mandated. Indeed, if you want to verify that I am again speaking the truth – the ARDC complaint against me is on their web-site. While the document takes a great deal out of context, is misleading and replete with unfounded conclusions it nevertheless clearly demonstrates, the due process, the first amendment, and other liberties are a thing of the past!

If law enforcement and the politicans who really care about the United States do not wake up, smell the coffee and act to preserve our democratic society we will not have one – we will be sent to the Gulag!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
–

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:06:18 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote
To: JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com; lawoffice5940@yahoo.com; lawrence@Lhyman.com
CC: drditkowsky@aol.com

Larry – indeed, copy it and sent it JoAnne and anyone else who wants a copy.

If I were to approach you and tell you that the ARDC attorney after doing everything possible to create an acrimonious relationship with Gloria, and after Gloria attempted to appease her by renting a suite, converting one room into a conference room etc, the ARDC attorney filed a sanction motion (Rule 219) to bar me from using Gloria as a witness in defense of the frivolous and spurious complaint that the ARDC authored – would you believe me? Well it is true! JoAnne, larry will send you the Motion so that you can verify that what I say is indeed not my being delusional!

I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United STates Constitution

3) Objecting to the non-inventory of over a million dollars in assets belonging to Mary Sykes! LG asked Mr. Evans if he considered that theft! It makes no difference if Mr. Evans considers it theft or not! Theft is unauthorized control and except in these probate cases that is unauthorized control It is also a taxable event. I calculate that with the taxes due, interest and penalties at this point in time the conspirators owe in excess of a million dollars to the United States of America. (Mr. Dubow – the accountant informs me that the interest is 5per cent per month up to 25% of the tax due. The fraud penalty – for the breach of fiduciary relationship and the concealment – is 50%. The tax is 30%. Ms Troepe should be sleeping very well at night knowing that at this point in time she and the conspirators to evade the legitimate income taxes owed to the United STates of America can help Mr. Obama make a dent in the debt!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: Larry Chambers <lawoffice5940@yahoo.com>
Cc: ken ditowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Dear Larry;

Can you please scan and email a copy of the motion filed by LB to bar Gloria’s testimony.

i would like to publish that, it’s soooo amazingly incredible.

thanks

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 24, 2012 2:44 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

You will in testify – I cannot envision the ARDC acting so overtly to protect Stern and Farenga et al that they would even attempt to have you barred from testifying.

I was wrong! A petition came in in today’s mail. Even though you have gone through hoops and gone the extra mile to accommodate, Ms. Black wants to bar your testimony. I am sorry – she wants to prevent me from calling you as a witness. As you are on her witness list, she still can call you.

The incentive to join Farenga, Stern, et al in the corruption is must be incredible. I estimated the gold coins at about a million dollars in value; however, I must have underestimated the value as the harassment continues unabated. We have to have an honest, comprehensive and complete investigation. It appears that we hit a nerve and the Constitution has been suspended! The Administrator of the ARDC’s petition to bar your testimony in a trial in which I am the respondent is not only outrageous but a declaration that if you oppose the denial of liberty, property, civil rights and human rights in the eyes of the Illinois Judiciary you also lose your rights, privileges and immunities. I find that concept totally unacceptable and I will not walk quietly into the gas chambers! It is my intention to continue to fight for ‘grandma’s rights’ and win, lose, or draw I have no intention of allowing my civil rights to be compromised.

For your information I prepared a draft of a response to the petition filed by the Administrator. It states what I wish to say:

Response to Motion to Bar Respondent’s witnesses based upon failure to Administrator to comply with Rule 201(k)

The Petitioner’s prayer for relief reads:

“The Administrator’s motion is Allowed/denied. Respondent is barred from presenting Gloria Sykes as witness at the hearing in this matter.”

The motion of the Administrator does not allege any wrong doing on the part of the respondent or that Gloria Sykes is not a person named on the Administrator’s witness list and/or an independent person and citizen entitled to her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights. Indeed, the relationship between the respondent and the potential witness Gloria Sykes necessary for the Administrator motion to be viable was abrogated in 1865 with the adoption of the 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The respondent is a bystander in the discovery dispute between Ms. Sykes[1] and the Administrator.

It is respectfully submitted that the Petition of the Administrator to Bar use by respondent of the Testimony of Gloria Sykes reveals that the only action of the respondent in the dispute between Ms. Sykes and the Administrator were the attempts by the respondent to assist the Attorney for the Administrator in reaching an accommodation between her acrimony toward Gloria Sykes. [Ms. Sykes is disclosed by the Administrator as one of his potential witnesses.] The Respondent was not involved in the discovery dispute that is the subject matter of the Motion. It is further respectfully suggested that in the United States of America there is no precedent for any duly constituted judicial body or panel barring an opponent’s witness because a discovery accommodation cannot be accomplished by the petitioner (plaintiff) with a witness. It is respectfully suggested that the inappropriateness of these proceedings, the Administrator’s bias and lack of concern for due process and the Rule of law is evident in the Motion and mandate that the panel re-examine it prior rulings in relation to dismissal of the proceeding.

Under American Law , the respondent has no duty to ‘blackjack’ or intimidate persons who have knowledge of the falsity of the Administrator’s disciplinary complaint to appear for discovery depositions conducted by the Administrator. To require such a duty would be in derogation of the civil and criminal laws of the State of Illinois and the United States of America. Every person, regardless of race, color, National origin, or status in the case of in re: Mary Sykes is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the United States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and the human rights declared by the mesne Nations of the World. There is no exception that reads: “except Kenneth Ditkowsky” or “except the witnesses of Kenneth Ditkowsky” or “except Gloria Sykes.”

It is significant that the Administrator does not seek to enforce the subpoena served on Ms. Sykes, but instead seeks sanctions against the respondent[2] . The Administrator cites no authority for punishing the respondent for his own failure to conduct a meaningful 201(k) conference with Ms. Sykes or his failure to attempt to enforce his subpoena. Rule 219 addresses discovery sanctions and the cases interpreting those cases provide that in order to seek enforcement the petitioner must allege a meaningful attempt to resolve disputes pursuant to Rule 201(k). The draconian sanction against the respondent (who is involved only tangency in this discovery dispute between the petition and a witness who appears on the Administrator’s witness list is directly contrary to the mandate of the Appellate Court of Illinois to wit:

Because the purpose of these sanctions is to effect discovery, rather than to punish the dilatory party (Jones v. Healy (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 255, 52 Ill.Dec. 695, 422 N.E.2d 904), a “just order” under Rule 219(c) is one which, to the degree possible, ensures both the accomplishment of discovery and a trial on the merits (White v. Henrotin Hospital Corp. (1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 1025, 34 Ill.Dec. 349, 398 N.E.2d 24). For these reasons, default judgment or dismissal of the action, being the most drastic sanctions, are ones which courts are reluctant to impose and should be imposed only as a last resort in cases where the actions of the party demonstrate a deliberate, contumacious and unwarranted disregard of *374 the trial court’s authority, all other enforcement powers at the court’s disposal have failed to advance the litigation, and which may be set aside where a trial on the merits could be had without hardship or prejudice. (Kubian, 178 Ill.App.3d at 196-97, 127 Ill.Dec. at 407, 533 N.E.2d at 25.) Martinez v. Pfizer Laboratories Div., 216 Ill. App. 3d 360, 373-74, 576 N.E.2d 311, 320 (1991)

Fairness, which apparently is a foreign word that is unknown in certain legal circles, usually requires that documents and circumstances be reported in context and that completely. It appears that some of Ms. Sykes’ communications have not been submitted as part of documentation. This morning one Ms. Sykes’ e-mails to Ms. Black appeared on the net. It is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.

Wherefore the respondent moves that the Motion of the Petition be denied and that the deposition of Gloria Sykes go ahead as scheduled, to wit: July 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM at the Chicago Holiday Inn and Suites, Chicago, Illinois.

[1] Ms. Sykes is on the Administrator’s witness list, yet the Administrator seeks only to bar the respondent from using her as witness. This conduct is consistent with the Administrator’s ignoring 735 ILCS 110 et seq, The First Amendment, land the recent Alvarez case decided by the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Syke’s testimony is expected to disclose the unusual events that have occurred in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, the unusual conduct of several of the Administrator’s witnesses who apparently claim to be judicial officials, confirm the words and phrases of one of the Judges of the Circuit Court in December 2009 that is most troubling, and the significant facts recited in her affidavit that verifies the respondent’s answer and counterclaim. In addition Ms. Sykes is a signatory on a American Disabilitly Act complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that is consistent with whatever statements the Administrator claims were stated by the respondent pursuant to his First Amendment and Article One rights. Picking a ‘discovery dispute’ with a person on his own witness list and seeking to bar ‘his own witness’ from being called by the respondent is not only a obvious attempt to ‘salt’ the evidence but a further demonstration of the improper conduct that respondent has attempted to have law enforcement honestly, and comprehensively investigate. The Administrator in filing this instant motion places the legal profession is total dispute and demonstrates why there is reputedly a Spanish proverb to the effect that mouse would rather be assigned to a ‘cat’s mouth’ rather than a “lawyer’s care!”

[2] Rule 219 specifically provides that nonparties are subject to discovery sanctions for noncompliance.¹ When faced with a refusal to comply with discovery by a nonparty, the primary sanction available to the trial judge is a finding of civil contempt and a corresponding fine. This sanction is designed to coerce compliance with court orders or subpoenas to testify at depositions.10 Ill. Prac., Civil Discovery § 19:21 (2011)

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; maria 60 Minutes <lutzenm@cbsnews.com>; Dave Silver Iphone account <dmsilver@me.com>; ARDC springfield <12175222417@myfax.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Lea Black filed a petition to have me banned from testifying because I am an ‘uncooperative’ witness and ‘unneeded’ according to her paralegal. This came after I wrote her and asked her to call me on Friday to resolve this matter. I changed all my plans this week in order to testify and Scott holds no weight in this matter.

Ken you suggested I find a hotel and I did. Then Lea Black faxes me a letter she claims she mailed to me on the 16th: I never received such a letter! She then claims she can’t fax me, and refuses to e me. She then says that she cannot fax me because it’s filled up.

Then she offers me to take the depo at an attorney’s office that will allow Shaggy, and since I fear ambushes and with all that Peter Schmeidel,, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, and Deborah Jo Soehlig have been able to accomplish, I asked Mr. Larkin to step in. He refused.

I am scared to death of our Judicial and the Officers of the Court and now the ARDC, who are suppose to protect the public from attorneys such as those I mentioned above. I know that Lea Black needs to have me disqualified or banned as my testimony stands between my mother’s life being saved and being slowly murdered by a Probate Division and the officers of the court for greed. Since I cannot afford an attorney in this matter I am pro se, and obviously, Lea Black can get away with ‘murder’ and ***.

I have jumped through hoops Ken to schedule a convent place as you suggested, and since Hotel’s no longer have ‘conference rooms’ but banquet halls, which I cannot afford. (There are business centers, but not good for meetings). That said, I was going to have the Suite set up as a conference room.

Yes, Lea Black and the ARDC have caused me much pain and suffering and yes they have intimidated me. On Monday they filed a motion to have my testimony banned and this comes after I asked Mr. Larkin to step in and/or Lea Black to call me (pursuant the letter, which I did not have a copy of when I wrote the first letter on Friday). I have filed a complaint with the U.S. Postal inspector for stolen mail, but I did not get this letter of the 16h or any letter from Lea Black. What is evident is that Ms. Black will go to any extent to prevent me from doing this deposition. She and the ARDC do not want the truth and that is a matter of fact. I don’t know what to do except to write a letter to the Commissioners and file another affidavit, as now it’s understood the questions they asked Scott Evans, who, unfortunately cannot testify to my mother asking for an attorney, the gold and silver coins, or even the Sodini requirements/notices. The ARDC would have to have my Aunt Yo or Aunty Jo or even me testify to that. Had I not been so terrorized by the Probate Division and Peter Schmieel, Deborah Soehlig, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, who area sanctioned by the court to LIE and live above the law, I would have quickly agreed to allowing Ms. Black to arrange for one of her attorney friends offices. As it is, and after yesterday where Toerpe defied the courts instruction and stole all my property, *****.

This is America Ken is it not? I’m not scared to death to come near Chicago and the Crooks of the Court as officers of the court are protected by the ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court to do great harm to innocents. This is witness tampering.

(Apparently and according to Black’s paralegal, they’re satisfied with Scott Evan’s testimony as the only witness in your case Case. Unfortunately, Scott’s testimony is simply hearsay, and he cannot testify to mother asking me to find you Ken, mother repeatedly asking for an attorney, any of the digital recordings (including audio recordings of August 2009), or the Sodini requirements. Let this email stand to my testimony that (1) I never received notice of a guardianship proceeding and was in court on the 26 August 2009 I, and mother’s sisters, Josephine DePietro, and Yolanda Bakken, (along with family Kathie Bakken and dear friends Scott Evans, Doris Evans, and Suzanne) were in court on the petition for the order of protections authored by and verified by my mother, Mary G. Sykes on June 9, 2009. That on December 10, 2009, without notice, Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent to a petition for a protective order was appointed guardian of Mary G. Sykes (and this was done even though Mary G. Sykes objected profusely to such a guardianship) by an agreement between Toerpe, and attorneys Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga. That even the docket is evidence that there were no notices, which are jurisdictional, and that the order clearly testifies to the ‘agreement’ between Toerpe, Stern and Farenga. That there is NO ORDER setting a guardianship hearing because there were no 14 day notices. The Petition or the order of protection is still pending and Illinois Statue clearly states that if a ‘respondent’ to a “petition for an order of protection’ is a guardian a ‘temporary substitute guardian SHALL be appointed”. Given that the court lacks jurisdiction, and that Toerpe is a respondent to not only (now) two petitions for an order of protection, but also a contempt order for not complying with a court order, it is unfair and unreasonable to believe that the ARDC would go to such extremes as to prevent the one testimony that would save my mother’s life, but instead, protect the lawless and evilness of attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and Peter Shcmiedel. I don’t know how high this ‘corruption’ goes, but it must be very deep and powerful.

That said, I will not be intimidated and will do what I need to do to testify, Ken. I have that right and you have a right to call me as one of your witnesses. I have cooperated, but Lea Black and the ARDC have done everything to stop and prevent the deposition as they do not want the truth on record. With what happened yesterday, indeed I am scared to death, Ken, that Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga will go to any extreme to cause me pain and suffering for their financial benefits. Lea Black is conveniently not in today and Mr. Larkin has repeatedly redirected

Please advise.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

Lumbermen’s vs Gloria Sykes: exparte orders (not on file) and Peter Schmiedel’s threats and lawlessness

Posted on July 18, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

From Gloria:

I can’t help but feel that God is watching us from above every time we sit on the toilet. I also beleive that God watches sporting events, occasionally guiding tennis balls to the edges of lines and baseballs out of the arenas: God watches used car sale’s people sell damaged goods and our Political Leaders *****. He sees, with much angst, people like attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, and Cynthia Farenga, who believe they’re entitled, to LIE, cheat and steal from the elderly and disabled, or anybody they damn well want to steal from! God knows when people are dishonest and corrupt, and like Santa, He knows which people are good and when they’re bad. In fact, I think that all people live ‘under’ God, like a deity peering down on us like the store manager of Whole Foods atop the customer service desk. I also beleive that most people are ethical to a certain extent: some people make more ethical decisions than others, I think, because most people make decisions based on what he or she feels is right. That said, if in fact the society i which we presently live has redefined ethics i such a way as to separate it from morality, there’s no doubt in my mind that it therefore makes the importance of morality ad moral behavior in our lives and in society must less important than when ethics and morality were linked. We have substituted one of the other — or both — for power and money — and therefore, many people are unhappy people. In my lifetime, I’ve met many unhappy people, but none so obviously unhappy than Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and their client Carolyn Toerpe. The last time in court I paid particular attention to their faces, their body language, and wasn’t surprised to detect a full range of deceit oozing from each one: Peter Schmiedel backed off from Dr. Shaw, his arms hardened and crossed tight across his chest, biting his lower lip, noting not even Peter Schmiedel believed what he was saying! Cynthia Faregna, her face twisted, snarled, always with lifted brow and tightened jaw. Adam Stern, he like Carolyn Toerpe, sit without expression, pretending to be in control, but their micro expressions are still obvious. Toerpe’s shoulder twitches forward, her lips turned downward, her glassy stare at nothing: Adam Stern, also stares at nothing, his mouth buttoned tight, Call these people what you like, but they’re unhappy people who create illusions of grander to feel accepted and when on the verge of exposure, like wild animals in a cage, they attack with no though or concern for what is wright or wrong, just because they can.

On the 29th day of September, and 2nd day of October 2008, four attorneys, Finn and McInerney on behalf of Lumbermens’ the Plaintiff, and Salam and Moskowitz, on behalf of me, the defendant, had pre trial chats wtih Judge Mulhern in the Lumbermen’s case. I paid close to $1000 for the transcripts. On pafe 53 Salam discuses ‘secondary property damages’ …””*** to the jury would be teh cost to fix the house, the loss of the use of the house, the cost ot fix and replace the personal property, the loss and use of the personal property, and your typical damages related to that… expenses she incurred related to, you know ****” She is Gloria Jean Sykes, me, and the home damaged needed to be fixed up in 6016, where I lived, I had the only insurance policy and I was the true owner (who was talked into putting mom on for joint tenancy for survivorship by an attorney claiming that should something happen to me, Carolyn Toerpe can’t bring it into the Probate Court and stake a claim.) My mother “Mary” is only discussed twice during the many hours of pre trial discussions. Page 71/line 15 – 24/ PAGE 72 LINES

MR. SALAM: We agree to the extent we’re not claiming physical injury apart from emotional distress under the intentional inflicton of emotional distress claim, so…

THE COURT: Does that satisfy you, Mr. Finn?

MR. FINN: Right. But then Mary Sykes is not — she doesn’t have an intentional —

MR. SALAM: No. she does not.

THE COURT: NO. She’s on there only because she’s a title holder.

MR. SALAM: Yes exactly.

THE COURT: All right. So this is granted.

Mary G. Sykes is considered only a ‘title holder’ who filed no claims and had no insurance on the property — or lived in the property. Yes, Judge Mulhern also understood that Mary Sykes was just a title holder and a title holder is not necessarily the actually owner, and this is how the system works, except in the Sykes case, where PS, AS, CF create illusions in order to mask the truth that they would cheat Mother Terressa out of every penny she raised to help the unfortunate if in fact, the attorneys were looking to get paid! But now I’m a head of myself. In the about 250 pages of transcripts in three columns, my mother Mary is only mentioned once! Once! I seem to recall that there is a transcript where Finn asks the court if Mary Sykes has filed any damages, and Judge Mulhern says, “No.***” but those transcripts are now in the possession of Carolyn Toerpe.

I’ve asked CF, AS, and PS for a copy of the claim my mother filed or proof she had insurance on the property … but they can’t seem to find any documentation, just like they can’t find proof that Aunts Yo or Jo or I were served and Sodini requirements met. What is also interesting, that I have the original Lumbermen’s lawsuit in front of me and no where in that suit is Mary Sykes mentioned: in my counter-complaint, I am the only Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, and in the Motion for Summary Judgement, again, at all times the heading to the breif reads, GLORIA SYKES, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

But sine Adam STern, Cynthia Farenga and Peter Schmiedel barred me from bringing in any witnesses or presenting any evidence, and they also waived my attorney / client confidentiality with attorney Kevin Salam (yep, first question by Peter Schmiedel was answered by Salam who reported to the court that “Gloria Sykes didn’t want her mother to get any of the settlement funds”. Of course, in cross, Salam backed off and corrected his statement that he could not answer the question because of attorney client privileged/confidentiality. What is interesting, attorney Peter Schmiede summoned attorney Kevin Salam for the sole purpose to have him give testimony that would give the appearance t hat I financially exploited my mother and swindled her out of the settlement money. That means, that attorneys Kevin Salam and Moskowitz, Finn and McInerney, and Judge Mulhern were in on the financial exploitation. Kevin Salam was appropriated $250,000: Gene Moskowitz was appropriated $250,000. Legal Funds were appropriated about $100,000. Expert witnesses were paid from the settlement funds as was Purofirst. But AS, CF, PS and CT, however, are only going after me! Hell, Judge Mary Mulhern was in on the scam, too!

So to answer the question how much longer can the fiasco continue, as long as law enforcement, the States Attorneys Office and the Court allows attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, and Adam STern to LIE to the court, and Carolyn Toerpe to hold my mother hostage, isolate her, drug her and not comply with court orders to turn over my mtoher’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, this will go on forever.

And my mother suffers because she’s been denied access to the courts and silenced.

Yep God is watching all of us and there will be a judgment day. I pray my mother survives this guardianship holocaust so she and I can travel the States and speak to any person who will listen that what has happened in the Sykes case can happen to any person .. as long as there are unethical, mean-spirited, lying attorneys like Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, and Cynthia Farenga living free lives and an ARDC that doesn’t care about the truth or the lives of innocents like my mother Mary G. Sykes.

I know that attorneys Gene Moskowitz and Kevin Salam know the truth, too.

Comments from Ken:

The spanish proverb comes to mind – a mouse would rather be in the mouth of the cat than in the hands of a lawyer –

What has happened in the Sykes case is tragic, but consistent with the greylord scandal and Illinois’ new tradition of governors going from the State house to the big house. Only a hypocrite can defend the fact that Mary Sykes is being held in isolation by Stern, Farenga, Troepe and Schmiedel illegally. It is illegal because these National socialists did not give the jurisdictional notices that were required. The August 31 transcript words and phrases of the judge are an indictment of the judge and indicative of a very sorry state of affairs. The Sodini case points out that the Circuit Court has (had) no jurisdiction! Thus, the covering court orders are void and *****.

Whether the ‘good lord’ judges the miscreants in this drama or not it is apparent that if America is to survive it has to honor its basic principles – liberty, freedom, and fraternity. The specter of the First Amendment being trashed is a pure horror only topped by the fact that Mary Sykes and others like her are now routinely deprived of their liberty, property, human and civil rights while law enforcement and particularly the legal profession fiddles and defends the miscreants.

Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern deserve to be ‘unhappy!’ When Law enforcement finally gets around to doing an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation they will have to face ‘man’s justice!’ All who aid and abet them will also attone for their part in the gulag. The good lord has a much more unhappy solution which in my fifty years of practice I watched. It is summed up in the phrase “what comes around, goes around!” Some of your friends will witness one or more of the miscreants enjoy the loving care that is bestowed by Peter Schmiedel Jr. on Peter Schmiedel Sr as he separates Sr from his friends, his family, and systematically deprives him or his liberty, property, and human rights. (Schmiedel, Farenga and Stern have taught their children well and rest assurred each will enjoy ****

Right now we need that investigation!

Joanne’s fax to [agency], [entity] and [agency2]

Posted on July 17, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

As mentioned in previous posts, in [entity] [forum] it is FORBIDDEN to have laptops to take notes (what ever happened to freedom of press and speech?). Hence, every time we go in to look at the Sykes files (an entire cart load of papers), we have to resort to pen and paper (hours and hours a day spent on taking notes and then putting them in order). Joanne was told by the [entity] in [forum] room to speak to [forum] about any complaints, so she did. Below is a fax sent today to Mr. [entity] at [forum] about the [troubles and issues] in this case and a table of torts summarizing all the [troubles and issues] that have happened in the Sykes case

Fax to [entity], [entity] and [agency]

Comments from Ken Ditkowsky on MISSING documents and pleadings in 09 P 4585

Posted on July 17, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

It looks like we have entered the Spoliation of the evidence phase. The two Guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian are aware that for the 2nd time they have neglected the technicality of jurisdiction and are hanging out there ‘naked!’ (The first was the direct intimidation threat via the sanction motion, and this one is more serious as it arises from the failure to provide Mary Sykes with the protections that she is required to be provided by statute – the failure to provide these protections strips the Court of Jurisdiction (Sodini))

It should be noted that as so many years have gone by without the Court having jurisdiction and with Gloria complaining of the lack of jurisdiction any defense at this point in time would either be a sham or an oxymoron.

Let me make this very clear as I have copied law enforcement and the many of the people who have joined in the fight to stamp out elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly by the political elite and their ‘court appointed friends.’ (see GAO September Report to Congress) In the Sykes case law enforcement has absolutely no further excuse for not acting. JoAnne Denison’s work has reduced this case down to simple embezzlement, breach of fiduciary relationship, theft, false imprisonment. In the flotsam of the forcible entry and detainer action wrongfully filed and wrongfully prosecuted there was trespass, battery, and theft committed. (Gloria went to the States Attorney and they refused to prosecute).

How does all of this happen in the United States of America and law enforcement and government totally ignore all of this miscreant behavior. The ARDC has a history of note ‘covering themselves with glory’ in Greylord and in some of the other scandals = but by in large law enforcement has been the saving grace. Why not now! At the very least you would think with the budget crisis that both the State and the Federal Governments suffer the Department of the Treasury would be interested in collecting taxes. (I guess that collecting taxes from the political elite is not a priority – a rough calculation of the taxes, interest, and penalties due in Sykes is a million dollars and in Tyler – seven to eight million! Breach of Fiduciary relationship is a taxable event)

Where is that honest complete and comprehensive investigation of Sykes case, the Tyler cse, the Gore case, the Wyman case and the dozens of other similar cases? Why is the GAO report being ignored.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

A complete list of all files in Mary G Sykes case. Please note all the missing documents

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Below is a table of the files on the Mary G Sykes case that were found in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. Most of the 2009 files were copies obtained from Ken’s office, not where the main file is. Why is that? Some of the Court orders are also missing, additionally, most of the files filed by Joanne are also removed from the file.

sykes docket sheet

Missing Appellate Volume: ALL 13 OF THEM

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

After speaking with Judge Stuart’s clerk today, it was clear that the appellate volume was not in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. She then suggested that I go down to the 6th floor to talk to the file manager Ben, who is the middle man between files coming from the Appellate division to the Circuit Court.

After checking both his computer and the physical files, he came back with empty hands and an apology. No appellate volumes to be found at all for this case.

How do nine volumes of anything just go missing?

The Appellate volumes have many of the transcripts and court orders that seem to be currently missing from the file.

Any thoughts on what happened to the Appellate volumes? Be creative in the comment section below!

Motion in Limine

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of: )

)

KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY, )

) Commission No. 2012 PR 00014

Attorney-Respondent, )

)

No. 642754 )

MOTION IN LIMINE

Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky moves for a Rule in Limine prohibiting further violation of his Rights protected under the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:

1) That the respondent is a citizen of the United States of America and the State of Illinois and therefore entitled to the protections of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.

2) That the respondent is a citizen of the United States of America and the State of Illinois and therefore entitled to the protections of the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

3) That the policy of the State of Illinois is stated in 735 ILCS 110/5. 735 ILCS 110/5 in words and phrases states:

§ 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.

Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.

The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.

It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants. IL ST CH 735 § 110/5

4) That the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. USCA CONST Amend. I-Full Text

5) That it axiomatic that a respondent is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of both the Constitution of the State and the United States of America[1] . The United States Supreme Court has stated in numerous cases ( previously cited – the citations are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail) that limitations of Free Speech are intolerable and that Free Speech cannot be limited except in very special circumstances[2] . A lawyer objecting to corruption, fraud, legal proceedings commenced and prosecuted without jurisdiction and/or depriving a senior citizen of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights are not among the categories of speech that the State or the Administration can bar.

Wherefore the respondent moves that the Respondent be barred from presenting at any hearing or proceeding any testimony that the respondent (or any other citizen) made any statement as evidence of wrongdoing that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular, the Administrator be barred from presenting as derogatory evidence the following:

1) Respondent was engaged by any other citizen to do any legal act. (Association)

2) Respondent communicated in any way with another person or entity (free speech)

3) Respondent communicated with any other attorney, judge, guardian, public official. (Right to petition government – free speech)

4) Respondent made charges that a government official (including a judicial official) committed some wrongful act or refused to do some act. (right of petition)

5) Respondent communicated with other persons that Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Judge Connors, or some other persons did some act (including acts that might be deemed criminal) (free speech and assembly)

6) Respondent disseminated words and phrases that placed and caused others to believe that Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, other lawyers, or other persons had been miscreant or otherwise committed acts that were improper.[3] (free speech, assembly and petition to government)

7) Respondent used words and phrases that might tend to cause anxiety or concern in 3^rd persons that they might be or might have committed acts that were in derogation or neglect of their professional responsibilities. (free speech)

8) Respondent may have authored, disseminated or otherwise published any other and different statement containing words and phrases which was offensive to Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Lea Black, Cynthia Farenga, one or more Judges, the Administrator and other members of the political elite or judiciary. (free speech and/or right of assembly)

9) Respondent may have authored, disseminated or otherwise published words and phrases that were critical of judicial decision, legislation, law enforcement activities, or the policies of the ARDC and/or any other government agency or entity.

10) Otherwise affecting Respondent’s right to communicate with regards to any other word, phrase, display, or other form of communication protected by the United States Constitution, Article One of the Illinois Constitution, or law of the United States of America.

Respectfully Submitted

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

More disturbing reports from other blogs regarding the 18th floor of the Daley Center

Posted on July 15, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear readers;

This is from another probate blog but the descriptions are eerily similar to what is going on with Mary Sykes.

thanks

JoAnne

Any diagnosis makes someone at risk of enslavement in Cook County by Cook County Guardian under Illinois Probate Law in this case study. County takes away your right to decide for self
These are some human rights problems visitors/athletes face coming to a Chicago Olympics or to Chicago
1. Asking where parent or family is can result in restraining order and jail threat by Cook County judge and sheriff staff
2. Asking to visit, take family home can result in contempt charges by Cook County judge. The judge charges money to deny visits, deny phone, taking family from nursing homes. Letters from parent that she wants to go home, be visited, get phone calls are responded to with motions to strike, being pushed from the Daley Center, contempt orders and arguments that filings are repetitive
3. Wanting parent to avoid second hand smoke results in jail threats, arm twisting, being pushed from Daley Center by some Cook County sheriff staff. Wanting parent to avoid brief second hand smoke associated with cancer can result in harassment and false following to car allegations
4. Asking what chemicals are put into parent results in harassment allegations by Cook County guardian staff Nathan Goldensen and Sadeta Kalamperovic
5. Cook County guardian staff charges over $500 for routine services to be guardians over those who have injury or illness. Their staff charge for many concerns such as “can my parent come home” or “can my parent go to the zoo” or “can my parent go outside for Christmas services” or “where is my parent.” Cook County guardian charges $18 for phone calls to them sometimes
6. Cook County guardian takes most assets essentially for their own use. Cook County guardian staff wants someone to stay in a nursing home and they use the assets for the nursing home and to dispute the right to leave the facility, go home, avoid smokers, be visited, get phone calls
7. Cook County Guardian charges money to not reimburse food, dental, optical, transportation, medical, prescription bills paid by credit card by family for the parent’s care. Requests for reimbursement are responded to with jail threats sometimes
8. Cook County Guardian staff responds to concerns that they tax Boeing involved in the war in Iraq, other wars like WWII, Vietnam and Afghanistan with jail threats and confinement of parent. Boeing’s missiles dropped in many nations at Olympics and around world
9. Cook County guardian take family mail and federal court rules guardian has the right or state courts have rights and persons under guardianship do not have federal right to complain
10. Appeals about the rights to visit family, phone family and have family come home cost $200 in the Illinois Court of Appeals and $435 in the federal court. The contempt charge about trying to visit parent and have parent go home was $100. Athletes might face jail threats for trying to visit or phone or take family from certain nursing homes here.
11. Injured and some family are treated by Cook County Guardian as without rights. Cook County guardian staff Nathan Goldensen/Belko has rights to decide but none of family have
12. Nursing home director says “you will be dead if you say things like that” about contacting the US attorney about an elderly person being treated like a slave. In response to concern with “you are going to be dead” comment, access restricted for 6 months
13. Attempts to get parent fresh air away from second hand smoke is responded to with arm twisting, jail threat, 6 month access restriction and being pushed from Daley Center.
14. Nathan Goldensen asks “are you an anti-Semite,” because I express concern with the County treating persons with injury like disabled were treated in the 1930’s under National Socialism in Germany
15. County demands $30,000-40,000 to dispute reimbursement of bills, confine family, not let family get fresh air, come with police and take away parent’s place to stay, come with police and handcuff parent for running away trying to avoid second hand smokers
16. Cook County judge tries to make concern with these issues “harm to parent,” even though parent clearly says wants to live with son, phone son, visit son, go to zoo, avoid smokers, go to own doctors, likes living and being with son
17. Parent’s hands and head are shaking, and Guardian responds to concern by restricting access to see parent
18. Cook County guardian Nathan Goldensen say did not receive letters from parent even though she called him and I gave letters to him. Nathan Goldensen acts like not aware of smokers, even though I say many smokers repeatedly and show pictures she is not able to get fresh air away from smokers
19. Judge, Cynthia Farenga and Nathan Goldensen respond to concerns with second hand smoke by restricting access and having sheriff take family from building. Lawyers charge to deny rights requests
20. Any incapacity, mental illness, disability can result in this treatment by the County.
21. Cook County judge restricts filing of documents about these issues
22. Cook County judge uses diagnoses or injury to take away rights to decide for self
23. Cook County guardian staff withholds records of chemicals put into person’s body and takes away place to stay for issues like cold water in apartment, pipes that break in cold, broken elevator, cold temperatures, area involved in war, reimbursement requests
24. Cook County guardian staff and hosptals give shots without consent for trying to get expenses reimbursed, know what is put in body, be concerned over state taxing corporation involved in war
25. War crime concerns that state taxes corporation involved in war result in jail threats, visitation, phone restrictions and going home restrictions
26. Nursing home director says “mother probably not here” even though the person is there. Location withheld for 3 or more months

27. Nathan Goldensen and Sadeta Kalamperovic hold parent in facility for 17 months or longer and go through much of family assets. $4,300 is being charged each month at nursing home
29. Chicago Police and Sadeta Kalamperovic come and handcuff parent who was trying to avoid second hand smokers at nursing homeand ran away from County staff
Probate laws can make athletes and visitors’ injuries and limitations into reasons rights lost.
Diagnoses are reasons to enslave in Illinois. Mental Illness is a reason to enslave in Illinois. Why are the 13th, 14th , 15th amendment not seen as applying to guardianship even though the actions are not that different? When persons have to appeal to the US Supreme Court to visit family, phone family, get family away from smokers, get family fresh air, have family come home, similarities with slavery are seen. Many concerns in Cook County court are responded to with jail threats and being pushed from the Daley Center.
After you go to the doctor in the United States or at least Illinois, the determination of a diagnosis is legally used to strip you of a number of rights and liberties. Guardians take you as property to charge you money to express all your rights. The simple fact that you are scared of “evil people” or want to say a word like “I am from Heaven” or princess might be used to make you into a slave or County property.

My comments are who is the “judge” but then again, it can be any of the judges in Probate. Go find a list of Daley center probate judges and just insert any name. Pick a name. Any name.

There is no doubt that an oversight committee needs to be formed for what is going on in Probate. If you go to a nursing home, dozens and dozens of seniors are begging to get out of there and go home, yet no one is investigating that. I know if they get too vociferous, then they get drugged. They know they will get drugged for that and many start to shut up.

The reality is if you are a senior and you lose your driver’s license, and even then, you can be forced to live where you don’t and your home will be sold to put you in a nursing home and pay guardianship fees.

KDD is not kidding when he calls these clout heavy nursing home systems an evil cabal of corruption and the new Gulag in the US.

Whereas other countries consider it a shame to put grandma or grandpa into a nursing home, we have made it the sucking sound of a large vacuum cleaner here–wallets, homes, savings, jewelry. You name it and it will be sold to put grandma in a nursing home with a guardian that isolates here and continuously violates the ADA and her human rights.

We already have the right laws, but the implementation of these laws by the GAL’s and the court system is turning into a human tragedy and complete loss of civil rights.

JoAnne

Oversignt committe:

1) make sure that wards are not exposed to second hand smoke

2) make sure that a home is not being sold just to dump someone in a nursing home to make the nursing home money. Those are dangerous places that precipitously decreases the lifespan of seniors by half or more (3 years avg vs. 7 or more years at home when nursing care required). Guardians and GAL’s must sign a certificate of compliance that home care is not possible and/or the ward has consented to nursing home placement. Nursing home placements should be review each 6 month with a survey from the Guardian that the placement is acceptable to the ward, that there is no other home placement among relatives, and she has sought to find a nurse for in home care and that is not possible at the present time.

3) required the judges to make appealable written findings of fact and conclusions of law when a Power of Attorney for health care selecting a guardian is ignored by the court.

4) require the judges to inquire into Sodini, asking the petitioner if all the relatives are properly listed together with their names and addresses AND to file a certificate of compliance that Petitioner has served notice on all close relatives (spouse, adult children, siblings, parents) informing each of the hearing date, place and time 14 days in advance of the hearing on a Petition for Guardianship.

5) allow concerned family and friends to appoint an independent attorney who may question the court, the guardian and the GAL’s on each and all of the above. If allegations are proven, and the ward is able to pay from the estate, the court may order reimbursement of up to half the attorney’s normal published rate.

MaryGSykes.com

Tag Archives: mary g sykes

From Ken Ditkowsky — a summary of the miscreants

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

From Gloria today—

Form to get any Probate case dismissed for lack of Sodini Jurisdiction or proper Notice to Close Relatives

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

Calls on Gloria to do the right thing and file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit

Joanne’s continued communication with Diane Saltoun-Illinois Executive Director Attorney General

A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

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

Carolyn Toerpe VS Gloria Sykes 7/13/2012

For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case.

My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Directior at the Illinois Atty General

Answer to a Question from Scott Evans and the significance of lacking jurisdiction/Sodini notices

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

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

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED

Updates about the Court banning the use of laptops

Comments about PURGING OF FILES from Ken and Joanne

Sons of Greylord, born of the Illinois ARDC

Lea Black’s Petition to BAR Gloria from testifying at Ken’s proceeding against the ARDC

ARDC Petition to BAN Gloria as a witness in Ken Ditkowsky’s case against ARDC

What exactly IS the definition of theft? LB was asking Scott the other day.

Lumbermen’s vs Gloria Sykes: exparte orders (not on file) and Peter Schmiedel’s threats and lawlessness

Joanne’s fax to [agency], [entity] and [agency2]

Comments from Ken Ditkowsky on MISSING documents and pleadings in 09 P 4585

A complete list of all files in Mary G Sykes case. Please note all the missing documents

Missing Appellate Volume: ALL 13 OF THEM

Motion in Limine

More disturbing reports from other blogs regarding the 18th floor of the Daley Center