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] <http://www.drdeborahmd.com/solutions-urinary-tract-infections&gt;, <http://safepatientproject.org/posts/5609-a-cautionary-tale-dangers-of-antibiotic-overuse&gt; — 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 Barbara Stone–Her RICO and civil damages complaint

After months of being terrorized by the criminal enterprise in Miami Dade Florida known as their Probate Court and Judge Michael Genden and Attorneys Roy Lustig and Mark Raymond (I was also threatened with Sanctions by them, they filed a Motion against me, and I had not appeared in any case in Florida, so you can see how desperate they are to cover up crimes against Barbara Stone and her Mother, Mrs. Helen Stone), Barbara has filed her own Counter Claims in Florida against a number of judges, including her mother’s probate judge Michael Genden, and a number of attorneys involved including the Plenary Guardian and her attorney for all the abuses Mrs. Helen Stone has suffered at the hands of her tormenters.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwZjd3d0hmWW9fMkk/view?usp=sharing

Some highlights:

46. Other attorneys throughout the country are being viciously retaliated by exposing the
rampant corruption and racketeering in the legal system. Attorneys such as Christine Andersen, Esq., Joanne Denison, Esq., Ken Ditkowsky, Esq., Larue Amu, Esq., Jeff Norkin, Esq., Candice Schwager, Esq. and thousands of other honorable attorneys who are complying with their mandate to report wrongdoing that not only violates civil laws but is a criminal danger to society and the public are being viciously retaliated and their law licenses threatened and suspended and they face or have been disbarred for complying with their mandated oath to report. This is the only act that they attorneys are being retaliated against. This retaliatory is solely due to their attempts to report wrongdoing.
17

Barbara was encourage by several sympathetic judges in Florida to seek Whistleblower status.  There are now about a dozen or more attorney across the nation including the above, who have risked their law licenses, including myself and Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu to blow the whistle on corrupt judges and attorneys operating a criminal enterprise out of Probate court.

When Mary Sykes was guardianized without Summons and Petition being served, when $1 million in gold coins went missing and the probate attorneys and court scrambled to quash all discovery, when her home was sold for 20 cents on the dollar, you know that Chicago has the same problems, as does Florida.

All of us–from Barbara Stone to Candice Schwager to Grant Goodman to Lanre Amu and Ken Ditkowsky, blow the whistle, do our jobs and prosecuted and hounded for protecting the elderly and vulnerable, and then they put the likes of Jerome Larkin in as Administrator of the ARDC to cover every thing up, you know there is something seriously wrong with Illinois and the nation.  No one is coming to our rescue or protecting us.

I now have dozens of low cost and pro bono attorneys without counsel. Who will serve them as I did, filing pleadings, asking that seniors and the elderly be protected, that they not be guardianized without proper service and notice to next of kin.

No one is protecting them and Jerome Larkin is running a cover up operation with his own malicious assistants–Melissa Smart, Sharon Opryszek, Steven Splitt (a professor of ethics at John Marshall Law School?), Leah Guiterrez Black, etc. all act in retaliation.  All pretend that this blog is a lie.

I could not figure out why they were all so upset when I mentioned the fires at the OPG and how there were several and they always happened on Friday afternoons.  Now I am aware that the fire killing 6 was first ruled a homocide by the coroner after investigation and that was changed, so why do they accuse me of lying?  An accellerant was suspected also, but nothing came of that.  CNBC backed off on their investigation and some of their reports on the fire have broken links.  I want to know why.  Patrick Murphy was never questioned, as far as the internet reports, but was made a judge.  I want to know why.  Other attorneys have told me some very shocking news–definitely reported to the ARDC, but nothing came out of that.  The attorneys at the OPG were protected.

Barbara’s complaint goes on to say:

Michael Genden with intent thereby extort Ms.  Rochlin to gain an advantage to threaten her to refrain from representing Counter-Plaintiffs mother. The Florida Bar through certain
of its member by written communication maliciously accused counter Counter-Plaintiff of offensesas part of a retaliation to stop her whistleblower against the Florida Bar by attempting to disbar her and deprive her of her reputation an her livelihood and her ability to earn income and in so has malicious exposed her to disgrace in her reputation with intent to gain advantage to force her to cease her attempts to expose their criminal racketeering activities.
245. Further they are trying to force her to refrain from doing what she is required under Florida Bar Rule 4.83 to do.
246. That thru the misuse of criminal proceeding Counter-Plaintiff is being extorted and threatened to silence her whistleblowing activities and gain advantage and have disgraced her reputation by forcing her to wear a public shackle .

Florida is amazing in that Barbara Stone, for speaking out against the severe and continuing abuses against her mother–isolation, drugging, the draining of her estate with churned bills and inflated fees, etc.–Judge Michael Genden, together with the States Attorneys offices has her on electronic monitoring.  She has had an ankle bracelet for over a year, and unless the Federal Court stops this entire mess, the concept of putting civil litigants in leg shackles for reporting Probate Court abuses may easily spread to Chicago.

Ms. Stone pays $350 per month to have a leg bracelet put on her so the miscreants can operate in secrecy and with impunity.

Barbara Stone is seeking Whistleblower status in Florida and with the Federal Court System.  She is claiming no ability to get a fairly heard case in Florida with all the corruption that is going on.  She is asking that her case get transferred to Illinois to Judge Blakey and consolidated due to his expertise in RICO (Racketeering and Influential Crime Organization Act–a statute that aptly fits the current mess of Probate Court in Illinois and Florida.

I have really no idea what the Florida Bar and the Illinois ARDC think they are covering up. When you lie, cheat and steal, it always comes home to roost and turns into a big, ugly mess.

Jerome Larkin has made a career out of protecting favored attorneys–those in the Sykes case– Farenga, Stern and Schmeidel, while persecuting Whistleblowers–Ditkowsky, Amu and myself.

In Florida, the Bar is going after Barbara Stone.  In Texas, they go after Candice Schwager for protecting Human and Civil Rights.  In Arizona, it is Grant Goodman.  In California, there is Richard Fine.  There is also Ostrowski and Bailey in Pennsylvania.  Clear across the nation, miscreant lawyers in bar associations are witch hunting Whistleblower attorneys.

Barbara did a fabulous job out of her Complaint (counter claim) against these miscreants and it should be used as a model for other cases.

Let’s hope that the Federal Courts will start to take this malicious mess seriously

JoAnne

KDD renews his Motion to Dismiss before the ARDC based upon the Horace Hunter case

Horace Hunter made it clear that attorneys have the right to post case synopses–even criminal ones that perhaps a defendant is not too proud of an arrest–because all cases in reality belong to the public and constitute public information.

The ARDC has taken the position that the Horace Hunter case is not binding legal precedent.  It has not stated what standard it wants for attorneys to blog about cases, other than the fact the royal “it” seems to want to make that decision themselves and just let us attorneys know afterwards.

What words are prohibited by attorneys?  What phrases are prohibited?  From the survey results on this blog, it would seem that everyone (98%) agree that ARDC must promulgate firm and clear guidelines on what it will censor and what it thinks is okay, yet they have not done that.

They have no blog.  They are not transparent, as this blog is.

While they were created in 1978 due to a public outcry regarding corruption in the Illinois Court System, one wonders if any real cure was effectuated, or if this turned into more of the same ole, same ole.

See Ken’s Motion to Renew his Motion to Dismiss his ARDC Complaint based upon the Horace Hunger case, complete with his response to the Objections that the ARDC then filed.

Ken Ditkowsky’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss the ARDC complaint and ARDC Objections thereto

The ARDC claims the Horace Hunter case is not helpful or analogous, yet they cite some other disciplinary decisions which appear to be at the trial court level because they provide no citation from SCOI. 

Interesting.  Attorneys are not support to cite trial court decisions or tribunals as precedent.  An attorney in a brief is only supposed to cite appellate or supreme court authority.  Sometimes you have to, as in where there are not citable cases at higher levels because in indigency cases the litigants do not have money to appeal. 

But the ARDC citing trial court precedent?  Unbelievable.

KDD renews his Motion to Dismiss before the ARDC based upon the Horace Hunter case

Horace Hunter made it clear that attorneys have the right to post case synopses–even criminal ones that perhaps a defendant is not too proud of an arrest–because all cases in reality belong to the public and constitute public information.

The ARDC has taken the position that the Horace Hunter case is not binding legal precedent.  It has not stated what standard it wants for attorneys to blog about cases, other than the fact the royal “it” seems to want to make that decision themselves and just let us attorneys know afterwards.

What words are prohibited by attorneys?  What phrases are prohibited?  From the survey results on this blog, it would seem that everyone (98%) agree that ARDC must promulgate firm and clear guidelines on what it will censor and what it thinks is okay, yet they have not done that.

They have no blog.  They are not transparent, as this blog is.

While they were created in 1978 due to a public outcry regarding corruption in the Illinois Court System, one wonders if any real cure was effectuated, or if this turned into more of the same ole, same ole.

See Ken’s Motion to Renew his Motion to Dismiss his ARDC Complaint based upon the Horace Hunger case, complete with his response to the Objections that the ARDC then filed.

Ken Ditkowsky’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss the ARDC complaint and ARDC Objections thereto

The ARDC claims the Horace Hunter case is not helpful or analogous, yet they cite some other disciplinary decisions which appear to be at the trial court level because they provide no citation from SCOI. 

Interesting.  Attorneys are not support to cite trial court decisions or tribunals as precedent.  An attorney in a brief is only supposed to cite appellate or supreme court authority.  Sometimes you have to, as in where there are not citable cases at higher levels because in indigency cases the litigants do not have money to appeal. 

But the ARDC citing trial court precedent?  Unbelievable.

What does the ARDC want me and Ken to be sorry for?

Dear Readers;

One of the things that the ARDC always says when you get a complaint, is to be sorry for what you did wrong and and be contrite.  Okay, I get that.  I have learned (and this is a good lesson for all) pray to not make mistakes but when you do apologize and rectify any problems or troubles right away and put those as top priority.  Never put them off, they only get worse.

So, in this case, it’s really hard.  I really don’t want to cause any trouble for the nice atty ladies at the ARDC–Jessica Haspel and Sharon Opryszek and Jerome Larkin, but the reality is, their agency was set up to prevent another Greylord back in 1978–they were supposed to root out and eliminate corruption in the court system.

Now, it turns out they “don’t do” judges, like a cleaning lady “doesn’t do” windows, they “don’t do” stuff that happens in court–the judge should rectify those problems and while there is a “Himmel” obligation imposed by the US Supreme Court on attorneys to report corruption and other attorneys engaging it, is their official policy “don’t blog about it” or “don’t warn others” about miscreants either.  My survey says 98% of you believe that blogging about corruption is not only important, but I have the right to warn the public.

And while I have a blog to be open, transparent and figure out what the heck is going on, the ARDC doesn’t.  It publishes generic and conclusionary “rules” taken from a hodge podge of commonlaw.

For example, they accused me of “making false statements or statements with reckless disregard for the truth.”  Now in 1978 the ARDC/SCOI did not suddenly invent that standard, it turns out to be the standard for defamation law taken from a US Supreme Court case.  It further turns out that the “malice” or “reckless disregard” is a very high level, so high, that defamation suits are rarely filed or won by attorneys because they run smack dab into the First Amendment–which is to be given the broadest interpretation possible without totally killing off a suit for defamation.

My blog is transparent.  I publish the horror stories and then back them up with the transcripts, the documents, the declarations, the statements of the parties at the same time I publish what needs to be said.

KDD is right to tell the authorities what is going on.  I only do the blog.  I have written to the Dept. of Justice on behalf of my clients with their information and I have advised them to contact the Dept. of Justice, the US attorney’s offices, the Illinois State’s Attys and even the local police.  I always thought that was the right thing to do.  And as a taxpayer I would expect that these agencies would take the complaints and police reports seriously and conduct a full, honest and complete investigation, but it appears even in cases where millions are uninventoried, there is no account analysis, no one at the police, FBI, etc. seems to care. I guess the Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts are too good.

Can we blame Dunkin Donuts?

In any case, read on for my email today to the atty ladies at the ARDC:

Dear Sharon and Jessica;

I note in some of your correspondence that you were going to order the transcript from the disqualification of KDD to represent me.

Did you get that transcript and can you please send me copy?

Also, do you have a copy of the transcript from from KDD’s 2 day hearing in early Sept 2012.  I’d love to have that one too, but I can’t afford it.

Also, I know the ARDC like to hear it when attorneys are repetant for what they have done, and I’ll tell you this. I am sorry I have to fight with you over all this.  I think it’s a waste of taxpayer and lawyer fee monies.  But I do believe that lawyers have a first amendment right to blog, and blog in particular about corruption in the court system.

Many attorneys have looked the other way at this and said that “a bit of corruption here and there is okay and you should just live with it.”  But I know Mary, Gloria, Fred and Caroly and the entire family, and I tell you, Mary is in a miserable place, the case was horrific, Gloria is now homeless and penniless and her father and mother NEVER intended that.  I knew Mary Sykes quite well and she was always a kind and funny and interesting person.

So I blog.  I’m sorry about that, but someone has to tell the truth.  and this is not just a case of he said/she said–it is a case clearly lacking in jurisdiction with substantial assets uninventoried.  I know the family, I know the relatives and family friends.

I don’t understand how in the US all of this can happen.  It‘s utterly shameful.

So I hate to cause trouble for you ladies, but I see no way out.  Attys have a Himmel duty to report, and I think they also have a duty to contact the authorities when there is elder abuse.  While we don’t have mandatory reporting (what would the ARDC do THEN?), I think the best course of action is to report it.  And if no action is taken, report it again and again until justice is done.

Sorry about that.  I hate to be your messenger of bad news.  I truly am sorry for that.  But you would not BELIEVE all the horror stories I get on a daily basis.

I think the ARDC also needs an ethics blog if you are in fact trying to censor blogs.  What is it exactly that you don’t want attorneys to say?  Can you actually phrase any amount of censorship for attorney blogs — esp. those regarding corruption — that would not engender a public outcry from those who have suffered injustices in Illinois court rooms.  I‘m just asking?

Should I be sorry to even have to be the one to ask these questions?  I don’t think so.

take care and see if you can get me those transcripts.

thanks

joanne

cc:  http://www.marygsykes.com

 

Cost of Corruption October 2012 bill–$363,811!

See below and enjoy:

CostofCorr-Oct2012-bill

Now even higher!  I love publishing these.  I think my pro bono time is well spent, don’t you?

The Administrator of the ARDC answer the Petition to the Ill. Sup. Ct. and the Answer reveals some new information.

First I know you are all waiting to read:

The Response Brief filed by the ARDC to KDD’s Motion for a Supervisory Order filed at SCOI

Finally, I have to hand it to the Administrator, the ARDC seems to be getting better at understanding there are different types of speech and different levels of protection under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  They actually said for the first time ever that my speech is not commercial speech or advertising nor have I been charged with violating any client confidence–and that’s because I religiously ask the poster permission to post and if they want the post redacted or anonymous, I will do that for them. The ARDC still isn’t  where they should be, but there seems to be hope on the horizon.  I chalk that up to the detailed, you just can’t screw it up step by step instruction guide to constitutional rights and free speech set forth in the Horace Hunter case, so I have to just thank atty Hunter again for braving it out for all us attys in VA>

The Administrator’s Answer to KDD’s Petition to the Ill. Supreme Ct. for a Supervisory Order under Rule 383 is a great one.  Still, the SCOI only receives about 200 such petitions per year (as should be because the petition basically is saying that a court or tribunal is acting so way out of line it is actually far exceeding its authority).

Motions to disqualify an attorney based upon a “conflict” are hardly if ever granted.  This Complaint is for BLOGGING.  Imagine that–blogging.  It is not about stealing, failing to appear in court, failing to write a brief, motion or reply, failing to tell a client what is going on–it’s about blogging.  Bloggin, one would think, should be put in the category of “priority Z” with the ARDC.  Instead, because it’s obviously stepping on toes, denoting severe aberrations and corruptions in the court room, complete with published evidence thereof, and numerous uninvestigated serious citizen complaints, some how it has risen to “priority A” with the ARDC, and yet the ARDC does not understand how, from the get go, it appears to only bespeak of the corruption talk the ARDC is feverously attempting to quash or censor.

Getting back to Motions to Disqualify counsel of record. Like it or not, those are very, very serious and rarely granted in any courtroom I have ever been in.  In all but a very few instances, they are a waste of time and money.  And in my case, they are deja vu, with my first bogus disqualification in the Mary Sykes case because I merely notarized a document.  Attorneys notarize documents all the time and as a matter of routine, and often between squabbling parties.  It means nothing.  Really.  All the notary is supposed to be saying by performing the notarial act is that s/he knew or confirmed the ID of the person signing the document.  It does not mean the person underwent a complete psychiatriac exam, a physical exam, took a driver’s road test, or qualified for any task–other than to put pen to paper and sign.

Next, you look at a complaint about blogging. This time the ARDC finally cited the correct standard for my speech–it has to be completely fabricated or made up in order to qualify under the standard “false or made with wanton and reckless disregard for the truth.”  In my case, tons of evidence is already on the blog–esp. about the Sykes case.  I got the declarations, I got transcripts, the case files–everything and all was published.  Why the ARDC can even say this without an LOL ROF, 4PIA it was done without a scintilla of actual evidence is beyond anyone’s imagination.  The Sykes case is well documented, well published, well explored on the blog.  I can’t think of anything I have left out–and yet the ARDC continues to read my conclusions on one part of the blog (the case is corrupt and without jurisdiction and running for 3.5 years) while on the other part of the blog, all the documents, the transcripts, the pleadings, the declarations and affidavit mean nothing or are allegedly left unread by the ARDC.  I don’t know how much more you can possibly publish about a topic.to prove the ARDC is simply full of it with respect to a “scintilla of evidence”.  I don’t have a scintilla, as my daughter would say, I have “crap tons” of it. (She made up the following scale of how much something is “crap tons”, “sh** tons” and even “f*** tons” but I can publish that, now can I?”  She generally uses these phrases when referring to how much homework or chem lab reports to do, but I digress.)

Here are my comments about the ARDC response:

The Administrator clearly has an interesting take on the entire proceeding.

With respect to your motion to dismiss, I think the Sup.Ct. would more likely make up a new rule that a respondent gets to file a Motion to Dismiss, rather than strike that step. As you point out Ken, it makes no sense not to allow Respondents to file Motions to Dismiss.  MTD’s are very important on a number of levels and one is to narrow the issues for trial, and provide for greater judicial economy. I believe they are an important step in every trial court or tribunal process and they should never be skipped, as you have noted.

It is interesting that for the first time, the Administrator actually acknowledges that my speech is not commercial speech nor did I violate any client confidentiality.  (Para 10)

Paragraph 15–Mr. Ditkowsky would perform as an “unsworn witness” rather than counsel and THAT would disqualify him?  That’s new law.  Never heard of it.

The ARDC primarily cites the Palmisano case for it’s position in this regard.  But Palmisano clearly states:

If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction–for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled. Palmisano lacked support for his slurs, however. Illinois concluded that he made them with actual knowledge of falsity, or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. So even if Palmisano were a journalist making these statements about a public official, the Constitution would permit a sanction. False statements, made with reckless disregard of the truth, “do not enjoy constitutional protection.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). See also Harte- Page 488
Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 659, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 2681-82, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989); McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 484, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 2790-91, 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985) (same conclusion for claim based on right to petition for redress of grievances). Federal courts are no more willing to tolerate repeated, false, malicious accusations of judicial dishonesty than are state courts. Selection of the sanction is a subject on which appellate review is deferential. Gouiran, 58 F.3d at 56; cf. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

It is indeed interesting that the ARDC finally has admitted that there are in fact different types of speech (non commercial (opinions and blogs), commercial (atty ads), and highly regulated–for example drug inserts), it just has to take the next step and properly complete the analysis.

In the Palmisano case, the court found that atty Palmisano made the allegations of corruption because he lost cases in front of these judges. HOWEVER, Atty Denison has not lost any cases in front of Justices Connor, Stuart or any other judge.  She is sitting as a mere observer or court watcher, and in addition, she has backed up her allegations with court transcripts, pleadings, declarations and affidavits from those with personal knowledge of the facts of the transactions–all on the very same blog.  Again, the ARDC apparently can read portions of the blog in which Atty Denison states that certain courtrooms are and have been operating without jurisdiction for years, but then the ARDC falls short of reading–let alone investigating, the numerous pieces of evidence published on the blog together with numerous citizen complaints that have been left uninvestigated by the ARDC.

Whether or not the ARDC “may require attorneys to speak with greater care and civility than is the norm in political campaigns” is not the question in this case.  Atty Palmisano DID in fact appear before the judges he accused of being corrupt, and he lost cases in front of the judges and he further apparently published no blog with no additional supporting documents, pleadings, transcripts, affidavits and declarations, let alone allowed numerous citizens to come forward with their complaints against the miscreants or “judicial officials” involved in the suspect or corrupt actions complained of.  The letters he sent out were just that–letters without appropriate supporting documentation, ie, transcripts, affidavits, declarations, pleadings, citizen interviews and confirmations.  It is clear from the opinion, had he based his letters on some scintilla of actual evidence, the disciplinary proceedings against him would have not had the outcome they did.

It is further interesting that the ARDC says that Hunter is not binding.  It is a well reasoned, well thought out decision by the Virginia Supreme Court and cannot be completely ignored by the ARDC.  The ARDC does not argue that First Amendment US Constitutional protections may vary from state to state, nor does it show how the Virginia state bar must be comprised of some wilder bunch of attorneys who may be mouthier than their Illinois counterparts.  I’m not exactly sure about what they are saying.  Is it because they assume VA has med MaryJane and IL does not?  I’m not sure.

With respect to ¶ 15 of the Administrator’s Response, the “unsworn” witness acting as an attorney is a specious argument and not found in any case law, nor has the ARDC cited any relevant case law.

*** End of My Comments***

Now for Ken’s Reply to the ARDC:

No testimony has been taken or received at this point in time in the proceedings before the Illinois ARDC.     That said, the movant has presented this Court with the significant documentation necessary to inform the Court as to the factual basis of its motion and plea.   The plea is for this Court to order an investigation of the fact that more than one senior citizen has been in derogation of its ruling in Steinfeld   (citation infra) and a comprehensive protective plan enacted by the Illinois Legislature (citation infra) separated from her liberty and property by a Court lacking in jurisdiction.
As noted in the Motion for a Supervisory order,  the movant has presented affidavits of disinterested persons (disinterested in the JoAnne Denison matter) that connoted the most important reason for the granting of the supervisory order and ordering of a Honest comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes and similar cases.     These affidavits have not been contested.
Contrary to the impression attempted  to be conveyed by the Administrator, the reason for the Petition for a Supervisory order being requested is multi-fold.    The most pressing matter is the fact that in Illinois senior citizens are being herded into the Guardianships without concern as to the protections built into the system. Legislative protections are ignored and these senior citizens (such as Mary Sykes)  are then denied their liberty and property interests.
The Statement that attorneys made not speak of this terrible situation is an ‘assault’ on the core values of the United States.     The Supreme Court of the United States has deplored such a situation and made in clear in Alvarez  the even untrue content speech is protected speech.   Only the Administrator of the ARDC appears to suggest that an Attorney may not complain concerning the denial of Civil Rights effectuated by “judicial officials”[1]    The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the regulation of ‘content’ based speech such as appears in the Denison Blog and publications.
Ms Denison objects to the Administrator’s failure to be completely candid with this Court.     The Administrator did not cite In re: Green  11 P 3d 1078 in which it was held that the First Amendment protection included the right to make the allegation that a particular judge was a racist and a bigot, and did not note the distinction in Palmisano, i.e:
“If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction-for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled.”   Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir. 1995)
Ms. Denison has attached affidavits of 3rd persons as part of her response that confirm the direct miscreant conduct in violation of the clears words of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Legislative of the State of Illinois[2].      These affidavits have not been  challenged.
Discussion
 “Disbarment is not an adversarial proceeding”  Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 484 (7th Cir. 1995) and therefore, it is respectfully suggested that the Administrator’s objections are groundless and disingenuous.      Even in his defense to the clearly erroneous decision to disqualify Ms. Denison’s attorney appearing for her at the ARDC proceeding the Administrator does not suggest a single question that  Mr. Ditkowsky can be called as a witness concerning.    Conclusions are interesting but irrelevant and it is respectfully suggested that no proper court would have entertained the disqualification motion advanced by the Administrator without specifics.     There is no affidavit submitted with the Motion that suggests that Denison’s attorney had any exclusive personal knowledge.     (The Common Record in Sykes has been seen by dozens of people.    If the Administrator did at Rule 137 examination of the record he also has personal knowledge that the Sykes court acted without jurisdiction).
It should be noted that the Administrator does not state that Mr. Ditkowsky viewed or attended any hearing or other proceeding involving Mary Sykes,     Indeed, Attorney Denison has waived any ‘conflict of interest’ she might have with her attorney,  as in fact there is none.     To eliminate an attorney who does not please the adversary, following the administrator’s reasoning all the adversary has to do is claim that the offending attorney will be called as a witness[3].
The objection filed the administrator is interesting in that he does not display in his appendix the Request to Admit that were filed by Ms. Denison with the Commission.   The Administrator’s evasive and unresponsive Responses also are not in his appendix[4].      The significance of the response of the Administration is that the Administrator is so intent on ‘winning’ that Justice is not a consideration.    Candid answers to the Request to Admit is respectfully submitted to be the end the Denison case.      The death knell occurred years before this case was brought as the Illinois Supreme Court has made it very clear that:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, Ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”  In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
The Administrator is not by law supposed to be an advocate for the persons appointed as “judicial officials” by a Court lacking jurisdiction.     He is supposed to protect the rights of citizens such as Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken, Scott Evans, JoAnne Denison, etc.     In not providing this Court with a copy of its responses to the Request to Admit and in not candidly answering the Administrator pursuant to Rule 216 admits that the Circuit Court record does not demonstrate that in Sykes ( as an example) the 14 days’ notice was served upon Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken,  et al .     It is respectfully suggested that the Administrator was not candid in citing  Palmisano  for reasons stated infra.
On the other hand the if the Administrator denies the Request to Admit, the Administrator must prove the impossible by clear and convincing evidence[5] that Ms. Gloria Sykes, her two aunts, and all who have viewed the Sykes record  are all mistaken.     Indeed, if the 14 day notices were not served on Gloria Sykes and her two aunts the statements made in Ms. Denison’s blog are indeed true.     Ms. Farenga, Ms. Troepe, Mr. Stern are not “judicial officials” and  Mary Sykes has been the victim of the tort of false imprisonment, the non-inventory of her property much more than the breach of fiduciary relationship etc.     More seriously, the claimed “judicial officials” are guilty of much more than ethical violations.      Indeed, the Administrator may himself have violated Himmel.
The portion of the Palmisano decision that the Administrator in his objections failed to call to the Court’s attention is documented as:
“If Palmisano had furnished some factual basis for his assertions, then we would need to determine whether either the Constitution or principles of sound judicial administration permit a sanction-for an attorney is not absolutely liable for every statement that turns out to be incorrect. It would unduly quell investigation and exposure of corruption to disbar an attorney who publicized suspicious conduct, just because the suspicions were dispelled.”   Matter of Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir. 1995)
Ms. Denison has provided a significant factual basis for her assertions.    She has provided affidavits of the affected persons and the wrongful prosecution of Ms. Denison is a chilling violation of the Free Speech of a citizen protected by the First Amendment.[6]
The Administrator has claimed that statements made on the publication (Blog) maintained by Ms. Denison are untrue as they relate to public officials; however, significantly missing from the appendix attached to the objections is a single certification by anyone that they served the 14 days’ notice required in the Sykes case by 755 ILCS 5/11a -10(f) on Gloria Sykes or the two siblings of Mary Sykes.    
Why has the Administrator of the ARDC failed to produce a scintilla of evidence either herein or in the Commission proceedings to suggest, or even imply that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f) was even attempted to be complied with?    Certainly copies of the return or certification of the Sheriff, private investigator, attorney, or other person who served the 14 day notices required to vest the Circuit Court probate division with jurisdiction would be persuasive.   As the Court file in Sykes is a public record (or at least was a public record) a copy of the return or certification of service of the 14 days’ notice would be easy to present so as to counter the affidavits of Mary Sykes daughter and two sisters.      It is respectfully submitted that  no return or certification ever existed (prior to today) and the Administrator is fully aware that Ms. Denison’s blog contains no knowingly untrue statements.    The Administrator is aware that it  is a violation of Rule 8.4 by the Administrator and Rule 137 of the Supreme Court Rules[7] to file documents in any judicial proceeding that are knowingly untrue.
            This Supreme Court has the decision in Hunter before it and therefore can determine the scope of the decision and whether or not the Virginia Supreme Court obviated any notion that attorneys are second class citizens to be denied their Free Speech Rights.[8]    It is also quite significant and very disappointing that the Administrator does not address the important Constitutional limitations on its jurisdiction .      Missing from the objection filed by the Administrator was any mention of this Court’s or the Supreme Court’s decisions that are the strong basis for the request for an investigation and  the supervisory order have been over-ruled are not relevant or superseded.     Indeed, as an example the Administrator fails to address the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011), New York Times vs. Sullivan (citation omitted), Alvarez, etc.     The recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States must be given proper respect.     In proportion the respect due them is infinitely more than that to be given to “judicial officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the instant Motion for a Supervisory order is not an academic or an athletic exercise.     The issue herein is the fact that lawyers are being intimidated by the Illinois ARDC to keep silent as to persons being denied their liberty and property interest because they deemed by certain “judicial officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction to be in need a guardian.      The issue is the Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of Senior citizens and persons with diminished capacity.        The issue is the concept that a judgment of the need for a guardian is not to protect the individual but to strip him or her of all liberty and property rights.[9]
            Equally serious, but not of the same Constitutional moment of the First Amendment issue is the fact that the legislature in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 11a -18 has determined that guardianship was not the ‘kiss of death’ but a compassionate method of making as little interference into the life of a affected person as possible.    Indeed, the legislature decreed that people such as Mary Sykes would not be isolated from family, friends, activities, assets, and liberty.
Conclusion and Summary
Senior citizens and disabled persons are not ‘second class citizens’ and when the Illinois Legislature enacted a legislative scheme to protect them the Illinois ARDC was not delegated the authority to silence attorneys such as Ms. Denison who complained that the protections were being thwarted  by certain “judicial officials” who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.      The Administrator of the Illinois ARDC has called attention  ( by his prosecution of Ms. Denison for publishing on her ‘blog’) to  the fact that a 90 plus year old senior citizen (and others) have been dominated illegally by ‘judicial officials’ who sans jurisdiction of the appointing court have ignored the legislative protections afforded to senior citizens who have either the potential for or actual diminished capacity.
Mary Sykes for one has been stripped of a million dollars (plus or minus) in gold coins that were not inventoried and isolated from her family for more than three years.     In an effort to silence JoAnne Denison the Administrator and the ARDC panel disqualified her attorney upon the facade that he might be called to testify.      The seriousness of the Sykes case and related cases promulgated Attorney Denison to petition this Court for a Supervisory order requiring the Courts to follow the legislative and jurisdictional mandate and for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation by law enforcement of how in the United States of America something like the Sykes case could flourish[10].
Ms. Denison prays that this court enter its supervisory order and deny the Administrator’s objections.
Respectfully Submitted,


[1] Following the reasoning of the Administrator there would have been no prosecution of the 15 judges who went to jail as the result of their corruption (in Greylord) and there would be no need for the Judicial Inquiry Board.    Indeed, a lawyer who co-operated with the Justice Department in an investigation of Judicial corruption would be subject to Disciplinary action by the ARDC.   Ironically the corruptors and the corrupt would be free to operate their nefariousness at will.
[2] The Objection suggests that the Blog contains untrue matter.   The burden of proof is upon the Administrator to prove by clear and convincing evidence the facts upon which his claim is based.    The affidavits placed of record, and documents on the blog substantiate that the statements have a credible basis and that the petitioner had every right to assert them as facts.
[3] It should be noted that this was the technique was allegedly used to prevent Ms. Denison from protecting the interests of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes in the Sykes case.   Thus, the Court record reveals that Mary Sykes was in defiance of the Article 11a (755 ILCS 5/11a  et seq) Mary had her liberty and property taken from her and no attorney was appointed or allowed to represent her or the assert the jurisdictional deficiency that this court pointed out in In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
[4] Ms. Denison filed a Motion for Summary Judgment before the ARDC panel based upon the responses filed by the Administrator.    The objection suggests that the Commission has adopted a Rule to prevent the termination of spurious and improper disciplinary actions by the Administrator.    However, this Court in enacting Rule 137 over-ruled such a tactic to thwart a denial of Equal Protection of the Law toward Legal Professionals.    The ARDC should be like Caesar’s wife!   It should not be an instrument of intimidation.
[5] A search of the Circuit Court record reveals that not only was the Petition for the Guardianship of Mary Sykes defective as it did not name the two siblings of Mary Sykes (and was brought in the wrong venue) but, it not served in accordance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10,  Sodini,  and Steinfeld.
[6] The recent Supreme Court of the United States Decisions suggest that Palmisano today would not be good law.    That is not to say that if Mr. Palmisano insulted the Court while participating in a court proceeding he could not held in contempt, or that he could not be sued for defamation.     Government however cannot limit his content based speech.    This issue however is not part of the Motion for Supervisory order.    The portion of Palmisano not disclosed by the Administrator discloses the weakness of the Administrator’s position and as the Administrator in its objection has quite articulately  stated he will not investigate the attorneys accused of Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of senior citizens such as Mary Sykes.   Thus, a supervisory order is extremely necessary if Senior citizens are going to be protected from court attorned Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation of Senior citizens.
[7] It is respectfully suggested that had the Administrator a scintilla of proof of jurisdiction being afforded to the Probate Court pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f) the Administrator would welcome an investigation into the Sykes case.    Unfortunately, it is very clear that for more than three years Mary Sykes has had her liberty taken from her.    Her personal property which is valued in excess of a million dollars has not been inventoried.     The two Guardian ad Litem who are the ‘eyes and ears’ of the court  instead of on the record reporting these facts to the Court have authored complaints to the ARDC to investigate the attorneys who have objected to the non-inventory of a million dollars in assets by a plenary guardian who was appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.   It is respectfully submitted that if this Court were to request the Administrator of the ARDC to produce credible documentary evidence that Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes two siblings were served with the 14 days’ notice the Administrator could not do so!
[8] The administrator’s attempt to distinguish Hunter exposes his embarrassment.    Hunter involved a measure of Commercial speech.    The Virginia Supreme Court dealt with the fact that where there is commercial speech the Court has some lee-way to protect the public; however, as to content based speech this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have evolved their opinions more in line with the opinions of Justice Black and Justice Douglas.   It is significant that the Administrator does not address Alvarez or the statement that was the basis of the Brown decision:
“government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. “ ‘From 1791 to the present,’ … the First Amendment has ‘permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,’ and has never ‘include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.’ ” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (quoting R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382–383, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447–449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam), and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)—represent “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” id., at 571–572, 62 S.Ct. 766.”  Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011)
[9] The issue is the fact that each one of us is reaching (or reached) senior citizen status and we might find ourselves being railroaded in to guardianship wherein we lose our liberty and property.
[10] The Administrator has pointed out in his objections that he has prosecutor discretion and if he does not wish to investigate the two guardian ad litem appointed by a court lacking jurisdiction et al that is strictly up to him.    Indeed, this is the reason that Ms. Denison would appreciate this Court directing law enforcement to examine the facts of the Sykes case and in particular determine:
1.       How could Mary Sykes be deprived of her liberty by a Court lacking jurisdiction (because of the failure to serve the 14 day Sodini notices) for so many years.
2.       How could a million dollars of uninventoried personal property (gold coins) be obtained by the plenary guardian?
3.       Why in Sykes are there two guardian ad litem and why did they not report the non-inventory of the assets of Mary Sykes?
4.       Why was an admission of neglect by the plenary guardian not reported to the Court by the plenary guardians
5.       Why was Mary Sykes isolated from her two siblings and younger daughter.     Why was Mary Sykes removed from her home, her activities, her friends, etc.
As the Illinois Legislature enacted 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq it obviously intended to protect senior citizens.    In the case of Mary Sykes and unfortunately many other seniors the protections have not been implemented.   The question that must be addressed is why not!    It is respectfully submitted that the Administrator’s objections may provide a suggestion.    Ms. Denison and her counsel respectfully request an investigation to ascertain the facts.   Illinois cannot afford another Greylord.
Ken Ditkowsky

 

 

Since the ARDC has problems answering Requests to Admit truthfully, here, I will help them

Dear Readers;

And in the grand style you have come to expect from this blog, where the ARDC has suggested that perhaps they don’t like it when I make up a pleading that someone cannot just do as an honest, ethical atty (see the blog where CF squeaks when I prepare a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction for her signature–you think she wet her pants that day), let’s try this on for Attys Haspel and Opryszek who seemed to totally flubbed their Answers to KDD”s Requests to Admit that were filed with extraordinary obfuscations, dishonesty and evasion.  If this is the best the ARDC can do—I’m just saying.

If any of us were that dishonest to a cop or other judicial official, our butts would be in jail.  You all know that.  But when the clout that is, asks for a flub, that’s what these two august ladies did–producing a fudging flub.

Now, if you’re an honest atty (and this is for all you new attys out there–unless you’re told to do it or else your job, you might be tempted to do what the ARDCatty-minions did, but I’m telling you, trash your job and quit–it’s better in the long run).

I’ve already told everyone that works for me if they EVER do anything like what the ARDC did, I WOULD HAVE THEIR HIDES! This includes the answers to the RFA, the bogus motion to Disqualify KDD and the Motion to Stike KDD’s discovery.  It’s all bogus and has no place in the Illinois court system.

Being dishonest and disingenious has no place in my office.  Leave that on the doormat.

So see below what HONEST attorneys do. They KNOW how to say the word ADMITTED.  They don’t fudge on it and don’t play ridiculous games.

Disgusting.  But if you don’t have the law, the facts or any case, play a lot of games and hope the tribunal is too stupid, mortified or has to go out and buy some ethics, morals and a backbone, and they can’t find the “cash for cars” store or whatever.

JoAnne

BEFORE THE  ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION  AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In Re:
JOANNE MARIE DENISON
Attorney-Respondent
Reg. No. 6192441    Commission No. 2013 PR 0001

PETITIONER ARDC’S ANSWERS TO
ATTY-RESPONDENT’S REQUESTS TO ADMIT
To:    Atty Joanne Denison, Respondent
1512 N. Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
via email joanne@denisonlaw.com
And Ken Ditkowsky: ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com – who was wrongfully DisQ as my attorney in a rubber stamp proceeding wherein the Tribunal used their “I ♥ ARDC” rubber stamp.  Try reading the cases next time.

As to matters referred to in case above-entitled;
1)    That in the Sykes case referred to in the Complaint filed herein all the required notices provided for by Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”  In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994) were not served on the persons who were required to be served with the said notices.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  The ARDC has carefully reviewed the blog at http://www.marygsykes.com, has finally figured out that the Declarations of the elder sisters and the younger daughter have been published for many long months on this website, they full indicated that the allegations contained in the ARDC complaint filed January 8, 2013 are completely FALSE and made up by persons at the ARDC having a biased interested in the matter and the ARDC humbly apologizes for prosecuting fully innocent and honest attorneys such as the likes of JoAnne Denison and Ken Ditkowsky and promises to never knowingly engage in such nefarious actions again.  Further the ARDC ADMITS that the blog, http://www.marygsykes.com is and was fully transparent and publishes supporting domentation, includng pleadings, affidavits and declarations of all probate victims and their families–whereas the ARDC’s blog is biased, one sided and does not permit comments or any supporting documents.  It only posts conclusory, self serving statements of nefarious persons such as the likes of Attys Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Probate judges Stuart and Connors who have been for many years, listed as “most wanted” which is not a laudatory position on NASGA and other highly respected probate watcher websites and blogs.  The ARDC is fully and completely ashamed of the fact it has not before admitted this is the honest and complete truth in the matter.
2)    That the facts contained in the affidavits that are attached to the motion to dismiss the instant complaint filed herein and executed by Gloria Sykes are true.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  The ARDC possesses no information to the contrary and has carefully review this declaration

3)    That the facts stated in the affidavit attached to the Motion to Dismiss filed herein executed by Scott Evans are true.

See answer to No. 2 above
4)    That the facts stated in the affidavit attached to the Motion to Dismiss filed herein executed by Yolanda Bakken are true.

Ditto and more humble pie.
5)    That the facts stated in the affidavit attached to the Motion to Dismiss filed herein executed by Josephine DiPietro are true.

Ditto and extra shame and humility for the fact that the Probate Courts on the 18th floor continue to turn a blind eye when elderly siblings are wrongfully and strenuously prevented from contacting an alleged disabled.  Disgusting.
6)    That the Circuit Court Common Law Record and Docket maintained by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County does not contain any evidence of service of the notices required to be served upon the siblings of Mary Sykes or the younger daughter of Mary Sykes such as a certificate or return of service for the notices required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10f.

RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  The ARDC has gotten its sorry and lame a** butt over to probate and found that the Blog http://www.marygsykes.com only speaks the truth.
7)    The the Administrator of the Illinois ARDC has found or has in his possession any tangible evidence that contradicts the sworn statements (affidavit) authored by Gloria Sykes attached to the Motion to Dismiss as exhibit 2.
See answer No. 6 above.
8)    That all citizens, including lawyers, enjoin the privileges and immunities of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

RESPONSE: ADMITTED.: Not only do US citizens enjoy the protections and immunities of the First Amendment to the US constitution and the relevant Article of the Illinois Constitution, but the ARDC will vigorously defend and protect against any miscreants from alleging nefarious and sleazy complaints against honest, ethical Illinois lawyers that blog and speak out against corruption and bring to light corruption in order to eliminate it.  The ARDC is not afraid of the words “corruption”, “Greylord” or even “Greylord II” which is the highest priority for the ARDC to investigate–the immunities and protections of Illinois senior citizens and the disabled.

9)    That all citizens, including lawyers, have the right to communicate to whomever is willing to listen to the facts involving corruption of judicial officials.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  This is and should be a highest priority of the ARDC and Attys Denison and Ditkowsky are and shall remain fully protected.

10)    That the Administrator of the Illinois ARDC has found no independent tangible evidence that any statement concerning ‘judicial officials’  disseminated  by JoAnne Denison and  referred to on her blog is not substantially true.  By independent we mean not a self-serving statement of Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Miriam Solo, Peter Schmiedel et al.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.

11)    That the Illinois ARDC was not given jurisdiction by any agency of the State of Illinois to censor the writings or other First Amendment exercises by lawyers.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  The free speech of lawyers is one of the greatest and most formidable protections in a democratic country, and when those protections are erroded, the country is likely to sink deeply into fascism and totalatarianism.  The ARDC fully agrees that DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT. (Quote from League of Women Voters–now we are attorneys and we’re only louder and mouthier).
12)    That the Illinois ARDC is required to give credence and follow the mandates of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Appellate Court.  (Simply put – we are asking you to admit whether or not Court rulings are the Law or if the ARDC can just ignore the Court Rulings).

RESPONSE: ADMITTED.
13)    That the Illinois Supreme Court in a published opinion wrote:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”
In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  While the ARDC is not required to admit statements of law, the ARDC will fully and completely admit that this law should be applied to each and every probate jurisdiction case inquiry–and this will include the likes of Sykes, Bedin, Wyman, Gore, Tyler and others.
14)    That the Circuit Court record in re: the Estate of Sykes contains no documents that indicate that the statement of the Supreme Court was complied with by the Carolyn Troepe prior to the appointment of her as plenary guardian of Mary Sykes.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  No one has ever supplied us with the crucial evidence, including the likes of the august and vernerable attys Farenga, Stern, Judges Stuart and Connors.
15)    That Illinois ARDC has received numerous citizen complaints concerning the conduct of Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  While citizen complaints are typically understood to be protected and confidential, too many have been published on http://www.marygsykes.com that we can ignore.  We read the blog to file complaints against KDD and JMD, so we must admit we have read the “numerous” complaints already published on that blog.  It is indeed shamefuly that attys and judges act so badly in the hallowed courts of Illinois and we readily admit it and are sorry.
16)    That the Illinois ARDC has taken no action on any of the complaints by citizens (including Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans,  Kenneth Ditkowsky, etc) against Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  See above.
17)    That the Illinois ARDC has received complaints by Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern against lawyers who have attempted to investigate the Sykes case or who have requested law enforcement to investigate the Sykes case including but not limited to respondent and her attorney.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.
18)    That the Illinois ARDC has brought charges against lawyers (including the instant respondent JoAnne Denison) who have requested law enforcement to investigate the Sykes case.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  Admitted.  It was and is a shameful means to shut up and censor lawyers that speak out against corruption and we promise to never do that again.
19)    That in bringing the ARDC charges the ARDC investigators have not attempted to ascertain if the charge that the Probate Division of the Circuit Court from time to time was not in compliance with the Illinois Supreme Court statement, to wit:
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.”  In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)

RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  And again, this is a shameful and sorry state of affairs in Illinois and it is no wonder that Illinois has the most sitting governors gone to prison for corruption.  And it also bespeaks the most lawyers and attorneys in the US gone to prison, retired or surrendered law licenses due to Greylord.  SOP and SNAFU are well alive and fully functional in Illinois government.
20)    Citizens including lawyers and in particular JoAnne Denison have a first amendment right to request and the investigation of the Sykes case.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.
21)    That the non-compliance with the criterion expressed by the words:
The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.  In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
Deprives the Circuit Court of jurisdiction and the actions of Farenga, Stern, et al a deprivation of the liberty, property, civil rights and human rights of Mary Sykes, a person entitled to the ‘parens patrie’ protections of the State.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.  And we know that Mary is NOT in a happy situation.  We admit her advance directives were to die in her home in Chicago–a home, family, friends and neighborhood she loved and was an intimate part of since the 1950’s.  Our not caring one whit about that is extraordinarily shameful and inexcusable.  We deeply and humbly apologize for not rectifying that horrible injustice at our earliest opportunity by conducting an investigation sooner and disciplining the likes of Farenga, Stern, Stuart and Connors.
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________

________________________

_________________________

__________________________

__________________________

______________________________

______________________________

(How many lines do I have to make for attorneys to apologize for the wrongs and injustices they have propogated against myself, Atty. Ditkowsky and MOST IMPORTANT, the families of Sykes, Wyman, Bedin, etc. and others?)  That’s why I’m making this form downloadable in RTF.  So the ARDC can add in all the lines they need. I hope every atty at the ARDC will sign and post as a comment on the blog or email to me for posting. )
Each of the attorneys at the ARDC who knew this and did nothing,
including Atty Leah Black, Administrator Jerome Larkin (who should give all his awards back as being no inspiration whatsoever to his future work), Attys Haspel and Opryszek and any others at the ARDC that look the other way and ignore patent injustices in the world of probate that terrorize senior citizens, the disabled and their families.

And here’s the RTF file, just in case they find morals, honesty, forthrighness, can utter the word “admitted”, can take out a loan and buy a backbone or whatever they need to answer Requests to Admit honestly and with the word ADMITTED, which they still can hardly seem to find.

RTF file so the ARDC can answer KDDs Requests to Admit HONESTLY

And what’s playing on the radio?  Billy Joel and his song “honesty”

Honesty is such a lonely word
Everyone is so untrue
Honesty is hardly ever heard
And mostly what I need from you

And how apropos, for me, for KDD and for the seniors and their families out there that depend upon HONESTY and JUSTICE from the courts

More on the First Amendment–what can lawyers say to the press?

Subject: Re: First Amendment

I am not a Brodsky ‘fan’ and mirror your opinions; however, when the judge sentenced Peterson the case was over.    The appeal is a separate proceeding which has a low chance of success.   In fact if you examine the record you will find that the judge leaned over backwards to give Peterson just about every break.      This judge was like Cesar’s wife – 100% pure and judicial.    He was faced with lawyers (led by Brodsky) who acted as clowns.   they wore similar outfits, sun glasses, gave absurd press conferences, and strutted like  ******.    Peterson acted like a juvenile delinquent.    the judge did not think that they stepped over the line as he did not order them to ‘grow up’ and he did not hold anyone in contempt.    
 
Thus, a jury found Peterson guilty.    It is going to be difficult sell to say that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and therefore the focus of an appeal is going to purely technical.   1) the hearsay evidence and 2) the incompetence of counsel.
 
Brodsky is a citizen of the United States of America and therefore protected by the First Amendment.     It may be heresy to think this way but the attack on Brodsky’s First Amendment Rights is an attack on our rights.    The fact that Brodsky did you wrong and would not stand up to protect your rights is irrelevant.    Any attempt to muzzle another citizen is intolerable.    The credo of America is “I may disagree with you, but I will fight to death to protect your right to do so!” 
 
This is an really important point in the fight against ‘elder abuse’ and ‘financial exploitation of the elderly’ by “judicial officials”      The ARDC and other lawyer regulators was not given any mandate or delegation to silence dissent, protest, or any speech.   The idea that lawyers can or should be intimidated is a novel custom but not a new one.    A lawyer is engaged to represent his clients best interest in an appropriate manner.     He is not engaged to win a popularity contest or develop a ‘fan club.’    The ARDC should spend its time investigating how it is that a Court sans jurisdiction allowed “judicial officials” under its supervision to separate your mother from her liberty, her property, and her human rights.     The ARDC and law enforcement should investigate how it is that a million dollars in gold coins was not inventoried by a ‘judicial official’ appointed by a Court sans jurisdiction.       The ARDC should investigation how in derogation of the mandate of the Article 11a of the Probate Act and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 755 ILCS 5/11a -18 Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and Troepe can isolate, segregate, and prevent your mother from calling you or visiting you (or her two siblings).    
 
I am aware Ms. Sykes that the ARDC apparently finds nothing wrong with the aforesaid acts as it investigates Ms. Denison and myself for complaining about the ‘above’ situation, writing to the Attorney General of the United States and other citizens about this situation.    The fact is however, that one wrong does not make another wrong right!     The fact is that Democracy is not a spectator sport and we have to stand up and be counted not only when the Civil rights of friends are being violated, but also when those we do not hold in high regard are also threatened.    
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And the breaking news from the ARDC today is…..

Not very exciting.  They basically spend taxpayers dollars to tell me they won’t email anything and they don’t have efiling.  As you are aware, I also asked them for some time to chat about the case and get some information from them, but their letter seems to imply they’re not much interested in that.

See the letter below

Letter from ARDC that they DO NOT do email

and my and Ken’s reponse is below.

Dear Jessica and Sharon;

I sent a copy of my email to Ken, and he suggested the below, and you know he’s right, so I’m adopting that too as my response to your letter.

He thinks I should make it clear the two of you need to write up a complaint against yourselves for not investigating Mary Sykes who has been deprived of her liberty, property, human rights, civil rights and deserves to go back home and live with Gloria as she had for 10 years. The missing funds should also be investigated.  There is a money trail you know.  It’s all on the blog and I know Gloria has sent the ARDC numerous complaints only to have them end up in the huge vortex of ARDC circular files.  John Wyman I know has sent complaints to the ARDC, or I have for him.

I also have to add in Carol Wyman and Katherine Spera and atty Sharon Rudy and atty Kim Timmerwilke McKenzie who know these case are without jurisdiction.

Did you get John Wyman’s book?  I knew right away when I read that book there was jurisdiction clearly lacking because the hearing was to be on 7-9-09 but on 7-6-09 the hearing was set to that same day, without notice to anyone and Powel Wyman, a known abuser was appointed Guardian.  Amazing, utterly amazing.

Dominic Spera’s complaint will be forthcoming soon as we determine the massive damage Sharon Rudy has foisted upon him and his family, and poor Katherine Spera most of all who sits in a nursing home where she never wanted to be.And yet the ARDC does nothing about it.

I hope and pray someday the ARDC will take these horror stories of deprivation of liberty, property, human rights and civil rights seriously.  These are not just the elderly, frail and infirm but they are human beings whose rights should never have been violated in the first place.

thanks

joanne

cc:  http://www.marygsykes.com

 

Dear ____,
The Illinois ARDC has a mission to address unethical conduct on the part of attorneys.    This mission arose to a great extent out of the Greylord era wherein a large number of ‘judicial officials’ and others were tried and convicted of serious crimes while the mechanism for protecting the public failed.
The mandate to the ARDC was not to ‘lord it over’ the members of the legal profession, but to protect the Rights, Privileges and Immunities of All citizens.    As you are totally aware my blog is 99.9% accurate, however, the pleadings that you have filed are misleading and unethically attempt to deny me my Rights, Privileges and Immunities.      It is obvious that if you did a scintilla of investigation you would have determined that the ‘so called’ “judicial officials” have for more than 3 years denied a ‘senior citizen’ of her liberty and property rights.    Indeed, you would have ascertained the jurisdictional requirement of 11a -10(f) has not been complied with and as determined by the Supreme Court of Illinois the ‘judicial officials’ have been appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.
Let me respectfully suggest to you that pursuant to my Himmel responsibility let this letter be a formal complaint against both of you for not informing the panel when you knew or should have known that the jurisdictional criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq, and in particular 5/11a – 10 had not been following.     The ‘games playing’ of nitpicking my discovery request is interesting but just compounds the unethical behavior.  The unethical conduct of attempting to deny me my First Amendment Rights is repulsive and abhorrent.
Mr.Ditkowsky on my behalf as filed with the Illinois Supreme Court a motion for a supervisory order.   The rationale for this motion is very simple – This is the United States of America and last I heard there were some basic propositions that were in full force and effect i.e. you are I are equal before the law, and I have an absolute right to complain and speak out against the evil of a 90 year old lady being sequestered in the home of a person she appropriate claimed to have abused her so that she (Mary Sykes) could be denied her liberty and property by order of a Court that lacks jurisdiction.    I as an America have a right to speak out and ‘blog’ to the public this act of terrorism by the “judicial officials’ who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.
Simply put – if you have evidence that my blog is untruthful – let’s see it.   If you have no evidence as a public employee having a fiduciary relationship to the public admit your error and dismiss this obscene disciplinary action.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Dear Jessica;

I just got you snail mail letter today and please confirm that there is nothing else you have sent me since the last pleading I received which I believe was (gotta check those scans) your motion to strike discovery.

The reason why I ask and I have to use email is basically our postal lady I think is blind and walks very slow with a limp. I think she has trouble with our building because she has to walk up 5 stairs.  She’s real nice and all, but she does skip days and she often puts the mail in the wrong slot, which wouldn’t normally be a problem, except for the fact that some of the tenants in our building are architects and we have Claire Simon here and many of them are either out of town for days, or they only work a few days a week.  I’m sure she has a family to feed and all so I don’t want to complain about her because she’s nice.  But statistics are that 95% of the mail gets delivered in 5 days and the rest is unknown as to where that goes. 

So please do not depend on my mail because you will be sorely disappointed.

Since I do patent work and deal with high tech companies and inventors most of the time, 95% of my correspondence is via email so I don’t have a problem with the mail situation in my building.

Also, I am adopting Ken’s Discovery because I think he did a really good job and he is a wonderful, wonderful lawyer.  Don’t you agree?

Let me know if you want me to file a formal appearance with respect to that Motion to Strike so the discovery can get done.

I can redo the part about not having the warning. Do you really want that?

Of course, if you request it, I can snail mail your stuff.  But I hate it when attys tell me (and this happens more frequently than one might think) “I didn’t get it” and then it’s a do over and everything gets pushed back.  Arrrrgh.

Besides all of this email and efiling will be coming any day now, I’m sure so we all have to be prepared and Johnny on the Spot (or is that Jane on the Spot too since 1972 and the EEOC!)

Hmm, just wondering.

So, just let me know.  And I’m also looking forward to a little chat about this case with you ladies soon, so let me know when we can do a little coffee or tea talk.

And I am looking for a new attorney specializing in First Amendment rights, I send out about 20 emails a day but so far NSL.  Most just respond and have a few words (or paragraphs) about your complaint I will not repeat here.  Some cannot be published.  I also have received quite a few phone calls, but no takers yet on the rep thing. I will let you know first thing though.

thanks and take care and have a blessed day

joanne

cc:  MaryGSykes blog

It’s just so refreshing to hear from a supporter that’s a Bar member

and tells me not to use his name because it’s “too risky.”

Love it, well I’m taking the risk for all of you out there.  Keep me in your thoughts and prayers as this case develops.

From: JoAnne M Denison [mailto:jdenison@surfree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:24 AM
To: C — C—–
Subject: Re: corruption

Dear C_____;

OKay to publish your comments?  Withour without your name?

I have a real battle with the ARDC and you know they are on very shaky ground with my blog.

thanks so very much for your support and keep on reading my blog.  I unearth more and more stories everyday.

take care

joanne

—–Original Message—–
From: Anonymous
Sent: Feb 27, 2013 11:05 AM
To: joanne@denisonlaw.com
Subject: corruption

Good on you Joanne.  I have practiced for 40+ years, during most of which I have been frustrated with courts who, though not patently corrupt, are at the very least guilty of benign neglect while paid fiduciaries, their minions and their representatives looted the estates of the helpless.  Until recently, in [state redacted] private fiduciaries were given a free hand until corruption was exposed in M**** [county redacted] County.  Corruption is corruption whether active or passive.  We need real reform.  Hang in there.

Signed [name and address redacted]

From Joanne;

You know its a sorry state of affairs in the “land of the free and brave” when even LAWYERS are afraid to speak out against corruption, patent or covert, begin or active–it’s all the same.  JUSTICE WAS NOT DONE.  Judges that don’t follow the laws, GAL’s that tell the court uninventoried assets are imaginary rather than conducting an investigation.  Seniors kept wrongfully from their homes in guardianships lacking jurisdiction.

Day in and day out I hear these stories, some I can publish, some I can redact, some I cannot because the families are too embarrassed, fear reprisals, whatever, they ask me not to publish their stories so I don’t.  I live with their horrors and their injustices.

Atty Ken Ditkowsky’s email to Peter Schmeidel, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 26, 2013 7:05 PM
To: JoAnne Denison , Cynthia Farenga , Peter Schmiedel , Adam Stern
Subject: FYI

JoAnne,
We were surprised when we discovered that we have to wait until March 1 to file things electronically.     [Please note, dear readers, the SCOI issued an order but forgot to change the “efiling instructions” online.  They still read that efiling to SCOI is available starting 02-12-13 when in fact they issued a subsequent Order to delay this to March 1, 2013] This afternoon, Larry delivered the paper copies to the post office and they will be delivered tomorrow.    Yesterday, I caused to be e-mailed to Farenga, Schmiedel and Stern as interested persons a copy of the Motion and the exhibits.    We also sent each a paper copy.    The postman is going to get a hernia these things are so heavy.   We also sent copies to the ARDC attorneys and the Administrator.     If there is anything that does not arrive, Larry will be happy to e-mail copies.
That said, copies were electronically sent to law enforcement as the prime purpose of the Motion is to get the Supreme Court to force the legal profession to ‘honor’ the First Amendment as it is core of our civilization and to order an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes affair.    As the Supreme Court has acknowledged that jurisdiction cannot exist unless 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is followed this situation may also be a fifty and fourteenth Amendment matter.    We have therefore forwarded a copy to the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department.
Frankly, I cannot see any justification for this facade to continue on.     Everyone knows that the 10(f) Sodini notices were never given and thus our judicial officials were appointed by a Court that lack jurisdiction.     Thus, they are not ‘judicial officials.’     For the record – that is not a threat!   It is fact and at this point in time they run but they cannot hide.   It is still not too late to do the ‘right thing!’      Mary is alive and still wants to go home and still wants to rejoin her sisters, her family, her younger daughter and he garden club.    As I told Gloria – there is no percentage in asking the ‘judicial officials’ to do what is right.   Too bad.  (I copied each of them in the hope that they would allow Mary her life back for the few moments that she has left and so that they know what I sent them and if there is a document that they did not receive all they have to do is call Mr. Chambers at my office)
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

More flotsam and jetsam from the ARDC

Well, in the continuing vein, if you don’t have a real case, the ARDC just snail mailed me this (uuugh–snail mail, who uses it unless absolutely forced to do so?)

ARDC Motion to Strike Discovery Requests

You know, most attorneys know you have to answer Requests to Admit so they will not be automatically deemed admitted by operation of law.  You’re all supposed to do a Notice of Filing and file them in Cook County Circuit Court and then also file the Answers that way because there have been tons of argument over when they were served and when they must be returned under the seminal case of Bright v. Dicke

The ARDC should know all that.

But apparently, that is their grounds for striking Ken’s perfectly good discovery.

I have never pulled that one before and I’m not going to.  Unless opposing counsel answers them late, I’m not going to kick up a fuss. Most of the time, there’s a judge there noting the fact you are just being petty. At least that’s my experience.  Unless it’s substantive, don’t mess with it.

One of my biggest issues is not serving everything by email and asking if someone needs a paper copy (ie, a need to waste paper and trees), and if you’re going to serve discovery, at least turn over the original documents so answers can be typed directly in.

Other than that, who cares about trying to get rid of discovery. It gets you to the merits of a case quickly and it SHOULD be used.  Freely, without pettiness.

I have no idea why the Administrator is fighting discovery and does not want any.  It makes absolutely no sense to me.

And they could have asked me first if I wanted to file an appearance or strike my discovery–I would have replied I’d file an appearance for the purpose of moving along discovery, if they wanted that.

So tomorrow, we need to wast more trees, pixels and what not and get this done–even though I have actual clients to help out who are laboring under a lack of jurisdiction in Probate court.

I have real matters to attend to.  And if the ARDC thinks that by flinging paper at me, somehow these cases will suddenly attain jurisdiction because I am distracted, they have another thing come.

I work all day, late every day, late into the night.  And then I get up again the next day just to be sure some august senior of ours is not deprived of life, liberty, property, human and civil rights.

Perhaps the lovely ladies at the ARDC think this will never happen to them–they will never be the little old lady with a paid in house, paid up bank account, assets, safe deposit boxes, and along comes a greedy aspiring plenary guardian ready to jump in and engage in all the horror stories you, my readers have written me about.  The most shocking by far is operating a court without jurisdiction–no summons and complaint, affidavit of service, no Sodini 10(f) notices to all your relatives.  Only the greedy, no need to inventory relatives will get that notice.  Someday they might be in Carol Wyman’s nursing home, being sexually assaulted at night for days in a row, wanting to go home, but being shot up with Risperdol, Halodol–held down and fighting it–all against her will.  And then finally, with a severe loss of blood (down one pint and near death), she is severely beaten with a face and torso full of bruises and she manages to escape and her beloved sons–John and William drive into the night 1200 miles cross county to save her.

The ARDC ladies say I am lying.  I am not.  Everything I have said to you all is true and the proof is up on this blog.

Want the proof of the nursing home beatings upon Mrs. Carol Wyman?

Carol Wyman Beating Report

And someday when the likes of Atty Jessica Haspel, Atty Jerome Larkin, and Atty Opryszek are in a nursing home (and we KNOW how dangerous those for profit places are) and they don’t want to be there, and they are beaten and sexually abused and they want to go home, but they have no money because someone uninventoried THEIR wealth conveniently and secretly and the GAL’s pipe “it’s imagined, it’s imagined” to the court,

YOU KNOW I WILL BE THERE FOR THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN.

and don’t think you all are immune, I already know at least 3 attorneys with wealthy fathers and mothers WHOSE PARENTS WERE PUT INTO A NURSING HOME BY A STATE GUARDIAN, THE GUARDIANS ARE FEASTING OFF THE ESTATE, AND MOM AND DAD ARE BEING ISOLATED and their advance directives were they never wanted to go to a nursing home.

Don’t think because you’re an attorney, you are immune.  These attorneys did well in court, were well liked by judges, but the minute they stepped into probate their world was turned upside down.

And don’t think for a minute the attorneys at the ARDC will come running to your rescue and do your junk for free and believe in the justice of it all.  For every 10 attorneys coming through my office, 95% look the other way and don’t want to get involved in doing something for free that is difficult, complex and with the ARDC on my back, dangerous.

Very few do what Ken and I do.

JoAnne

Response to ARDC–don’t let them sleep, don’t let them rest until Mary Sykes and Carol Wyman are back in their own homes!

Mary Sykes wants to go home and live in her own home.  So does Carol Wyman.  But the State of Illinois sponsors the senior relocation program to another place and sells the home they have loved and wanted to live in until they die–all under a program called “guardianship without jurisdiction.”

The ARDC looks the other way, a source tells me the JIB (Judicial Inquiry Board) is worthless and hopeless.

So what do Ken and I do?  We rally!  That’s right, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

Read on and enjoy.

LawOffices
KENNETH DITKOWSKY
February 12,2013
Ms. Myrra B. Guzman
Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Conunission
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219
Re: Honest, Complete, and Comprehensive Investigation
Dear Ms. Guzman;
Thank for your letter of February 11,2013.
5940 W. Touhy, Suite 230
Niles, IL 60714
(847) 600-3421 Telephone
(847) 600-3425 Fax
Email: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
The content of the letter surprises me as quite obviously at this point in time the ARDC knows that for the past 3+ years a senior citizen has been denied her liberty, property, civil and human rights by proceedings that were in direct violation of the law. As a ‘senior attorney’ for the ARDC, you, Ms. Black and the Administrator were all aware ofthe Illinois Supreme Court statement;
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and sununons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (11 1. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 11O~, par. 11 a-lO( e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill. Rev . Stat. 1989 , ch. 110, par. 11 a-I O(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988),172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530.” In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 13,630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994).
I trust that at this point in time the Administrator has examined the Court file in Sykes and discovered that Ms. Gloria Sykes and her two aunts (all of whom were entitled to 14-days notice) never received the notices and in fact they were not included in the petition to which in fact severed Mary Sykes from her liberty and property interests. It
therefore follows that the actions and conduct of Ms. Cynthia Farenga, Mr. Adam Stern, Mr. Peter Schmiedel and a host of other lawyers is not only questionable but might be criminal.
I note the ARDC is quick, without a scintilla of evidence to aver that the messenger is lying; however, when the transcript of Ms. Farenga’s testimony is written and exposed to clear light of daylight it will be again revealed that she testified that she was not present when Carolyn Toerpe had Ms. Sykes’ safety deposit drilled and the substantial number of gold coins disappeared or at least were not inventoried. (see Ms. Gloria Sykes’ affidavit). Thus, as Ms. Gloria Sykes (who was an owner ofthe safety deposit box) and her aunt both have
pointed out the size and the contents of the container containing the coins that was removed (and not inventoried) and Ms. Farenga (but not Ms. Toerpe) has been denying the existence ofthe collectibles is it not the duty of the ARDC to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of 1) why Ms. Farenga is denying a fact that she has admitted to knowledge concerning, and 2) how attorneys have not investigated the
disappearance of property belonging to a person who has without jurisdiction been deprived of her liberty and property?
• Page 2 February 12,2013
It is rather suspicious that the only disciplinary proceedings that are taking place are those involving the messengers, It is suspicious that ‘judicial officials’ who continue to act for 3+ years in derogation of the clear statement of the Supreme Court of Illinois (cited supra) are given immunity while the rights of both Ms. Denison and myself have been trampled. It is suspicious that the clear prohibition on attempts to silence ‘content’ based speech are ignored by the ARDC in invor of filing groundless disciplinary complaints against
the messengers who are duty bound by Himmel to report the conduct of Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al.
Very Truly Yours
Kenneth Ditkowsky
KKD/lgc
Cc: clients

Ken we need to send cc’s to the FBI.  I think you are right the FBI had all those documents but kindly returned them when Gloria’s appeal was due.  Where else could they have gone?

Where to comment on my blog—

While my blog is exploding, there are some places that everyone can comment.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_blog_posts_about_sleazy_world_of_probate_bring_ethics_complaint/

Is a great place to post your comments.  Do you know anything about corruption in probate?  Better yet, what do you know about first Amendment rights and the right of an attorney to blog in court so the public knows what is going on?

http://lawandmore.typepad.com/law_and_more/2013/02/joanne-denison-hit-with-ethics-violation-now-that-blogging-is-mature-medium.html

another place to comment–

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_blog_posts_about_sleazy_world_of_probate_bring_ethics_complaint/

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/2013/02/attorney-faces-possible-disciplinary-action-for-her-blog.html

http://blogs.delphiforums.com/glenashman?entry=1191

http://www.globallegalpost.com/global-view/patent-lawyer-in-hot-water-over-blog-64101574/index.cfm#.URMrMPIYqd4

Post away and have fun.

I was also on “Cooper’s Corner” tonight with Bev Cooper and that show was live and will air 250,000 North Shore households over the next week or so.

I will post the video here when it becomes available.

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:

http://www.emrandhipaa.com/emr-and-hipaa/2009/01/14/obama-wants-full-ehr-by-2014/

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

JoAnne
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.

thanks

joanne

sykesblog-KDltrs-JMDardcpanel

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

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

 

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.

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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

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

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

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
JoAnne

 

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 <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>
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 <Larry.Chambers@ditkowskylawoffice.com>
To: ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com
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

Janet,

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
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

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!
JoAnne

 

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.

 

JoAnne

 

 

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.

JoAnne

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/FTC_v_1983.htm

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 <lisa@belangerlawoffice.com>
To: JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>; kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>;
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 ;

 http://www.massfamilybusiness.com/Docs/FamilyBusinessPubl_2010_Q1.pdf 

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 firstname.lastname@usdoj.gov.  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

joanne

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

Regards,

JoAnne