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

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

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

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

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