From Ken Ditkowsky – Yes, some judges are honest and must be commended and are an example to the others

Subject: Re: sound familiar?
Date: Sep 1, 2016 4:46 PM
Since I was forced to retire I have had a chance to try to slow my world and take a good look at it.     Yesterday on MaryGSykes blog a Texas Lawyer’s piece concerning an honest judge is revealed.    No, JoAnne has not mellowed!    Every jurisdiction has many honest judges and wonderful people who make our communities terrific places to live.     The Jerome Larkins and their ilk are an annoying minority who rise up from the cesspool from time to time to be an annoyance.     Even in an era when the polls suggest that 2/3s of us do not believe that either candidate for president is trustworthy or honest our world is still a wonderful place to live and work.      Indeed, every day I send e-mails to some of the nicest people in our world who not only care for the elderly and the disabled, but care for each other.
When we received an e-mail from a citizen that read in part:
“Last night I had many flash-backs during my sleep — of being isolated, force-drugged, spoken to and about like I was a non-person, feeling again insecure even when in my own home [is it mine, do I have legal rights to my own property, I do not, I not even my Legal Right to vote but I did receive a Jury Notice this morning] it just goes on [the veiled and not so veiled threats by those non-family predators] and on it goes, all of this — and recovering from another UTI infection, again, due to being hospital-forced to take IV antibiotics for 52 Days & Nights [while being denied ample drinking water] <;, <; — along with the electronic mails that continued on and on late into the night last night and well past my normal bed-time, and this morning, still being reluctant to continue opening them all — leaves me feeling rather re-victimized at this exact point-in-time.”
Most, if not all, of the people on this e-mail chain had a first thought: “how can I help!”      In fact, the Justice Department, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies received a few minutes later a DEMAND for an HONEST INVESTIGATION!
We as a group understand that we have a responsibility to ourselves and our families to make a concerted effort to protect America’s core values.     In spite of the perfidy, assaults on the human rights, constitutional rights and infamy of corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt political people ***** we are carrying on the fight to end ‘elder cleansing.     We are serving the core values of America.   When we stand with the elderly and their families who are being euthanized by the corrupt nursing home operators and their political and judicial co-conspirators we fulfill our duties as citizens.      No amount of intimidation by the Political and the Judicial elite can cease our call to Honest Law enforcement for a comprehensive and vigorous Investigation into the criminal behavior of all those miscreants who are engaged in a War against the elderly and the disabled!
When each of you who have joined in the effort to protect the Constitution of the United States from those who seek to destroy its meaning and efficacy looks up they will see someone that they like!     Our goal is to, within the law, bring each elder cleanser to the Bar of Justice.       The spectacle in the Circuit Court of Cook County of a sitting judge, conspiring with an ethically challenged lawyer, infamous nursing home operator ****** to harvest the gold filing from a 90-year-old widowed grandmother haunts every decent human being.     The avarice and inhumanity exhibited taint Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) and leave a stench than cannot be sanitized.     The failure of the legal profession and the 2nd oldest profession to stand up as one and demand CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONs is beyond reprehensible.     It tars irrevocably every Judge and every lawyer in Cook County, Illinois who does not demand JUSTICE!
Indeed – we are demanding JUSTICE for all including the miscreants who would take from us our humanity.      We may not get much recognition – but, justice is its own reward.
All that said – we need right now an HONEST INVESTIGATION of the elder cleansing scandal and vigorous prosecution of all the criminals involved in ‘elder cleansing’ including those, such as Jerome Larkin, who maintain the cover-up that protects the corrupt judges, lawyers, guardians *****.     IT IS NOW TIME!
Lawyers in particular have a responsibility to stand up be counted.   Sometimes standing up and being counted has some adverse personal consequences.    I understood when I took the oath to be a lawyer that I was going to make a few enemies and some would have ethical deficiencies.  I knew I would not be alone and am grateful to the many who have stood by me – and stood up for the core values of America.   The Jerome Larkins of this world no matter how much clout they have or how many of the political and judicial elite assist him in his 18 USCA 371 conspiracy still has to face his conscience and ultimately his maker.   Every night I pray in thanksgiving that I am not him!

From Ken Ditkowsky–A system with many working parts, working to commit fraud on the public and the disabled and Elderly

The Total Pharmacy/Omnicare venture referred to supra is a look in the LOOKING GLASS. 
The Enron scandal is a parallel to the health care/nursing home situation.   The miscreants are clever and much smarter than most of criminals that the government has to deal with.    The scandal has multi levels:
  1. Political.   Key to the operation of the fraud is an alliance between Establishment political people, judicial people, and the multi-levels of the fraud.   Each locality appears to have a similar structure and very strong tie ins to the dominate political party.
  2. Judicial.   Keeping the facilities occupied and generating money requires tie-ins with corrupt judges and judicial elite.    Here in Illinois we saw how Jerome Larkin and the IARDC react to the call from ‘on high’   Cynthia Farenga saw a post in PROBATE SHARKS calling for an HONEST INVESTIGATION and the miscreants prostituted themselves to attempt to stop the call.  Adam Stern’s job was to call the offending lawyer not part of the scheme and threaten him (myself) with disbarrment.  Judge Connor’s part was to keep the Mary Sykes case wired (she said in a deposition if there were any “problems” with the case, she would dismiss it, start over, and come to the same conclusions and issue the same orders).  Her role was also to make sure Mary went to a “go-to doctor”  to fill out a CCP211 declaration of incompetency.  When she was told the Mary’s personal physician would not sign one, she replied, “find a doctor that will.”  The presiding judges closed their eyes and signed whatever orders were necessary to enhance the wealth of the program.   In the Gore case – no depravity was too low for the judge – even an expedition into the mouth of the elderly ward to get a few grains of gold was acceptable conduct and 29 gold teeth from a 99 year old woman were pulled and a feeding tube inserted against her will because she ate too slowly.   Indeed, the collection of gold from grandmother’s mouth according to Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators was in the best traditions of the Illinois Bar.
  3. Structural.     The subversion of professionals is old hat and as old as the hills.   Pass a dollar bill under the nose of some professionals and you own his/her for life.    The miscreants are too clever and they no longer need to use dollars – nursing home beds, opportunity to rob an estate, opportunity to be a guardian of an estate and steal, and a horde of sundry payments, mortgages, vacations, opportunities etc

A sheltered care facility has numerous operations.    The facility, for instance purchases pharmaceuticals.     This – Esformes created TOTAL CARE which just happens to have a monopoly on all the facilities drug purchases.

By buying in bulk for the controlled facilities the price is substantially reduced.   Indeed, with the over prescription of drugs by controlled doctors a medium size nursing home has a higher sale volume of these substances than most family pharmacies.   Indeed, the warehousing of the elderly requires keeping the elderly subdued and quiet.   Thus, linking 30 – 300 Esformes controlled facilities together in a buying group is pure money!
Of course, Esformes is too smart to be openly involved in the operation – thus, the operating partner looks around for a youngster, the more naive the better, and he is lured into the position of Chief Operating Officer.    The swelled head augmented by the flattery, large salary, fancy car, etc., makes this recent graduate or cultivated fool perfect.   In the pharmacy one of the dupes dispenses chemicals like corn flakes and if the face that the FDA, IRS, FBI, et al. sees.   The shares of the company (Total) are in nominee names = by and large –
Charity is a big part of the issue.   Everyone contributes.   The contribution is to a duly recognized charity.    The Clinton Tax Return showed a million dollar donation to a Clinton Charity.    The Esformes tax return probably shows a contribution to a Esformes Charity.    Funds are disbursed so as to get the maximum personal benefit.    (I would not be shocked to find out that Donald Trumps disbursement was in a similar manner.) Giving makes certain community operations dependent — (I should not have to explain further)


Each operation works essentially the same way, including management, nursing care, linen supply, real estate management, Utilities, professional operations, *****.     Even the billing is outsourced to a related entity which is independently controlled by Esformes Or some other mogul.   These operations even have independent offices and in many of the situations the CEO or person designated to go to jail is a total stranger to the group.     An O’Reilly being the CEO of an Esformes- Enron style corporation is not an anomoly.

The indictment of Philip Esformes found at www.justice.gove/opa/file87o8306/download will give you an idea of what the government investigation has uncovered to date.

I ran across an early version of this scenario in the BURT MORGAN CASE.

My declaration to the Illinois Supreme Court regarding my Law License Suspension

It hurts only the indigent and middle class, which apparently they do not care about.

Our court system now supports an oligarchy and big business.  Campaign funds to judges are big business and apparently at the top of their list for influence and advice.

Please download and fill out the attached if you want something better, like TRUTH and JUSTICE in our court system, for a change.



In Re:


Reg. No. 6192441

Appeal case No. MR 27193 from

ARDC Action No. 2013 PR 0001


The undersigned doth deposes and saith:

1.     My name is Joanne Denison and my work address is 5940 W Touhy Ave, #120, Niles, IL 60714, and this is in regard to the ARDC’s current nefarious mission to take away my law license for merely running a blog that tells the truth about the fraud on the court and the lack of respect for the US and State Constitutions and the Illinois Probate Act in and without the Illinois Probate System.
2.           I believe it is wrong to go after someone who exposes only the truth.  I believe my blog, now with 80,000 views is extremely helpful to Probate Victims and their families.  The blog represents nothing but the Truth, and anyone who desires can post comments contrary to any fact or opinion stated therein.  There are nearly no corrections on the blog which have been submitted after thousands of post, and those were posted right away.  I believe there were only two corrections and they were very minor.
3.      I further believe it was a scandalous and shameful affair to go after Mr. Kenneth Ditkowsky and Mr. Lanre Amu on a witch hunt with kangaroo courts to suspend them for merely telling the truth about what every other attorney and litigant knows about the Daley Center court system–a court system that has the likes of Rosemary Roti (daughter of Frank Roti, a known New York mobster) as a court scheduler under Presiding Judge Timothy Evans and his two daughters who make $100,000 each as court schedulers.  In addition, Atty Lisa Madigan has not disclosed her true identity to the public, that she is the daughter of Joel Murray and her real name is Lisa Murray and that Joel Murray was a criminal defense attorney from New York representing major drug distributors in New York and then he bought, maintained and operated Simmons Air (later American Eagle) and quit practicing law.
4.      I believe the public is not stupid and would not stand for any of this, if they only knew the truth, but now only the Blogs publish The Truth and mainstream media Protects those who should not be protected.  The ARDC only protects those who should not be protected.
5.  I have made a list of all the pro bono and indigent and lower middle class clients that I have helped since Nov. 2011 when the Blog began, and I can barely keep track of them all. The phone calls and emails are endless with the problems and troubles in probate.  I have no idea how many, probably over 200 persons I have listen to and helped over these past several years.
6.  I am now suspended.  Dozens of clients, the vast majority of which are indigent and lower middle class have been now been left without counsel and I believe and demand that indigent and lower middle class clients should have representation in Probate–or wherever blatant corruption and gross violations of human and civil rights may be found in and out of the Illinois Probate Court system.  The numbers are endless and staggering.  Honest attorneys are threatened all the time in Probate that if they get involved, if they investigate, if they help the innocent, they will be disbarred.  The attorney miscreants and judges wheeling and dealing in probate are open and brazen regarding the harm and terror they inflict upon the innocent families and loved ones of Probate and court corruption victims.  The System is completely out of control and the Public is demanding something better.
7.     I am petitioning the Illinois Supreme Court to allow me to represent lower income and indigent clients because their cases are important too.
8.     I personally don’t care how much money I do or do not make.  The Truth and seeking Justice is far more important to me than that.  Mr. Ditkowsky and Mr. Amu and myself are the real thing, protecting the indigent and lower middle class who have had gross violations of human and civil rights and liberties taken away from them.
9.      The ARDC is not given any permission to post any of my creative writings, including this declaration.  They cannot be trusted to uphold Truth and Justice any longer.
10.     Jerome Larkin, Melissa Smart, Sharon Opryszek, Steven Splitt and Leah Black Guiterrez should be ashamed for what they do.  Jerome Larkin’s job as Administrator or Chief of the ARDC is not to protect the embarrassing secrets of judges and attorneys acting badly.  They were all sworn to uphold the US and Illinois Constitutions, human and civil rights and liberties–which they do not do, despite dozens of valid consumer complaints filed with their State Agency. They do not file Ethics Reports as mandated by the Illinois Ethics Act of 2009.  They are not ashamed they do not do this.  Mr. Steven Splitt, in particular, is suspect as a Professor of Ethics at John Marshall Law School.  I want to know how he can hold his head up and say he prosecutes innocent, honest attorneys before his class at that school.  His behavior is utterly contemptuous.
11.     I am further demanding that each of Jerome Larkin, Melissa Smart, Sharon Oprysek and Steven Splitt: 1) take polygraphs that they know I am telling the truth and the Tribunal assigned in each of the Ditkowsky and Amu cases and my case were kangaroo courts set up as a witch hunt; 2) take psychological MRI’s to show that they are not heartless and soulless psychopaths that have no regard for the pain and suffering that they carelessly and wantonly inflict upon others. (Please note that I, Mr. Ditkowsky and Mr. Amu are willing to do likewise, but you already know the results).  I want the results published, online and at
12.     Believe me, out of all of this, there will be a time where attorneys will have to take psychological MRI’s to show they are not heartless and soulless psychopaths before they take the Oath of Office.  We have seen the results of allowing such individuals to become lawyers and judges and it is not pretty.
Further declarant saith not.
I hereby declare that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge; if called to testify, I would testify as to the same.

Respectfully submitted;

April 30, 2015

Civil RICO–From the Congressional Records–RICO for probate actions, it is possible?

Speaker: Mr. CONYERS


The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Espy). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, which I am privileged to Chair, has been carefully looking into calls for Civil RICO reform by various segments of the business community, chiefly the securities and banking industries and the accounting profession. I rise to discuss the development and rationale behind the current untenable position of the Department of Justice in this most important debate.
On September 30, 1985, Phillip D. Brady, acting Assistant Attorney General, of the Department informed me by letter that a prior criminal conviction requirement would not be “the best approach to limiting the scope of Civil RICO.”
On July 22, 1986, Assistant Attorney John R. Bolton, of the Department informed by letter the Honorable Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., Speaker, House of Representatives, that a prior criminal conviction requirement “would best respond to the increasingly troublesome issues that civil RICO” has raised.
What accounts for the dramatic turn around in the official position of the Department?
No new facts came to light between September and July, as these remarks will demonstrate.
No new policy considerations were identified between September and July, as these remarks will demonstrate.
The best explanation lies in a change of personalities — the substitution at the position of the Deputy Attorney General in the Department for J.D. Lowell Jensen, a widely experienced Federal and State prosecutor, of Arnold I. Burns, a prominent New York corporations and securities lawyer.
What is the significance of these conflicting recommendations?
In 1970, we enacted the Organized Crime Control Act, title IX of which is known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § § 1961-68 [RICO]. The act grew out of hearings held by the late Senator John L. McClellan, who was, along with Senator Roman L. Hruska, and Congressman Richard L. Poff, now a justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, principal sponsors of the 1970 legislation. The McClellan committee’s hearings in the Senate demonstrated beyond serious argument that existing Federal and State law was inadequate in dealing with the illicit activities of the Mafia, paticularly as it had corrupted or taken over legitimate businesses, unions, and units of State and local government.
In light of those hearings, the President’s Crime Commission, in 1967 recommended that antitrust-typecivil remedies be adapted to the activities of the underworld. Similarly, the American Bar Association, after careful study, called for the authorization of treble-damage relief for private parties suing underRICO. The National Chamber of Commerce and the Judicial Conference of the United States also voiced support for RICO. The President, too, endorsed the concept of private treble-damage actions. For these reasons, the 1970 act included provisions, not only for Government criminal and civil actions, but also private claims for treble damages for victims of specified conduct — termed predicate offenses — involving violence, the provision of illegal goods and services, governmental and union corruption and, last but not least, commercial and other forms of criminal fraud.
After vigorous debate, we specifically decided not to limit the 1970 act to the activities of organized crime figures. The inadequacies of Federal and State law identified in the study of Mafia prosecutions existed in all cases involving sophisticated forms of criminal behavior. Then-Congressman Poff observed:
[E]very effort … [has been] made to produce a strong and effective tool with which to combat organized crime — and at the same time deal fairly with all who might be affected … [by the] legislation — whether part of the crime syndicate or not. (116 Cong. Rec. 25,204 (1970).)
Since 1970, 27 States have enacted similar legislation; it is pending in another half dozen legislatures.
The Department of Justice has now recommended to us, however, that private civil RICO suits be circumscribed by the unprecedented device of a prior criminal conviction limitation; that is, before aperson actually injured in his business or property by a violation of RICO could civilly sue for treble damages, he would have to show that the defendant had already been prosecuted and convicted criminally of either RICO or at least two of its predicate offenses. I note, too, that provisions in bills introduced by our distinguished colleagues Congressman Frederick Boucher (H.R. 2983) and Senator Howard Metzenbaum (S. 1523), would similarly make the recovery of treble damages under RICOsubject to the showing of a prior criminal conviction on the part of the defendant.
These remarks consider and reject as profoundly unwise these legislative recommendations.
The Supreme Court in SEDIMA S.P.R.L. v. IMREX CO. INC. (473 U.S. 479, 490 n.9 (1985)) aptly summarized the crucial objections to the criminal conviction limitation:
It arbitrarily restricts the availability of private actions, for law breakers are often not apprehended and convicted. Even if a conviction has been obtained, it is unlikely that a private plaintiff will be able to recover for all of the acts constituting an extensive “pattern”, or that multiple victims will all be able to obtain redress. This is because criminal convictions are often limited to a small portion of the actual or possible charges. The … [limitation] would also create peculiar incentives for plea-bargaining to non-predicate-act offenses so as to ensure immunity from a later civil suit. If nothing else, a criminal defendant might plead to a tiny fraction of counts, so as to limit future civil liability. In addition, the dependence of potential civil litigants on the initiation and success of a criminal prosecution could lead to unhealthy private pressures on prosecutors and to self-serving trial testimony, or at least accusations thereof. Problems would also arise if some or all of the convictions were reversed on appeal. Finally, the compelled wait for the completion of criminal proceedings would result in pursuit of stale claims, complex statute of limitations problems, or the wasteful splitting of actions, with resultant claim and issue preclusion complications.
It is important for the development of sound legal policy, however, to review in detail the justifications offered by the Department for its new recommendations and to set out why they should be rejected. It will follow, too, that the similar recommendations contained in H.R. 2983 and S. 1523 ought to be rejected.
Assistant Attorney General John R. Bolton submitted on July 22, 1986, a proposed bill to the Senate and the House to amend section 1964(c) of title 18, United States Code — the provision in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO],which permits Federal treble damage suits for injuries caused by RICO violations. The Department’s recommendations are contained in S. 635 in this Congress. The text of Mr. Bolton’s letter follows these remarks. The proposed legislation would amendRICO to require proof of a prior criminal conviction as an essential element of a private civil RICOsuit for treble damages. Mr. Bolton suggests that this approach will best respond to the “troublesome issues” that civil RICO litigation has raised over the past several years.
Mr. Bolton is profoundly wrong. While reform may be needed of aspects of civil RICO litigation, Mr. Bolton’s proposal is a remedy that far exceeds in scope any demonstrated abuse. Those who suggest that civil RICO litigation reflects abuse have the burden of proving that:
First, a substantial number of abusive suits are being filed.
Second, existing safeguards against such suits are not adequate to remedy them.
Third, new safeguards against such suits that are adequate cannot be designed, and
Fourth, the detriment from these suits outweighs the benefit from legitimate suits.
None of these burdens has been met. (See Goldsmith, “Civil RICO Abuse: The allegations in Context,” 1968 Brigham Young University Law Rev. 55, 103 (“Upon review *** RICO abuse is not a serious problem for our legal system so long as counsel and courts appreciate the utility of existing remedial procedures. Accordingly *** Congress *** should recognize that abuse arguments are more likely motivated by hostility to the RICO remedy”).)
Mr. Bolton’s recommendations would apply to all private civil RICO litigations, not just that which may be “troublesome.” A prior criminal conviction requirement would, in effect, eliminate virtually all private claims for relief under civil RICO. It would deny to all deserving plaintiffs — as well as those who might abuse the statute — their most effective remedy. As such, it should be rejected.
ACivil RICO does not discriminate on the basis of ethnic or social position; anyone who engages in the elements of criminal fraud can and should be sued under section 1964(c):
First, private RICO suits have not achieved their intended purpose as supplements to the federal government’s criminal enforcement efforts against organized crime … Fewer than ten percent of privatecivil RICO actions have been based on what is ordinarily considered to be organized crime activity. Instead, the vast majority of actions has arisen out of commonplace commercial transactions allegedly involving fraud on the part of businesses and individuals that have no connection to organized crime.
Mr. Bolton’s assertion that few private RICO actions are based on “what is ordinarily considered to be organized crime” has about it a touch of ethnic and class bias; it also displays a lack of understanding of “organized crime.” No person’s name need end in a vowel or his collar be blue to violate RICO. As Justice White pointed out in the Supreme Court’s Sedima decision, “(L)egitimate’ *** enterprises *** enjoy neither inherent incapacity for criminal activity nor immunity from its consequences” (473 U.S. at 499).
During the RICO enactment debates, Congressman Poff responded to a query concerning the lack of references in RICO to organized crime by stating:
The gentleman [Congressman Mikva] inquired rhetorically as to why no effort was made to define organized crime in this bill. It is true that there is no organized crime definition in many parts of the bill. This is, in part, because it is probably impossible precisely and definitively to define organized crime. But if it were possible, I ask my friend, would he not be the first to object to such a system? (116 Cong. Rec. 35,204 (1970)).
Dishonest corporate officials and securities dealers are just as capable of larcenous conduct as Mr. Bolton’s “mobsters,” and their victims are just as deserving of relief under civil RICO. Victims of such crime rightly care little that their life savings are stolen by mobsters wearing black shirts and white ties or by accountants while dressed in Brooks Bros. suits and white collars. RICO was consciously written to apply equally to anyone who violated it.
No one ought to deny that major corporations in fact engage in illegal practices, including fraud. Asurvey of 1,043 major corporations between 1970 and 1980 indicated that 117 had significant convictions or consent decrees for 98 antitrust violations; 28 cases of kickbacks, bribery, or illegal rebates; 21 instances of illegal political contributions; 11 cases of fraud; and 5 cases of tax evasion. (Ross “How Lawless Are Big Companies” Fortune, Dec. 1, 1980, at 57.)
Commercial fraud is a serious national problem, one that costs businesses and consumers billions of dollars every year. (United States Chamber of Commerce, “White Collar Crime: Everybody’s Loss” (1974)). All too often, it is a “commonplace commercial transaction,” and combating it is one of the most important uses for civil RICO.
Writing in 1967, the President’s Crime Commission, the studies of which lead to RICO, observed:
[W]hite-collar crime, is now commonly used to designate those occupational crimes committed in the course of their work by persons of high status and social repute *** [who] are only rarely dealt with through the full level of criminal sanctions *** .
During the last few centuries economic life has become vastly more complex. Individual families or groups of families are not self-sufficient; they rely for the basic necessities of life on thousands or even millions of different people, each with a specialized function, many of whom live hundreds or thousands of miles away. * * * * *
Serious erosion of morals accompanies [the] violation[s] of [white collar offenders]. [Those who so] flout the law set an example for other business and influence individuals, particularly young people, to commit other kinds of crime on the ground that everybody is taking what he can get. (The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 47-48 (1967))
The Commission also commented:
[F]raud is *** [an] offense whose impact is not well conveyed by police statistics. *** Fraud is especially vicious when it attacks, as it so often does, the poor or those who live on the margin of poverty. Expensive nostrums for incurable diseases, home improvements frauds, frauds involving the sale or repair of cars and other criminal schemes create losses which are not only sizable in gross but are also significant and possibly devastating for individual victims” (ID. at 33-34.)
See also FURMAN v. CIRRITO, 741 F. 2d. 524, 528-29 (2nd Cir. 1984) (Pratt, J.):
Despite the clarity of congress’s language [in drafting RICO] defendants argue that since RICO‘s primary purpose is to eradicate organized crime, it is [not] directed *** against businessmen engaged in garden variety fraud *** . While RICO‘s primary focus may have been on organized crime, when considering the statute congress also recognized that fraud is a persuasive problem throughout our society *** which causes billions of dollars in loss each year *** Congress further acknowledged that existing state and federal law was not capable of dealing with this problem. * * * * *
When congress provided severe penalties, both civil and criminal, for conducting the affair of an“enterprise” through a “pattern of racketeering activity,” it provided no exceptions for businessmen, for white collar workers, for bankers, or for stockbrokers. If the conduct of such people can sometime fairly be characterized as “garden variety fraud,” we can only conclude that by the RICO statute congress has provided an additional means to weed that “garden” of its fraud.
B. Stories of Civil RICO abuse are exaggerated; existing safeguards can eliminate specious suits; more safeguards can be implemented. A few instances of abuse do not justify effectively eliminating the claim for relief.
*** unanticipated applications of the statue have occurred in cases involving claims of sexual harassment, disputes over the leadershp of a synagogue, and routine divorce controversies.
Mr. Bolton trots out exceptional horror stories about the misuse of civil RICO, without telling us that such specious claims are usually disposed of at the pleadings stage. In fact, Department of Justice studies show that 61 percent of all RICO cases prior to July 1985 were decided in favor of defendants. (Testimony of Assistant Attorney General Stephen S. Trott, Oversight on Civil RICO, Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. at 127 (1985) (hereinafter Trott)). If anything, these data show, not only that existing remedies for abuse are working, but also that district courts are manifesting a hostility to civil RICO litigation not warranted by its text, legislative history, or purpose. Particular classes of claims, moreover, could be excluded from RICO without excising other claims that are more substantial. Each of Mr. Bolton’s “troublesome” categories could be excepted from the act’s jurisdiction without impact on the general operation of the statute. How then may Bolton’s general attack on RICO be justified, unless he is more concerned about giving victims remedies, which might curtail corporate abuse, than curtailing plaintiffs, who might abuse civil RICO?
Plaintiffs may, of course, seek to abuse civil RICO, as they may seek to abuse any statute, including the anti-trust or securities statutes, but there are mechanisms already available to curtail such abuse — in the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the tort law claim of abuse of process. The solution to meritless litigation lies, therefore, not in imposing additional requirements for establishing plaintiff’s prima facie case, but in using existing rules and procedures to discourage abusive litigation. If the existing rules are inadequate, the appropriate solution is to reform the remedies, not redraft RICO, because the problem of meritless actions — whatever its scope — extend beyond RICO to all civil actions. (See HOOVER v. RONWIN 104 S.Ct. 1989, 2012 (1984) (Stevens, J. dissenting) (“Frivolous cases should be treated as exactly that, and not as occasions for fundamental shifts in legal doctrine. Our legal system has developed procedures for speedily disposing of unfound claims; if they are inadequate to protect [individuals] from vexatious litigation, then there is something wrong with those procedures, not with the law.”)) Mr. Bolton, however, would eliminate civil RICO abuse through a prior criminal conviction requirement. Many argue that personal injury lawyers file specious claims, but no one seriously suggests that a defendant should first be convicted of murder before anyone could sue him for wrongful death. Perspective is called for. Our society knows no mark of shame more stigmatizing than that of Cain, yet homicide may be both murder and wrongful death. (HALBERSTAM v. WELCH, 705 F2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Traditionally, civil recovery for wrongful death having criminal characteristics may be obtained without showing a prior criminal conviction or meeting an increased burden of proof. (See, e.g., LOUISVILLE EVANSVILLE AND ST. LOUIS R.R. v. CLARKE, 152 U.S. 230, 235-42 (1984) (“wholly civil in character”). See WATSON v. ADAMS, 187 Ala. 490, 494, 65 So. 528, 533 (1914) (wrongful death) (“Great as the love of money may be in some human beings, it cannot be presumed that to be held liable for damages is, to the ordinary man, the equivalent of the impending, unless diverted, exaction of his freedom or his life *** “)). Similarly, murder may be an issue in the imposition of a constructive trust or the voiding of bequest, yet a conviction is not required, and the homicide may be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., SMALL v. ROCKFELD, 66 N.J. 231, 245, 330 A.2d 335, 343 (1974) (no conviction required); BURNS v. UNITED STATES, 200 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1952) (acquittal in criminal case not defense in civil case where murder at issue); Uniform Probate Code 2-803(e) (1983) (conviction for murder not required and killing may be shown by preponderance of the evidence); Restatement of the Law of Restitution § 187, comment f. (1937)) No sound reason exists for circumscribing RICO in afashion that no other claims for relief in Federal law are similarly circumscribed, including anti-trust and securities.
C. Civil RICO‘s use against business fraud is entirely consistent with the language of the statute and with congressional intent.
[S]ection 1964(c) *** has lead to the unnecessary and unwise federalization of an area of the law that is best reserved to the states *** . We do not believe that, when it enacted RICO, Congress thought it necessary to create a general federal remedy for fraud, or that it intended to do so.
Mr. Bolton makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that Congress did not intend RICO to be ageneral federal fraud remedy. He should read the statute. “The language of *** [RICO] *** [is] the most reliable evidence of [congressional] intent *** (UNITED STATES v. TURKETTE, 452 U.S. 576,593 (1981)). Congress included mail fraud, wire fraud, travel fraud, and bankruptcy fraud in its list ofRICO‘s predicate offenses. Then under section 1964(c), it granted a civil claim for relief to “any person injured in his business or property *** .” through the commission of those offenses in violation ofRICO. The statement of findings and purposes of Pub. L. 91-452 specifically stated that sophisticated forms of “crime in the United States *** annually drain [ *** ] billions of dollars from America’s economy by *** the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption *** .” (84 Stat. 922-236 (1970)).
Mr. Bolton should also have looked at the legislative history of the bill. Some of the Congressmen, who voted against RICO, shared his objections to it — that its application was not limited to “organized crime,” and that it extended federal jurisdiction to commercial fraud cognizable under State law. Congressman Mikva, for example, pointed out “[w]hat we have done in one fell swoop *** is incorporated as a part of the Federal law all of the offenses which heretofore have traditionally been treated as under State and local jurisdictions.” (116 Cong. Rec. 35,205 (1970)). Mr. Bolton’s federalism concerns would not ring false if he were not also one of the principal forces behind Federal tort reform and similar national efforts to circumscribe local products liability litigation. He is consistent in his principles only to the degree that he always wishes to undercut plaintiff’s rights to recover for their injuries with the best remedy and forum possible. It is abundantly clear that Congress fully intended, after specific debate, to have RICO apply beyond any limiting concept like “organized crime” or “racketeering” and, over specific objections raising issues of Federal-State relations and crowded court dockets, Congress deliberately extended RICO to the general field of commercial and other fraud.
D. Civil RICO is an important safeguard for the general public; other criminal and civil sanctions are often inadequate.
*** There is no need for a general federal fraud remedy. Persons who engage in serious fraud can be, and frequently are, prosecuted for criminal offenses under both federal and state statutes. In addition, federal laws and judicial decisions afford civil redress for specific types of fraudulent conduct, such as securities fraud, and state statutes and common law principles permit civil recovery for those species of fraud not covered by federal law. We know of no shortcomings in these various provisions such as would warrant adoption of a broad federal remedy for fraud.
Notwithstanding Mr. Bolton, a dire need exists for a general Federal fraud remedy. Congress enactedcivil RICO knowing full well that traditional remedies were inadequate. (See 84 Stat. 923 (1970) (“the sanctions and remedies available *** are unnecessarily limited in scope and impact”)).
For example, bank fraud, particularly by insiders, is deeply disturbing. In the 1980-81 period, the failure of 105 banks and savings and loans cost $1 billion. Roughly one-half of the bank failures and one-quarter of the savings and loan collapses had as a major contributing factor criminal activities by insiders, few of whom, according to the findings of a study of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, chaired by our distinguished colleague, Doug Barnard, were adequately sanctioned, criminally or civilly. (See Federal Response to Criminal Misconduct and Insider Abuse in the Nations’ Financial Institutions, H.R. Rep. No. 1137 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 5 (1984).) The Barnard committee observed:
Despite enormous losses, neither the banking nor the criminal justice systems impose effective sanctions for punishment to deter white-collar bank fraud. The few insiders who are singled out for civilsanctions by the banking agencies are usually either fined de minimis amounts or simply urged to resign. The few who are criminally prosecuted usually serve little, if any, time in prison for thefts that often cost millions of dollars.
Most banks, in fact, do not have the financial resources or the expertise to protect themselves from sophisticated schemes to defraud, according to recent testimony of the FDIC before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Testimony of Daniel W. Persinger, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Oversight on Civil RICO Suits, Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. at 216 (1985)). Ninety-seven percent of the federally insured banks have assets of less than $500 million; 84 percent less than $100 million; 66 percent less than $50 million.
Ultimately, many of these costs of fraud are passed on to the rest of us. Insurance fraud, for example, annually costs $11 billion, and since the typical insurance company must generate $1.25 in premiums for every dollar it pays out, the bill that the Nation must meet amounts to $13.75 billion. (N.Y. Times, July 6, 1980, at 17, col. 1) Indeed, the “insurance crisis” that is leading legislators to rewrite our liability laws to curtail litigation abuse might be better dealt with by enforcing vigorously our laws against fraud. (See generally N.Y. Times, March 2, 1986, at 20, col. 1 (industry said to lose $5.5 billion or make $1.7 billion); The Explosion in Liability Lawsuits Is Nothing But a Myth, Bus. Wk., April 21, 1986, at 24, col. 1)
Leaving aside the question of Mr. Bolton’s “serious” fraud (as opposed to what?), it is clear that white-collar criminals are rarely prosecuted, and seldom convicted, for a plethora of reasons completely unrelated to their guilt or innocence: lack of prosecutorial resources, plea-bargaining, defendants turning states evidence, and legal technicalities. J. Conklin, Illegal But Not Criminal: Business Crime in America 129 (1977) rightly concludes:
[T]he criminal justice system treats business offenders with leniency. Prosecution is uncommon, conviction is rare, and harsh sentences almost non existent. At most, a businessman or corporation is fined; few individuals are imprisoned and those who are serve very short sentences. Many reasons exist for this leniency. The wealth and prestige of businessmen, their influence over the media, the trend toward more lenient punishment for all offenders, the complexity and invisibility of many business crimes, the existence of regulatory agencies and inspectors who seek compliance with the law rather than punishment of violators all help explain why the criminal justice system rarely deals harshly with businessmen. This failure to punish business offenders may encourage feelings of mistrust toward community morality, and general social disorganization in the general population. Discriminatory justice may also provide lower class and working class individuals with justifications for their own violation of the law, and it may provide political radicals with a desire to replace a corrupt system in which equal justice is little more than a spoken idea.
Indeed, skillfully plea bargaining can easily circumvent the treble damage provision entirely. Ivan Boesky, the most egregious insider trader in history, pled guilty not to insider trading — a securities law predicate offense under RICO — but to conspiracy to file a false statement with the SEC, 18 U.S.C. § § 371, 1001 which is not a RICO predicate offense.
Should Mr. Bolton’s proposal — or Congressman Boucher’s — or Senator Metzenbaum’s — pass, avariety of factors could protect an otherwise guilty defendant from a treble damage civil RICO claim, and often leave deserving plaintiffs with remedies that allow recovery only for actual damages. That way, at worst, the defrauder would have to return what he had taken. Compared to the deterrent value and adequate compensation features of the treble damages provision of civil RICO, current law — without RICO — would in fact have serious shortcomings.
E. Civil RICO does not undermine other remedies; it buttresses them.
*** The increasing use of section 1964(c) as a federal fraud remedy threatens to undermine carefully crafted and well established federal statutory schemes that have been developed to regulate the securities, commodities, banking, accounting, and savings and loan industries.
In arguing that section 1964(c) undercuts the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other Federal statutes, Mr. Bolton, as in the case of others, who should know better, simply misreads the law. For an impression is apparently widespread, particularly among the securities industry, that RICO simply “overlaps” all securities fraud. Justice Marshall in dissent in Sedima expressed a similar concern (473 U.S. at 505) (“virtually eliminates decades of legislative and judicial developments of private civil remedies under the Federal securities laws”). Nothing could be further from the truth. RICO says “offenses” involving “fraud in the sale of securities” “punishable under any law of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)(D) (1982). “Offenses” means criminal offenses. (Black’s Law Dictionary at 975 (5th ed. 1979). See TRANE v. O’CONNOR SECURITIES, 701 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1983) (“obviously refers to criminal punishment”); DAN RIVER, INC. v. ICAHN, 701 F.2d 278, 291 (5th Cir. 1983) (“criminal intent is *** necessary in either mail fraud or securities fraud [under RICO.]”)). Accordingly, only the criminal fraud provisions of the securities acts fall within RICO. (See, e.g., Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77x (1982) (“willfully”); Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78ff (1982) (“willfully”)). Merely negligent conduct or a transaction that only operates as a fraud does not fall within the statute. (See AARON v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM., 446 U.S. 681, 701-02 (1980) (intent to defraud rather than negligence in 10(b) (’34) or 17a(1) (’33), but not untrue statements or admission or transactions that operate as a fraud 17(a)(2) or (3) (’33))). Such anoverlap between statutes is neither “unusual nor unfortunate.” (S.E.C. v. NATIONAL SECURITIES, INC., 393 U.S. 453, 468 (1969)). Indeed, the securities acts themselves envision it. (See, e.g., Section 28(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 bb(a) (1982) (“rights and remedies” “in addition” to “all other” that might exist)). RICO, too, recognizes the overlap. (84 Stat. 947 (1970) (“Nothing in this title shall supersede any provision of Federal, State or other law imposing criminal penalties or affording civil remedies in addition to those provided for in this title”)).
That RICO supplements our basic securities laws, more over, is hardly lamentable. The funding of the Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, has increased since 1979, but its staffing has decreased, and its pending investigations are down. Yet the number of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange has shot up 300 percent 1977; the number of first time registrants has increased by 260 percent. Even among legitimate brokerage firms, the incentive structure for commissions encourages a fraud known as “churning,” trading stock without regard for investment objectives. Similarly, the futures industry in the United States has grown tremendously in recent years. The 139.9 million futures contracts traded in 1983 represents a level of trading activity 15 times greater than that reached on 1968. The value of contracts traded exceeds $5 trillion a year. Nevertheless, the resources of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission have remained relatively constant. It has been suggested, that the industry is a scandal waiting to happen, for the Commission “is thoroughly out-gunned in the ongoing battle against commodity fraud.” Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, Commodity Investment Fraud, S. Rep. No. 97-495, 97th cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1983).
In addition, accounting firms, once thought to play the role of outside watchdogs, are under heavy competitive pressure to go along with questionable annual reports, and they are increasingly losing their independence, since they also offer management consulting advice. (See, All Eyes on Accountants, Time, April 21, 1986 p. 61.) “After a spectacular string of corporate failures and financial scandals in recent years, the industry that is supposed to audit company books and sniff out chicanery” (Id.) is itself coming under close scrutiny. Since 1980, the Big Eight have had to pay more than $180 million to settle liability suits. No wonder that the accounting profession is a major contributor to the political campaigns of those in the forefront of the effort to exonerate RICO. (See, Rolling Back RICO, National Journal, Sept. 6, 1986 p. 2114-2115.) Indeed, Theodore C. Barreaux, vice president of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, attributes the Department of Justice’s switch to aseries of meetings between accounting institute lawyers and Department officials. (Id. at 2115.)
Joseph Connor, chairman of Price Waterhouse acknowledges: “We’ve failed in our public duty. We should sound the drum when a company is on the brink of disaster.” (Time, supra note 16, at 61.) Spectacular failures include the collapse of E.S.M. Government Securities Inc., which fell after falsified books that concealed millions of dollars of losses from investors were made possible by a bribed accounting firm auditor. Investors with accounts at the firm, including as many as a dozen municipalities, lost as much as $315 million. The collapse of E.S.M. also led to the insolvency of Home State Savings Bank in Ohio and the shutdown of 69 privately insured thrift institutions. The accounting firm of Grant Thornton recently reached a $22.5 million settlement with the American Savings and Loan Association, which lost $55.3 million; it also reached a $50 million settlement with 17 municipal government, which sued under RICO. (New York Times, Sept. 17, 1986, p. 48 col. 6). More than a little historical irony is present in Mr. Bolton’s defense of the securities statutes. Like RICO, when the 1933 act was passed, it, too, was attacked as antibusiness. (See, J. Seligman, “The Transformation of Wall Street” 79 (1983), quoting then-Prof. Felix Frankfurter: “The leading financial law firms who have been systematically carrying on a campaign against [the Securities Act of 1933] have been seeking — now that they and their financial clients have come out of their storm cellar of fear — not to improve but to chloroform the act. They evidently assume that the public is unaware of the sources of the issues that represent the boldest abuses of fiduciary responsibility.”) History repeats itself.
F. Civil RICO does not threaten legitimate businesses; it works against businesses who engage in criminal fraud and protects law abiding businesses from illegal acts by others.
Equally serious is the threat of civil RICO liability to legitimate businesses engaged in purely commercial transactions. Section 1964(c) permits virtually any legitimate business enterprise to be charged with “racketeering” and threatened with a judgement for treble damages and attorneys’ fees, simply on the basis of an ordinary commercial dispute. Civil RICO skews dispute resolution in commercial cases, extorts settlements and increases legal fees, which cost ultimately will be passed on the purchasers of the goods or services.
Mr. Bolton speaks of civil RICO‘s “threat” to “legitimate” business. To refer to a business as “legitimate” without inquiring into the truth of charges brought against it, begs the question (SEE MYERS v. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 51-52 (1938) (Brandeis, J.) (“Lawsuits *** often prove to [be] groundless but no way has been discovered for relieving a defendant from the necessity of a trial to establish the fact.”)) Similarly, the second circuit suggested that civil RICO suits against “respected and legitimate enterprises” where”extraordinary, if not outrageous.” (SEDIMA S.D.R.L. v. IMREX CO., INC., 741 F.2d 482, 495-96 (2nd Cir. 1984), rev’d, 473 U.S. 479 (1985)). Included among the cited legitimate enterprises was E.F. Hutton. (But see “Why the E.F. Hutton Scandal May Be Far From Over,” (Hutton pleads guilty to 2,000 counts of mail fraud in a multi-million dollar bank scam); HAROCO INC. v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO., 747 F.2d 384, 395 n.14 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 473 U.S. 606 (1985) (“[T]he White-collar crime alleged in some RICO complaints against ‘legitimate’ business is in some ways at least as disturbing. *** “)
Contrary to Mr. Bolton’s statement, civil RICO does not, however, apply to “ordinary commercial disputes,” but rather to criminal fraud. While the scope of mail and wire fraud statutes is wide, no honest person need fear a civil suit under RICO based on those offenses, for both require fraudulent intent and good faith is a complete defense. (DURLAND v. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 306,314 (1986)) UNITED STATES v. MARTIN-IRIGONA, 684 f. 2d. 485, 492-493 (7th Cir. 1982); DAN RIVER INC. v. ICAHN, 701 F. 2d 278, 289-91 (4th Cir. 1983)). RICO does not provide for constructive fraud, negligence or strict liability.
If, on the other hand, businessmen engage in fraud in the course of “purely commercial transactions,”civil RICO can and should be used against them. Section 1964(c) does permit any “legitimate” business enterprise to be charged with “racketeering,” but an honest businessman need not settle at the sight of a civil RICO suit; the plaintiff must still prove his case. The treble damage provisions incivil RICO do not, in short, “extort” settlements, they simply put a plaintiff with a good case in a good position. If our society authorizes the recovery of not only actual damages for deliberate antisocial conduct engaged in for profit, it lets the perpetrator know that if he is caught, he need only return the misappropriated sums. If he is not caught, he may keep his ill-gotten gains, and if he is caught and sued, he knows that he may be able to defeat part of the damage claims or at least compromise it. The balance of economic risk under traditional simple damage recovery provides, therefore, little disincentive to those who engage in such conduct. Indeed, the seventh circuit was closer to the mark when it observed in AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO v. HAROCO that “the delays, expense and uncertainties of litigation often compel plaintiffs to settle completely valid claims for a mere fraction of their value. By adding to the settlement value of such valid claims in certain cases clearly involving criminal conduct, RICO may arguably promote more complete satisfaction of plaintiff’s claims without facilitating indefensible windfalls.” (747 f.2d 384, 399 n.16 (7th Cir. 1984, aff’d, 479 U.S. 606 (1985). See generally Block, Nold, and Sidak, The Deterrent Effect of Anti-Trust Enforcement, 89 Journal of Political Economy 429, 440 (1981) (“Neither imprisonment nor monetary penalties pose [ *** ] a credible threat to colluding firms *** [T]he deterrent effect *** [comes] from *** the likelihood of an award of private treble damages”)).
Studies of the antitrust statutes show that most antitrust suits are settled now at close to actual damages. Ironically, it may be necessary to authorize treble damages to assure that deserving victims receive actual damages in the RICO area.
Justice Marshall in Sedima (473 U.S. at 506) also suggests that “a prudent defendant, facing ruinous exposure [under RICO] will decide to settle even a case with no merit.” Accordingly, civil RICO lends itself, he argued, to the very extortive purpose “it was designed to combat.” Justice Marshall cites as authority for this extraordinary proposition the Report of the Ad Hoc Civil RICO Task Force of the ABA Section of Corporations, Banking and Business Law, 69 (1985). The Ad Hoc Task Force, in turn, conducted a survey of 3,200 corporate and litigation lawyers, of whom only 350 responded. Two factors, however, undermine the scientific credibility of the general results of the survey: First, the population questioned was unrepresentative of the bar, and second, the response rate was insufficient to warrant broad generalizations. More to the point here, the survey did not ask each of the respondents a carefully phrased question calling for their opinion or experience with RICO as asettlement weapon. Instead, the opinion relied upon by Justice Marshall was volunteered by only two of the 350 respondents as grounds for repealing RICO. In fact, it is the experience of a majority of seasoned litigators in the RICO area that adding a RICO claim to a suit does not facilitate settlement; it inhibits it, particularly when a legitimate business is involved. (See A Comprehensive Perspective onCivil and Criminal RICO Legislation and Litigation: A report of the RICO Cases Committee, ABA criminal justice section 121-23 (1985)).
Generally, businesses wrongfully accused of “racketeering” will not settle suits — even those that should be compromised — as long as the racketeer label is the litigation. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how Justice Marshall could believe that a suit with “no merit” faces a defendant with “ruinous exposure.” If the plaintiff’s suit has no merit, his chance of success is zero, and zero multiplied by three — or any number — is still zero. It is doubtful, in short, that responsible corporate or other defendants are paying off strike suits in the RICO — or any other area — at more than their settlement value, no matter what the theory of the complaint is. Neither the racketeer label nor the threat of treble damages will convince prudent managers lightly to surrender scarce resources merely because another files a suit. No matter how colorful it is phrased, the claim that such managers act against their own interests is not credible.
Mr. Bolton’s concern over the costs of civil RICO passed along to consumers is ironic, since every year the American public pays bills for commercial fraud that can only be described in Carl Sagan terms. Just as importantly, Mr. Bolton completely overlooks the fact that civil Rico can provide honest businessmen with a powerful weapon against dishonest competitors. As Senator Hruska pointed out when he introduced one of RICO‘s forerunners, S. 1623:
* * * [T]he bill also creates civil remedies for the honest businessman who has been damaged by unfair competition from the racketeer businessman. Despite the willingness of the courts to apply the Sherman Anti-trust Act to organized crime activities, as a practical matter, the legitimate businessman does not have the adequate civil remedies available under the Act. This bill fills the gap. (115 Cong. Rec. 6993 (1969)).
Most of S. 1623’s provisions were subsequently incorporated in RICO. In fact, many large corporations have used section 1964(c) suits, including IBM, Crocker National Bank, Standard Oil of Indiana, Armco Steel, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Banker’s Trust Co., AETNA Casualty and Surety Co., Allstate Insurance Co., and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. IBM, for example sued Hitachi Ltd. under RICO for the theft of computer software; the suit was settled for upwards of $200 million. Similarly, the Crocker litigation against Lehman Brothers, Rockwell International, and Singer, Hunter, Levine and Sussman of New York, a law firm, involved an alleged $225 million computer leasing fraud; it was settled for $65 million.
G. Civil RICO suits are only a minute fraction of the Federal civil case load; considerations of judicial economy do not justify the effective elimination of the section 1964(c) claim for relief.
It is no exaggeration to say that there has been an explosion of private civil RICO lawsuits over the past several years, nor does it seem unreasonable to predict a continuation of this trend *** .
Mr. Bolton makes dire predictions about an explosion of new Federal litigation, as if litigation of any proportion would be unjustified if the victims could establish their allegations. Nevertheless, the “explosion” in private civil RICO suits in recent years hardly justifies a rhetoric of black powder. In fact, less than 500 were brought between 1970 and 1985. (Trott at 126, 141 (“weight of these burdens may not be as great as is claimed”)). Even if it were to increase to 500 suits a year and then be multiplied tenfold, section 1964(c) claims would still constitute only 2 percent of all Federal cases. (Statement of the National Association of Attorneys General and National District Attorneys Association, Oversight on Civil RICO, Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. at 425 (1985)). Approximately 275,000 civil cases are filed each year. “Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts” 11 (1985). 118,000 of the civil cases involve the United States as a plaintiff or defendant; private litigation embraces approximately 160,000 filings, of which 60 percent is Federal question and 40 percent is diversity litigation. Id. at 11. The principal areas of litigation are recovery and overpayments and enforcement of judgments (47,000), prisoner petitions (30,000), Social Security (25,000), civil rights (20,000), and labor (11,000). Id. at A-12-13. Antitrust includes 959 civil filings, id. at A-12, and 47 criminal cases. Id. at A-47. Securities, commodities and exchange-related civil filing make up 3,200, id. at A-13, and 13 criminal cases. Id. at A-46. Fraud-related civil filings make up 1,700. Id. at A-12. Accordingly, if most securities and fraud-related cases were also RICO cases, RICO filing would not exceed 5,000; not more than 2 percent of all Federal filings. How many wholly new pieces of litigation, particularly in the fraud area, RICO will draw into the Federal courts cannot be reliably determined. It is doubtful, however, that the number will be relatively high, as most significant commerical litigation is now in the Federal courts under other Federal statutes or diversity jurisdiction. In fact, recent data on Civil RICO filing, presented to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, indicates that in 1986, only 1069 cases were filed — not thousands — and 294 were terminated. As such, according to Judge Pamela A. Rymer, “the perceived problem of civil RICO case load is exaggerated * * *.” (2 Civil RICO Report No. 34 at 3 (Feb. 4, 1987)). Mr. Bolton, therefore, grossly exaggerates the “heavy burden” civil RICO cases place on Federal courts. Since almost two-thirds of civil RICO suits could be heard in the Federal courts on other grounds, (Trott at 127) “the practical consideration” of the Federal caseload is not a crucial issue.
H. Civil RICO abuse can be substantially reduced by measures that would not unduly restrict plaintiffs’ access to the courts.
Several legislative approaches to civil RICO reform have been suggested. A common element of each proposal is that each would retain civil RICO‘s private enforcement mechanism, while limiting the circumstances to which it could apply * * *. We have concluded that a requirement for a “prior criminal conviction” as a prerequisite to private civil RICO suits, is the preferable approach. If this approach is adopted, the vast majority of abusive and vexatious civil RICO litigation will be eliminated * * *.
Apparently, Mr. Bolton has not studied the effect a prior criminal conviction remedy would have, not only on the “vast majority of abusive and vexatious private civil RICO suits,” but also on valid claims as well. In the antitrust area, 959 civil actions are filed each year, while only 47 criminal actions are brought. Under securities and related laws, 3,200 civil actions are filed each year, while only 13 criminal actions are brought. “Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,” A-12, A-47, A-13, A-46 (1985). A prior criminal conviction requirement would effectively eliminate these remedies, just as it would eviscerate private civil RICO. That, in short, is Mr. Bolton’s true objective.
I. Civil RICO applies to all people who violate its criminal provisions.
Private civil RICO has not succeeded in providing an effective weapon against organized crime. Indeed, one of the most significant aspects of civil RICO has been its virtual neglect by those for whose benefit the private remedy was provided — the victims of organized crime. Our proposed amendment would remedy these problems by ensuring that private civil RICO actions would be brought against only convicted criminals, the group that Congress intended to reach.
The key problem with Mr. Bolton’s analysis of section 1964(c) lies in his fundamental misunderstanding of organized crime. Anyone, not just machinegun toting mobsters, can engage in organized crime. including M.B.A. bankers in Brooks Brothers suits, who defraud banks, brokers, however dressed, who churn away their clients’ portfolios, or other fiduciaries, who similarly misuse other peoples money. Wrongly, Mr. Bolton thinks that civil RICO should apply only to the archetype gangsters, not to legitimate businessmen, who act illegally. We specifically considered and rejected Mr. Bolton’s suggested criminal conviction limitation in 1970. Congressman Mikva, for example, in 1970 called to the attention of the House that “[t]here need not be a conviction under any of these laws for it to be racketeering.” (116 Cong. Rec. 35,342 (1970)). It is too late now to suggest that we really intended otherwise. Only a small percentage of suspected criminal activities, moreover, can be investigated thoroughly, and only a fraction of those investigated can be effectively prosecuted. Since white-collar criminals often manage to evade prosecution and conviction, Mr. Bolton’s amendment would deny the victims of white-collar crime one of their most effective remedies. Civil RICO suits should not be brought only against convicted criminals, but also against criminals who plea-bargain, turn states evidence, or get off on a technicality.
Private civil RICO, moreover, has not failed against organized crime. Indeed, it is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. RICO has merely reached a more monied class of criminals, aclass who apparently is now able to make its voice heard at the highest levels in the Department of Justice. Nevertheless, the best answer to Mr. Bolton’s position is found in the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Trott:
[I]t is true, of course, that the deterrent value of private civil RICO enforcement does not seem very significant when judged in terms of the number of private actions that have been brought against known or suspected members of organized crime. On the other hand, in gauging the overall deterrent value of auxiliary enforcement by private plaintiffs, the deterrence provided by the mere threat of private suits must be added to the deterrence supplied by the suits that are actually filed. Furthermore, as the federal government’s enforcement efforts continue to weaken organized crime and dispel the myth of invulnerability that has long surrounded and protected its members, private plaintiffs may become more willing to pursue RICO‘s attractive civil remedies in organized crime contexts. It should be remembered, too, that civil RICO has significant deterrent potential when used by institutional plaintiffs, such as units of state and local governments, which are not likely to be intimidated at the prospect of suing organized crime members. Finally, civil RICO‘s utility against continuous large-scale criminality not involving traditional organized crime elements should be kept in mind. These considerations suggest that private civil RICO enforcement in area of the organized criminality may have had a greater deterrent impact than is commonly recognized, and that both the threat and the actuality of private enforcement might be expected to produce even greater deterrence in the future. (Trott pp. 140-41.)
J. If fraud is a serious national problem and civil RICO relief should be available to the federal government without a prior criminal conviction requirement, state and local units of government and private citizens should have exactly the same remedy.
*** we recommend that the statute be amended to clarify the federal government’s ability to obtain monetary redress for organized criminal activity that causes injury to the United States. Adoption of this proposal could provide significant benefits to the government, and substantially enhance the deterrent impact of civil RICO.
Paradoxically, no sooner has Mr. Bolton finished arguing for the elimination of civil RICO actions for private parties, including State and local units of government, absent a prior criminal conviction, than he proposes to except the Federal Government from the limitation. Indeed, he makes an excellent case for governmental use of civil RICO: the protection of the public treasury through “the recovery of Federal funds *** fraudulently obtained or misused *** .” Conceding that other existing fraud remedies are inadequate, he quite properly points out that “the possibility of recovering treble damages underRICO might make litigation worthwhile in situations in which the recovery of compensatory damages might not be cost effective, but where important governmental interests should nevertheless be vindicated.” Further, he argues that “the possibility of a treble damage suite by the Government could have a significant deterrent effect on persons contemplating fraudulent acquisition or misuse of Government funds.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Bolton displays a distressing lack of knowledge of how the Federal Government works and how it relates to State and local units of government. First, he seems to assume that the only fraud practiced against the Government is in contract procurement. In fact, many Government programs operate through grant-in-aid or provider reimbursement devices, where the Government, as such, is not injured. Incomprehensively, the language of Mr. Bolton’s proposal would not protect, bycivil RICO suits, these kinds of “Government” programs from fraud. The victims of this kind of fraud will often be, in fact, State and local units of government, which Mr. Bolton’s proposal would not except. In addition, many government programs are implemented through the mechanisms of Government chartered corporations, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Saving and Loan Insurance Corporations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, etc. These programs, too, would fall outside of the language of the Bolton proposal. These results are, of course, indefensible, even under Mr. Bolton’s rationale; they could only be the result, therefore, of poor staff work. As such, they call into question his entire proposal.
Second, no rationale can be offered why State and local units of government ought not have precisely the same right to use civil RICO to protect their own programs from fraud. Prosecutions going on in New York City right now by the Federal Government, for example, are using criminal RICO to root out municipal corruption. Not all of the culpable parties, particularly corrupt business people, will be prosecuted; many will be offered immunity to testify against corrupt public officials. Should these equally guilty parties be free of civil responsibility under RICO, too? If it is appropriate for the Federal Government to concern itself with corruption at the State and local level of government — and it is — it can hardly be suggested that the Federal courts, open for criminal suits, ought to be closed for civilsuits on behalf of Government victims. Mr. Bolton has offered no rationale to justify this result. It, too, calls into question Mr. Bolton’s entire proposal. It is hard to understand how Mr. Bolton fails to recognize that civil RICO serves the same laudable purposes in the private sector. For the private citizens’ interest “in an effective effort against organized, systematic illegality” is no less vital than the Federal Government’s or that of State and local units of government. Mr. Bolton believes that the Government should have effective tools to fight fraud. It would be anomalous to deny those same tools to State and local units of government — or to private citizens.
In ancient Egypt, the scales were first used to symbolize impartiality, that balance of Re, the Sun god, in which he weighed ma-at, justice. (J. Nooham Bribes 7 (1984)). That justice was not always evenhanded at the beginning of civilization also may be seen in that it was necessary for Holy Scripture to issue its ancient injunction: “Prosecute the rich not merely the penniless; strong-armed men as well as those who are powerless.” (Job 36:19) The desire of the rich and the strong-armed to put their thumb on the scale of justice remains with us.
Civil RICO builds upon the experience of the last half-century in the antitrust and securities areas and generalizes it across the marketplace. As the antitrust acts seek to maintain economic freedom in the marketplace, RICO seeks, in the fraud area, to promote integrity in the marketplace. As such, RICOproperly applies to racketeering activity, no matter who engages in it. The rich and the strong-armed must not be allowed to win their special pleas and to place their thumb on the scales of justice. RICO is neither antibusiness nor probusiness. It is provictim. Mr. Bolton’s proposal should be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I include a copy of Mr. Bolton’s letter in the Record following my remarks:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1986.
Hon. George Bush,
President, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President.
Enclosed for your consideration and appropriate reference is a bill to amend section 1964(c) of title 18, United States Code — the provision in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO“) Act that permits federal treble damage suits for injuries caused by RICO violations. The proposed bill would amend the statute to require proof of a prior criminal conviction as an essential element of a private civil RICO suit for treble damages. This restriction would not apply to civil RICO suits brought by the United States when it has just been injured by RICO violations. The Department of Justice believes that this approach would best respond to the increasingly troublesome issues that civil RICO litigation has raised over the past several years.
The need for civil RICO reform is clear. Recent Congressional hearings, court decisions, and studies by the Department of Justice and others have made it plain that private civil RICO enforcement is severely flawed in two fundamental respects. First, private RICO suits have not achieved their intended purpose as supplements to the federal government’s criminal enforcement efforts against organized crime. Second, private uses of the statute have created clear and substantial dangers to other important federal interests.
When it enacted section 1964(c) as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Congress hoped that private civil suits would assist in preventing infiltration of legitimate business by organized crime. That hope has not been realized. Fewer than ten percent of private civil RICO actions have been based on what is ordinarily considered to be organized crime activity. Instead, the vast majority of actions has arisen out of commonplace commercial transactions allegedly involving fraud on the part of businesses and individuals that have no connection to organized crime. Other unanticipated applications of the statute have occurred in cases involving claims of sexual harassment, disputes over the leadership of a synagogue, and routine divorce controversies. Civil RICO has been used to attack an undercover FBI investigation of corruption in the Cleveland municipal court system.
The unexpected evolution of section 1964(c) into “something quite different from the original conception of its enactors,” see SEDIMA, S.P.R.L. v. IMREX CO., INC., 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3287 (1985), has lead to the unnecessary and unwise federalization of an area of the law that is best reserved to the states, and has had other significant detrimental consequences as well.
We do not believe that, when it enacted RICO, Congress thought it necessary to create a general federal remedy for fraud, or that it intended to do so. More to the point, there is today no valid reason to permit civil RICO‘s continued use in this manner, and every good reason for declining to do so.
To begin with, there is no need for a general federal fraud remedy. Persons who engage in serious fraud can be, and frequently are, prosecuted for criminal offenses under both federal and state statutes. In addition, federal laws and judicial decisions afford civil redress for specific types of fraudulent conduct, such as securities fraud, and state statutes and common law principles permit civil recovery for those species of fraud not covered by federal law. We know of no shortcomings in these various provisions such as would warrant adoption of a broad federal remedy for fraud.
Moreover, private civil RICO litigation has had a number of serious repercussions. First, the increasing use of section 1964(c) as a federal fraud remedy threatens to undermine carefully crafted and well established federal statutory schemes that have been developed to regulate the securities, commodities, banking, accounting, and savings and loan industries. In the securities area, for example,a plaintiff alleging fraud will always have an incentive to seek treble damages under civil RICO rather than, or in addition to, pursuing a claim for compensatory damages under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or under state law.
Second, the availability of section 1964(c) as a general federal fraud remedy undercuts standing limitations and procedural requirements that have been developed over fifty years to restrict access to federal courts. The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide express and implied causes of action for violations of each Act. These statutes, however, strictly limit standing to sue by imposing a purchaser/seller requirement; they also impose stringent requirements of proof regarding “causation,” “materiality,” and “reliance.” Private civil RICO plaintiffs who allege securities fraud can now completely circumvent these federal securities law limitations. Because approximately 40 percent of private civil RICO actions involve claims of securities fraud, and because civil RICO permits the evasion or undermining of carefully crafted statutory schemes in other areas as well, civil RICO has the potential to undermine legal doctrines that have evolved over decades to adjudicate claims in each of these areas.
Equally serious is the threat of civil RICO liability to legitimate businesses engaged in purely commercial transactions. Section 1964(c) permits virtually any legitimate business enterprise to be charged with “racketeering” and threatened with a judgment for treble damages and attorneys’ fees, simply on the basis of an ordinary commercial dispute. Civil RICO skews dispute resolution in commercial cases, extorts settlements and increases legal fees, which costs ultimately will be passed on to the purchasers of the goods or services.
Finally, absent any need for a pervasive federal fraud remedy it is inconsistent with the nation’s constitutional principles to exert federal jurisdiction over forms of conduct that traditionally and appropriately have been regarded solely as matters of state concern. The observance of sound principles of federalism is not merely a theoretical imperative. The approach of leaving to the states all matters regarding which there is not a persuasive and constitutionally justifiable reason for federal involvement is dictated by practical considerations as well. Chief among these is the inappropriate and increasingly heavy burden that private civil RICO suits impose on the federal courts. It is no exaggeration to say that there has been an explosion of private civil RICO lawsuits over the past several years, nor does it seem unresonable to predict a continuation of this trend as the statute’s unusually attractive civil remedy becomes more widely understood and as efforts are made to apply it to an ever expanding range of conduct. Indeed, the recent emergence of a “Civil RICO Bar,” replete with specialized reporting services, seminars, and practical courses of instruction, virtually ensures this result.
The unintended and undesirable evolution of section 1964(c) into a general federal fraud remedy requires an unequivocal Congressional response which accommodates important federal interests. These interests include maintaining the federal government’s successful use of RICO‘s criminal provisions against large-scale organized criminal activities and enhancing the government’s ability to make effective use of RICO‘s civil provisions. Other federal interests that should be taken into account include observance of sound principles of federalism, eliminating burdensome litigation, and assuring the fair operation of our federal courts.
Several legislative approaches to civil RICO reform have been suggested. A common element of each proposal is that each would retain civil RICO‘s private enforcement mechanism, while limiting the circumstances to which it could apply. Over the past year, we have carefully considered each of these proposals in light of the federal interests discussed above. We have concluded that a requirement for a “prior criminal conviction” as a prerequisite to private civil RICO suits, is the preferable approach. If this approach is adopted, the vast majority of abusive and vexatious civil RICO litigation would be eliminated and ordinary state law fraud cases would remain in state court where they belong.
By contrast, changes in the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” could also make it more difficult to obtain criminal convictions, while doing little to relieve federal courts of the burden of having to interpret and apply a general federal fraud remedy. A “fraud plus” requirement might not interfere directly with criminal prosecutions under RICO, but could limit the government’s ability to use civil RICO effectively and would not be responsive to federalism concerns.
The fundamental problem with section 1964(c), lies in its underlying premise — that civil suits by private litigants — in the absence of a prior criminal conviction — can reasonably be expected to discourage organized crime’s efforts to infiltrate legitimate businesses. Experience and logic show this principle to be untenable. Private civil RICO enforcement has not succeeded in providing an effective weapon against organized crime. Indeed, one of the most significant aspects of civil RICO has been its virtual neglect by those for whose benefit the private remedy was provided — the victims of organized crime. No doubt many potential plaintiffs have foregone private suits out of fear of physical retaliation,a consequence for which not even the prospect of treble damages and attorneys’ fees could compensate. Moreover, even the most courageous victim might conclude that he could never collect a judgment for damages, either because potential individual defendants had no assets or because potential corporate defendants had been assessed heavy fines or had forfeited their assets to the government in the wake of a successful criminal prosecution. Our proposed amendment would remedy these problems by ensuring that private civil RICO actions are brought only against convicted criminals, the group that Congress intended to reach.
The Supreme Court, in the SEDIMA case, explicitly recognized this basic flaw in civil RICO, and just as plainly invited Congress to correct it:
“It is true that private civil actions under this statute are being brought almost solely against [respected and legitimate enterprises], rather than against the archetypical, intimidating mobster. Yet this defeat — if defeat it is — is inherent in the statute as written, and its correction must lie with Congress. It is not for the Judiciary to eliminate the private section in situations where Congress has provided it simply because plaintiffs are not taking advantage of it in its more difficult applications.” (105 S. Ct. at 3287) [footnote omitted].
Given private civil RICO‘s failure as a useful weapon against organized crime, we believe that private enforcement should be modified to require a prior conviction before further damage is done to important federal interests. Such a course will not impair the legitimate interests of plaintiffs who can now use civil RICO in lieu of remedies provided by state law and other federal statutes. Those other state and federal remedies will continue to be available. Moreover, if individual states believe that an additional remedy, comparable to that now provided by section 1964(c), is needed to protect their interests or those of their citizens, they are free to take appropriate legislative action.
Concurrently with amendment of private civil RICO suits, we recommend that the statute be amended to clarify the federal government’s ability to obtain monetary redress for organized criminal activity that causes injury to the United States. In the belief that such authority already exists, we filed such a suit last year in the Middle District of Florida. The court in that case has sustained our view, but because the question is not entirely free from doubt we think it would be wise to amend the statute so that it explicitly allows the United States to file damage suits for injuries suffered by it as a result of civil RICO violations.
The government already has authority to sue for injunctive relief on behalf of others and, presumably, on its own behalf as well. Thus, it would be anomalous to deny it the right to sue for damages when the United States has been injured by a RICO violation. Such suits could provide a particularly valuable method of protecting the public treasury from fraudulent misuse of federal funds. Damage suits by the United States would make possible the recovery of federal funds — provided either through government programs or government contracts — that have been fraudulently obtained or misused, as well as the recovery of other losses suffered by the government. For example, in the Florida case just referred to, the government is attempting to recover more than $47 million from two businessmen and three companies previously convicted of criminal RICO fraud against the government in connection with the awarding of Department of Defense contracts.
The option to sue under such a provision would provide other benefits as well. For example, the possibility of recovering treble damages under RICO might make litigation worthwhile in situations in which the recovery of compensatory damages might not be cost effective but where important governmental interests should nevertheless be vindicated. Second, the possibility of a treble damage suit by the government could have a significant deterrent effect on persons contemplating fraudulent acquisition or misuse of government funds. With all of the recent revelations of possible fraud in the area of government contracts, such added deterrence would certainly be welcome. In this connection, it is important to remember that the federal interest in an effective effort against organized, systematic illegality — whether manifested by fraud against the government or other conduct detrimental to the United States — is, in essence, an interest in a result. We believe that the government should have effective tools to achieve that result in appropriate cases.
Adoption of this proposal could provide significant benefits to the government, and substantially enhance the deterrent impact of civil RICO. At the same time, because the Department currently screens and controls these cases as carefully as it oversees the uses of RICO‘s criminal provisions, and would continue to do so in the future, there would be no basis for criticisms such as are now being generated by irresponsible uses of the civil RICO statute by private plaintiffs.
The attached bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) as discussed above by requiring a prior criminal conviction for racketeering activity under section 1962 before a private party (which under the statute includes state and local governments) would be permitted to maintain a civil action. Suits by the United States are exempted from this restriction and expressly authorized by a new subsection (d). Finally the private cause of action is also limited by a new, two year statute of limitations, running from the date of the latest criminal conviction.
This is a most significant proposal which would respond in a sensible and effective manner to increasingly serious problems that have arisen in the interpretation and application of an important federal statute directed at the menace of organized crime. I would request that it be given careful and speedy consideration.
As explained above, the Department of Justice believes that, by helping to alleviate burdensome and vexatious litigation, enactment of this bill would have a salutary effect on the workload of the federal courts.
Tuesday, October 27, 1987

Department of Justice Report on Elder Absue and Exploitation

From Nancy Vallone, an important document to read.  It’s quite sad because it documents widespread elder abuse in the nation, with little action being taken.

Report by US Dept. of Justice concerning Elder Abuse

It’s pretty much an eye opener on the status of the disabled and in particular seniors in the US.  With 56% of them owning their own homes, there seems to be a ready post for the nefarious.

After all I have published and after all is said and done, and it appears Probate is a honeypot for the nefarious…

Ms. Janet Phelan comes along with another article which risks making Probate more of a system to the gulag for the elderly than it already is:

I hope someone stops this before it happens, and if it does, I hope a brave lawyer comes forward to stop the sharing of this information before the GAL/probate systems uses it to generate even more guardianships where they were not needed before all of this.

Write your representatives and stop this before it is too late.  It is clearly an invasion of privacy.  It is a misuse and abuse of governmental authority to send others indicators of dementia and fraility of the elderly to those who might most abuse them.  Judges and attys acting badly in our nation’s probate system.  We have already enough senior citizens in nursing homes, against their will, that want to go home, while the probate machines burn up their dollars in dangerous and life shortening nursing homes.  This “nursing home” machine is a nationwide tragedy.  Many other countries would find it shameful to lock away seniors and isolate their elderly –except if they pay $150 per hour or more to get “court supervision” for a single visit.

Thanks Janet for sharing.


Do we have the attention of the SCOI?

One of the biggest hurdles with Appellate work is convincing any particular judge that the trial court or tribunal below, not only failed to do its job, but you have to get their attention.

While one would think that this blog–which reports all sorts of problems, inconsistencies, injustices, and gives the public a platform to present these to the world in an effort to reduce corruption in our Illionis courts–might get someone’s attention at that level, but not because it is me, or I or Ken have scintillating writing along with the likes of Hemmingway, Ayn Rand, Maya Angelou, even Clarence Darrow, or any other famous and wonderful writer, it should be that this blog is about corruption, the ARDC appears to be going after lawyers for merely blogging about corruption and asking law enforcement to intervene.

All of this seems wrong, horribly wrong, on sooo many obvious levels.

So take a look at the document below.

Order Granted Supplementing Record as Filed by Ken Ditkowsky

You will recall that Ken filed a Motion to Supplement the record based upon the Horace Hunter case.  I hope this is a good sign that they plan to adopt portions of the very good decision made with respect to Atty Horace Hunter in Virginia–that the First Amendment means either no restrictions on blogging, or the fewest restrictions possible.

I’m not sure that the Record to Supplement being granted will produce, but at least we have the interest of one Justice Burke.

An assault and battery goes unpunished…because it’s part of Probate!

and any amount of justice that is sent to probate seems to just die right there–on the spot!

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 11, 2013 11:25 AM
To: SE
Subject: The assault and battery on the younger daughter

I understand that this morning there was supposed to be  a hearing on the ‘Assault and Battery’ of the younger daughter by one miscreant FT.
After being ‘jacked around’ for months, the younger daughter’s court date was scheduled for this morning.     The report that I received was that she was shunted to the wrong courtroom and the case was dismissed.    I also understand that the assistant States Attorney was aware that the younger daughter was present.    Worse yet, when the younger daughter tried to get the matter heard she was apparently shunted off with ‘ take it to the probate court.’
SE – I understand that you were a court-watcher his morning.   I would like your confirmation and a brief summary of what transpired.    I’ve requested by a separate cover that the younger daughter to do the same.     I would like a play by play as accurately as you can relate the facts to me.   (I’d like the report as soon as possible – yesterday would be nice!)     I am seriously wondering if we still live in America.      Why should the States Attorney’s office not feel an obligation to protect a lady who was assaulted and battered by a ‘bully.’     This battery took place in Norwood Park – Dozens of people (neighbors and friends) are aware of it, yet, instead of wanting to make an example of the ‘bully’ the police, the States Attorney, and even the Sheriff’s deputies appear to be unconcerned.
Shortly after this assault occurred the younger daughter was in my office and after observing the bruises I sent her to the Police Department to swear out a warrant and suggested full and complete criminal prosecution.    It never occurred to me that she would have any trouble in obtaining a protective order, and the prosecution.       Whatever is going on has to be ascertained and the miscreants brought to justice.    – unless this is the 4th Reich!
Ken Ditkowsky

From GJS – a harrowing story of one man’s final days and his death….

Of a broken heart.

Thanks for sending this along G****, I really LOVED the story.

here is the link to the full story:

Benjamin Alfano’s Harrowing Probate Story

Synopsis of facts:

Benjamin Alfano lived at Raleigh Hills Assisted Living, where he was frequently visited by his granddaughter. He died in February 2011.

Twenty-seven months ago, Probate Judge Cobb dismissed the pleas of Alfano, his four doctors, four of his five children and Cobb’s own court visitor, and awarded control of the veteran’s life to Chris Farley, a professional guardian.

Alfano, a 72-year-old amputee with full benefits, would survive only another six months.
Farley moved the veteran out of the Raleigh Hills Assisted Living facility he loved and eventually into a locked-door dementia-care unit in Gresham, and strenuously isolated him from his children.

Alfano’s heart burst, literally, in February 2011, and he died at the VA Medical Center.

As Judy Bridges, the Raleigh Hills administrator, submitted in an affidavit, “I believe with all my heart that the move killed him.”

Alfano’s death devastated his five children, four of whom retained Portland attorney Michelle Burrows to initiate a federal civil-rights suit against Farley, Pagnano and individuals at ODVA.

Of the $407,000 parked in the account when Farley was appointed guardian in 2010, only $220,000 remains.

And that includes another $44,000 that Alfano received in pension and Social Security before he died.

Where did all the money go?

ODVA “disbursed” $26,784 to Farley and another $27,643 to her attorney, Sibylle Baer.

Pagnano the GAL received $19,022.

D. Kevin Carlson, the assistant attorney general at ODVA, received $25,143.

J. Kevin Shuba — the lawyer representing Alfano’s four children — received $41,560.

But none of those payouts are as galling as Carlson’s suggestion, on behalf of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, that Cobb must hold another $120,000 of the estate in reserve to defend ODVA and Farley against a potential federal suit.

Think about that.

Four of Ben Alfano’s children — Mary, Steven, David and Lisa –believe the conservator and guardian made decisions that contributed to their father’s “wrongful and untimely death.”

And Carlson wants to pit what’s left of their father’s estate against them.

None of those children plans to be in Guardianship court.

“She has never listened to anything we’ve said,” Steven Alfano notes.

“And we’re beaten down. Dad is dead. We lost him. And the health toll this has taken on Mary and me, especially, has been huge.”

They have, however, filed an objection.

Further degrading the estate, they argue, “would be both an injustice and simply ethically wrong in any code of conduct.”

— Steve Duin is an Oregon reporter on this story

***End of Story****

Does this sound familiar?  Haunting echoes of the Illinois Probate court?

I wonder

efiling–one of the MOST pressing problems in state court

Dear Readers;

From the time I was admitted to the bar way back in 1985, one of the problems I found is that when attorneys made errors or forgot something or no longer wanted something in the file, it would just appear or disappear!

In 2000 all the Federal Courts went to efiling on a system called Pacer.  Now, I am certain that’s because efiling is immune to court record tampering and I submit for your amusement the fact that federal court went to efiling first is because that system abhors file tampering, whereas 10 years later in most of Illinois, the system is not efiling, there is no public access to most of the system on line and the court’s filing system in Illinois is a dinosauric, antediluvian tragedy which I have been ticked off about since 2000 when the federal court system went to efiling but the states are lumbering along.

I know this will put a ton of (unskilled, paper shuffling) file clerks out of business in favor of a rarified smaller group of IT specialists, but civilization moves ahead in time with or without you.

Small children know how to operate a cell phone, text, tweet, facebook, myspace, build and operate their own webpages, etc. but our nation’s state court system simply cannot tolerate such forward thinking.

And in case you’re wondering about all those 80 + year attys toddling about federal court, yes, Virgina, they finally let them forego Pacer and walk up to the pro se desk with all the other pro se’ers and file there.  I don’t personally have a problem with that.  I think if an older attorney files an affidavit that he or she (but that was a time when women could not be attorneys, but I will save that for another post), still thinks a post is something you hitch a horse to, and a tweet is something birds do, and myspace refers to the bathroom or something, by all means I think THEY and only such attorneys should be allowed to still paper file anything.

Getting back to my point, it truly irks me that while Obama has mandated EMRS or electronic medical records by 2014, where is our nation’s court system on this position?

Why is there no hue and cry that court records and files MUST be electronic by that date also.

see the article at:

And before you think that HIPAA is any great shakes, you should know that during a recent case I had taken on briefly, I was shocked to find out that HIPAA has no remedy!  That’s right folks.  If your doctor, pharmacist or any other health care provider publishes your medical records online to secure payment because you did not pay a bill–nothing to sue over.  It’s true.  There’s nothing in the statute, and only 3 Illinois cases have looked at this and the Ill. App. Ct. said, hey, there’s no remedy for a HIPAA violation.  So next time you’re at your docs and they blame something irksome on HIPAA you can just turn to them and say, so what?  There is no remedy and no violation and if you wanted to, you could paper the bathroom walls with any medical record you want and I can’t do anything about it, so don’t blame HIPAA.  I believe HIPAA was created so that insurance companies could freely exchange med info to slap unsuspecting insureds with the dreaded “pre existing condition” and lying about your med records to deny or increase your coverage.  I guess with Obama, that’s dead, but HIPAA is not and it only allows insurers to freely pass around your medical information DESPITE the fact it was touted as a law to protect the consumer!

Go hug a lawyer today for telling you the truth.  The statute was a scam and should be repealed.  What a load of junk.

And where was AARP on this issue when they recommended HIPAA?  Out selling overprice medicare supp insurance, that’s where they were.

Getting back to efiling, I know that the Rockford court system in Illinois was granted $80 million to implement it and what they have is a horrid sham.  Well, except for the fact I have been in Rockford and the Winnebago court system and every person out there can tell horrible stories of being shafted by a corrupt court system.

This has to end.  Obama, get in there and give us CLEAN court systems via electronic filing.

I have talked to the dudes at Pacer.  They claim they can come in and within a month set up a court filing system on efile from soup to nuts, in about a month and for minimal cost.

What is going on with our court system, that’s what I want to know.

thanks for listening

PS–okay, the cases on HIPAA were a bit of overkill.  If your doc plasters his bathroom with your medical reports, or publishes them online, etc., you CAN still sue.  The Illinois courts have adopted the tort of “intrusion of seclusion” which came from the common law, and when I say common law, that means some court in England from centuries ago.  It’s amazing how the “common law” is better than an expensive, insurance company touted legislation that does nothing whatsoever for consumers except let one insurance company rat on you to another.  That stinks.

Letters from KD still calling for an investigation

Dear Readers;

I supposed since a police officer from the Naperville police dept was called by LB as a witness to “Ken’s misconduct” in calling for an investigation, and Senator Kirk did not testify against him, Richard Durbin or anyone from the Department of Justice in Washington DC, I would assume these letters are proper.

It is only complaints to Attys Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and police officers in Naperville that complaints are improper!

See attached and we are all still wondering when anyone out there in criminal justice will take a look at the fact at the following criminal and wrongful misconduct which is created when a probate court clearly operates without jurisdiction in Sykes (conversion, wrongful eviction, false imprisonment, etc.); Tyler, Gore, Bedin, Wyman (conversion, Medicare fraud, false imprisonment, violations of 42 USC 1983, etc.)

It is clearly a mystery to me.  I still think both Ken and I have to get jobs at the ARDC and the US Atty’s offices so that someone there will actually DO something about all the bias and corruption in probate court.




From Ken Ditkowsky — a form for requsting an accounting.

A form is guide as to the basics.    (These are Ken’s comments on WestlawNext – HORNER–PPE, § 50:22. Citation to compel accounting and settlement—Forms—Petition for citation, available at any law library.  Chicago has a great public and free law library on the 29th floor of the Daley center).
I am suggesting that this form be used by an ‘interested person’ to require the guardian/executor or other appointed individual to account.   For instance, in the Sykes case I am suggesting to Gloria/Kathy/Aunt Jo/Aunt yo and/or other interested persons to ask for an accounting for Carolyn.   For instance, the petition should disclose:
1) We know that Mary was a millionaire.   She had inherited from her husband and from Albert Biddy gold coins worth at this point in time over a million dollars. We also know that she had a safety deposit box that also had Gloria’s name on it and this safety deposit box was drilled by Carolyn.   (This is the safety deposit box that Cynthia Farenga testified that neither she or Adam Stern went to observe and Carolyn had free rein over it).    We also know that Mary had money of her own, and in particular there were funds that she had in a mattress.  Finally there was jewelry, antiques etc.
2) Under Illinois law being appointed a guardian does not create a forfeiture of the ‘ward’s assets’ but it places the guardian in a fiduciary relationship to the ward.   Ergo, there is not only a statutory duty to account for all of the assets, but a common law duty.    The published form provides a guide as to what should be said and is an acknowledgement that even those persons (including guardians and guardian ad litem) who are governed by Title XIa of the Probate act have to comply with this duty.
The time to take off the gloves is right now.    There is no reason for the State of Illinois and the United States of America not to collect the taxes due created by the taxable event of the plenary guardian not inventorying assets that she obtained in the raid on the safety deposit box, the house etc.    One has to be an idiot not to be suspicious of the fact that neither the plenary guardian or the two Guardian ad Litems have not made application for fees – why should they – over a million dollars of assets have not been inventoried.   The Wizard of Oz has not made the million dollars disappear.    It is logical that the two guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian who are trying desperately to vitiate the First Amendment Rights of persons (including me) who have spoken out have some ‘role’ in the non-inventory of the substantial assets.
Ken Ditkowsky


From John Wyman – 48 talking points–to the FBI

This is from a letter that John Wyman sent to the FBI.  I don’t know when that letter was sent, but so far nothing has become of it.

The letter was sent to the US Dept of Justice attorneys at 219 S. Dearborn St, 5th Floor in Chicago, IL 60604, but so far, nothing has come from this obvious fraud.  Do you think I should put in an application to work there?  Obviously, whatever attys are there are not doing their job.

Yeah, I think Ken and I need to apply there–tomorrow.  I’ll call them for an application and submit a resume.
I think John Howard Wyman did a wonderful job on this and I want to thank him for doing this and being proud to share it with us.

see below and take care all.

PS–please excuse formatting errors and some typos.  It was scanned in and OCR’ed, and we all know how those computers are!


Department of Justice, 219 S. Dearborn, 5th floor, Chicago, IL
Thank you for reviewing the Elder Abuse case involving my mother, Winifred Carol Wyman. Her birthday is 12/26/31. Winifred Carol Wyman’s case number is 2009 P-197 in the 17th Judicial District of Northern Illinois, Winnebago County. I believe mine and my mother’s civil rights have been violated for the last three years.
I will present my case in chronological order to the best of my abilities. I’ve studied intensely Elder Abuse and the law for the last three years.
1) December 2008 – I saw my mother at my father’s, aka Powell Wyman, sister’s house, aka Pam Freeman. She appeared fine at that time except for missing most of her teeth due to neglect by my father.
2) January 3, 2009 – I received a frantic call from my father’s sister, Pam Freeman, that my mother was refusing to go into a nursing home and my youngest brother, aka David Wyman, needed help putting her there. (Physiological Abuse) is threatening elder senior citizens with placement in a facility that they do not want or need. After call to my brother, David Wyman, he assured me he could handle it himself.
3) March 3, 2009 – My father and brother, David, doctor shopped for a licensed clinical social worker, Bruce Person, LCSW. He found no sign of dementia or need for placement in a facility and said my father refused to sit in on the exam and that he was angry and defiant in the reception area when addressed. My father has been both physiologically and physically abusive to his wife and his children as long as I can remember. At some point my mother is prescribed Aricept. My father denied my mother medication saying he can’t afford meds. Denial of medication is another form of Elder Abuse.
4) April 3, 2009 – An incident happened at 1704 Belmont Blvd. Rockford, IL, my parent’s home, where my mother called the police on my father. The police arrived and found my mother alone and confused. My father was nowhere around. When he finally arrived, the police interviewed both my parents and because my mother allegedly threaten to shoot my father (even though there are no guns in the house and she didn’t know how to use one) the police made the decision to take my mother to Swedish American Hospital for a psychiatric hold.
S) April 2009 – In reports, my father admits giving my mother his sleeping pills (Ambien) to control her after she drank with him. A clear violation of Federal Law.  My mother has had stomach reduction surgery years ago and cannot drink alcohol at all.  Even a small amount will make her drunk and sick.  My father knew this at the time.
6) April 12, 2009 – Nine days stay in psychiatric ward – my father had my mother moved
around to different areas of the hospital to keep her away from another brother, aka Bill
Wyman, when he came to see her because Bill didn’t agree with our father’s actions.
Isolating her from other family members is another form of Elder Abuse according to IL state law.
7) April 2009 – Mid April, my mother was moved to the dementia unit at Alden Park
Strathmoor nursing home. I contacted my brother, David, and he states our mother had
her chance to go to assisted living. He said she is where she belongs (Alden Park
Strathmoor/dementia unit) and hung the phone up on me. I contacted my father and his first question was do you have any girlfriends in Rockford. I can’t get it up anymore, I’m lonely and I need someone to cook and clean for me. I replied that is what you had a wife for!)

8) April 2009 – My father isolated my mother by restricting all outside communication which included the use of the phone to call family members. Abuse again.
9) May 9, 2009 -I, aka John Howard Wyman, fly to Rockford to assess the situation myself. I arrived with my brother Bill at noon at Alden Park Strathmoor nursing home to visit our mother. My brother Bill has been put on the “no call no see list” with other family members by our father. Even though medicated, our mother looks and acts fine – not at all like the other patients.
10) May 9,2009 – Our father appears looking surprised to see me. After a casual conversation, I asked him if we could take mom out to celebrate Mother’s Day and my birthday also inviting him to join the family. The answer was “no” because she is not allowed to leave the home.
I go to the front desk to ask if the home does anything special for families on Mother’s Day. The receptionist states they couldn’t handle the volume of people but we could sign her out for the day. My father is standing behind me listening. As I turn to talk to him, He walks away. I then ask the receptionist who has Power of Attorney (POA). She just points in my father’s direction. My father turns around, comes back to the desk, and agrees to go to Mother’s Day brunch then leaves.
11) May 10, 2009 – The family (me, Bill and his children) shows up at nursing home to take our mother/grandmother to brunch. We wait for our father but he doesn’t show up. I try to contact him only to get a hold of his sisters (Pam). Pam informs me that he is not coming and that our mother cant’s go with us. Our mother says she wants out. I tell her I’ll come and get her tomorrow. More isolation for her!
12) May 11, 2009 -I show up at the nursing home with POA and witnesses Mom sign the
papers. After showing the nurse the POA, we gather her things to leave only to be kept
“locked in” for approximately 8 minutes. We pleaded with them to let us go. One can’t
hold US citizens against their will. Finally, out of the building and into the car. Seven police officers showed up with my father and stopped us from leaving the nursing home. After 20 minutes, they told me they didn’t understand the POA and that after I get it notarized I could take my mother tomorrow. I relented and took her back into the nursing home stating to the nurses not to medicate my mother. On my way out of the building 2 health care workers told me that my mother didn’t belong there. I asked them if they would testify for my mother. They said “no” because they would lose their jobs.
13) May 12,2009 -I show up at the nursing home with POA and waited for police. One officer arrived and told me I couldn’t take her even though the POA was correctly notarized because an emergency guardianship was in the pipeline. I found out later that it wasn’t going in front of a judge until May 14.
14) May 13, 2009 – An Order of Protection (OOP) was served at 6:00AM to 6 family members, namely, myself, Bill, three of Bill’s children and his son’s fiancee. It made no sense. Two of the OOP were totally unwarranted! Bill’s son Mark, aka Mark Wyman, and Mark’s fiancee were not involved. On these two unwarranted OOP, my father totally lied. Perjury is a class 4 felony. My nephew, Mark, and his fiancee are pursuing careers in health care and law enforcement. I went to the state police, which is part of “triad,” and was assigned to Dave Sam Thomas. Before meeting with him, I called District Attorneys, aka DA, office in reference to the two unwarranted OOPs. They told me it was a felony but weren’t interested in pursuing the charge. After meeting with Detective Thomas he told me he understood but his hands were tied.
15) May 2009 – I went to my attorney, aka JF Heckinger, and he informed me that the public guardian, Sharon Rudy, was my father’s attorney and that she was one of his best friends and we should be able to work this out He would see her and me back in Rockford June 16,2009 for the OOP hearing.
16) June 15,2009 – After I arrived in Rockford, I called attorney, JF, and he said he would see me in court June 16. The six of us that had been served the OOPs were in court plus Bill’s family attorney. My brother’s attorney, my attorney, JF, and my father’s attorney, Sharon Rudy, went into the judge’s chambers and “cut a deal.”  If I don’t pursue my father’s perjury charges they will vacate they OOP so my nephew, Mark, and his fiancee would be able to pursue their careers. “I fell on my sword.” When the judge gave his order, he stated that the OOPs were without meri;t however, this would be reinstated if we violated them. Didn’t make sense!  And this will turn out to create a situation where my mother is nearly killed in an abusive nursing home.  Without the “good” children who cared to come see her and make sure she is fine, the nursing home she is put in is abusive and neglects her medical care.
17) June 2009 – Still having my mother’s POA, I pursued my mother’s medical records. Before her adjudication, the physician hospital diagnosed her homicidal, suicidal, dementia, Alzheimer, alcoholism and schizophrenia.
18) June 2009 – I went to the visiting nurses association. They told me the reason my mother was removed from her home was for her own safety. They said the home was unfit to live in. I tried to explain to them that my father was the hoarder–and he was living there. My explanation fell on deaf ears only to find out later they were picking up attorney, Sharon Rudy’s fees.
19) June 16-19, 2009 – Saw my attorney, JK, and gave him Bruce Person, the LCSW, name because he was to testify at my mother’s adjudication on July 9, 2009. Attorney, JF, said he would draw up motion and send it. I received motion draft and it all but buries my mother.  I called attorney, JF, and told him not to summit it and that I would see him in court with Bruce Person, LCSW and other witnesses.
20) June 2009 – I received a call from Bruce Person, LCSW. He had spoken to my attorney, JF Heckinger and that JF stated he would do a better job if I would pay him. I called my attorney, JF, and told him he should not be discussing our business with anybody but me. At that point, I told him I would pay the balance on at court.
21) June 2009 – Before my return to Rockford, I spoke with the Guardian Ad Litem, aka GAL, Ruth Robertson, as she is the eyes and ears for the court. I filled her in on the situation of my mother’s denial of medical, health and dental care, the isolation from her family which includes her two sisters, Marilynn Cook/Colorado and Phyllis Campbell/North Carolina, and the repeated lifelong physiological and psychological abuse by my father.
22) July 2009 – I called my attorney, JF, before leaving for Rockford for the July 9 hearings. I arrived at court house at 8:45AM with my mother’s LCSW, Bruce Person. We waited until 9:15AM when a bailiff walks by and tells us there is no court today. I go to county clerk’s office to find out what went on. I am told that attorney, Sharon Rudy, had walked the case in on July 6th with my attorney, JF, and GAL, aka Kim Timmerwilke. I read the order and my attorney, JF, objected to my father being guardian as did my mother. The attorneys knew that the LCSW, Brian Person, and I were to be in court July 9th to testify that my father was abusive and a hoarder and should be removed from the home so my mother could live there safely. This is a direct violation of our due process of law to present evidence – a federal law.
23) I go to the DA’s office to complain only to have my attorney, JK, walk in for another case. He asked me what am I doing here -I said you did not tell me not to be here.
24) July 2009 -I met with GAL, Kim, and she told me she had met with my mother on July 4th at Strathmoor. Kim said my mother was delusional. At that time I told Kim about LCSW, Bruce Person, report and she said she would not believe a thing he said. She also stated that my mother requested an attorney to which she said she did not think my mother was serious. Another federal violation of my mother’s Constitutional Rights!
25) July 2009 – During this time I tried to obtain an attorney for my mother through Prairie State Legal Services. I was told that my mother had to call herself. My mother was not allowed to use a phone per my father’s orders at Strathmoor. Later, I found out that attorney, Sharon Rudy and JF Heckinger were on the board of Prairie State Legal Services. Collusion?? Conflict of interest?
26) July 12, 2009 – My mother’s sister, Marilynn, called the Rockford police from Colorado requesting a wellness check on her sister, Winifred Carol Wyman, institutionalized at Strathmoor. My mother had told her she has been beaten. The police do welfare checks but stated they did not think it was their jurisdiction. The Illinois Dept. of Health did an investigation and found that Strathmoor nursing staff failed to report and failed to protect.
My mother was beaten on July 4, 2009 by another patient. My father refused to press
charges. One of his duties as guardian is to protect and report harm to my mother. Later, GAL, Kim, admitted she saw bruises on my mother’s face. She is a mandated reporter. It is a further crime not to document/report.
27) July 27,2009 -I am back in Rockford to present information on my mother’s beating to judge, Lisa Fabiano. I am told I would have to wait until September 16th. LCSW, Bruce
Person, is ordered to do another evaluation on my mother and I am ordered to pay for his findings. The nursing home placement was not necessary because my mother scored 28 out of a possible 30 on the mini dementia test at Strathmoor in court. ????
28) July 31, 2009 – Evidently, my mother’s situation at Strathmoor had shed too much notoriety on the institution. They wanted her gone so she was transferred to another facility. My father did not have time to isolate her at the new home. My mother asked to use the telephone and called, from memory, her hairdresser to come help her do her laundry. The hairdresser picked my mother up and my mother requested to be driven to Colorado. When I first see her, she has a bruised jaw, blacken eye and a large knot on her forehead. She is extremely anemic. I get the necessary medical care for her. I take my mother every week to the doctor for iron and B12 shots. The judge, Lisa Fabiano, lets me keep her acknowledging that I was doing a good job. I am HAPPY and cannot believe with my mother’s diagnosis of homicidal and suicidal behavior that they let me keep her.
29) September 16, 2009 – Before the hearing, attorney, JF, asked to be excused from the case. I go PRO SE. I am smelling collusion–and lies. They ask me when it is convenient for me to come back for a hearing and I tell them November 30, 2009. At this next hearing, I will present evidence. They request for my phone number again so my father may call his wife. He never calls.
30) September 2009 – While still in Rockford, my roommate calls saying my mother was
complaining of chest pains. My roommate takes my mother to the emergency room. The Doctor admits her to the hospital because she is two pints short of blood. If she had been in Illinois, she would have died. With the blood transfusion, it was like the lights had been turned on! I keep the GAL, Kim, informed on my mother’s recovery during this time.
31) November 30,2009 -I return to Rockford for hearing and file the motion my attorney, JF, had prepared so I could present evidence in court. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, objects to everything that I have to say. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, again requests my phone number because she has misplaced the number and that is why my father has not contacted my mother. The court sets January 7, 2010 for a status hearing. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, court ordered to obtain ID, social security card etc. for my mother. They also set value of estimate for the house at 1704 Belmont Blvd. at $101,000.00. (Turns out that value is lie only to put probate atty fee liens and medicare liens on the house to have it sold.  The clear value, after reviewing comps and talking to a Realtor is $60,000–this was done as a ruse to meet the medicare cut of off of $101,000 to prevent impoverishing a spouse, only homes over $104,000 can be sold to pay nursing home liens!)  I ask for my mother’s social security payments for September, October and November 2009. Federal law mandates that the money follows the person.  My mother needs clothes, food and living expenses!
32) January 7, 2010 – I return to Rockford for status hearing. In court, I asked attorney, Sharon Rudy, for my mother’s ID and social security card. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, does have these items but states she did not understand the order. Ignoring a court order is contempt. I told the judge that I had made my mother a Colorado citizen and asked for her social security checks and they said they would look into it. Also at this status hearing, they make me guardian of person but I would not receive papers until May 2010. I am taking care of all
my mother’s health and welfare needs with my old Power of Attorney Form. At this point in time, my father is in a nursing home. I made a request to bring my mother back to her home, 1704 Belmont Blvd/Rockford to live. Both attorneys objected, saying the house is too deplorable—yet it was perfectly fit for my father to live in from May of 2009 to January 2010! Attorney, Sharon Rudy, filed a “Motion to Show Cause” why I should not be sanctioned (for saving my mother’s life and taking her to Colorado)  for me to pay her and GAL, Kim, for my contemptuous behavior and kidnapping my mother, yet they agree I am doing a great job with my mother. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, still objects to me presenting evidence and accuses me of copying her motion (word for word verbatim) that I filed November 30,2009. It was the same motion that my attorney, JF, had drafted and billed me for as did attorney, Sharon Rudy. Doubled billed! More collusion? I do not know.  If a doctor would have engaged in such fraud in order to place a homeless person in a nursing home and taken fees for it, he will be given 15 years and put in federal prison for 15 years.  But when judges and attorneys do the exact same thing–medicare fraud by altering home price appraisals to put a senior in a nursing home, get guardianship and then sell the home to a “friend” or “business parter”, for some reason the FBI looks the other way.
33) March 2010 -I return to Rockford for another status hearing. They give me my letters of guardianship for my mother. I give my answers to RTSC and motion to set aside
adjudication. I started to gather medical and nursing home records. The nursing home
administrator asked outright if this was for a lawsuit.
34) April 2010 – My mother breaks her hip and ends up with medical delirium.
35) June 2010 – I bring my mother back to Rockford for hearing. We drove from Aspen to Chicago arriving on a Friday. I receive a phone call from GAL, Kim, saying I hope you have not left Colorado yet because court has been cancelled by attorney, Sharon Rudy. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, claims she has not had time to look over my answers. I am not happy. Judge Fabiano agrees to see me June 2. GAL, Kim, says she cannot attend and attorney, Sharon Rudy, will not be there either so I will be able to present my evidence. However, attorney, Sharon Rudy, shows up and objects to me presenting evidence.
36) July 2010 – I fly into Rockford on a Friday for the Monday hearing. Again court is cancelled late on that Friday. The judge, Lisa Fabiano, went on vacation to Italy. I cannot believe she did not know in advance about her pending vacation to Italy. My mother is in hospital in Colorado recovering from her condition. I keep the GAL, Kim, well informed. I then go to U.S. Attorney’s office next to GAL, Kim’s, office to file a complaint in reference my mother’s case against attorney, Sharon Rudy, GAL, Kim, and judge, Lisa Fabiano. The office refuses to hear my case. Only later, I find out that GAL, Kim, is having an affair with US attorney, aka John McKenzie. An attorney in that office. More collusion? I do not know?
37) July 2010 – The next hearing is to be held in late July. Judge, Fabino, apologizes for her absents and lets me appear by phone saying this must be getting expensive for me. I
request my mother’s back social security and again they say they will look into it. Nothing is accomplished. Final court date is set for late November 2010. I also informed the court that my father has plenary guardianship and has failed to obtain supplemental insurance for my mother. This created a mess for Medicaid after my mother’s broken hip.
38) November 30,2010 – My mother is doing better in rehab. I return to Rockford for the
hearing. It is the first time my father appears in court. By this time I have two file boxes full of evidence and conflicting reports created by different agency – Rockford police,
administration at Strathmoor and the courts. They see my boxes and ask if they could do this in judge’s chambers. I agree with the understanding that the atmosphere would be more open and friendly. Did not happen. Every time I spoke, attorney, Sharon Rudy,
objected. Again, I asked for my mother’s social security checks and attorney, Sharon Rudy, advised me that they were going to use the social security for my mother’s share of the legal fees. This is in direct violation of federal law! A lien was filed against the house at 1704 Belmont Blvd. and they had it appraised. I informed them how my mother was doing and that she was coming back to my house to live. They also ordered me to pay my share of GAL, Kim’s, and attorney, Sharon Rudy’s, bills, basically for saving my mother’s life. My father was ordered to pay my mother’s bills through attorney, Sharon Rudy. My father is still living in the deplorable house (1704 Belmont Blvd.).
39) December 2010 – My mother is home with me again and I am taking her to Rockford for Christmas so she can celebrate with her grandchildren. My father had a heart attack and has been placed in a nursing home. When I heard this new, I immediately I called attorney, Sharon Rudy, to ask her again to allow my mother to be in her own home (1704 Belmont Blvd.). Again, she said the home condition was deplorable. I volunteered to clean it. No deal.
40) January 2011-1 have been sending my mother’s bill to attorney, Sharon Rudy, office only to have them returned to me. The office informed me that there are no funds to pay these bills. I should pay them out of the social security checks ($500.00) a month. That amount is all that she has to live on. It cost me an additional $10,000.00 a year for her care.
41) August 2011- I do not hear from the courts until I receive a notice by mail to sell my
parent’s home (1704 Belmont Blvd.) I make a phone call the day before hearing explaining that I cannot make the hearing so I file motion to vacate order. I then file another motion to set aside order and also file a Lis Pendes.
42) October 2011- Hearing is set for October 2011. I asked for a court date but never heard back from the court. I arrive at 11:45 on court date and call GAL, Kim. She says I failed to appear and have to reinstate my motions. I have sat in this courtroom for a 9:00AM hearings many times and have waited until noon. They would not hear my motion to re-file even after I re-filed. Their last minute cancellations oftwo court dates and my mother’s adjudication were moved up without notifying me. Does not seem fair.
43) December 2011- I am back in Rockford. After re-filing, I am not in front of the judge more than a minute and she upholds the sale of the house for 75% of the value of the house and all the cost involved. Furthermore, the cost for attorney, Sharon Rudy, and the new GAL, Atty Mrs. Kim McKenzie. I go to the U.S. Attorney’s office again to complain and again I am turned away. I think because GAL, Kim, and US attorney, John, are now married. More collusion?
44) March 2012 – My mother is allowed to go into her home (1704 Belmont Blvd.) for the first time in almost three years to tag her personal possessions. She is allowed to tag about 14 items. I record the whole house that I can see with a camcorder. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, enters the house with my mother’s caregiver and attorney, Sharon Rudy, states this is a real nice and at that point she tells the caregiver that she had not been in the house before! With the exception of the garage, all the other rooms were clean and livable. After taping for 45 minutes, since I am in town anyway, I offer to do a complete inventory. Attorney, Sharon Rudy, says no that the auction service would do it. While in town, I do an interview on a CBS news program in reference to the book I wrote on Elder Abuse.
45) May 11, 2012 – The court ordered that there would be an auction but would not be held until I went over the complete inventory list for all of my mother’s art supplies, art work and personal possessions etc., Attorney, Sharon Rudy, and GAL, Kim, tell Judge,  Lisa Fabiano, it is like a divorce without there being a divorce. My parents are still married! My brother, Bill, was told to pick up the 14 items that our mother had previously selected. I have to wait until Monday for the order to be handed down. This delays our trip back to Colorado.
46) May 2012 – We stayed just to sign the order Monday after the court hearing. GAL, Kim, saw my mother privately for 7 minute but claims that she was with her 20 minutes in court and states if my mother’s caregiver does not go to Colorado that they will revisit the case and try to place my mother in a nursing home in Illinois.
47) July 2012 – My brother, Bill, goes to house to retrieve my mother’s 14 selected items only to be given 4 of the items and was not allowed to look in the house. He looked in the windows and said that the house was empty and our mother’s stain glass is missing from the yard. Bill calls me to get a hold of GAL, Kim, to ask her for the rest of the 14 items on the list. GAL, Kim, said she would look into it and make sure attorney, Sharon Rudy, either emails or mail them to me. This has not happened yet… I get a call around the July 10th stating that they had a garage sale without my knowledge – another court order violation. They sold my mother’s life away against court orders. I made two calls and one e-mail to  GAL, Kim, but no reply from her as of yet and no inventory list from attorney, Sharon Rudy. I also saw Kevin O’Connell from Lisa Madigan’s office 1 am sure he will cooperate with the US Attorney’s office. They have trampled my mother’s and my rights with their collusion and complicity. There is more information to prove that all of these people should be investigated.
a. Sharon Rudy/Public Guardian and Attorney
b. Lisa Fabiano/Judge
c. Kim Timmerwilke McKenzie/GAL
d. John McKenzie/US Attorney
e. JF Heckinger/attorney
f. Alden Park Strathmoor/nursing home
g. District Attorney’s Office/Rockford, IL
h. U.S Attorney’s Office/Rockford, IL
48) July 2012 -I have written my mother’s story in book form called Against Her Will. The book has received national attention. Regardless of your decision to investigate our case, I have become an advocate against Elder Abuse.
Thank You Very Much,

John Howard Wyman

From Ken Ditkowsky, the gun is still smoking.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 12, 2012 4:02 PM
To: Janet Nideb
Subject: Smoking gun – Did you see it?

I think we are at a juncture.   It is fish or cut bait!
I have in my possession an e-mail from Cynthia Farenga to a Illinois ARDC lawyer that is a smoking gun.    So that it does not disappear I published it by sending a copy to the United States Attorney General, Senator Kirk, Senator Dubin, and the ARDC itself.  I intentionally did not make any reference to the document that would make it stand out or even be noticed.   I then tested the waters by sending a copy of the document containing the ‘smoking gun’ to my elected representatives, law enforcement, my wife and also to a excellent and seasoned investigator.     To my surprise, the document passed by all the prying eyes totally un-noticed.  (so much for diligence and concern about the First Amendment)  There were also a few organizations that received copies of the document and again it passed un-noticed.
Let me assure you the ‘smoking gun’ will not continue for long to be passed over. like a cancer the ‘smoking gun’ will lie un-noticed until I think the time right to uncover it. I mention this little event because the time to get on the bandwagon and to mark your claims is right now.   This is your opportunity to be profound and get in position to say *****.
The public is getting restless – Grandma is being abused on the front parkway and too many people are watching and cheering the abuser.   It soon will be time to arrest and bring the rapists to Justice and administrate a little pain to the cheering multitude.  If you are with Grandma – send a letter to your elected representatives and local law enforcement and demand an honest investigation of such august people as the guardians and guardian ad litem who have done such a marvelous job in luring grandma to the rape site and stripping her naked of her liberty, her property, her human rights and her civil rights.   [However, if you are not with us – you are free and we will even help you send a letter to your elective representatives to disclose to him/her what terrible people we are and how reprehensible it is to interfere with ‘nature’ by stopping the rapists from ravaging Grandma!]
Ken Ditkowsky

How to Structure a Complaint — don’t be chatty

On of the things that comes up when I am working with a client on a complaint is that they want to be chatty!  Also in briefs, even when I have a 20 page limit and I have to cite caselaw, they want to dump the case law and get chatty!  No, it does not work that way.  Most business clients with a business degree understand and have no problems with that, but your average client that want to regurgitate all about her kitchen sink yesterday–yikes!

So, for all your pro se’ers out there and those of you permitted to have some input in your attys briefs, this post is dedicated to you.

And you know what?  I also have to dedicate it to new law school grads!  Because law schools are officially nuts and have no bearing in the real world, I have to spend hours and hours explaining basic procedure, steps, dealing with court hours employees, the details of depositions and structuring cases.  You name any practical, anything nuts and bolts, anything necessary to win your case and you can bet that a fresh law grad never heard of it.

Forget the bar exam–what about the practicalities of working in a law environment.

Getting back to the topic, here are the steps:

1) pick your jurisdiction.  Federal court is for federal laws generally and you might get dismissed for bring state legal breaches and torts in federal court.  Federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction.  Fortunately, all of it’s rules (about 95%) are set forth clearly and concisely in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, but of course, some you will have to get from case law.  State court takes longer and is more messy.  Plus, the decisions can be not too great and much poorer and biased because the judge loves your OC who works for some big law firm he wants to join some day.  It can be disappointing.  But the best way to combat that is to show the court you have a good case, OC and his client is scum and lies all the time, and you will not lie.  After a while when you show you are trustworthy, the judge will likely warm up to you.

2) Watch your “limitations” period.  If you are at or near a deadline, there are some great lists on the internet for seeing what your deadline is based upon your “counts” or “causes of action.”  You might want to see an attorney or look up further case law for more information.  A case in your jurisdiction in your court is the best case for you to use.  In Chicago there is a fabulous law library open to the public on the 29th floor of the Daley center in Chicago.  The law librarians (most have a law degree, but may not be admitted to the bar), are typically very nice and helpful, having worked in a fairly stress free environment.

3)  Start writing the complaint.

A complaint is always “a clear and concise” statement of numbered facts and issue that will entitle you to the relief you are seeking.  It is not a time to be chatty.  It is not a time to write a novel, but if you want to attract attention to your case, writing a novel like John Howard Wyman did is a great idea.  He did a wonderful job.


a)  Title.  The title of your complaint should be the counts you are bringing.  For example “Complaint for 42 USC section 1983, Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”–it should name your basic counts.  If you are doing pro se try not to file more than 3 counts.  One or two is best.  I have a small law firm, and believe me, even with putting 3 attorneys on the case, it is hard to do 5 or 6 counts.  Don’t file more than you are willing to try.  You can change these around later by filing an “amended complaint” which often occurs after discovery and depositions and you see all the dirty tricks your opponent has pulled behind your back.

b) the next step is a basic introduction naming all the counts and the defendants and a one sentence statement of why you are bringing the law suit, ie, “wrongful guardianship of a competent woman”

c) Jurisdiction and Venue.  If you are filing in federal court, this will be trickier because the statute should say you can file there.  Not all federal claims can be brought in federal court.  Federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction because the states have rights to glom on to probably 90% of the litigation out there with their crazy, elected (and often obviously biased) judges and court system.  Federal court is a special exception so you will have to find it in a statue or court ruling you can bring your claim there.  Often it is the opposite where a federal case says your claim, even if federal is “not important enough” to get into federal court and you are stuck in state court.  The good news is, state courts rarely hand out sanctions, the judge has to be really mad at you or really biased.  Most of the time you and your opponent can say anything and the court just sighs.  So you will have to say “jurisdiction is proper because all the defendants reside in this jurisdiction and the acts complained of occurred in this jurisdiction.”  Then a statement of venue (that’s the best court in the jurisdiction, and the statement is typically “venue is proper because all the actions complained of took place in this court’s area.”

c) next, bring a count one.  Carefully research your count one and find out what the “elements” of that count are.  Then read through a few cases and try to find one that is either very close or exactly like yours.  Make sure you have made a list of the elements.  Write down a short list of the facts in your case that would make up those elements. Save that list for later.

c) bring your next 2 or 3 counts via the same process.  Find a case and/or statute in your jurisdiction or state.  Write down the elements.  Write down the basic and concise fact that would comprise your claim against the defendants.

d) start writing.  take your clear concise list of facts and start a section entitiled “statement of facts and parties” or introduce the parties first and then the facts that comprise elements of your cliam.

e) write up a count .  Count I for violation of 42 USC section 1983.  Refer to what facts support those claims by paragraph number, say paragraphs 1 to 20, etc.  At this point you might want to add in a few more (2 or 3 please, not a dissertation), that help establish that claim.  Close this section with what relief you want.  Do you want an injunctions, actual damages, punitive damages, exceptional damages.  Add in attorneys fees if you will have those by hiring an attorney that will appear for you at a later day.  Perhaps you want your attorney only for trial and the statute allows attorneys fees.  You can do that.  If you find you are entitled to and want an injunction because you found it in a case, say that, ie, pursuant to case law in Illinois, Plaintiff asks for an injunction prohibiting “the filing of a CCPA211″ in the future.  If you can get punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to statute, write down the statute cite that entitles you to that, ie, pursuant to 755 ILCS sec X, Plaintiff asks for exemplary damage because the defendants behavior was extreme, cruel, willful, wanton and without justifiable excuse.  take this language directly from a case or statute, don’t just make it up and stick it in there.

Keep on writing additional counts until you are done.  Remember, you might have to try these, so if you are pro se, pick your two or three best and keep it short and simple.

At the end, write up a ‘conclusion” restating all the counts, the defendants you are bringing each count against (not all defendants might have engaged in all the illegal activites prohibited for each count, some might have statutory or case law immunity from liability).

Give a summary of this, eg:

a)  Plaintiff seeks an injurnction, treble damages and reasonable attorneys fees for Patent infringment under XXX USC secion XX against Defendants X and Y;

b) Plaintiffs seeks actual and exemplary damages for Trademark Infringement under XXX USC section XX against defendants A and B;

and so forth.  you can even add in c) and for all other just and equitable relief as this court determines to be appropriate.

Now for the hard part for some of you, esp. those pro-se’ers out there.  If your complaint is over 20 pages, it is too long.  You weren’t paying attention to the rule “short, clear and consise statement of facts and issues that would make up a claim for relief.”  Go back and start cutting or the court will think you are crazy.  No one wants to read how it affected your pet in 3rd grade.  Get that stuff out.  Clear and concise, not chatty and gabby, and Oh, wouldn’t this be great to add in?  Nope.  The court and OC will be laughing at you.  One paragraph for your introductory summary; 2, maybe 3 pages for your “statement of facts”, one to 1.5 pages for each count.  One page for a conclusion.  So if you think your case is going to the US Supreme Court, 2 pages for an introduction, 5 pages for statement of facts and parties, 4 counts 2 pages each, and a one page conclusion, that’s still only 15 pages, get it?

Most courts limit briefs to 20 pages double spaced, so get used to writing in a very concise manner, just stating the facts.

I don’t think I have even seen a fresh law school grad that can properly write up a complaint.

Most pro se people can barely do this, but I think it’s because they just need good instructions.

take care


Am I the target of a cover up at the ARDC?

From Ken Ditkowsky.  Do you think he’s right?  Is there anything there?

I have to admit, with all of the lack of jurisdiction and terrorizing of senior citizens and their families that I am learning about, it is clear there are a ton of not so “dirty little secrets” flowing around probate that clearly involve lack of jurisdiction.

For some reason, many probate judges and GAL’s have not figured out that 1) personal service of a summons and complaint upon the alleged disabled period is a requirement in order to attain jurisdiction over that person; and 2) Sodini notices must be served on all the close relatives defined as at least the adult children and siblings of an elderly person.  If the alleged disabled person is younger and might have parents, then the Petitioner must serve notice of the time, date and place of hearing.

I note on the Rockford forms, one GAL does mention the time, date and place and that is a great idea, but the address of the courthouse is omitted. The problem with this is that if the relative is from out of town, they should not have to look up that address.  It should be there on the form.

But it is the Petitioner who has the duty to set forth the time, date and place of hearing, and I believe those notices should be filed with the court, the judge should question closely if the Petitioner knows and has served all of the adult parents, children and siblings, and make sure the alleged disabled person was served.

According to the Illinois statute, the Clerk of Court should set a hearing date on a petition for plenary guardian within thirty days after it is file.

Just so you all know.  For many of you I am preaching to the choir.

take care and now from Ken Ditkowsky who has some amazing words of wisdom for today:

To: matt senator kirk <>
Subject: More on the Sykes case
Date: Nov 9, 2012 10:37 AM
The attempt to silence me was not successful and even the ARDC’s threats have not stopped me from continuing enjoy my First Amendment Rights.    It is now 3 1/2 years that Mary Sykes has been held hostage under color of law – but law without jurisdiction (see Article XIa of the Probate Act).    The stonewall continues unabated.
Attorney JoAnn Denison is now the target of the ARDC cover-up.   It is all explained in the letter to the ARDC   (Inquiry Panel).   It appears that while we slept the First Amendment privileges and immunities were abrogated for Lawyers.    If a lawyer addresses a prohibited subject – like corruption in our Courts – he subject to sanction.    If he complains that a favored individual has not inventoried a million dollars in gold coins – good-by!
As Ms. Denison communicated my call for an investigation and therefore placed herself in the gun sights I feel a responsibility toward her.   It never occurred to me that it was unethical to be an American and a lawyer in the same time period.  (see e-mail from Farenga – exhibit 3).     It never occurred to me that certain National Socialists enjoyed special rights over the rest of us peons that allowed them to censor our communications; however, ****
In all seriousness we need right now an HONEST, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case and the similar cases.   (see GAO report to Congress September 2010).    With the budget crisis at the local and federal level there is an incentive.   As the Guardian did not inventory the gold coins, it is very safe to assume that the Federal and State income taxes were also not paid.    With interest and penalties there should be million dollars due at this point in time.
Thank you for your courtesy – I know I am a pain in the lower regions, but, at 76 years old this fat old jewish guy still believes the virtues that made America great, and is not willing to attorn to *****.    In Greylord the legal profession (and especially the regulators) did not cover themselves with glory – in these elder abuse cases the second oldest profession is vying to be more disreputable than the first.
Ken Ditkowsky
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Law Office Assistant <>
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2012 9:49 AM
Subject: ltrs to ARDC Kirk Durbin DOJ w attachments


Larry G. Chambers
Assistant Office Manager

847 600-3421

From Ken Ditkowsky–the complaints re Probate just keep on rolling in


The fight is the same in every one of these cases.    One group of victims have been subject to the tender mercies of Miriam Solo, another Farenga, another Stern, etc.    The result is always the same and the frustration coupled with a major shake of head in wonderment!     How could this happen in America?

Unfortunately we know how this happens!      Unfortunately when we go to the polls to vote some of us forget that voting party label or being fooled by one or more talking points is the way we got into this problem.    The years 1940 through 1945 did not teach a large number of us anything!    Thus, we are back in 1936 and the brown shirts and black shirts have changed their attire and their victims.     The new victims are the ‘elderly.’    The ‘keepers of the faith’ do not take out the teeth of the elderly for its gold and silver – collectibles are a richer booty!   In Sykes a million in gold coins is a nice prize.    All the miscreants have to do is shut up ‘Gloria’ and that ‘fat old Jewish guy’ who Cervantes memorialized and they have a million dollars tax free and unreported!

Guess what!     Scott Evans told me that I was not going to be invited to Adam Stern’s birthday party so I drafted another letter to the United States Attorney, the Illinois Attorney General, etc.    It in words and phrases states:

At this point in time very few days go by without my receiving a letter from a person who has been subjected to an encounter in which an elderly person has either been exploited or mistreated.    The Government Accounting Office has submitted a report to congress in which it was reported that Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of the Elderly are America’s “dirty little secret.”     Hundreds of seniors are being subjected to miscreant conduct by “respected attorneys,” “respected judges,” and “respected care givers.”

Enclosed is a letter that I received today by e-mail from (name redacted).      The letter speaks for itself.    Ms. (redacted) has great detail to support her allegations and to demonstrate how what had been the finest medical provider system has degenerated into Avarice, and disrespect for human dignity.    In the Sykes of record appear two doctors.    These doctors have quite interesting representations.   (They will be referred to as Dr. A and Dr. S).      By reputation, both are reported to have never found a patient (who had a few dollars in his/her jeans) who was not in need of 24/7 guardianship.       If President Obama or Governor Romney were to be ordered to appear for a competency test before Dr. A he would find neither able to take care of himself.   Dr. S is more clairvoyant and less subtle.    He found Ms. Sykes incompetent without even seeing her or reading all the medical records.

Thus, a premier medical facility is not bluffing when they threatened that a cloutless senior will be guardianized if the whim and caprice of the medical facility is not fostered–and removed from her family members .     Indeed, with Guardian ad litem such as Adam Stern and/or Cynthia Farenga in charge the helpless elder is ripe for whatever the plenary guardian desires.    In the Sykes case relieving Mary Sykes of about a million dollars in gold coins and 10% of her body weigh were well fulfilled goals.
I and others have been writing letters complaining of miscreant acts that are documented of record in the Sykes case and the other similar cases.    The Illinois ARDC feels that this activity is un-ethical as it reminds the public of the 17 judges who were provided free room and board in a Federal prison; however, Citizen Complaints against the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian who have ignored the statutory protections promulgated by the Illinois legislature are not a concern for action.     It is reported that most of the Sykes file is now missing!      It is reasoned that if law enforcement were to examine the documents filed in the Circuit Court law enforcement would have to conclude that since day one of the Sykes case the Court at the behest of the two guardian ad litem and the Attorneys for the plenary guardian has been entering orders without jurisdiction.

Do not take my word, or the word of any of the thousands of victims of elder abuse/financial exploitation or their families!    We, the GAO, recently the American Broadcasting Corporation, and the complaining public are all liars!       Obviously, the Court reporter – whose transcript has now disappeared out of the Court file – made up the words and phrases that she recorded as no judge would ever give direction to a plenary guardian to go out and get a more co-operative medical provider so that a patently competent lady could be declared incompetent.    Indeed, when Mary Sykes was taken to Edwards Hospital having lost 10% of her body weight – it was a malpractice on the part of the hospital as CF said that it was a hallucination!     I by reporting the same was labeled a ‘liar’ by the attorney for the ARDC and asked by another if I was prepared to repent!   Therefore as a non-repentant sinner – please do not take my word.   Review the Court records – I submit – if the records have not gone in the ‘watergate’ file they will verify every single word that either I or the victims of elder abuse/financial exploitation have said – however – have a look for yourself.

Instead of taking my word or the words and families, the neighbors, or the cloutless taxpayers, please promulgate an ‘HONEST’, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case, the Bedin case and all the similar cases.     It is an embarrassment that 1936 is here again and the Jews of the 21st century (who are slated to participate in the new holocaust) are the ‘elderly!’     It is horrific that the modern gestapo should be appointed by our judiciary.

Thank you for your courtesy and co-operation,

Yours very truly

Ken Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky asks–Tomorrow is election day, can we make a change in court?

From Ken Ditkowsky:

      Talk is cheap.   Tomorrow is an election – it is not too late to send a message to some of our elected representatives who foster elder abuse/financial exploitation.      Everyone of us has received a letter from an elected representative who had told us how he/she is fighting for our social security in response to a complaint that grandma is being ‘raped’ by the system!       A vote against the letter writer might be a nice gesture.      Mark down the number of times that you have called on your elected representative and asked him to cause an HONEST comprehensive and complete investigation of horrible situations such as the Sykes case.     When you give a political contribution and/or your vote remember those representatives who were actively  supportive of grandma and her plight!
Once again – talk is cheap!    We need the investigation of attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farega, Peter Schmiedel,  Carolyn Toerpe, et al.    We need to know how and why the Sodini protections were ignored in Sykes, Wyman, Tyler et al.    We need to know where the Sykes file disappeared to!     Indeed, we need to know why Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, et al. have ARDC immunity and why the ARDC is protecting them.      The million dollars in gold coins that have not been inventoried in the Sykes case is only part of the explanation.

And from myself;

I am very, very disappointed in these elected officials, how they turn their back on calls from Ken Ditkowsky, the Sykes famiily, the Tylers, the Gores, etc.  You name it and the first thing these victims did was write their Federal and State Senators, Congressional Representatives, Congresspersons, the Presiding Judges (who are elected too), even the judges–and nary a bit of action.  Nada.
So tomorrow is time we voted them out and make it clear they will not receive campaign donations from their constituents who let grandma and grandpa waste away in nursing homes with estates pilfered by probate attys and Medicare when they could be living in their own homes.  The forced druggings, the beatings and the isolation, the bad nursing homes–after hundreds of complaints and reports just to this blog alone in one year is enough to make everyone wonder what is going on in the Illinois Capital and the US Capital that such complaints can be tolerated and ignored.
Nothing is not good enough for the elderly and disabled–those without a voice.
Our “civilization” must bring itself to be called “civilized” and that is by protecting grandma and not abusing her in our very own probate court system!


A Miriam Solo Deposition Example–words cannot describe

While running this blog (and even before), I have heard of a Probate attorney named Miriam Solo and a whole lot of complaints regarding her.

Apparently, her depositions speak for themselves, see attached:

Deposition example of Miriam Solo’s Talents and Abilities

There is yelling and screaming and talking over the witness, condescension at every turn–you name the bad behavior, it is there.

I don’t know what this woman (viper) was doing before she got to the deposition, but whatever it is, she needs to stop it.





Suing the Government–the difference between a 42 USC 1983 claim and bring a tort action

One of the interesting things about the government acting without jurisdiction–as in the Wyman case, the Gore case, the Tyler case, etc.  The next question is what do you sue them for.

Clearly the action is not over and the statute of limitations has not run unless and until the “close family” members file and win a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or the ward dies, and we know that oftentimes, because the courts are so very slow in conducting hearings, issuing orders (the Wyman case), assembling together court records and transcripts for the record on appeal–where the record is 80% missing, as in the Mary Sykes case–death is the only way out, still the entire process appears to be slow and cumbersome.

But what happens when you finally get to the point of suing in Federal Court?

Here is an interesting table I found on the differences between bringing a 42 USC 1983 proceeding and a cause of action based in tort.

Table comparing 42 USC 1983 to cause of action based in tort

I think many of you will find it very interesting.


Who is a Probate Attorney in Illinois?

One interesting question that came up today is “who is a probate attorney?”  Someone was asserting in an email while one attorney was a “probate attorney” another attorney was not a “probate attorney.”

The correct answer is that no attorney in Illinois is a “probate attorney.”  With the exception of Admiralty and Patents, we do not have specialty attorneys in Illinois because it is believed that this would confuse the public.  All attorneys that are admitted to the Illinois Bar are considered competent to practice in all areas of law, and should have a competent basic working knowledge of the law in all areas except for Admiralty and Patents.

Admiralty and Patents are traditional areas for a specialty.  The Federal Courts have exclusive and original jurisdiction over all patent and copyright matters.  You cannot bring a matter involving the validity of a patent or copyright anywhere but Federal District Court.  If you allege federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, you may, but are not required to, bring your case in Federal District Court.

Other attorneys are allowed in Illinois to say they “concentrate in” or “prefer to practice” in particular areas of the law, and perhaps 90% of their business is in those areas–but they are never, never allowed to say they specialize in a particular area of law, including probate.

Interestingly enough, if you practice patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade dress, if you limit yourself to the federal portion of the law, you can practice anywhere in the 50 states and 7 territories in the US and will not run afoul of “unauthorized practice of law” prohibitions.  This has been tested in all of the state and territories.  If you have been admitted to the US Patent Bar, it is considered federal and exclusive in nature, allowing Patent Attorneys to practice anywhere–just in case you are interested.

Attorneys are not allowed to have blinders on.  They should know whatever area they practice in–including our girlfriends and boyfriends running around in the Probate Courts of Illinois, that a summons and complaint MUST be properly prepared and personally delivered to the Respondent in a Petition for Guardianship.  All close relatives, defined as adult siblings, parents and children MUST receive written notice of the date, time and place of hearing, served by Petitioner, regarding a Petition for Guardianship.

These requirements are not strenuous, unique or difficult to understand. They impose no undue hardship upon any party. The preparation and proper service of summons, complaint and pre-litigation notices are not unique to Probate, and can be found in many, many areas of the law.  Attorneys are expected to look up and adhere to pre-litigation requirements and notices.  Attorneys are expected to understand that some, but perhaps not all, of pre-litigation notices and tasks may result in a lack of jurisdiction if serious enough.

I hope this dispels any misunderstandings of what a “probate” attorney is compared to other attorneys in Illinois. There actually is no such animal.  All Illinois licensed attorneys are expected to have a working knowledge of basic areas of the law, from contracts, constitutional law, some criminal law, to wills, estates and probate, and some divorce laws and basics, etc. so they can at least talk knowledgeably to clients and send them to other attorneys that might have more expertise in certain areas.  The concept that “probate attorneys” know what jurisdiction is any more than any other litigating attorney is preposterous.  Every Illinois attorney, prior to filing a complaint, petition or whatever should carefully review the current statutory requirements each time prior to filing anything in court.  We make check lists and check them several times.  We make synopses of our cases and of the laws and requirements to file each time we file something.

If an attorney does not do all of this, she or he is likely to find that they have been bit in butt by opposing counsel or even the judge.  That’s not a place you want to be in litigation.  One of the absolute worst places is lack of jurisdiction–a place no attorney wants to be at.


Do as I say, not as I do……………………..

One of the most amazing things about all the miscreants in probate–attys and judges writing articles, appearing as “renowned” speakers, gaining accolades for the “important work in protecting the elderly and disabled” — is that they also engage in some of the worst forms of probate abuse (acting without jurisdiction, improper or no service up on the disabled person, etc.) but at the same time write some pretty darned good articles on the evils of elderly abuse and exploitation.

Read on for one of these.  This article is apparently written by an atty miscreant who has isolated and drugged atty Lisa Belanger’s father from his two beloved daughters and several grandchildren who have not seen him for a long, long time, and all over $9 million! (This is the same case where the Plenary Guardian told the court that all that money would be gone in 7 or so years due to their fees–yikes). How is this two-faced attitude possible (and in the words of Abraham Lincoln who was often accused of being two-faced, “if I really were two faced, do you really think I’d be using this one?”)

Read on for more information:
From Ken Ditkowsky:

Dear Lisa;

The modern credo is:  ‘do what I say not what I do!’      You should not be surprised when you read an article that is important and should be posted on every blog for the information that it provides.    Indeed, no one should be surprised when the leading advocates of honor, honesty, openness, candor, and the ‘American way’ are those who honor the principles the least.     Indeed, in too many instances ‘church’ leaders are the patrons of the worst corruption.    Illinois has two former governors sitting in jail right now!    A short while ago 17 Circuit Court of Cook County judges went to jail.    Criminal Tony Resko had strange relationships with republicans and democrats alike.   
 One well known politico purchased a real estate lot adjacent to his home for a bargain price–after he announced publicly he wanted it, but not for $600,000 so someone “happened” to come into possession of it not much later and sold it to him for $300,000.     If you or I engaged in the very same activity we would have gone to jail.     The media was as silent on the nefarious transaction as they are silent on the elder abuse/financial exploitation scandal.      The wife of this member of the political class was hired by a major university to what has been described as a make work job.    When she left the job, this important job was left vacant!
As Pogo said:   “we have met the enemy and it is me!”      
This is why we have to insist on HONEST  complete and comprehensive investigations of these elder abuse cases.     This is why the ‘wise words’ of Ms. Cukier should be posted by all the blogs – she provides important information and a window into the reason that Democracy is not a spectator sport.   Elder abuse is detailed in the Bible along with political corruption.    
Ken Ditkowsky
From: lsbelanger <>
To: JoAnne M Denison <>; kenneth ditkowsky <>;
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:14 AM
Subject: Weston attorney Lisa Cukier: Beware of financial exploitation – Wayland, MA – Wicked Local Wayland

this is the atty for BNY mellon who has exploited my father– and she writes this article!!

Article on “How to Prevent Elder Exploitation” by a miscreant atty!

From Joanne;

Amazingly, it’s not a bad article.  To watch out for signs of exploitation, to keep your items safe, to perhaps think about putting your wealth in a trust because it’s harder to break a trust.  Lots of good information.

You will note she never says “and if I and another non-family member get ahold of your estate, we can deplete $9 million in 3 to 4 years.”

Hmmm, she forgot that one.  And also the warning that if LC finds out you might switch your $9 million from Melon Bank NYC to another bank she will help MB NYC remove you as guardian, get a non family member to function as guardian to keep those assets where they belong–until she and another CPA get enough fees out of the estate, that is.

She never explains how to avoid that one!

From Mass. atty Lisa Belanger on the state of her case (and also corrections to the above post):

technical corrections to your posting re Ms. Cukier:  the calculation for depletion was 7.4 years; the person who 
specifically informed the judge of that calculation was Attorney Maxa Berid, General counsel for Elder Services of 
Merrimack Valley, Inc--on behalf of the guardian.

See below ; 

Brian Nagle was the financial advisor from BNY Mellon, who testified in court that he personally called Attorney Ed 
Tarlow and asked Attorney Tarlow to go see my Father while under involuntary commitment to the psychiatric facility, 
Whitter Pavilion.  Attorneys Tarlow and Watson, never having my Father ever as a client--went in hand to their very 
first "meeting" with Father at the Whitter Hospital, the very next day after speaking with Brian Nagle.  Attorneys 
Tarlow and Watson brought with them  an already drafted Revocation of Durable Power of Attorney and a new Power of 
Attorney, designating Father's CPA (who has an already existing relationship with Mr. Nagle).

Attorney DeNapoli was the mouthpiece for Attorneys Tarlow and Watson in court.

Needless to say, you can only imagine the unconscionable proportions of the documents they drafted.  Both BNY Mellon 
and Attorney Tarlow were given complete control--specifically stating they did not need to apprise Father before 
doing anything; as well as, Attorney Tarlow's law office being directly paid from Father's BNY Mellon account.  The 
documents were so self-dealing that they made it so Attorney Tarlow's Office could not be terminated by CPA and that 
CPA could not use anybody else other than BNY Mellon.  They made CPA Father's health care proxy!!

2 days prior to Father being discharged from Whittier Pavilion--at a court hearing,  the Probate Judge indicated 
that Father was "competent" when signing those documents drafted by Attorney Trlow and watson.  

Because of issues raised whether Father's original DPOA executed in 2003 also served as a valid, Health Care Proxy, 
Father affirmed his prior wishes again that he wanted me as his health care proxy.  Father did so at the Whittier 
Pavilion, with Whittier Pavillion's staff as witnesses to this affirmed Health Care Proxy and Father's awareness of 
what he was signing--and his outward expressed wishes.
When Father personally called Attorney Tarlow to fire him--which Father's current counsel filed an Affidavit stating 
that Father never wanted or asked for Attorney  Tarlow's legal services and that Father was deceived as to what he 
was signing, Attorney Tarlow filed a petition with the court stating that Father was not competent to fire him!

The coup de gras was that Attorney Tarlow filed a motion to be paid approximated $108,000 for legal services-- the 
Probate Judge reduced it to $6,500.  Attorney Tarlow filed a motion for reconsideration!!  

from Lisa Belanger and thanks for the corrections.

More Wyman Book Letters–to the US Atty General’s Offices

Today another grouping of books was sent out, this time to the U.S. Atty General’s offices.

It will be interesting to see who responds first–if at all, to my pleas for help on behalf of all the Probate victims of the probate courts in Cook County and Rockford.

So far, not much luck.  But if anyone can change this, please do so by writing and faxing these individuals.  It looks like the emails are  the fax number is not listed, but you can address your letters to Office of the US Atty, 219 S. Dearborn St, #500, Chicago, IL 60604.

Links to today’s letters:

John Howard Wyman Books to US Attys General Oct 26 2012

Also, while we have been consistently asking all of Judge Fabiano, OPG Sharon Rudy and GAL Kimberly Timmerwilke McKenzie to get the Wyman Order done in Rockford Probate court, it has now been 4 weeks and nary a sign of an order!  OMGDS–we have received plenty of excuses, but no order from that fateful day at the end of September, 2012.

I wonder if we will ever get it or if we will have to appeal on the transcript and the court’s decision there.

Should be interesting.

take care


John Howard Wyman Book Project

One of the projects of this blog is to deliver a copy of John Howard Wyman’s book to as many ARDC attorneys, US Attorneys General, Illinois Attorneys General, Court officers and clerks as I possibly can.  this includes the Medicaid Fraud Bureau, special Prosecutors in Illinois, Financial Crimes Unit, the Guardianship and Advocacy Commissoin Project, etc. as I possibly can.

John Wyman has sent me 6 cases of books at 32 per case so I have nearly 200 books to send out to attorneys to find out if they care for those that have no voice–the seniors and elderly in the State of Illinois who are trying to make it through burdensome and oppressive guardianships.

Attached are copies of letters and my typical inscription that I sent out today.

Let me know if there are any additional deserving attys out there that might be able to lend a hand to these seniors and theie families.

For a link to today’s letters:

Letters asking attorneys for Help for Seniors/Disabled



Changes in the law–Starting with Stop Drugging our Seniors in Nursing Homes!

Changes in the law:


Nursing homes should not be able to legally receive psychotropic med including, tranquilizers, Halodol, Risperdol, Seroquel, (all new forms of ThorazineBa horse tranquilizer) etc. to keep residents from wanting to go home.  It should be a felony to administer such drugs to nursing home residents without their written consent or have to hold them down or force them to take such medications.  Nursing homes that contain primarily elderly people should have those drugs banned from the premises and notices shall be prominently posted every floor, every 10,000 square feet informing employees it is a felony to dispense psychotropic drugs and tranquilizers to the elderly and infirm without their written consent which must be obtained weekly.  This does NOT mean the consent of a POA or GuardianBit means that very person.


When the GAL goes out to see a senior after a guardianship petition has been filed, this footage should be taped with a digital camera or cell phone:

1) where the senior is asked if she wants an atty and if so, do they have one in mind?*

2) where the senior is asked if she wants to go to court and fight the guardianship

3) if there are some people in the family she considers to be unethical or untrustworthy or abusive.


The recording should be put on the internet with a password both on the court website and on the GAL website or blog of cases.


The tape should be emailed or placed on a disk and mailed to every person as a condition of jurisdiction or it can be put on the internet with a password which is mailed or emailed to the person with instructions to go the law library to see it.


4) *Seniors should be able to have a trusted family atty they have used in the past represent them at any hearing.  In fac,t this should be part of the senior=s advance directives.


5) Recognizing the tort of Lack of Consortium between parent and child in Illinois with respect to wrongfully isolating a senior from friends and family they have seen for years and have enjoyed.  Seniors may be allowed to make a list in advance directives of all close friends and family they do not want to be isolated from.


6) Amending the ADA and/or medicare act to say that no Probate Atty in any state court can have an elder declared incompetent and sell the house to take fees.  Probate Attys and Medicare MUST wait until both husband-wife or life partner seniors die, and their dependents related by blood or marriage living on the premisesBbefore a home can be sold for nursing home or probate atty fees.



7) Amending the Medicare Act that where it says that a senior has a $104,000 exclusion on thier home so a spouse is not left in poverty means: 1) the house must be listed for $104,000 or more; and 2) it must sell on the open market for $104,000 on an MLS.  3) no private court ordered sales for a portion or fraction of that value are allowed.  4) it is insufficient to hire a (court appointed or tied in) appraiser to say that every dumpy house is worth $104,000 or more and then turn around and sell the house for a fraction of that price.  Arrrgh we need a case on that.


8) Absolutely NO cremations where a loved one is concerned that a ward is being abused.  A cremation where a notice has been placed with the court regarding concerns over drugging and improper medical care with notice to the Guardian should result in a felony charge.  Too many elders have been drugged, beaten, abused and then the body summarily cremated in days. An alert may be sent to all local crematoriums by the family.  An alert should be sent to all hospitals and funeral homes not to send this person to a crematorium.  Evidence of abuse in a senior or disabled must be preserved.

Cost of Corruption for August 2012 – $70,460

See below.
This is all the legal work that needs to be done when our courts are corrupt and out of control.  I receive dozens of emails daily complaining about out of control courts that condone lack of proper due process notices, lack of jurisdiction, isolation and drugging of seniors against their will and consent, homes being sold to generate payments for horrid nursing home fees that are dangerous places to be if you are elderly and/or disabled–all with impunity from state Probate Courts!

All of this has to end.  Join me in filing class action suits and individual suits against the miscreants–Guardians ad Litem, judges and attorneys for guardians, OPG’s–you know them all, you have seen the tricks!
See below and take care

1512 N FREMONT ST, #202    PHONE 312-553-1300
CHICAGO, IL 60642    FAX 312-553-1307
JoAnne M. Denison✬
JoAnne Cell Phone 773-255-7608                                                                        _______________________________________________
✬–Admitted NC (Inactive) & US Patent Bar    *–Admitted US Patent Bar

Invoice submitted to:
Chicago, IL

October 09, 2012

Come see our website at Pay your bill online – click on “Pricing” Tab.
Pay your bill by Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, check by fax/phone/email or Paypal
Payment due in 30 days

Professional Services
Hours    Rate    Amount

7/1/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding witness tampering, post for the
day, call for investigation, affirmative answers to his ARDC complaint
(9 emails).
7/2/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding: Leah Black, post for the day, GS
being threatened by Attny Black at the ARDC, information to obtain
asset search, intimidation of GS, information regarding: Sodini, lack
of due diligence by GALs, witness tampering by Attny Leah Black
(16 emails)
7/3/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.50    $300.00/hr    450.00
Preparing 2 blog posts.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.00    $25.00/hr    125.00
Constructing table of missing pleadings from the court file in Judge
Stuart’s courtroom.
JMD    SYKES BLOG    6.50    $300.00/hr    1,950.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding: Dr. Shaw’s testimony,
intimidation of client by attny Black, letter from attny Black that
everything was client’s fault, report from law clerk obtaining files from
Daley Center, lack of following procedure in the Sykes/Tyler/Wyman
cases, emails to and from client regarding partition of client’s real
estate, lack of protections afforded Mary Sykes, KDD’s call for an
investigation, emails regarding: SLAPP suits, emails to and from
attny Hyman regarding: defamation suits, emails to and from client
regarding: drilling out GS’s safe deposit box (40 emails)
7/4/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG    0.75    $300.00/hr    225.00
Emails to and from the client regarding: client’s short notice for
deposition (4 emails)
JMD    SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Emails to and from the client regarding: ARDC’s failure to make good
faith Rule 201K Compliance
7/5/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Preparing 2 new blog posts.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.50    $25.00/hr    138.00
Constructing table of missing pleadings from the court file in Judge
Stuart’s courtroom.

October 9, 2012    Page    2

7/6/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.00    $300.00/hr    1,800.00
Appearing in court on Sykes case and preparing posts for blog
regarding same; reviewing cases for Attorney Ditkowsky.
JMD    SYKES BLOG    7.00    $300.00/hr    2,100.00
Emails to and from Mr. Evans regarding: taking depos in ARDC
proceedings, IDPR should be investigation Dr. Shaw and Dr. Amdur,
emails to and from Mr. Evans regarding: Kristen’s wedding, emails to
and from the client regarding: admissions of Dr. Shaw, emails to and
from KDD regarding: how probate kickbacks are handled, emails
regarding Sodini case; Attny Schmeidel’s his petition was brought in
wrong court emails, emails regarding Ken’s trial; emails regarding:
Mary’s drivers test, emails regarding; Dr. Shaw’s testimony, (53
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    6.50    $300.00/hr    1,950.00
Emails to and from client regarding court judgment in FED on 061912
from other blog;  emails to and from KDD regarding his Motion in
Limine; emails regarding the Miller case on other blog; emails
regarding KDD’s MIL;  emails regarding KDD’s constitutional rights
being ignored by the ARDC; emails regarding client’s FED case;
emails regarding tying up client’s funds is criminal; emails that I
could not get FED order; emails regarding missing transcripts and
ordering those;  emails regarding beating of GJS; emails regarding
National Socialist Party; emails from KDD to GJS she must set her
motions for a hearing date and time and accompany them with a
Notice of Motion, Motion and Certificate of Service; emails regarding
items missing fr Probate court and our “docket table” of missing
items; emails regarding ruling in Alvarez case;  emails regarding GJS
and lost transcripts;  that law in KDD case regarding first amendment
rights is clear; (40 emails)
7/7/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Preparing faxes to Mr. Connelly in the Sheriff’s Department regarding
seizure of JMD’s laptop and updating blog regarding same.
JMD    SYKES BLOG    6.50    $300.00/hr    1,950.00
Emails regarding: ADA case; emails regarding: PACER docket sheet
for that case, emails regarding: GS bringing a motion to dismiss;
emails regarding: unfair and deceptive trade practices; emails
regarding: paying probate attnys; emails regarding: court orders
missing from 2009; emails regarding: KDD in an offer of proof; emails
regarding: Kruzan case; emails regarding: the standard being “clear
and convincing” to deem someone incompetent; emails regarding:
the fact probate court is not following procedure; emails regarding:
missing documents in file (72 emails)
7/8/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Preparing a new blog post.
JMD    SYKES BLOG    0.50    $300.00/hr    150.00
emails to and from KDD regarding: GS questioning witnesses at
hearing (3 emails)
7/9/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Preparing 2 blog posts and reviewing log of court records and
transcripts with Law Clerk Zhou.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.50    $25.00/hr    138.00
Constructing table of missing pleadings from the court file in Judge
Stuart’s courtroom.
JMD    SYKES BLOG    4.50    $300.00/hr    1,350.00
emails to and from the client regarding: cost of corruption on the
blog; emails to and from GS regarding: her criticisms of the blog;
emails regarding: a record subpeona from KDD to probate court;
emails to and from the client regarding: duties of the notary; (24
October 9, 2012    Page    3

7/10/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Preparing 2 posts for blog and reviewing case law for Attorney
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.50    $25.00/hr    163.00
Constructing table of missing pleadings from the court file in Judge
Stuart’s courtroom.
JMD    SYKES BLOG    3.50    $300.00/hr    1,050.00
emails to and from TL regarding: cases relating to full faith and credit;
emails from KDD regarding: calls for an investigation; emails to and
from KDD regarding: a motion for judgment on pleadings; emails
regarding: LB obstructing GS as a witness (20 emails)
7/11/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.00    $300.00/hr    1,800.00
Reviewing the case file at Probate Court and making copies of
necessary pleadings to post on blog.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.00    $25.00/hr    150.00
Constructing table of missing pleadings from the court file in Judge
Stuart’s courtroom.
JMD    SYKES BLOG    2.25    $300.00/hr    675.00
Emails to and from RB regarding Social Probate Disease, who the
“clout is in Illinois”, transfer of missing funds and lack of attack by
tax authorities;  the record on appeal is missing; emails from KDD to
client regarding her familiarity with Probate Act; Rule to Show Cause;
emails regarding incompetency and adjudication of disability; email
regarding attorney Black’s letter; that PS’s Motion to Void the
Settlement Agreement was filed in May 2011;  that numerous court
orders PS claimed existed (an order striking GS’s Requests to
Admit) are not of record in the Probate File;  that in the Probate file
there are references to Judge Stuart saying Judge Connors brought
up the issue of Sodini Jurisdiction and that Judge Stuart would not
bring it up again–clearly not the law, so what’s up with that?; emails
to and from court reporters regarding payments on account (12
7/12/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    3.50    $300.00/hr    1,050.00
Preparing a blog post and reviewing case file in Probate court.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.00    $25.00/hr    150.00
Photocopying the court records that were not in the court file at
Attorney Ditkowsky’s office; updating table of missing documents.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    4.25    $300.00/hr    1,275.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding Mr. Fogel and investigation
regarding nursing homes; standards to show disability and it must be
by clear and convincing evidence;  regarding our day in court and
judges were asking about 14 day notice suddenly; requirement to
send petition to close relatives; the failure of the GAL’s to report
various nefarious activities to the Probate Court; emails regarding
“table of transcripts, hearing dates and pleadings”; emails regarding
jurisdictional problems with Probate court; sharing of transcripts with
KDD and LC;  birthdates of miscreants for asset searches (20 emails)
7/13/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.50    $300.00/hr    1,950.00
Intraoffice meeting with Attorney Ditkowsky’s to review his records
and files for additional copies of pleadings because 80% of the court
files has been removed; preparing 4 posts for blog.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    3.00    $25.00/hr    75.00
Updating blog and obtaining copied transcripts from court.

October 9, 2012    Page    4

JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    3.75    $300.00/hr    1,125.00
Emails to and from Attorney Leah Black from client;  authorization to
publish; info regarding another victim contacted by 60 minutes for
possible program; corruption is akin to Greylord;  reviewing and
publishing Cost of Corruption bill for May 2012;  news that Judge
Garber held CT in contempt of court for failing to allow client to
retrieve all her property from Mary’s home after wrongful eviction;
accounting table to Sykes court reporters; regarding obtaining copy
of court order from Judge Garber; items missing from payment table
for court reporter;  emails regarding Senator Kirk may have helped
out; emails regarding Judge Garber in FED court (23 emails)
7/14/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Preparing blog post.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    1.50    $300.00/hr    450.00
Emails to and from client regarding nursing homes expelling state
monitors; emails to and from KDD regarding state fraud and
corruption in nursing homes; emails regarding food in nursing homes
and use of drugs there;  emails from KDD to free Mary Sykes; emails
regarding disappearance of files from Probate Court;  emails
regarding spoliation of evidence; emails from Attorney Belanger
regarding her case and the Sykes case and many parallels; (9
7/15/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.50    $300.00/hr    450.00
Preparing blog post.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    3.25    $300.00/hr    975.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding status of Sykes case; case cite
from KDD regarding In Regarding Doyle and his first amendment
rights; Rule 260 prehearing conferences;  KDD emails regarding the
facts published were in fact true and correct and his first amendment
rights were violated; emails regarding the Sarhan case; emails to and
from KDD that he may have to take his case to Federal Court for
relief;  emails regarding disturbing reports from other blogs and other
probate cases. KDD emails regarding injustices in the Sykes case;
emails to and from client regarding what went on in court against CT;
that client suffered a severe battery by FT; (16 emails)
7/16/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    4.50    $300.00/hr    1,350.00
Preparing 3 blog posts and preparing table of missing files and
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.00    $25.00/hr    125.00
Traveling to Court to obtain appellate case volumes and court order
from previous status hearing for Ms. Mary Sykes’ case; ordering
transcripts from court reporter’s office and updating blog.
7/17/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.00    $300.00/hr    1,800.00
Updating and reviewing table of torts; preparing 2 blog posts.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    7.00    $300.00/hr    2,100.00
Emails from ND ILL BK regarding GJS relief from stay motion
recently filed; emails regarding pleadings missing in Probate Court;
KDD makes citizen’s complaint publicly regarding GJS battery at her
home; plea for more emails to the US State Attorney regarding the
battery; emails regarding other court observers that this blog is
indeed correct;  emails that this is second battery by FT, that he also
battered elderly sister Yolanda last year; email from GJS that she is
afraid to have police or sheriff’s offices involved;  emails regarding
seizure of attorney laptops in probate court; emails regarding proper
procedure for a bond in probate court which was never done; KDD
emails comparing Sykes, Tyler, Gore, Wyman cases;  GJS emails
regarding eviction; emails that I never hear back from Attorney Leah
Black after I fax her evidence of corruption in the Sykes case; emails
regarding fax to IAG are not answered;  (33 emails)

October 9, 2012    Page    5

7/18/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Preparing blog post.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    4.00    $25.00/hr    100.00
Updating blog with newly received court transcripts and updating
table of missing court records with same.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    0.50    $300.00/hr    150.00
Emails to and from court reporter’s offices regarding additional
transcripts. (3 emails)
7/19/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Emails to and from court reporters; emails regarding updating table
on missing pleadings; emails regarding partition proceedings and
appointment of a commissioner; emails regarding PS breaking
federal banking laws; emails regarding lack of jurisdiction by court;
emails regarding Chase destruction to GJS home; emails to and from
KDD that Chase must be included in any suit for partition and they
have not been; emails regarding Illinois Statutes on Partition;  emails
regarding Motion to Nonsuit under Sodini. (10 emails)
7/20/2012    AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    4.00    $25.00/hr    100.00
Legal research regarding federal banking laws in regards to Chase
and the laws they broke in the Mary G. Sykes case.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    0.25    $300.00/hr    75.00
Emails regarding Chase and federal banking laws; emails from KDD
that there may be possible plants (bogus clients) walking around on
the Sykes case (2 emails)
7/21/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    0.25    $300.00/hr    75.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding watching for plants in the Sykes
7/22/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    1.75    $300.00/hr    525.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding the Jacyz case in Probate and
responsibility to client; emails regarding comments from other
Probate blogs and the guardianship swindles going on; KDD emails
calling for an investigation on Sykes; emails regarding deposition of
GJS by ARDC. (5 emails)
7/23/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG — COST OF CORRUPTION    0.75    $300.00/hr    225.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding the deposition of Scott Evans and
he did well; emails regarding obtaining deposition copies; (5 emails)
7/24/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Preparing 2 new blog posts.
7/24/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    6.00    $300.00/hr    1,800.00
Emails to and from KDD regarding the deposition of Scot Evans and
that it went fine; emails regarding KDD Motion to Administrator
regarding failure to comply with Rule 201(k);  that Attorney Black was
seeking to bar GJS as a witness and how unfair that was; email
regarding disrespect for justice; emails regarding comments on SE’s
deposition;  emails regarding GJS’s emails to Lawless America; that
LB asked SE if he considered noninventorying of  $1 million in gold
coins to be theft or not;  permission to publish the depn of SE;
emails regarding a possible New York Times article on the case;
emails from Nasga regarding changes to Illinois law for guardianships
and that state attys should not be favored; emails that more needed
to be done (26 emails)
7/25/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Reviewing emails from Attorney Ditkowsky and others and preparing
4 blog posts.
AZ    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.00    $25.00/hr    125.00
Updating blogs with tags and new blog posts.

October 9, 2012    Page    6

JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    8.00    $300.00/hr    2,400.00
Emails to and from KDD and AZ regarding motions to bar witnesses
and grounds therefore; that GJS was an uncooperative witness and
unneeded;  emails between GJS and LB regarding her deposition;
emails regarding “Important Pleadings” in the Sykes case; emails
regarding new legislation; emails from GJS regarding the blog; emails
regarding comments on blog; Motion to bar Gloria emails; KDD
emails to Attorney Black;  emails regarding goose stepping and jack
boots and brown shirts and this case;  emails regarding Operation
Greylord;  emails regarding Mary’s driver’s license and when it was
last renewed;  that Attorney Black may have blocked emails from
KDD?; emails from GJS she wants to file an affidavit to correct
testimony of others; emails regarding AS, CF and LB. (45 emails)
7/26/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    4.00    $300.00/hr    1,200.00
Preparing 5 blog posts; reviewing declaration from Ms. Bakken for
post of same.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    8.00    $300.00/hr    2,400.00
Emails to and from court reporters regarding outstanding transcripts;
KDD emails regarding purging records; receipt and publishing of
affidavits from Yolanda and Josephine that the Sykes case has no
jurisdiction; emails regarding theft, embezzlement, false
imprisonment of granny;  emails from GJS regarding care plan and
she would have worded declarations differently; emails regarding IRS
and misdepositing funds; emails regarding oral notice and jurisdiction
under the Probate Act; emails from GJS regarding the blog;  emails
from KDD to CF regarding files from Secy of State and Mary’s divers
license; emails to KDD regarding hearing on CT Petition; emails to
and from Ms. Bakken to redact the declaration from her mother;
emails on CT petition and hearing to appoint; emails to GJS to get
her book and movie deal done; (61 emails)
7/27/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    3.00    $300.00/hr    900.00
Preparing declarations of no notice of hearing for Aunt Jo and Yo;
reviewing proof of claim.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    7.00    $300.00/hr    2,100.00
Emails to and from GJS regarding calming her down; emails to
publish GJS declaration that she never received Sodini notice;
litigating the validity of an order in the probate court is not permitted;
KDD email to CF that she infringed upon Mary’s and Gloria’s rights in
the Sykes case;  emails attempting to calm GJS down; emails
regarding other cases which got media attention; emails regarding
acctng on GJS house;  emails regarding KDD preparing for ARDC
hearing; that KDD sent out two Motions in Limine; applying for drivers
license records; emails regarding asset searches on CT, FT, etc.,
(35 emails)
7/28/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.25    $300.00/hr    1,575.00
Preparing 5 posts for blog; reviewing and revising table of torts.
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    8.00    $300.00/hr    2,400.00
Emails to and from ND BK ILL regarding proof of claim by Chase;
emails to SE regarding details of case and home equity; emails from
KDD to CF that Mary is being denied her life, liberty, property, civil
and human rights;  email from GJS that CF admitted the summons
served upon Mary was wrong; emails from GJS to CF;  emails from
KDD to CF that jurisdiction is lacking in the case; that if the
miscreants were acting in good faith they would call to dismiss the
case and investigate CT; emails from SE regarding lack of
jurisdiction; that CF is engaging in intimidation; emails from KDD that
CF’s book should be published by Dell Comics. (50 emails)

October 9, 2012    Page    7

7/29/2012  JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG                            2.50          $300.00/hr    750.00
Reviewing Proof of Claim and Cost of Corruption Bills.
SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION;    8.00    $300.00/hr    2,400.00
Emails to and from ND ILL BK that Attorney Bussee filed his
appearance; emails from KDD that the first amendment is under
attack by the miscreants;  emails from KDD to CF to joing in
dismissing the Sykes Probate for lack of jurisdiction; email from JMD
to CF to dismiss the proceeding for lacking jurisdiction; emails
regarding similarities between Wyman and Sykes; emails regarding
elder abuse cases; that even if the case is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, CT must file an accounting; KDD emails on Greylord and
parallels to the Sykes case; emails regarding publication of
declarations from GJS and the elderly sisters to show the Sykes
Probate court clearly lacks jurisdiction and CF and AS should be
calling for its dismissal;  emails between SE and GS regarding
references to two houses and what to call them; email from AZ who
thought that CF threatening her was a very desperate action;  the key
right now to is get investigation going; email to CF regarding GJS and
the home and what was in it; (46 emails)
7/29/2012    JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    8.00    $300.00/hr    2,400.00
Emails to and from KDD and CF regarding lack of jurisdiction in the
Sykes case and missing gold coins;  regarding filing a Petition to
Dismiss regarding Sodini notices; emails to and from GJS and KDD
regarding a Motion to dismiss; emails to and from KDD regarding the
Greylord scandal; emails regarding proper procedure for citations;
emails regarding directing others to the blog for reference to torts
against GJS and Mary; JMD drafting such a motion for the blog;
emails regarding the Schwartz case and Attorney M. Soto;  emails
regarding case Schlieper;  emails that the table of torts and missing
documents makes everything much easier;  emails regarding abuse
of process and malicious prosecution; emails that GJS received no
citation to discover assets and it was not properly served by a
Special Process Server; that GJS hired an Indiana Attorney–R.
Bussee to help her out; emails to calm GJS down; reviewing West
law caselaw from KDD: hearing burden of proof, In regarding Baker,
Procedure on the Petition; emails regarding freezing assets in
Indiana;  perhaps the authorities in Indiana in that jurisdiction should
be contacted regarding lack of jurisdiction and lack of a citation to
recover assets; that there is no conflict in a case where jurisdiction is
lacking;  emails regarding docket sheet;  emails regarding the
citation to discover assets; emails bet. KDD and CF; emails to CF
regarding motion to dismiss/nonsuit; emails regarding the Motion to
Dismiss/Nonsuit;  (48 emails)
7/30/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.75    $300.00/hr    2,025.00
Preparing Motion to Dismiss/Non-suit for Attorney Farenga and
assembling exhibits thereto; publishing Cost of Corruption Bill on
blog; preparing numerous blog posts to Law Clerk Zhou.

October 9, 2012    Page    8

JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    7.50    $300.00/hr    2,250.00
Emails to and from work done by TL; that CF should call for an
honest investigation and file a Motion to Dismiss Sykes; emails from
KDD regarding denying Mary her liberty, property, civil right and
human rights; that what CF and AS are doing is wrong, very wrong;
emails to GJS to file the Motion to Dismiss if CF does not; emails
that GJS did not like the wording of the declarations; that the judge
had wrote”too late to contest jurisdiction”–which is not true; Judge Stuart never
made sure GJS, Jo or Yo were served with Sodini Notices; that on p
60, line 18 and following the court enters its ruling colding CT in
contempt of court; that we need to publish more transcripts; that a
court acting without jursidiction is a clear and present danger to all;
emails regarding the Nov 18, 2009 motion setting the hearing on
petition for Dec , 2009; that both GAL’s know that the court lacks
jurisdiction; (33 emails)
7/31/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.00    $300.00/hr    1,500.00
Preparing cost of corruption; reviewing FED transcript and post and
sending fax to IAG including the table of torts and table of missing
files; preparing 4 posts and Motion to Dismiss/Non-suit for Attorney
JMD    SYKES BLOG – COST OF CORRUPTION    8.00    $300.00/hr    2,400.00
Emails to and from KDD and GJS regarding the non inventory of the
gold coins; emails to GJS to calm her down; fax to Presiding Judge
Evans; emails to Moosey regarding lack of jurisdiction in Sykes
case;  emails regarding letter to Mr. Moosey; emails to GJS
regarding filing Motion to Dismiss;  emails regarding how all of the
serious torts against Mary and GJS could have happened in the US;
publishing Motion for GJS to file; email from KDD to use a Motion to
Dismiss now;  emails to GJS that legal documents are not
copyrightable and are not “owned” by anyone; email of documents
from DMV; (53 emails)

For professional services rendered    271.25    $66,114.00

Additional Charges :

7/11/2012    Copy charges for Sykes file.    13.75
7/13/2012    Copy charges of the Sykes File    13.09
7/16/2012    Transcript of court proceedings from Court reporter Sharon Rodrigo for the hearing on 5/11/2012.    40.95
Payment to DMV for Asset search.    36.00
7/17/2012    Postage for correspondence.    0.45
Postage for correspondence.    1.30
Payment to Vimeo, LLC    9.95

Total additional charges    $115.49

Total amount of this bill    $66,229.49

Previous balance    $136,523.33

Balance due    $202,752.82

PS–and to all you litigation funding companies out there, I am looking for reputable firms to work with my clients to get them the justice they deserve!  Don’t be shy.  Help them out.

Current    30 Days    60 Days    90 Days    120 Days
66,229.49    0.00    136,523.33    0.00    0.00

On isolating senior wrongfully by claiming a beloved friend or relative “aggitates them”

One notable thing which is often done in a guardianship is saying that a beloved relative or friend–one that has been a part of family life for years and years, suddenly can no longer see the senior!  It’s hurtful and cruel and definitely a pattern in the Sykes case, Wyman case in others.

In Wyman, the isolation on the direction of the abusive father AND the Sharon Rudy and Kim Timmerwilke McKenzie kept the loving, caring children away from mom and knowing that the nursing home was horrific and abusive.  Carol Wyman–who was not incompetent at all–then kept a daily diary of the abuse, which included physical beatings and mental abuse by the staff.  While she managed to escape (the nursing homes prevent this by using psychotropic drugs not intended for seniors to tranquilize them!  John Howard witnessed the staff physically holding down his mother and injecting her with Halodol one day when she wanted to go home!) she had been concealing the fact she was not taking her meds.  This was a nightmare, but could have been avoided if heresay, innuendo and bogus standards for keeping these loving, caring children away had never happened.  A nightmare.

One type of tort that would provide relief to these seniors is: loss of consortium between parent and child.  But there are few cases on this tort in Illinois, and the few that do mention it say that it is not currently recognized because this has to be done by the state legislature.

Ken’s idea is to plead loss of consortium and then combine that to the right of free association in the US and Illinois constitutions to prevent this.  I think we can put it in a federal law under the ADA–a law which clearly needs to be expanded to protect the disabled.
Read on:  From KDD:

More interesting ‘stuff’.   The word ‘stuff’ is used to connote relevant legal materials.
The importance of the material that I sent you is that it provides a solid basis for people like Gloria, Aunt Yolanda, Bev Cooper, et al to go to Court and say that we have ‘skin’ in the game and our liberty rights are being violated by this isolation of our loved one.    As I said previously if you look at 11a – 18 the actions of the Sykes defacto GALs in aiding and abetting the isolation is contrary to the statutory mandate.    I reiterate – give me one single factual or legal basis that would even suggest that Mary’s 83 year old sibling should not have frequent unsupervised visitation with Mary free and clear of the prying eyes of the plenary guardian appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.
In my opinion what has happened in the Sykes is black letter elder abuse.    The isolation and the drugging are clear examples of elder abuse.       I read that persons required to report ‘elder abuse’ who do not do so are in real trouble.    The best case to demonstrate this elder abuse is the the 18 month deprivation that Gloria suffered.     Gloria is a respected journalist and published author.   Not that the Guardian ad litem has made some defamatory statements concerning Gloria, which were patently untrue, to attempt to justify his role in the isolation of Mary.    He cannot prove any miscreant conduct on the part of Gloria or Aunt Yolanda – nor can anyone else.     Thus, in my opinion his role is at  best disingenuous.    Ms. Farenga has a similar problem.    The plenary guardian cannot justify her position.
That said, the consortium right provides standing to contest the actions of the guardians who act ultra vires to deprive a senior citizen of his/her rights, privileges and immunities.   It also affirms that 11a -17 and 11a -18 are being blatantly violated by Stern, Farenga, CT, and PS by their isolation of Mary.    It is my opinion that in the civil rights lawsuit that is being drafted the consortium damage claim should be added to the 42 USCA 1983 claims.    (As the Sodini requirements were not met and the Tiffany proof requirements were not met, the Court was without jurisdiction and the actions illegal.)     The plaintiffs who were isolated from their siblings or their parents should receive compensation for their loss.
As I mentioned previously Article 1 Section 12 is the Illinois mandate.     (as the Isolation of Mary Sykes continues the Statute of Limitation has not started to run.   watch the statute as to the other cases.     I believe the statute of limitation can vary from State to State on a civil rights action)
Ken Ditkowsky

Are we putting our seniors out to die on ice floes or is the nursing home scheme worse?

I don’t know about you, but it was some sort of dark comedy in our family that when they got older we were not to put mom and dad on an ice floe to prevent them being a burden!  Once in a while we would hear that, I guess when we were not helping enough around the house.  But the other day I was talking to one of my probate victims and she said she had never heard of how Eskimoes (and I know this is some wide paint brush of 100 northern native American and Canadians tribes, so don’t write me on that–got it) would from time to time put grandma or grandpa out on an ice floe. This is called senicide.  Invalidicide is where the disabled are left to die or taken out on ice floes.  Infantacide I guess is where you just have too many babies, and I won’t get into that one because it was often a mixture of herbs and spices to induce premature births, abortions, early induced deliveries, the place where the local socially charmed ladies worked (every town had them, so please don’t act shocked, every archeologist knows about it), etc.  That’s enough for volumes and volumes.  And of course, my mom having a love for archeology, knew well about the practice, reading thousands of books on world cultures.

But getting back to senicide and invalidicide, aren’t we doing that to some extent by knowingly obtaining guardianships and then tossing these people into nursing homes for their money or government money, knowing they are understaffed, knowing the food and medical care is horrid, knowing that separates themselves from the love and comfort of their families–isn’t this just a strange form of the senicide ice floe game?  We also know that the average elder tossed in a nursing home lives 3 more years while the average person at that age kept at home lives 7 years or more!

So why don’t we have mechanisms in place to stop all this nonsense, evil and greed?  How do we justify it?

Read below for more information based upon or inspired by an article from the Straight Dope

Did Eskimos put their elderly on ice floes to die?

This is based upon or inspired by an article done by Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope
May 4, 2004

Urban Legend: Eskimos put elders out on ice floes to die.

According to the straight dope, some Eskimos did either intentional or by forces of nature,  when times were difficult, put their infirm elders on ice floes to die.  He theorized that pressure from missionaries and national authorities brought a firm end to the practice.  Last reported case was in 1939, but the practice appeared to be very rare.

The term for killing old people is “senicide” and it was never universal.    Many people found the practice repugnant even among the Eskimos.  Since Eskimos hunted, and there was an abundance of wildlife, periods of famine were rare.  But when food did run short, infirm elders were killed in a variety of ways, thrown into the sea, buried alive, locked out in the cold or starved.  Sometimes the whole village would pick up and leave without the victim.  At other times they were taken out into the wilderness and left there.  If the village was returned to prosperity, he might be rescued–or not.  An abandoned person was always welcomed that made it back on their own, but that rarely happened.

Many times the senicide was more like assisted suicide because the elder felt a burden and offered to become abandoned.  It was theorized that a better lifetime awaited someone who was led to death rather than caused it himself, hence the need for someone to lead or push them onto an ice floe or abandon them out in the wilderness. Assisted suicide was more common.  By pain, fear, grief, infirmity, it was not uncommon for an elder or infirm to ask to be put to death, and the person(s) asked felt an obligation to assist, even if they did not want to do so.

So the ice floe legend may not be completely accurate, but it’s still not far afield.
It may have come from the movie The Savage Innocents (1959) starring Anthony Quinn or the novel it was based on, Top of the World (1950) by Hans Ruesch.  Cecil said he just read the book and found two scenes of interest. In one, the mother-in-law Powtee is put out on the solid sea ice to die, only to be rescued soon after. In the other, the wife Asiak walks across the sea ice to drown herself in the open water. At the edge, a piece of ice breaks free under her weight and she floats along on this small ice floe briefly before drowning herself.

Also practiced was invalidicide (the killing of sick or disabled people). The sick received care as long as there was any hope of recovery. When hope faded, care ceased and they were left to die.

In good times, a healthy elder was almost never killed or abandoned merely for being a burden. In the few recorded cases where younger family members did kill their elders without cause, the would suffer the worst possible punishment available which was shunning, much akin to what the Amish and Mennonite cultures practice even today.  Of course, shunning in northern Alaska/Canada could mean you were cut off from the village too, which might guarantee death without tools or shelter to live, or it might shorten your life span markedly.

I suppose many of us have kids that from time to time threaten us with picking out a nursing home and how that is better than the ice floe.  But a good comeback is that even the Eskimos will never put out an elder that is providing money, food and housing.

Further reading:

“Senilicide and Invalidicide among the Eskimos” by Rolf Kjellström in Folk: Dansk etnografisk tidsskrift, volume 16/17 (1974/75)

“Notes on Eskimo Patterns of Suicide” by Alexander H. Leighton and Charles C. Hughes in Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, volume 11 (1955)

Eskimos and Explorers, 2d ed., by Wendell H. Oswalt (1999)

— bibliophage

also, from widkipedia


Societal views and legal repercussions have varied greatly in regards to senicide.

Focusing on “old people”, van Hoof in 1990 writes that, of the 960 cases he explores, 87 address the motives of old people to commit suicide.[1] Of these suicides, twenty were motivated by impatience, seventeen by humiliation, twelve by vanity, and ten by suffering. Van Hoof also provides statistics for the manner of the suicide, both successful and unsuccessful. Starvation was the most widely used, accounting for eighteen of the sixty-one cases available. Suicide via the use of weapons was second most prevalent making up thirteen cases, followed by the use of poison in eleven cases.[2] The use of various methods (seven different methods are reported in all) suggests that no particular technique was believed to be the most proper or entirely condemned. However, that Athens had a law focusing on suicide by hanging indicates that this manner of suicide was especially disdained, perhaps because the death was intimately connected with a structure that could not be easily removed, such as a tree. Thus, the act of purification, should it be deemed necessary, would be more difficult to perform.

Ancient Greece & Rome

Senicide as an institutionalized practice, however, seems to be much less common in ancient Rome and Greece. Parkin provides eighteen cases of senicide which the people of antiquity believed to happen.[3] Of these cases, only two of them occur within Greek society, one within Roman society, and the rest falling outside of these two cultures. One example that Parkin provides is of the island of Keos in the Aegean Sea. Although many different variations of the Keian story exist, the legendary practice may have begun when the Athenians besieged the island. In an attempt to preserve the food supply, the Keians voted for all people over sixty years of age to commit suicide by drinking hemlock.[4] The other case of Greek senicide occurred on the island of Sardinia, where human sacrifices of fathers seventy years old were made by their sons to the god Cronus.

The case of institutionalized senicide occurring in Rome comes from a proverb stating that sixty year olds were to be thrown from the bridge. Whether or not this act occurred in reality was highly disputed in antiquity and continues to be doubted today. The most comprehensive explanation of the tradition comes from Festus writing in the fourth century AD who provides several different beliefs of the origin of the act, including human sacrifice by ancient Roman natives, a Herculean association, and the notion that older men should not vote because they no longer provided a duty to the state.[5] This idea to throw older men into the river probably coincides with the last explanation given by Festus. That is, younger men did not want the older generations to overshadow their wishes and ambitions and, therefore, suggested that the old men should be thrown off the bridge, where voting took place, and not be allowed to vote.

Religious views of senicide

The societies of antiquity viewed suicide and euthanasia much differently than does modern culture. Although factors such as better medical and psychological insight have affected contemporary society’s view of suicide and euthanasia, much of the shift in opinion of these forms of death occurred because of the change in religion — that is, Greco-Roman society was dominated by pagan religions that did not categorically condemn suicide and euthanasia.

Modern Christianity does not support the practice of suicide or senicide, holding that only God has control over a person’s life and death.[6]

Philosophical views on senicide

Ancient philosophical thoughts varied greatly in this respect. Plato bifurcates suicide in Laws: although killing oneself out of grief, misfortune, or state injunction is acceptable, to commit suicide “owing to sloth and unmanly cowardice” requires purification rituals and demands that the body be buried without an epitaph.[7]

Aristotle viewed suicide as an unjust act: “when a man in violation of the law harms another (otherwise than in retaliation) voluntarily, he acts unjustly.”[8] Thus, for a man to harm himself, Aristotle reasons, is an unjust act.

Pythagorean doctrine held that all creatures were being punished by the gods who imprisoned the creatures’ souls in a body. Thus, any attempt to alter this punishment would be seen as a direct violation of the gods’ wills.[9] In the fourth century BC, the Hippocratic Oath was developed and reads, “I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing.”[10] Through the lens of the Hippocratic Oath, euthanasia was strictly forbidden. However, one of the most famous examples of deviation from this code occurred when the physician of Seneca, a philosopher and tutor of Nero, provided the scholar, who was sixty-nine at the time, with poison for one of his many failed attempts at suicide.

Senicide by culture


The Heruli were a Germanic tribe during the Migration Period (about 400 to 800 CE). Procopius states in his work The Wars, that the Heruli placed the sick and elderly on a tall stack of wood and stabbed them to death before setting the pyre alight.


Senicide is currently practiced in Tamil Nadu, a state of India. The traditional practice of senicide by the family members is called Thalaikoothal. In this custom, the elderly person is given an extensive oil-bath early in the morning and subsequently made to drink glasses of tender coconut water which results in renal failure, high fever, fits, and death within a day or two. [11][12] In 2010, after an expose in Virudhunagar district, the administration set up teams of officers to monitor the senior citizens.[13]


A common belief is that the Inuit would leave their elderly on the ice to die.[14] Senicide among the Inuit people was rare, except during famines. The last known case of an Inuit senicide was in 1939.[15][16][17]


Ubasute (姥捨, abandoning an old woman), a custom allegedly performed in Japan in the distant past, whereby an infirm or elderly relative was carried to a mountain, or some other remote, desolate place, and left there to die. This custom has been vividly depicted in the The Ballad of Narayama (a 1956 novel by Shichirō Fukazawa, a 1958 film, and a 1983 film).


Main article: Lapot

See also

20 Great Cases assembled by atty Ditkowsky and links to FAQ re Guardianships

Dear Readers;

The following case summaries are from Ken – if you are looking for cases for pleadings.


1. Matter of Mackey’s Estate
Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District. June 18, 1980 85 Ill.App.3d 235
Eighty-six-year-old woman appealed judgment entered in the Circuit Court, LaSalle County, James L. Waring, J. P., in incompetency proceeding appointing guardians for her person and her estate. The Appellate Court, Alloy, P. J., held that: (1) jury’s verdict that 86-year-old woman was in need of guardian over her estate was not against manifest weight of evidence; (2) new Probate Act governed incompetency proceedings; (3) failure to inquire into possibility of limited guardianship, to enter written finding setting forth factual basis for appointment of guardians, failure to set forth duration of guardianship and to inquire as to incompetent’s own preference of guardians did not require reversal; (4) erroneous issues instructions did not constitute reversible error; (5) erroneous jury verdict form did not require reversal. Affirmed.
…On the basis of these findings, the court appointed Roy Mackey as guardian of the person of Nellie Mackey and the Union National Bank of Streator as guardian over her estate….
…(e) The court shall give due consideration to the preference of the disabled person as to a guardian in its appointment….

2. Estate of Barr
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. March 31, 1986 142 Ill.App.3d 428
Sister of 44-year-old man brought action to have him adjudicated disabled and for appointment as plenary guardian of his person and estate. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Richard E. Dowdle, J., entered the order, and the man appealed. The Appellate Court, Campbell, J., held that: (1) evidence did not support appointment of plenary guardian over the man’s person and estate, but (2) appointment of limited guardian over his estate was warranted. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
… On January 17, 1983, petitioner, Linda Horwitz, filed a petition pursuant to the Act to have respondent adjudged a disabled person due to mental illness and to be appointed guardian over his person and estate….
… However, we do not find that the evidence supports the trial court’s appointment of plenary guardian over respondent’s person and estate….

3. In re Estate of Silverman
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. December 21, 1993 257 Ill.App.3d 162
Guardians. Treating physician’s report was sufficient to justify dismissal of petition for appointment of guardian.
… The guardian may be appointed for the person or the estate, or for both the person and the estate, depending upon the circumstances….
…On October 2, petitioner filed a petition for the appointment of a temporary guardian over respondent’s person and estate, claiming that this was necessary because a hearing was scheduled in three days to consider a petition to probate respondent’s late wife’s will….

4. In re Estate of Hickman
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. January 31, 1991 208 Ill.App.3d 265
Petition was filed for appointment of personal guardian for 80-year-old woman who had been diagnosed as suffering from early stage of Alzheimer’s disease. The Circuit Court, Vermilion County, Thomas J. Fahey, J., entered order denying petition, and petitioners appealed. The Appellate Court, Lund, P.J., held that personal guardian should have been appointed based on evidence that, due to her progressive memory failure, respondent was totally incapable of making personal and financial decisions. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
… The court entered an order appointing petitioners temporary guardians of respondent’s person and estate….
…Perhaps the most convincing evidence indicating respondent’s need for a personal guardian comes from the physicians who have examined her….

5. In re Estate of Johnson
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. March 02, 1999 303 Ill.App.3d 696
FAMILY LAW – Guardians. Appointment of aunt rather than father as guardian of disabled person was within court’s discretion.
…In Bania, the trial court appointed separate individuals to act as the guardian of person and guardian of the estate….
…Here, as in Bania, the trial court made separate appointments for guardian of the disabled person and guardian of the estate of the disabled person….

6. In re Guardianship of Austin
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. June 10, 1993 245 Ill.App.3d 1042
Guardian and Ward. Circuit court was within its discretion in limiting authority of guardian to consent to administration of psychotropic medications to wards.
…Office of State Guardian (OSG) petitioned for appointment of limited guardians of person and plenary guardian of estate respecting 14 allegedly disabled persons….
… In contesting its appointment as guardian of the estates, OSG cites several cases in which proof of the incompetency of a person for whom guardianship was sought was at issue on appeal….

7. In re Malloy’s Estate
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. May 22, 1981 96 Ill.App.3d 1020
Petition was brought for the appointment of a guardian of the estate and person of a 78-year-old woman. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Walter P. Dahl, J., entered orders finding the woman to be a disabled person and appointing plenary guardians, and she appealed. The Appellate Court, Mejda, J., held that: (1) notice of appeal, which incorrectly stated dates of orders but which sufficiently articulated substance of orders so that appellee was informed of nature of relief sought, was not fatally defective; (2) under rule requiring filing of notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of final judgment, notice of appeal was timely where filing occurred 32 days after court’s written order and the two days immediately preceding filing were a Sunday and a holiday; (3) although petition for appointment of guardian did not contain report on disability as required by statute, court had jurisdiction over alleged disabled person where summons was properly served upon her; (4) where alleged…
…The court then appointed a temporary guardian of appellant’s estate….
…Petition was brought for the appointment of a guardian of the estate and person of a 78-year-old woman….

8. In re Estate of Bennett
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. March 19, 1984 122 Ill.App.3d 756
Wife petitioned for appointment of plenary guardian over her disabled husband, asking that she be appointed guardian. The husband’s mother and sister cross-petitioned, requesting that one or both of them be appointed as limited guardians. The Circuit Court, Kane County, John A. Krause, J., found the husband to be a disabled person in need of a limited guardian, and appointed his mother and sister as limited coguardians, and wife appealed. The Appellate Court, Unverzagt, J., held that: (1) trial court properly exercised its discretion in selecting mother and sister as limited coguardians after giving due consideration to husband’s preference; (2) appointment of a limited guardian, rather than a plenary guardian, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) appointment of disabled husband’s mother and sister as coguardians did not constitute an abuse of discretion; and (4) trial court’s order finding husband, who suffered a…
… The petitioner asked that she be appointed plenary guardian for Harold’s person and his estate….
…The petitioner has presented three issues for review: (1) whether the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in selecting a guardian for the respondent; (2) whether the finding that a limited guardian was needed was against the manifest weight of the evidence and whether the appointment of the cross-petitioners as guardians was an abuse of discretion; and (3) whether the order establishing the limited guardianship was vague….

9. Galvin’s Estate v. Galvin
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. February 07, 1983 112 Ill.App.3d 677
Appeal was taken from the Circuit Court, Cook County, Walter Dahl, J., which denied petition for appointment of guardian of estate and person of respondent. The Appellate Court, Goldberg, J., held that: (1) trial court’s finding that respondent was not incompetent was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and (2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing petitioner’s offer to call cousin of respondent for examination. Affirmed.
…A trial court is mandated to adjudicate a person incompetent and appoint a guardian only when the alleged incompetent is “not fully able to manage his person or estate ***….
…Because trial court observes the witnesses its finding on question whether person is incompetent requiring appointment of guardian will not be disturbed unless holding is manifestly against the weight of the evidence….

10. In re Estate of Johnson
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District. October 01, 1991 219 Ill.App.3d 962
Appeal was taken from order of the Circuit Court, Madison County, Ellar Duff, J., which appointed state guardian as limited guardian and awarded some attorney fees. The Appellate Court, Goldenhersh, J., held that: (1) evidence supported appointment of state guardian, and (2) persons who brought the petition were entitled to attorney fees. Affirmed as modified.
… However, petitioners were at least somewhat successful in that the trial court determined respondent did need some assistance in managing his affairs and, therefore, appointed the Bank of Edwardsville as guardian of respondent’s estate and also appointed the State Guardian as limited guardian over respondent’s person….
…” It also appointed Patricia Penelton as guardian of the person of respondent, but reserved the issue of who should be appointed guardian of the estate, and ordered a complete psychological evaluation of respondent….

11. Matter of Langford’s Estate
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. June 27, 1977 50 Ill.App.3d 623
In proceeding on a petition for appointment of conservator, the Circuit Court, Macon County, Frank Gollings, J., denied relief and petitioner appealed. The Appellate Court, Hunt, J., held that evidence, including medical testimony that person had had or still had schizophrenia and that person expressed intention to liquidate his entire estate and give it all to religious organization, without desire or plan to support himself except through his ministry, established that he was incapable of managing his estate and that conservator should have been appointed. Reversed and remanded with directions.
…After hearing evidence, the court appointed William R. Mattson as temporary conservator of the person, and the Central National Bank of Mattoon as temporary conservator of the estate….
…This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Macon County denying a petition of Walter E. Billerman, petitioner-appellant, for the appointment of a conservator over the person and the estate of James Langford, an alleged incompetent, respondent-appellee….

12. Matter of McPeak’s Estate
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District. September 23, 1977 53 Ill.App.3d 133

Son filed petition for appointment of conservator for his 81-year-old mother, respondent, alleging that she was incompetent and incapable of managing her person and estate because of old age and deterioration of mentality. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court, Hamilton County, Harry L. Zeigler, P. J., entered order granting petition, and respondent appealed. The Appellate Court, Eberspacher, J., held that: (1) to simply establish certain disabilities was alone insufficient to support determination of incompetency; (2) evidence also had to show respondent’s incapability of managing her person or estate, but record was barren of any such evidence; (3) in that regard, unsubstantiated opinions of petitioner’s witnesses that respondent was not capable of taking care of herself or her affairs, without any reasons given for such conclusions, would not support adjudication of incompetency and (4) fact that respondent had not personally appeared in courtroom on day of…
…Son filed petition for appointment of conservator for his 81-year-old mother, respondent, alleging that she was incompetent and incapable of managing her person and estate because of old age and deterioration of mentality….
…To simply establish certain disabilities is alone insufficient to support determination of incompetency, for purposes of appointing conservator; evidence must also show alleged incompetent’s incapability of managing her person or estate. S.H.A. ch. 3, §§ 11-2, 11-4….

13. In re Schmidt
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. September 01, 1998 298 Ill.App.3d 682
HEALTH – Mental Health. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing disabled woman’s husband as her guardian, over expressed wishes of other family members for appointment of woman’s sister.
…In appointing Tom as Cindy’s guardian, the court noted that the issue then before it was the appointment of a suitable person as guardian….
…Brother of accident victim filed petition to be appointed guardian of her person, alleging that victim was disabled adult….

14. In re Estate of Doyle
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. November 10, 2005 362 Ill.App.3d 293
FAMILY LAW – Guardians. Statute requiring hearings to be held within 30 days of filing petition for guardianship was directory, not mandatory.
…A court may appoint a guardian of an estate when it finds that the ward is incapable of managing her estate and it is in the best interests of the ward that the petitioner be appointed….
… The decision of a competent principal to appoint an agent cannot be overcome by simply appointing a guardian of the person’s estate….

15. Matter of Conservatorship of Browne
Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District. February 24, 1976 35 Ill.App.3d 962
Petition was filed to remove respondent from his position as conservator of an elderly individual’s estate. The Circuit Court, Rock Island County, Robert M. Bell, J., denied petition, and petitioner appealed. The Appellate Court, Stouder, J., held that neither conclusion of an attorney that elderly individual was incapable of handling her business affairs nor unsubstantiated statements of two doctors to effect that it was in best interest of individual to have a conservator appointed was sufficient to establish that individual was so incompetent as to require the appointment of a conservator for her estate. Reversed and remanded with directions.
…Evidence was also presented that at the January 30 hearing on the petition for appointment of conservator no medical testimony was given and no guardian ad litem was appointed….
…The Appellate Court, Stouder, J., held that neither conclusion of an attorney that elderly individual was incapable of handling her business affairs nor unsubstantiated statements of two doctors to effect that it was in best interest of individual to have a conservator appointed was sufficient to establish that individual was so incompetent as to require the appointment of a conservator for her estate….

16. Williams v. Estate of Cole
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division. August 13, 2009 393 Ill.App.3d 771
Evidence was insufficient to establish that mother was a disabled person, in action to adjudicate mother incompetent.
… Petitioner asked the court to appoint Harris, N.A. as plenary guardian of Ms. Cole’s estate, and to appoint petitioner as guardian of Ms. Cole’s person….
…Evidence was insufficient to establish that mother was a disabled person, in action to adjudicate mother incompetent and appoint a guardian; two physicians, both who had recently examined mother, found that she exhibited no cognitive disabilities or mental conditions, and that she was well-adjusted and capable of managing her own personal and financial decisions. S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(9); 755 ILCS 5/11a–2, 5/11a–3(a)….

20. In re Estate of Ohlman
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. February 22, 1994 259 Ill.App.3d 120
Mental Health. Guardian ad litem should have been appointed for mentally disabled person who requested to proceed without counsel.
… The Probate Act of 1975, which governs proceedings for appointment of guardians, defines a disabled person as a person who “is mentally ill *** and who because of his mental illness *** is not fully able to manage his person or estate.” …
…Office of State Guardian petitioned for appointment of guardian for mentally disabled patient….

I have heard more than one person seem to get confused over the standards for appointment of a guardian.  First of all, there has to be a medical diagnosis.  Hence, the need for a CCP 211 petition where an MD must state what the mental disease or defect is.  For the elderly, it is often dementia.  For younger people, it can be Down’s Syndrome, multiple chromosomal deficiencies, etc.

It is my belief you cannot appoint a guardian for someone without a mental disease or defect.  And I’m not too sure that the borderline psychological diagnoses such as hoarding, phobias, fears, etc. are enough.

If you look at the Probate Act, there should be a diagnosis AND a determination that the person is incapable of handling her or his own affairs by clear and convincing evidence. The recent In re Tiffany case tightens the legal standard of “clear and convincing” to “no reasonable doubt.”

This does not mean the person has made some bad decisions.  Most people from day to day make at least a few bad decisions.  Nor is the standard “utterly incapable” of managing one’s own affairs of the person or financial estate.

But it starts with a diagnosis of a mental disease or defect.  If you have that, then you inquire further.

A good website I recently found on all of this is at the Illinois Public Guardian’s offices at:

Office of the Public Guardian for Cook County


Office of the State Guardian for Illinois

both of these pages have quite a bit of good information for guardians.

take care


20 Great Cases assembled by atty Ditkowsky and links to FAQ re Guardianships

The exciting Transcript from the Wyman Hearing

Dear Readers;

Link to court hearing Transcript Wyman Motion to Dismiss 092812.

One of the exciting items we have been waiting for is the transcript from the Wyman case — or the hearing where I argued there were no Sodini notices served on the adult children and siblings of Ms. Winifred Carol Wyman and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction since July 6, 2009 when it held a hearing without proper notices being served.

As you will recall, my client and his brother were left standing out in the hallway of the courtroom asking why the Hearing on Powell Wyman’s Petition for Hearing had been stricken from the court calendar.  It was noticed for July 9, 2009.  They had not received notice at all!

See the excuses by SRR and KMT and see if justice has been done.

We are now onto an emergency appeal of this court’s decision and I will keep you timely apprised of all documents filed, so you can even do this yourself.

take care