Tag Archives: probate court

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

Posted on by
6

Dear Ken,

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Lanre Amu–his Supreme Court Brief

Posted on by
1

Dear Readers;

Please take a look at the following:

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

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

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

There are many similarities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) commit a crime;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the bill stated:

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

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

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

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

Price v. Indiana

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

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

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

Mr Amu’s recent brief can be found here:

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

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

You go, girl.

From a probate victim writing a book, should we mince words?

Posted on by
2

Dear Readers;

I had a probate victim write me to day and ask the ultimate question–should I mince words.  She opined no one would believe her story, and many probate victims ask if they should write their stories as works of fiction.

My answer.  Heck no!  If you are indeed a probate victim, believe it or not, your story is a precious gift, and you must tell it, if you are a writer or if you know a writer.

And of course, Ken and I must ask ourselves constantly in light of threats from the ARDC, certain attorneys and court, that we must not reveal publicly some shameful behavior we have observed in and out of the courtroom, and we should not tell our truths as we see it, putting aside the Bill of Rights and our First Amendment rights to reveal this insidious evil–the trashing of civil rights and human rights of disableds.

But I always, always ask the Divine Ones for the answer–not the confused, lonely and corrupted souls on this earth about where I need to go and what I need to say, knowing I can have the protection of 1,000 angels, something NOT available to them who hide in fear chasing greed and money.

See my answer to her below.

JoAnne

Dear Friend;

You asked if you should change your book so that it is 1) more believable; 2) more politically correct; 3) less harsh and not your true feelings.  My answer to you is no, no, no.  You must speak your truth and no one else’s. It does no one any good for you to not speak up.  I believe there is a plan and purpose for everything.  You defeat the purpose and plan when you do not go where your heart tells you to go and say what your heart tells you to say, honestly and completely.  It is not up to you to mince your truth because you are afraid, you think the recipient might not take it so well, etc.  You have to put those fears aside and still speak your truth.  It is your truth and not someone else’s.  No one is here to judge you, so let that one go.  The righteous will stand by you and those that are still learning but cannot yet comprehend or stand the truth, will fall away.  You will see.  Your only job is to go and deliver and go and speak out.

 Review the Sarah Barrielles song on this point.

lyrics are at http://www.metrolyrics.com/brave-lyrics-sara-bareilles.html

what does Ms. Sarah have to say on these points?

You can be amazing
You can turn a phrase….. you can start speaking up
Nothing’s gonna hurt you…..(but)
Kept on the inside and no sunlight
Sometimes the shadow wins

There are other songs on this point, but she is right.  Don’t hold it in, get it out.  Speak your truth, your justice–what you need to say.  The only danger is in not speaking up and out.  Not speaking your truth and holding it in, clogs up your throat chakra!
But I wonder what would happen if you

Say what you wanna say
And let the words fall out
Honestly I wanna see you be brave

the people that don’t speak out and don’t say what needs to be said, are all too common.  There are millions of them. But those that are the best will speak out against injustice, evil and greed.

Everybody’s been there, everybody’s been stared down
By the enemy
Fallen for the fear and done some disappearing
Don’t run, stop holding your tongue

and we’ve all done it.  we’ve all walked away when we should have said something, done something, written something.  But you can make up that karma today.  Today is a new day to do something about this.
Maybe there’s a way out of the cage where you live
Maybe one of these days you can let the light in
Show me how big your brave is

And this song goes on with more truths and more sustenance for the soul, most notably:

And since your history of silence
Won’t do you any good
Did you think it would?
Let your words be anything but empty
Why don’t you tell them the truth?

I don’t think I could have said it better.  I know too many probate victims, downtrodden, fearful, maligned, beaten up, abused–who will no longer speak up and out.

Time to stop that nonsense.

On the days when you cannot speak out, publish on a blog what you want to say, please listen to the song Brave by Sarah Bareilles.  She packs a whole lot of wisdom into one 3 minute song.


(they actually play this in the church where I go)

You have been given  a great gift of a life and karma that no one else has.  You survived it.  It’s your experience and only you own it.

Reach in your heart and then write what your heart tells you.  It is actually your obligation to deliver your truth.  It is not up to you to figure out how the recipient takes it or if they like it, believe it or will stand up and support your need for righteousness.

If you write so that you are not speaking your truth, then you haven’t learned this lesson and there will be more lessons.

You have been given a precious and valuable gift, whether you know it or not.  Now you have to tell your truth.

I will for sure promote your book and anyone else’s that tells these stories properly, with the unvarnished truth.

Thank you for all you do for the probate victims.

I wish you many blessings, peace and love.

JoAnne

Copyright notice:  the above lyrics are used based upon a license found at:

https://www.sonyatv.com/index.php/contact which allows for use of Sony/ATV lyrics for personal/noncommercial use on blogs and in other manners.  This is a non-commercial blog which is not sold or otherwise distributed.

To the IARDC today, I am NOT going to file a dispostive motion and here’s why

Posted on by
2

To Ken Ditkowsky who asks me to file a couple of dispositive motions:

Since the rules are that I cannot file a dispostive motion before the trial, I would prefer to file a series of notices with the IARDC that their jig is up. dismiss me because I’m going to the feds and I’m publishing ******s.  The ***** on record for Jerome Larkin being “taken care of” is despicable!  They do not publish salaries.

I disagree that this is a case for either a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim or a Summary Judgment Motion.  These people are ***** and they should dismiss of their own accord AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE TRIBUNAL.

They have not filed their ethical disclosures which are mandated by law, their ******** are a disgrace.  They admit they do not recognize the US constitution, the Illinois constitution, The Elder Abuse Act, 47 USC 230, they are ******l and they support attorneys and judges that are equally unjustly and without cause wreck the lives of Sykes, Taylor, Gore, Bedin, Wyman, Payton, etc.

They drain bank accounts and sell homes and order people to nursing homes against their will and often without jurisdiction.

They rendered Dom Spera homeless for 6 month when he had $***** in joint accounts with his mother and was beneficiary on the rest.

I don’t need a dispostive motion, like what we have demanded in Sykes, I WANT THE ARDC TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DISMISS against you, me and Atty Lanre.  I read his Exceptions to the Review Board and I don’t know who reviews their writings who is in his or her right mind, but that decision rendered reeks of serious logical flaws and *****.

Since that panel cannot figure it out, I will write up another (sigh) detailed report to them. They think they’re right, they think they’re smart, but when you actually PAY ATTENTION to what they write and do not doze off over the long, boring pages, you realize IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER at its best and at it’s worst it appears to be a sheer, CYA operation and that’s JMHO.

joanne

PS–I’m putting this on the blog right now and without the gory details. Let SO and MS guess.  And btw after we had a huge argument over mailing and their BS over certificates of service, the ARDC included a self addressed stamped envelope for my reply  Too bad it was insufficent postage  60 cents does NOT cover an original and three copies, Ms. Smart.  Nice try, but that will not get you a gold star in life.  Every mailing to the ARDC costs me at least $3 to $5 and a a s ton of paper (to quote my daughter).  I note they are not paying for my 3 cases of copier paper every two months either–most of which is their filings and nonsense.

 

From Ken D.

JoAnne,

 
The reason for a dispositive motion is to give Mr. Larkin and the IARDC every opportunity to comply with the law and to inform the panel of the fact that 
 
1) they have no jurisdiction and as lawyers are charged with knowing that without jurisdiction there is no immunity.   The lawyers should know that the IARDC attorneys have misrepresented the Supreme Court cases of the last century and have ignored the most recent cases that set the RULE OF LAW.    A clear example is the Sawyer case which not only upheld Attorney Sawyer’s rights of Free Speech but pointed out that tradition did not trump the Constitution.
 
2) It is a violation of the public policy of the State of Illinois for any government agency (Judicial, Legislative, or Administrative) to interfere with the First Amendment Rights of citizens .   735 ILCS 110/5 restates the public policy of the State and County of DeWitt 298 Ill App3d 634 points out that actions in violation of the public policy will not be protected.
 
3) 42 USCA 1983 provides criminal and civil penalties against the individuals who use the ‘color ‘ of statute to deprive others of their First Amendment Rights.   In light of the foregoing lack of jurisdiction and the public policy of the State of Illinois Mr. Larkin, his panels, and his staff lack jurisdiction.
 
4) As to Attorney Emu – 42 USCA 1981 is applicable 
 
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require not only an investigation but something resembling a ‘safe harbor’ warning to people like those at the IARDC.     It is true that all the Himmel notices that we have been sending and the blog postings are more than sufficient; however, it appears that some members of the panels are being snowed by the IARDC staff and they should have the opportunity to indicate if they are acting in concert with those who are using their position as employees of the State of Illinois (IARDC) to undermine the Constitutional Rights of American citizens.    
I’ve copied this e-mail to the IARDC.    If they wish to ignore it, that is their privilege.  I’ve also copied law enforcement as the assault on the First Amendment by government is a serious matter and pursuant to the First Amendment I am demanding that law enforcement take such action as might be required to act affirmatively in stopping the criminal activity of violation of citizen civil
rights.
Government pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is limited and in particular required to respect every citizen’s First Amendment Rights.    Judges are elected in Illinois, and no agency of government has the right to restrict political speech or content related speech.

Department of Justice Report on Elder Absue and Exploitation

Posted on by
Reply

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

Report by US Dept. of Justice concerning Elder Abuse

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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