From Dan Devine–an article on protecting seniors

Protection of elder rights 24 hours a day

By Richard Devine
Cook County State’s Attorney
Our job as prosecutors isn’t always easy. We not only deal with heartbreaking violent crimes, we also run across clever con artists who deliberately target victims because they’re elderly or vulnerable. We’ve seen caretakers who mistreat their charges pitifully—and steal from them in the meantime. We’ve seen cold-hearted cases of financial exploitation. And we’ve seen home repair fraud schemes that operate almost like corporate firms. A recent Sun-Times series outlined the kinds of crimes I’m talking about. I’m sure some of you read it. If you did, you learned that what we handle isn’t often pleasant. The cases are sometimes pathetic, and sometimes our work is tragically sad.
Recently, though, I had an unusual task — much nicer than the normal routine. This time, it was my job to hand out money. Let me tell you about it. It involved a case that had more than 100 victims. The victims were all elderly, and none of them were rich. But each had made at least one solid investment in their lives: they each owned a home.
As I said, they weren’t rich. Their houses were often small and deteriorating. Some of these men and women had lived in their homes for decades. Their houses didn’t look like much, but they were the only real assets these people had. And then those homes became the target for a clever ring of con men.
The con artists worked out of two companies. One was Senior Citizens Remodeling, Inc. The other was the Senior Income Reverse Mortgage Corporation. They approached homeowners one by one and convinced them that they could improve the value of their homes. The sales people were well spoken, sophisticated and persuasive. They spoke of new roofs, brand new garages, new electrical and plumbing systems. They convinced the victims to take part in a federally funded “Reverse Mortgage” program. That program allowed the homeowners to borrow against the equity in their homes.
Then, when the loan checks came, the con artists stepped in and took the money up front. They promised to do repairs and renovations. They promised to make things better and increase the worth of the old homes. But they never showed up to do the work. Or if they did, they often did the jobs only halfway, or worse.
The owners were trusting. At first, they thought they were making a smart move. Slowly they learned they were wrong. They started calling the company, again and again and again. They did what they could, but they got nowhere. To their detriment, they had believed the promises and they were left with nothing. There was another part to the scam.
When the mortgage company arranged the loans, they charged lender fees that were out of line and above federal limits. In most cases, the victims never even knew it. But I’m pleased to tell you that that’s not the end to the story. When we got wind of the con, our office went to work. We took action against both the remodeling company and the mortgage company they worked with. After long months of legal work, we reached a settlement with the mortgage company early last year. That settlement for $200,000 was paid.
Then, later in the year, we reached a settlement with the remodeling company, too. The scam company was ordered to pay full restitution to its victims, and $50,000 in fines on top of that. After that, our office had another job to do. We sorted through the evidence to try to find all the homeowners. By the time it was over, we’d found 164 elderly people who’d fallen victim to the cold-hearted scam. Next, we had to figure out how much money the con artists scammed from each one. In many cases, it amounted to thousands of dollars. The best part came last.
Last month, it was my job to start giving the money back. That was a pleasant task. We got a lot of smiles and a lot of thank you’s. One man, who is 82 years old, joked about it. He told me he didn’t like the scam companies, and was glad to see them go out of business. “I like YOUR company,” he told me.
Of course, our office isn’t exactly a company. But we try to operate in a business-like way. And we try, whenever we can, to protect the vulnerable and the elderly. To do so, we’ve taken up new legal tools and a new system of organization. Three years ago, we reorganized. We created a special “Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Division” made up of experienced felony trial attorneys. The attorneys rotate duty so that someone is on call 24 hours a day.
These specialized prosecutors handle their cases vertically. That means they go to work when a call comes in from police and work the case from beginning to end, from the preliminary hearing, to trial, all the way through to sentencing. It may be a financial exploitation case, a case of abuse or neglect, or a violent crime. Whatever the case, we find that elderly victims are more comfortable if they can rely on one attorney throughout. It takes away some of the intimidation that courts can cause, and it’s worked. We’re proud to say that our new division had a conviction rate of over 90 percent last year.
We also have specialized personnel in our Victim-Witness program, who help guide elderly victims through the legal process. When it’s needed, they offer transportation and other assistance as well. Beyond that, our office drafted new laws to fit the crimes. We’ve written laws that help strengthen the testimony of older victims, and we drafted groundbreaking legislation that tackles identity theft, another crime that often hits the elderly. We’re doing what we can to protect the vulnerable citizens of this city.
As I said earlier, the job can be sad. And it can be frustrating, but not always. I’d like to finish by reading you a letter we got after we handed out those checks last month. This was from a man named Harlan Naas, one of the victims in that home repair fraud scheme.
“Thank you for making my holiday season the happiest in a long time,” he wrote. “I am age 81, undergoing cancer treatment, and had less than $100 to spend when the $3,200 check arrived.”
That’s why we do what we do.
Please remember that at the State’s Attorney Office, it’s our job to protect you. If you believe that you or someone you love has fallen victim to fraud or exploitation, please contact us. It’s our job to do what we can.
********

\

I just wonder where Atty Devine was when we asked the states attorneys offices to protect Mary G. Sykes.  Instead she was fleeced of hundred of thousands of dollars–which the attorneys said would be used for her care–but it went to the attorneys!   She was guardianized and railroaded into this “crime” without due process-no evidence of service of process with Sheriff Dart and it was a done deal with Adam Stern and Cynthis Farenga and all Mary’s rights were gone, she was stripped of her home, her nearly $1 million in valuable coins (and discovery was suprressed on those at my trial and by the probate court whenever the GAL’s Stern and Farenga said so, or Harvey Waller or Peter Schmeidel said so.  My trial was a joke with the Tribunal believing every dumb thing out of the mouths of Judge Jane Louis Stuart (who lied on the stand and was subsequently forced in the sudden retirement, likely by the FBI), now Aicha MacCarthy who was on the bench on this case when Mary G Sykes was narcoticed to death, placed in hospice and on drugs despite being a staunch Roman Catholic who put in her last POA to prolong her life by all means.

Where is the hue and outcry over the death of one lone woman from Norwood Park neighborhood in Chicago, her home sold by the probate flying monkeys for pennies on the dollar, stripped of her all her rights, isolated from 20+ former friends and family.

I understand that the Catherine Falk Organization is getting the Aging Parental Reunification Law passed in Utah right now, please pray for them to get this done.  I believe in California it is on the Gov’s desk for signature.  Please pray it is signed right away.

In the case of Gloria Sykes, she is now dead, being narcoticed to death, no funderal, no announcements, no obituary, embalmed while the Guardian waited.  No tox screen, no autopsy.

What about the other seniors.  At least Mary has quite a few voices–Gloria, Kathie, Ken, myself and others–willing to go to the ropes and beyond for one little old lady we knew and loved well.  But there are others–Ms. Lipinsky’s mom was narcoticed to death after she plead with Ms. Lipinsky, a beloved daughter not to leave her with the evil sis, but Ms. Lipinsky had to, there was a court order.  Not long after her mom too was narcoticed to death “in hospice”, and the sis made sure there was no tox screen, no autopsy and no questions, a quick cremation.

please pray for the below bill:

http://www.catherinefalkorganization.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Peter-Falks-bill-NY.pdf

And if you get a chance, go to their website and show your support

Another good story to read is on the dangerous of psychotropic meds and how they are frequently used in nursing homes far too often and generally as chemical restraints.  Of course, none of this is legal in Illinois where the patient has to give consent to the use of such drugs, warned of the side effects and given alternatives, but it happens all the time, so please be aware and protect your loved ones.

http://www.news10.net/story/news/investigations/2015/06/17/45-area-nursing-homes-rate-below-average-for-the-use-of-antipsychotic-drugs/71258022/

Advertisements

From Ken Ditkowsky–make the miscreants pay the taxes that are due.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 28, 2015 12:52 PM
To: Douglas Kinan , “Kirk@kirk.senate.gov” , Matt Senator Kirk , Edward Carter , Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Tim NASGA , Nasga Us , Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Chicago FBI , Chicago Tribune
Subject: Why are the elder cleansers not paying their income taxes on their ill gotten gains? We would all like to know.

Tax Consequences of Elder Cleansing:
1.        Unreported Inventory.
One of the most common consequences of the isolation, and financial exploitation is the taking of assets (such as occurred in the Mary Sykes case -09 P 4585) and not inventorying them.   This theft is a benefit to the miscreant guardian as well as all who join in the Conspiracy.    In the Mary Sykes case we are dealing with nearly a million dollars in gold coins.    We are also dealing with “cash” and other valuables.   It is estimated that the entire estate had a value of over 2 million dollars.
When the fiduciary (and his co-conspirators) take possession directly or indirectly a taxable event occurs and each has joint and several liability for the entire value of the asset that is not inventoried and which ultimately finds its way out of the estate.   This is ordinary income.  It can be allocated to each and all of the following miscreants:  Judges X and Y, Schmeidel, Farenga, Stern and the ARDC that covered up by wrongfully prosecuting attorneys blowing the whistle on the abuse and fraud:  Jerome Larkin, head of the ARDC, Sharon Opryszek, Melissa Smart, Leah Black Guiterrez, Stephen Split and others.  Those with a finger in the pie, and those that cover up the pie, are all jointly and severally liable until the tax fraud debit is paid.
2.       Side ventures
The assets of the estate being ravaged has various assets in it that slip through the cracks after being inventoried.    In the Sykes it was quite difficult to make her home disappear.    So the guardians went into Court claiming that they needed money and the need to sell the house.    In the Sykes case the house had a value in excess of $700,000 – according to an appraisal done previously. [1]     The sale of the dwelling was for approx. $200,000.00.       This sale was highly questionable even though approved by the Court.
It is expected (and will occur in Sykes) that the property will be sold and through a series of mesne sales that full value will be obtained for the miscreants (co-conspirators).    The first purchaser will sell the property to another nominee purchaser.    This will be followed by another sale and finally a sale to the ultimate purchaser.     The final sale will be claimed as a capital gain –
As this side venture was a taxable event on day one, the entire transaction when it occurred is ordinary income.   Thus, the Sykes miscreants must pay when the sale occurred ordinary income taxes against the correct value of $1 million.    They are not entitled to capital gains – no matter how they structure the sale.
3.       Collateral pickups.
Being a guardian has with it opportunities.     They include kickbacks for playing the Ward in a nursing home, hospice facility.     In addition, employment of certain attorneys means referral fees etc.        All these referral fees are taxable income.      In the case of nursing homes as an example, the remuneration may come in the form of the income from nursing beds, an interest in the partnership controlling the facility, or the opportunity to engage in other and similar exploitations of the elderly.     These collaterals are ordinary income and the joint and several liability attaches to all of the conspirators.    Thus, it is respectfully suggested under reporting of the income tax liability may start the Statute of Limitations in operation as to the miscreant who reports the “kickback” but not as to the co-conspirators who did not report the benefit(gain).    Any tax paid however offsets the liability of the other co-conspirators to the extent of the payment
The Gore case a certain Guardian ad Litem was provided an opportunity to be the “heir” of an elderly person.    She took advantage of it and filed in the Florida Courts her claim.     The AG of Florida objected to the claim, however, he settled for ½ of the value of the payout.    That left a million dollars as an inheritance.     This inheritance was not an inheritance – it was a theft and the co-conspirators owed the tax on the money received as ordinary income.     Those who cover-up the fraud (such as Jerome Larkin and his minions SO, LBG, SS, MS, etc.) also owe the taxes due as a joint and several liability.
4.       Pick-ups.
In several of the Florida estates and in the Sykes case the miscreants have managed to get Court orders that attached property that was not part of the disabled person’s estate.      Theft is a taxable event even if a Court approves it.
For instance.    In one Florida Estate the guardian and the Court arbitrarily took possession and control over the property of one of the objecting family members.    It was clear that this control was obtained for the purpose of shutting the dissent to the elder cleansing life shut down.     The minute the guardian and Court took control of the funds that we not part of the estate each of the co-conspirators (including the Judge’s X and Y who should have known better) owed the United States of America the ordinary income taxes due.   (Constructive receipt).     These taxes vested.
In a similar manner in the Sykes estate, the commandeering of Gloria Sykes hazard insurance settlement resulted in tax liability for the guardian, the two guardian ad litem, the corrupt jurist, the attorney who was aware of and part of the theft, Jerome Larkin and his crew who tried to cover it up and everyone who joined in the conspiracy.    The taxes that they owed are ordinary income.
In some of the cases, and in particular the Florida case the theft was covered up by the corrupt jurist awarding Attorney fees from the stolen money.     The award of attorney fees and court costs is an independent act.    Money is fungible!     The fact that some taxes were paid (or will be paid) on the attorney fees is incidental and does not defray the Federal and State taxes due.    The entire fund is ordinary income and must be reported in the year of the theft as ordinary income on the tax return.    No credit is given to the criminals for paying taxes on attorney fees or other costs that are claimed to be paid out of the stolen funds.   The only credit that they are entitled to is for taxes specifically paid on the stolen funds.
The Sykes case is a corner stone case that has almost all of the pernicious events occurring therein.      The statutory protections were all ignored by a corrupt jurist and his cohorts.     The corrupt judicial officials were protected by the Supreme Court justices of Illinois and the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Commission and its director Jerome Larkin.    Larkin acted through attorneys who demonstrated amorality and avarice as they protected their co-conspirators from an Honest investigation.   18 USCA 371 addresses this situation and defines the fact that all who did overt acts in pursuance of the elder cleansing are co-conspirators and jointly and severally liable for not only the damages but the ordinary income taxes.     (There is no benefit of the doubt for corrupt public and judicial officials who elect to prey on the elderly and the disabled – the State and the United States of America should be able to collect the income taxes due in full and without unjust delay.)


[1] A real estate appraisal varies as it is opinion.   In the Fairway Preserve Condominium frauds, the developer was able to obtain appraisals of condo units for $350,000, while the Count appraiser appraised the same units for $100,000.00.     Historically, lender appraisals are lower than insurance appraisals.     The real appraisal occurs when the property is sold to a purchaser who is not controlled by either the real purchaser or the seller – or their representatives.   In the Sykes case because of the location, zoning potential, and size of the lot the $700,000 value is a bit frugal.

From Ken Ditkowsky–We must stand up for our rights if we want to preserve our Democracy

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 28, 2015 12:01 PM
To: “loamu@aol.com” , “joanne@justice4every1.com” , “verenusl@gmail.com” , “timlahrman@aol.com” , “nasga.org@gmail.com” , “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , “jdit@aol.com” , “askdoj@usdoj.gov” , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , “chicago@ic.fbi.gov” , “drditkowsky@aol.com” , “tips@tribune.com” , “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com” , “bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com” , “letters@suntimes.com” , “foxnews_7d7b711af105dca690ab56169c0ff242@newsletters.foxnews.com” , “ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com” , “sa3456@msn.com” , “fiduciarywatch@gmail.com” , “statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov” , “isba@list.isba.org” , “aclu@aclu.org” , “scottcevans@hotmail.com” , “ecarter@atg.state.il.us” , “glenest03@yahoo.com” , “bstone12@hotmail.com” , “prov2828@hotmail.com” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “schwagerlawfirm@live.com” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , “sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov” , “zamirkatan@aol.com” , “llessura@gmail.com” , “jnjgldmn@aol.com” , “activistpost@gmail.com” , “tvfields@oh.rr.com” , “newseditors@wsj.com” , “nvallone1@gmail.com” , “webmaster@abajournal.com” , “consult4lj@yahoo.com” , “jimdit@earthlink.net” , “kozakm1@gmail.com” , “drrob2007@yahoo.com” , “k_bakken@att.net” , “utterby@sbcglobal.net” , “info@deepfriedbrownies.com” , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, “johnhowardwyman@gmail.com” , “maryrichards45@gmail.com” , “truthbetoldradio@gmail.com” , “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” , “writejanet@live.com” , “kev_pizz@hotmail.com” , “information@iardc.org”
Cc: “pmanson@lbpc.com” , “pusateri@lbpc.com” , “sgarmisa@hoeyfarina.com” , “rstrom@lbpc.com” , “lwood@lbpc.com” , “questions.insideout@gmail.com” , “arin@nextions.com” , “kmcdonough@smsm.com” , “mscodro@jenner.com” , “denise.c.garcia@microsoft.com” , “oluk@nshn.com” , “bhaan@leesheikh.com” , “celia.gamrath@cookcountyil.gov” , “lyndsay@lmarkey.com” , “seth.darmstadter@klgates.com” , “alongo@cassiday.com” , “jgabala@illinoiscourts.gov”
Subject: Re: Amu’s Supplement to Motion to Reverse Suspension of Law License

Subject:  Racism
 
Unlike the racism of the 1950’s today’s bigots are much more subtle but just a venal.     Some of these miscreants have found their way into the political closet and occupy positions of important and public protection.    Today’s racist does not refer to his victim in a pejorative manner, and in fact he open donates money to organizations that ostentatiously claim to be monitoring and protecting the rights, privileges and immunities of the minority targeted.    The big lie that today the ‘show’ is more important than the substance and thus there are huge numbers of ordinary people who feel that they have been sold out or at not considered important by their leaders and their government.
 
The Judicial process is the ‘escape value’ of American society.     It is in this forum that the founders of America decreed that individuals, corporations, and mighty and the powerless would all be equal, receive due process of law and adjudicate fairly and appropriately their disputes.     Thus, it is reasoned that while citizens had the right to protest and exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS it would be unnecessary.     Of course the naivety was obvious as humanity has and will always have an element of corruption and avarice that cannot be filtered out.
 
This does not mean that Americans have to live with corruption.     We of course have to be diligent and we have to ‘stand up’ for our rights if we wish to retain them.    
 
The Lanre Amu case is particularly interesting in that it was the Administrator of the IARDC’s duty to prove by clear and convincing evidence whatever facts that he alleged constituted Mr. Amu’s misbehavior.    In particular the Illinois Court has stated:
it is a rule well recognized, that where the evidence to prove a fact is chiefly, if not entirely, in control of the adverse party and such evidence is not produced, his failure   [395]  to produce the evidence tends to strengthen the probative force of the evidence given to establish such claimed fact. [Citation.] The burden of producing evidence, chiefly, if not entirely, within the control of an adverse party, rests upon such party if he would deny the existence of claimed facts. [Citation.] Where a party alone possesses information concerning a disputed issue of fact and fails to bring forward that information, and it is shown that it can be produced by him alone, a presumption arises in favor of his adversary’s claim of fact. [Citation.]”
In the cause at hand, the Administrator failed to show that the means of proving the proportionality of the fees was in the exclusive possession of respondent such that the burden-shifting rule of Beldingapplies.  HN7 SHAPE  \* MERGEFORMAT   It is essential that the Administrator prove each allegation by clear and convincing evidence. In re Enstrom, 104 Ill. 2d 410, 416, 84 Ill. Dec. 486, 472 N.E.2d 446 (1984).  The complaint alleges that respondent participated in a division of legal fees that was not in proportion to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by each  lawyer . Thus, it was the Administrator’s burden to prove  that the fee division was disproportionate to the services performed and the responsibility assumed by both respondent and Rosenblum.
 
It has been Mr. Amu’s contention that the Judge’s that he was complaining concerning were corrupt.     One of the Judges’ (Judge Egan) was the subject of a Crain’s Chicago Business article that ironically made the very same assertion that Mr. Amu made.        This fact is hardly a coincidence as the hearing panels of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission have very ‘sorry’ reputations.     “Wired” is a polite way of referring to them as it is not unusual for them to make findings in favor of the Commission without any evidence being presented to them [1] .      Amu has complained vigorously of being ‘railroaded’ and wrongfully suspended to deaf ears.
 
The publication of the Crain’s Chicago Business article making the exact averments that Attorney Amu has made highlights the disconnect between the Illinois commission doing its job of protecting the public and having a private agenda contrary to the Constitutional mandate of both the Federal and State Constitutions.       The public certainly would give much more credence to Crain’s than Jerome Larkin!       Indeed, it is a matter of public record whether Judge Egan is on the board of plaintiff, her brother is the attorney for the plaintiff, and whether the judge is presiding at the trial.      Such is an up or down situation.      If the commission found by clear and convincing evidence that the public record, Amu, and Crain’s were all lying and the Administrator was the only ‘truth teller’ such would and should be suspect.     That apparently is what they did and the Supreme Court of Illinois not only affirmed but found by the interim suspension of Amu that reciting the public record by an attorney is inherently dangerous to the public safety.
 
Forgetting that a reading of the decision of the hearing board, review board et al gives the impression of a racial nexus for the proceeding and forgetting the history of Mr. Larkin – i.e. the barring of Diane Nash from the kangaroo proceedings involving JoAnne Denison, and his refusal to apologize or even disingenuously try to offer an excuse for the racist act,  this latest act by Larkin individually and as the alter=ego of the Illinois Supreme Court is so outrageous as to call for an investigation by the Justice Department of yet another act of racism, and Larkin’s corruption.
 
When lawyers cannot count on fair play and honesty in their own personal dealing with the Supreme Court of Illinois it is no wonder that the public in general holds the Court system of the 2nd oldest profession is such low repute.    In point of fact the justice system if the ‘elder cleansing cases’ and these disciplinary cases are examples the public is correct that the Illinois Justice System is terribly corrupt and unreliable.
 
Let is backtrack for a moment.    Assume for the purpose of argument only that Mr. Larkin was misled and acted in objective good faith.     The Crain’s article is now called to his attention!   What does he do?   
 
The fact is Mr. Larkin has not apologized to Mr. Amu and now that he knows that Amu’s statements were in point of fact truthful he is not in the forefront of seeking Mr. Amu’s license to be returned to him.      Certainly, Larkin is not offering restitution to Amu for the defamation, insult, and personal wrongful conduct!      Basic decency would have required Larkin to come forth immediately upon finding out about a “mistake” and tendering an apology.      He did not I expect he will not.      The fact remains that Amu has been punished because he, as man having a dark hue to his skin, complained about a fair skinned judge and accused her of corruption.     To Larkin it is intolerable that a respected publication made the same averment!      
 
By my definition Larkin’s conduct is unacceptable,  racist and so ethically challenged that he has forfeited any respect that he might have had and should be instanter investigated and removed from public office.      There is no place for ‘racists’ in government.    The principle of equality before the law for all is too important to be shoved under the rug no matter what political mentor sponsors Mr. Larkin.


[1] In my proceeding a panel solved a jurisdictional problem by inventing without any testimony or even an assertion by the Administrator that required notice to family members of a hearing was obviated by the family members having knowledge of a hearing to determine Mary Sykes incompetent.      The panel was so anxious to please the administrator that they found that the undisclosed family members had knowledge.    The knowledge was not specified to be prior, but, as the result was predetermined that fact or the fact that the Court record in the Mary Sykes case revealed that no such hearing ever was held.    The finding of Mary Sykes’ incompetency was based upon an order being handed to a judge and she rubber=stamping the same.     The Court file was kept out of the proceeding as it would have disclosed that the Administrator once again was not truthful.

From Ken Ditkowsky — explaining how Illinois Probate Coverups Work

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 2, 2015 11:54 AM
To: Mark R Ferran , “betsy@parentadvocates.org”
Cc: Eliot Ivan Bernstein , JoAnne M Denison
Subject: Re: THESE LAWLESS NEW YORK JUDGES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WILL THEY BECOME FEDERAL JUDGES?

With the retirement of Judge George Leighton Illinois suffered a serious loss.  Probably our best lawyer, smartest judge, and a lone voice of integrity was gone forever.    Corrupt public officials and corrupt judicial officials danced in the streets with joy – an era was over.
Mr. Ferran – it appears that you are overqualified to be a lawyer.    Engineer and Lawyer!     Are you aware that so many lawyers being groomed to be judges barely read and write!     Many on the bench – especially in the probate division have one skill – they can use a rubber stamp and when a clout heavy fixer enters the court room the jurist (who when asked if he/she ever takes bribes say no) shows the proper respect planting a kiss on the posterior of the lawyer.
Words that connote honesty, integrity, and/or fidelity are unethical and can cause an ordinary lawyer to be sanctioned or suspended.    Quoting the law is punishable by contempt!      Understanding the law is not in the best traditions of the Illinois bar as it set today.
Thus, what difference who is placed on the bench.     Take a look at the fisaco that occurred in the Col Smith case down in Florida.    A judge actually appointed a plenary guardian in preference to the wife.   When she complained the guardian sought to annul the marriage on the grounds that she did not get along with him (the guardian).
In the Helen Stone case, she became too much trouble so they put Ms. Stone on a feeding tube.    When her daughter Barbara came to visit Ms. Stone pleaded for food.   Like a good daughter Barbara had the tube removed and took her mother to lunch.   The facade was exposed and they arrest Barbara for exposing their crime. They charged her (incredibly) with interferring with the custody of a disabled person!  This was not Barbara’s first arrest.  The first one when when she objected to giving her mother Miralax, a drug contraindicated for the eldery, with a Black Box warning on it!
In the Alice Gore case (Illinois) the 99 year old lady was placed in a nursing home so that the GAL could get a referral fee.     To do this they had to dig up a relative who was herself declared disabled and make her the guardian in preference to the successful members of the family including a daughter who has weekly television program.     After they managed to convert 1.5 million in assets to zero the greed bastards prospected Alice’s mouth for gold.   They found some and harvested it.     (They did not inventory it).    With no more assets to harvest – Alice died of dehydration and starvation.   The family had to find out for itself.
In the Wyman case, the husband decided that a guardianship was preferable to a divorce.   With the right lawyer he became the guardian and placed her in (the worst Illinois) nursing home to be raped repeatedly!    A little post guardianship induced mental stress works wonders.    Her sons try to intervene, and they are slapped with a Protective Order.  Mom Wyman manages to escape, is near death down 2 pints of blood, and the probate atttorneys lien the family home for tens of thousands of dollars.  When Mrs. Denison argued to the court this was a Fraud on the Court and the liens must be removed, the court ignored her.
The Sykes case is even more obnoxious in that Mary discovered that her oldest daughter had stolen money from her bank account.   She protested, received some threats and asked the Court for an order of protection.    The miscreant daughter hired an attorney and she became Mary’s guardian with complete power to loot the estate.   She did!  Then the home was liquidated for 20 cents on the dollar quickly.
There are thousands of these cases and they all have one thing in common  besides corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt public officials *** – law enforcement is playing hear no evil, see no evil, do plenty of evil by inaction.   Even the IRS has been silent and has been letting these elder cleansing cases to be untaxed.
Mark – it is interesting just how many lawyers, judges, public officials et al are treating these cases with benign neglect.     Thus, you and your kind present a serious concern to the miscreants of all shapes and sizes.   Being qualified to practice law you might develop the tendency to believe all that stuff in the Constitution, in the Americans with Disabilities Act, in the Federal and State Statutes, in the Bill of rights etc.     Thus, you have the potential to upset the applecart!
Worse yet, you might call for an HONEST investigation ****.  If that happens, then Jerome Larkin, administrator of the Ill. ARDC and his minions (Opryszek, Smart, Splitt, Black Guiterrez) will come after the honest attorneys with a vengeance and another pack of lies they present before a Triumvirate Board they declare to be justice,  when in fact, it’s the furthest thing from Truth or Justice.
Ken Ditkowsky

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

Dear Ken,

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

 

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

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

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

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Lanre Amu–his Supreme Court Brief

Dear Readers;

Please take a look at the following:

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

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

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

There are many similarities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) commit a crime;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the bill stated:

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

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

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

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

Price v. Indiana

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

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

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

Mr Amu’s recent brief can be found here:

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

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

You go, girl.