FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Atty Jerome Larkin,
Fax No. 312-565-2320 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 WWW.DenisonLaw.COM
Yusuf Naqvi, of counsel, associate
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address. You will be reimbursed. Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy WILL ✔ will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see header )
March 21, 2013
Re: Your Complaints against atty Ken Ditkowsky and Joanne Denison merely for reporting corruption in Probate court and blogging about Illinois Court corruption
Dear Atty Larkin;
Memorandum to ILLINOIS ARDC
To: Mr. Jerome Larkin, Administrator
From: Kenneth Ditkowsky
Subject: Evidence of Misconduct by ‘Judicial Officials and Staff of the ARDC
Dear Mr. Larkin,
This was written by Atty Ditkowsky and I agree with it and am adopting it. Please put it in my “evidentiary record.”
Pursuant to my Himmel obligation, I have written many times to the ARDC concerning the Mary Sykes case and detailed the fact that the Illinois Legislature has promulgated a legislative scheme to protect senior citizens such as Mary Sykes from being exploited and abuse. The System if implemented protects the ‘due process’ rights of allegedly disabled persons and most important prevents exactly what has happened not only in the Sykes case, but in a large number of similar matters.
Unfortunately, the citizen complaints concerning the nefarious Financial Exploitation of seniors and persons alleged to be disabled has fallen on deaf ears. One excuse or another has been promulgated to thwart any investigation. Lawyer complaints have fallen into the pattern of ARDC staff making a false allegation that the complaints written the lawyers are false and in my situation and in the situation of JoAnne Denison disciplinary cases have been filed. What is frustrating is the fact that the only frugality with the truth emanates from the Staff of the ARDC who apparently refused to make even a casual investigation of the Court File in Sykes. Had they done so they also would have asked the question: “How could this happen in the United States of America.”
As I stated supra, Illinois has a Legislative formula for preventing the ‘railroading’ of seniors into the loss of their liberty by inappropriate guardianships. Illinois recognizes that providing notice to a person who has not mental capacity (permanent or temporary) is a sham and a fraud. Ergo, the Legislature in its wisdom provided a jurisdictional criterion of notification of ‘close and/or near’ relatives. The Supreme Court of Illinois explained:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, Par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, Par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
There is a second phase to this situation. Section 17 and Section 18 set forth a criterion that limits the ability of the guardian (or guardian ad litem) to dominate the ‘ward.’ This aspect of the Act has been totally ignored by many appointed guardians and in many instances by the Judges themselves. This has allowed situations to occur such as Mr. and Mrs. Cooper have complained, to wit: A 1.5 million dollar estate reduced to zero. Mr. and Mrs. Cooper and others have in vain cried for help from the ARDC in attempting to obtain a remedy concerning the alleged avarice etc. of Miriam Solo. Ms. Gloria Sykes and her two aunts have cried out concerning the non-inventory or valuables including approximately a million dollars in gold coins belonging to the Mary Sykes’ estate. Mr. Scott Evans has written to the ARDC concerning the non-reporting of deplorable conditions he witnessed Mary Sykes subjected to by “court officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction. The list is endless. The Evidence Deposition of a Judge administrating the Mary Sykes estate is an eye-opener.
The mission of the ARDC is to protect the public. It is respectfully suggested that this mission has been abandoned and instead has been amended to protect the interests of the few guardian ad litem and certain attorneys. In the Sykes case attorneys Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, and Peter Schmiedel appear to be protected persons as the Common Law Record is clear that the legislative mandate has been ignored, yet, these lawyers have proceeded to use the Probate Division as a weapon against not only the relatives and friends of Mary Sykes (and especially Gloria Sykes) but as a vehicle to fend off lawyers who are appalled by the public Spector of a 90 year old senior citizen being openly and notorious deprived of her liberty and property.
In the Sykes case it is of record that Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel, knowing there was no jurisdiction over me by the Probate Divisions prosecuted a Rule 137 sanction motion against me. The Appellate court reversed the sanction. Ms. Denison was disqualified on the suggestion that she notarized a document. Ms. Sykes reports that just about every lawyer that she engaged was scared off by a threat. The record in Sykes reveals that the threats (even though no jurisdiction has been had) were real.
Enclosed please find a disk. We have scanned the first four volumes of the Common Law Record of the Sykes case prepared by the Circuit Court of Cook County Clerk. A copy is being forwarded to you for three purposes:
1. To provide you with evidence that the Disciplinary Complaints filed in your name by your staff in which it is alleged that Ms. Denison and I are accused of being untruth is in fact an untrue statement that your staff knew or should have known was untrue. (Yes this is an ethical complaint against the Staff of the ARDC).
2. To supplement the Citizen complaints filed against Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel that were summarily ignored. The 14 volume record in Sykes has been filed with the Appellate Court of Illinois by Ms. Gloria Sykes. In particular, these scanned copies of the first four volumes memorialize the fact that the 755 ILCS 5/11 – 10(f) 14 day jurisdictional notices were never served. This is proven by the fact that the record contains no affidavits of service, certificates of service, return of service on Gloria Sykes or her two aunts. Thus, the affidavits of Gloria Sykes and others filed with the ARDC are un-contested and are true. The allegations made in your name are false, deceptive, and *****. The ARDC in light of the gross violations of Civil Rights of Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken, JoAnne Denison et al in not investigating these allegations is abusing its position. More seriously it is respectfully suggested aiding and abetting the actions of certain lawyers in the parochial deprivation of senior citizen Rights, Privileges and immunities. Simply and bluntly put – aiding and abetting criminal activity.
3. To make certain that these four volumes do not disappear and when Law Enforcement requires copies there will be a copy available to assist the prosecution of the miscreants.
I take my First Amendment Rights very seriously. I did not appreciate being asked at the hearing on my alleged ethical deficiency in complaining about the matters contained in this letter if I was repentant for my writing the United States Attorney a complaint concerning this Mary Sykes matter. As you can observe, I am not. With the information contained on the Disk that is enclosed there is now no excuse for the ARDC to continue to defame both Ms. Denison and me with the allegation that our averment that Mary Sykes’ deprivation of liberty and property by a Court is in any way not true.
You have in your hand as you read this letter the evidence that the statements that both Ms. Denison and I have made are true. You have in your hand the evidence that certain “judicial officials” were knowingly appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction and they have acted in derogation (under color of law) of the Civil Rights of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes. 42 USCA 1983.
AND joined in by JoAnne Denison /esignature/
 It is interesting and ‘telling’ to note that the Illinois ARDC is silent as to the Illinois Supreme Court statement in Steinfeld and the Appellate Court in Sodini. It is axiomatic that even in the adversary situation lawyers, like ethical members of the public, are required to inform a “trier of fact” of significant adverse precedent. As the Court record in Sykes has absent from the evidence that the Sodini 14 day notices were appropriately served on the nearest (closest) relatives of Mary Sykes and it appears in violation of 11a -8 that two of the four persons entitled to notification are not disclosed, and all three of the persons entitled to notices claim not to have been served with the 14 day notices it would seem that this oversight by the ARDC is an ethical violation of the Canons of Professional Conduct 8.4.
PS–you will note that Ken has not mentioned the John Howard Wyman case, which is currently up on appeal and he is equally furious that nothing has been done by the ARDC regarding the likes of your venerable, august, and highly protected Atty Sharon Rudy and Atty Kim Timmerwilke.
Once again, you protect the attorneys that lie, cheat and steal, but you go after the attorneys that while not mandatory reporters, take the directions to report when ever possible seriously and as a part of their duties as officers of the court.
Elder abuse and financial exploitation should and MUST be reported by attorneys who are opposing counsel and pursuant to their Himmel duties. The King v. Harris case is not dicta to be ignored but is the mandate as passed down by the Illinois Court of Appeals, first district.
Very Truly Yours,
JoAnne M. Denison
cc: Ken Ditkowsky, via email