Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
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 , “email@example.com” , Cook Sheriff , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , GLORIA SYKES
Subject: The WAR ON THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED
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:
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):
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
JOANNE MARIE DENISON
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
And Ken Ditkowsky: email@example.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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
Some time ago, one of the deacons at our church wrote to me and said that he was asking what to pray for for our family and of course I told him THIS BLOG, THE RIGHTS OF LAWYERS TO BLOG ABOUT CORRUPTION TO HELP ELIMINATE IT, and the RIGHTS OF SENIORS to find justice in the Illinois probate courts.
Not too much longer, out came the Horace Hunter case, which, as you know enabled me to Renew my Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (blogging about corruption should NOT be wrongful in the US where we have free speech rights) and also to file additional motions to ensure that Justice is done in my case. I also personally thanked Horace Hunter of VA for the fine work he did in making sure that lawyers have first amendment rights, even if his blog was in fact commercial speech, it is important because it clearly affirms my rights to run a non commercial blog and say what I need to in order to get the word out that something is highly amiss in many, many probate cases.
Here is the email from the church in which they affirmed prayers for this blog and the seniors and infirm it protects:
Just so you all know, Tim Lahrman is a great guy who has help many a probate abuse victim behind the scenes. He is hard working and dedicated.
What he sent me today was this:
Subject: Re: First Amendment
As you know I have been amazingly busy with the ARDC complaint filed against me and all the cases I have where jurisdiction has been lacking but I represent YOU on this blog and via this blog–the person without any money or any hope, or I’m just helping you with free legal advice–cleaning up the mess and corruption we all know is rampant in Cook County Circuit court (well, except for the ARDC in their ivory towers).
On Thursday, the Virginia State Bar Assn just gave us a HUGE, huge gift for this blog, in the decision of Horace Hunter v. Virginia Bar. I don’t have the cite, but you can google it–it’s everywhere and I’m attaching it here:
In the above case, Mr. Horace Hunter was charged with atty rules violations for 1) not providing a sufficient disclaimer on his blog (he only had one on the main blog page and the VBS wanted one of those “results not typical” on EVERY post–incredible burden if you’re a blogger, plus who wants to read THAT more than once per decade; and 2) he published the names of clients (horrors) on cases where he won. The VBS argued this is was “betraying client confidentiality” (as if THAT’s possible on the internet today–get rid of Google search first before you say that one, plus all social media–someone will be yacking about what you did yesterday while drunk or high and can’t recall).
Summary: the Virginia Supreme Court held that 1) relating those names on a blog is NOT confidential; and 2) they adopted the trial court’s finding that publishing a disclaimed requested by the Virginia State Bar ONCE on the blog is enough.
You go, Virginia Supreme Court.
So what does all this do to the ARDC’s position?
To get to the nitty gritty details, if you read the Horace Hunger case (I gotta contact this guy), they said that his speech was commercial and not political. That’s an important difference in the world of SCOTUS and free speech. Commercial speech MAY be regulated as long as you can show 1) the state has a compelling interest to regulate the speech (the Virginia Supremes found that VBS MAY regulate atty blogs consisting of commercial speech); and 2) there is some compelling problem to be solved by doing so; and 3) the problem is solved in the least restrictive manner.
To begin with, Horace Hunter’s blog could easily be found to be commercial speech. 1) it was on his firm website–not an independent web site; 2) it touted 99% of the time the “amazing results” of the case by his firm; 3) on the blog website it provided contact information for his firm under “contact us”; 4) the cases he was bragging about were only ones done by his firm; 5) only he or his firm could post; 6) there were no public comments–moderated or otherwise; 7) it was clear the blog was 95% used as a way to get clients in an area his firm specialized in; 8) it was part of his advertising and means for profit.
You will note on the “www.marygsykes.com” website, 1) I have dedicated this website to eliminating corruption in the circuit court; 2) I do NOT list or advertise anywhere on my posts to contact me or my firm for “probate work” (Yikes–I’m scared even to think about it); 3) on my regular website, I have my firm phone number, fax number, emails of myself and my staff–even cell phone number, but you won’t find it here and I’m not mentioning it again; 4) I NEVER have advertised I specialize or WILL EVEN DO PROBATE (tho, I will do it, IF I am told no other lawyer will take their case they have been to at least a dozen and it is meritorious and they have no money–but shouldn’t ALL lawyers do this?); 5) the vast majority of the time, even if there is a problem in probate, for free or a donation, I can advise people on HOW TO GET THE GAL’S or other attys in court TO DO THEIR JOB. When people contact me, most of the time there’s just a lawyer or two or three that’s not doing their job and I’m just an unseen second opinion, once the attys already on the case-generally the GAL sees the client is savvy and just asking them to do the job they were hired to do, they stop getting away with a crap job and the problems are solved; 6) the posts on my blog come from everywhere and everyone–no one is excluded, I only ask that your stuff be readable and verifiable by sending me court documents which I will post; 7) I allow for and 99% post comments–everyone’s opinion and story is important; 8) my work on this blog is billed (as it should be) to “cost of corruption” published here. At the end of the year when the ARDC asks for my “pro bono” hours, that’s what I put down.
THIS BLOG IS PRO BONO AND INDEPENDENT. I do not solicit clients here or want probate work.
I honest can’t say how I would get profitable work from my blog. It is mostly a drain on me and I do it for you, the reader and for all of us that want honest, decent, lawyers, courts and judges. It is especially important in probate that everyone does an honest, decent job–despite the fact there may be all sorts of money and profiteering to grab. By letting the public know what is going on, hopefully we can encourage everyone to be honest, reasonable, stop the isolation of grandma, stop declaring her incompetent without jurisdiction, stop the nonsense in probate court.
I simply don’t understand how the likes of Miriam Solo, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga can keep children from their parents or force them to pay $160 per hour from some wired in agency to isolate grandma. It should be a nationwide scandal and disgrace.
Getting back to Horace Hunter, favorite case quotes:
In this appeal of right by an attorney from a Virginia State Bar (“VSB”) disciplinary proceeding before a three judge panel appointed pursuant to Code § 54.1-3935, we consider whether an attorney’s blog posts are commercial speech, whether an attorney may discuss public information related to a client without the client’s consent, and whether the panel ordered the attorney to post a disclaimer that is insufficient under Rule 7.2(a)(3) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct…….
In response to these allegations, Hunter contends that speech concerning the judicial system is “quintessentially ‘political speech’” which is within the marketplace of ideas…..
The VSB responds that Hunter’s blog posts are inherently misleading commercial speech.
“Whether the inherent character of a statement places it beyond the protection of the First Amendment is a question of law over which . . . this Court . . . exercise[s] de novo review.” Peel v. Atty. Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n, 496 U.S. 91, 108 (1990). An appellate Court must independently examine the entire record in First Amendment cases to ensure that “ ‘a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression’ ” has not occurred…..
Simply because the speech is an advertisement, references a specific product, or is economically motivated does not necessarily mean that it is commercial speech. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 67 (1983). “The combination of all these characteristics, however, provides strong support for the . . . conclusion that [some blog posts] are properly characterized as commercial speech” even though they also discuss issues important to the public. Id. at 67-68 (emphasis in original).
However, all commercial speech is necessarily advertising. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 31 (1993) (defining “advertisement” as “a calling attention to or making known[;]an informing or notifying[;] a calling to public attention[;] a statement calling attention to something[;] a public notice; esp[ecially] a paid notice or
announcement published in some public print (as a newspaper, periodical, poster, or handbill) or broadcast over radio or television”). Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that “[t]he diverse motives, means, and messages of advertising may make speech ‘commercial’ in widely varying degrees.”…….
Here, Hunter’s blog posts, while containing some political commentary, are commercial speech. Hunter has admitted that his motivation for the blog is at least in part economic. The posts are an advertisement in that they predominately describe cases where he has received a favorable result for his client. He unquestionably references a specific product, i.e., his lawyering skills as twenty-two of his twenty-five case related posts describe cases that he has successfully handled. Indeed, in nineteen of these posts, he specifically named his law firm in addition to naming himself as counsel.
Moreover, the blog is on his law firm’s commercial website rather than an independent site dedicated to the blog…….
observing that “[i]n contrast to the interaction possible in some other forms of web-published information, blog readers are most frequently permitted to leave comments and create threads of discussion”). Instead, in furtherance of his commercial pursuit, Hunter invites the reader to “contact us” the same way one seeking legal representation would contact the firm through the website.
When considered as a whole, the economically motivated blog overtly proposes a commercial transaction that is an advertisement of a specific product.
Having determined that Hunter’s blog posts discussing his cases are commercial speech,
we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.
While the States may place an absolute prohibition on inherently misleading advertising, “the States may not place an absolute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information, . . . if the information also may be presented in a way that is not deceptive.”
Because the VSB’s governmental interest is substantial, we must now determine “whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted.”
Finally, we must determine whether the VSB’s regulations are no more restrictive than necessary. Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566. The Supreme Court of the United States has approved the use of disclaimers or explanations.
Thus, we are called upon to answer whether the state may prohibit an attorney from discussing information about a client or former client that
is not protected by attorney-client privilege without express consent from that client. We agree with Hunter that it may not.
a criminal trial under our system of justice.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980).
[a] trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room is public property. If a transcript of the court proceedings had been published, we suppose none would claim that the judge could punish the publisher for contempt. And we can see no difference though the conduct of the attorneys, of the jury or even of the judge himself, may have reflected on the court. Those who see and hear what transpired can report it with impunity. There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it.
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947).
…. a lawyer is no more prohibited than any other citizen from reporting what transpired in the courtroom….
This means that Hunter’s disclaimers “shall be in bold type face and uppercase letters in a font size that is at least as large as the largest text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results and in the same color and against the same colored background as the text used to advertise the specific or cumulative case results.” Rule 7.2(a)(3). The circuit court, however, imposed the following disclaimer to be posted once: “Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.”
So my work on this blog is “content speech” or speech which is not regulated and should be afforded the highest protection in all state courts, federal courts and tribunals throughout the nation.
Based upon this decision, both atty Ken Ditkowsky AND myself have filed amendments to our Petitions to the Supreme Court of Illinois AND have filed Motions to Reconsider our Motions to Dimiss!
Clearly all of Ken’s emails regarding the following cases: Bedin, Taylor, Gore, Sykes, Wyman are NOT commercial speech! All they do is call for an investigation by the authorities. Further, each and everyone of our emails, faxes, letters calling for an investigation, letting me blog freely in court, requests to let me blog freely in court, be a court watcher–is protected speech of the highest levels for which the government AND the ARDC has absolutely no interest in regulating.
I am not using this website to advertise for my “real” practice of patents, trademarks and copyrights. I use this website SO THAT WHEN I GO TO COURT THERE WILL BE NO CORRUPTION PRESENT AND JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
None of the cases that I write about and my readers write about are to brag for advertising for me. Let me make this clear to the ARDC. I have never said I want to be in probate court, I have never advertised to go there. I GO THERE AS A LAST RESORT, GENERALLY WITH NO PAYMENT OF MONEY, AND I DO JUSTICE WHEN AT LEAST 20 OTHER LAWYERS REFUSE TO GO THERE DUE TO THE CORRUPTION, RAILROADING, LACK OF FOLLOWING BASIC COURT RULES.
When asked by the National Law Journal Reporter if I had “plans to take this blog down”, I pretty much screamed at her THERE’S NO WAY I WILL TAKE THIS BLOG DOWN WHILE THERE IS CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS–WHY SHOULD I?
This blog is about injustices and corruption. It is NOT profitable, it is a time waster and money drainer for me and my firm and my staff.
I like writing patents and doing patentability searches, I really do. You can ask my staff. I love it and obsess over it. BUT I will NOT stand idly by and let horrendous crimes of loss of human rights, civil rights, loss of consortium with beloved friends and family members by nefarious tied in guardians that get “watchers” at $150 per hour or more to go on WITHOUT MAKING A STINK.
That’s what this blog is all about MAKING A STINK FOR GRANDMA until justice is done.
This blog is completely separate from what I do as a patent attorney. IT DESERVES THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROTECTION BY ALL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS THROUGHOUT THE US–INCLUDING THE AUGUST ARDC ATTORNEYS–ATTY LARKIN, ATTY HASPEL AND ATTY OPRYSZEK.
And I will not rest until the corruption is gone and the ARDC STARTS TO ADMIRE AND RESPECT THE FIRST SPEECH RIGHTS OF LAWYERS IN THE US–myself and Ken included.
We have to promote lawyers speaking out against corruption, on blogs, in the news and in public. That speech cannot and must not be chilled even if the ARDC buys a 1000 refrigerators for it. (I gotta start doing political cartoons too).
Take care my justice loving readers, as Shakespere said “even the worm can turn.”
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
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.
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
cc: MaryGSykes blog
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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:24 AM
To: C — C—–
Subject: Re: corruption
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.
Sent: Feb 27, 2013 11:05 AM
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]
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.
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 26, 2013 7:05 PM
To: JoAnne Denison , Cynthia Farenga , Peter Schmiedel , Adam Stern
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?)
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?
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.
Of a broken heart.
Thanks for sending this along G****, I really LOVED the story.
here is the link to the full story:
Synopsis of facts:
Benjamin Alfano lived at Raleigh Hills Assisted Living, where he was frequently visited by his granddaughter. He died in February 2011.
Twenty-seven months ago, Probate Judge Cobb dismissed the pleas of Alfano, his four doctors, four of his five children and Cobb’s own court visitor, and awarded control of the veteran’s life to Chris Farley, a professional guardian.
Alfano, a 72-year-old amputee with full benefits, would survive only another six months.
Farley moved the veteran out of the Raleigh Hills Assisted Living facility he loved and eventually into a locked-door dementia-care unit in Gresham, and strenuously isolated him from his children.
Alfano’s heart burst, literally, in February 2011, and he died at the VA Medical Center.
As Judy Bridges, the Raleigh Hills administrator, submitted in an affidavit, “I believe with all my heart that the move killed him.”
Alfano’s death devastated his five children, four of whom retained Portland attorney Michelle Burrows to initiate a federal civil-rights suit against Farley, Pagnano and individuals at ODVA.
Of the $407,000 parked in the account when Farley was appointed guardian in 2010, only $220,000 remains.
And that includes another $44,000 that Alfano received in pension and Social Security before he died.
Where did all the money go?
ODVA “disbursed” $26,784 to Farley and another $27,643 to her attorney, Sibylle Baer.
Pagnano the GAL received $19,022.
D. Kevin Carlson, the assistant attorney general at ODVA, received $25,143.
J. Kevin Shuba — the lawyer representing Alfano’s four children — received $41,560.
But none of those payouts are as galling as Carlson’s suggestion, on behalf of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, that Cobb must hold another $120,000 of the estate in reserve to defend ODVA and Farley against a potential federal suit.
Think about that.
Four of Ben Alfano’s children — Mary, Steven, David and Lisa –believe the conservator and guardian made decisions that contributed to their father’s “wrongful and untimely death.”
And Carlson wants to pit what’s left of their father’s estate against them.
None of those children plans to be in Guardianship court.
“She has never listened to anything we’ve said,” Steven Alfano notes.
“And we’re beaten down. Dad is dead. We lost him. And the health toll this has taken on Mary and me, especially, has been huge.”
They have, however, filed an objection.
Further degrading the estate, they argue, “would be both an injustice and simply ethically wrong in any code of conduct.”
— Steve Duin is an Oregon reporter on this story
***End of Story****
Does this sound familiar? Haunting echoes of the Illinois Probate court?
From: JoAnne M Denison <email@example.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.
I am REPORTING on corruption in the Illinois courts so that it can be brought to light and eliminated. The regular news does much of this. Why not me? Why not you?
If you all will please note my mother wants to die in her home, not the home of an named abuser. It is her wish and like my father, she has that right. All of my father’s care for the last two months of his life was paid for by either medicare or blue cross blue shield. No money was spent from his healthy estate and my mother didn’t have to pay one dime. But then, the POA for Health Care naming me was like the petition for an order of protection my mother had verified by the State, was ignored. Apparently and according to Toerpe, mother’s only wishes and dreams are the wishes and dreams Toerpe has for her — and as long as she and her partners in this crime financially benefit. It’s sad when evil so obvious is ignored by the men and women of law enforcement who, by the way, are paid from our tax dollars. Another words, they work for us and therefore, they should respond to our request. In any event, this legal document the POA of Health Care is just another example of the competency and determination of my mother to free herself from the abuse and neglect Toerpe began to perpetrate upon her as started in 2005 when Toerpe took my mother to attorney Michael Hagerty and they worked together to draft a document that would confuse even another attorney at first sight, let alone a 85 year old woman. That 2005 naked trust was vacated and a new will was generated, but Toerpe kidnapped my mother on June 30, 2009 with the help of retired Judge Gloria Coco and deputy sheriff at the Harrison Street Court and never served with the petition for guardianship, mother was denied legal counsel, was denied the right to pursue the order of protection petition against Carolyn Toerpe, and was denied her right to contest the guardianship: she was however, placed in the custody and care of her named abuser and financial exploiter and everything Toerpe did and is doing, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern is or has accused me of. No evidence is needed and the evidence against Toerpe is swept under the table for a nice fee, I am certain.
No person in the wrong can stand up to me, a woman in the right who keeps on a comin’!!!! Of course, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel are probably planing another ambush where they get Sheriff Dart’s deputies to handcuff me to a chair and threaten my freedoms and liberties and spit on our Constitutions as if they are trained dog-fighting Pits. Of course, all of these criminal acts and treasons against our Constitutions are sanctioned by the Court, by Judge Jane Louise Stuart and also, Chief Judge T. Evans. And obviously Sheriff Dart’s deputies were given permission to aggressively remove me from my homestead based on a letter written to the lawyer for Dart’s outfit by attorney Peter Schmiedel who reported that there were not pending legal actions and that the stays in the bankruptcy court for the Homestead and equity were lifted. That Sheriff Dart knowing his men were in the wrong has not done anything to correct the problem says that he is a hypocrite, too. He spoke before at least 100 law enforcement and elder care men and women in 2010 and said he was prepared to do what is necessary to stop abuses of the elderly: in the Sykes case he is a co-****.
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: Sykes case FW: [marygsykes] Please moderate: “A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria”
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:56:42 +0000
Attached please find the copy of the note Cynthia Farenga faxed to Judge Stuart.
see links at:
Also note in the letter she states that my mother is not living in her home: this is true because Toerpe kidnapped her on June 30, 2009. I have a August 2009 digital audio recording of my mother asking me to pick her up and bring her home. When I came to pick mother up, Toerpe had hid her at a McDonalds. Kathie is witness to this horror. I will make available the hour + visit digitally recorded for publication after I file the reply brief tomorrow. Again, you will note how competent and rational mother is. Toerpe, however held mother in a chair and would not let her up to move around. Fred Toerpe kept his hand on her shoulder. Again, Kathie witnessed this. Toerpe and my mother was aware I was taping and Toerpe’s reply was, “It won’t make any difference”. This is evidence enough that the guardianship was a done deal. I’ve been denied the right to bring evidence into the court of my mother’s extreme competency. That said, I will make it public by the weeks end and I ask that all people post and cross post. I will provide you with a series of photographs of my mother and me to lay over the top if anyone wants to put the visit on youtube. That said, it’s haunting. It’s haunting. The police were called and there was nothing they can do. They found my mother hiding at McDonald’s under Fred Toerpe’s custody. The police report found mother lucid but ‘confused’. I’d be confused too, as Mother hadn’t been to a McDonald’s in over 50 years!
That the Court sanctions these criminal acts against the elderly and disabled are crimes beyond comprehension.
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:09:26 -0700
I am leaving out one email from Gloria because it goes on and on over and over about how I am not her attorney and I don’t represent her. While I have patiently explained to her before that it is obvious from the blog, there is already a disclaimer to that effect, her thoughts somehow get stuck on that topic on a fairly regular basis. So for the 100th time, I can’t represent a client and do a blog. It’s not possible. I am doing the blog as an attorney, an officer of the court, and as a member of the press because my blogs and cross posts are nearly up to 10,000 views since November of 2011. What is on this blog may or may not be in the court files. Blank, unsigned and unstamped pleadings posted on this blog should be further researched unless the are clearly labeled as found in the court’s files.
And believe me, this is much, much shorter than what Gloria wrote. Saved you all time!
One of the things I have noted by listening to dozens and dozens of probate case is, as in the Sykes Probate case, the court seldom or never asks the following questions to properly attain jurisdiction over the Respondent (alleged disabled person).
Illinois law requires 1) the Petitioner 2) must serve written notice (by mail or personal delivery) to 3) close relatives (defined as adult parents, children AND siblings) 4) informing each of the date, time and place of the hearing.
If this is NOT done, it is a serious and fatal flaw, and the case MUST BE DISMISSED OR NON SUITED, and the Petitioner and court MUST START OVER.
So, how do you do that? With an emergency motion. An emergency motion is one that is defined as one that is not on the court’s regular calendar and was not served with notice either 2 business days in advance when served by personal delivery or 7 days when served by regular mail. The court does not currently accept email service, but many litigants and attorneys don’t mind or they prefer email service and that’s okay–as long as you have a written agreement to that effect.
But an Emergency Motion is entirely appropriate for someone living under a guardianship where every day of freedom counts. That means all you have to do is file with the clerk’s offices, drop off that pleading with the court (bring a stamped courtesy copy for the judge to the court room and put it on the docket there) the day before, fax or email it the day before and bingo, you should be able to get relief in court the very next day! Be sure to let the Respondent know, and any attorneys that have filed an appearance. The attys can be served by email or fax, but confirm with a phone call and tell them it’s very important to get over to court ASAP. Generally, with a filing like this one, the judge will be asking to get on the phone any atty that has not showed up and s/he will wait for them to show.
Jurisdiction is a very serious matter folks, and it leads to malpractice suits against all the attorneys involved, the guardian ad litem and even the judges. Jurisdiction has to be fixed swiftly and immediately.
for the link to a PDF version of the form:
for the link to the WPD version of the form
for the link to an RTF version of the form:
As you may or may not recall, [a special person] sent me a email whining there were “a lot of conflicts in the case” and she had no one to help her out. Poor [entity].
So what did I do? JoAnne to the rescue. I drafted her a very nice Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction/Lack of Jurisdiction and emailed it to her and posted it here.
One would think she would say, “thanks for all the help, I appreciate it.”
But not [this entity]. See her response below.
From: [special person]
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 2:03 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Subject: cease and desist
I did not authorize you to prepare such a pleading in my name. Cease and desist from preparing and/or publishing pleadings that I did not author in my name.
My Response to her:
From: JoAnne M Denison <email@example.com>
Cc: ken ditowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Annie Zhou <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: cease and desist? Are you kidding? This the US and we have a free press here!
Date: Aug 1, 2012 2:21 PM
Dear [special person];
There is a disclaimer on the blog that no one is to believe anything was filed or not filed, or anything was prepared or not prepared and I don’t represent anyone involved in the Sykes case right on one of the front pages.
I believe I have a first amendment right to publish what I want and when I want. I believe Ken has already treated you to a litany of First Amendment right cases where people get to publish whatever they want.
I am no longer on the case. You disqualified me and ruined my relationship with my client with the severe disparagement from that one action, which as you are aware was bogus and wrongful in nature.
I will not forfeit my First Amendment Rights simply because YOU demand it. I will write about and comment all I want on the Sykes case no 09 P 4585.
Any interference from you (or whining) will be taken as an action prohibited under the Illinois Citizen’s Participation Act.
Further, you whined at me you “had no help” in an email due to “so many conflicts”–so I helped you with the best thing you could ever do.
This is ONE AREA–jurisdiction–where there is no conflict amongst any of the attorneys involved.
And don’t get Ken going, he will send you and make you a list of dozens of first amendment rights cases from the Pentagon Papers, to Alvarez, to a litany of cases where people get to publish what they want and when they want.
If I were still on the case, I might be limited by my representation of Gloria, but you decided to file a Motion to Disqualify me which was rubber stamped by Judge [x].
So my participation in the case is as an officer of the court, and as member of the free press of the US. You should note that my posts, cross posts and second blog are soon reaching 10,000 views.
I strongly urge you to file and present to the court that document I prepared for you on AN EMERGENCY BASIS. Then the tide will turn and the next 10,000 views can be on a favorable basis.
Apparently Gloria has some reservations regarding filing the Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit, even though it is very necessary and inimical to the proper administration of justice in Mary Sykes’ Guardianship case.
In this case Ken is encouraging her to use my draft or write her own–neither will matter.
Of course, those of you that know Gloria, know that she believes she must put per personality into any writing, so let’s see what she comes up with.
It’s okay to be better than me, Gloria! I don’t mind.
From Ken Ditkowsky
Below is a fax that was sent to Ms. Saltoun yesterday. She is being kept updated about the fight against corruption in the Sykes case 09 P 4585
The RTF version of this has been sent to Gloria and KD has strongly recommended to her she file it ASAP.
The next version will be for Kathy.
I would love to see each of Cynthia Farenga, Gloria Sykes and Kathy Bakken get to court and motion this up and all present it on the same day.
And Adam, I would never leave you out. Let me know if you want me to do one for you too!
Attorney Code Pro Se
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION
To: See attached service list:
Please take notice, that on the ___ day of August, 2010, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Jane Louis Stuart or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SODINI JURISDICTION, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.
Gloria Sykes, daughter,
Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
email: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorney Code # Pro Se
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI
JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON
PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP
This motion is brought by Gloria Jean Sykes, daughter of the above Respondent, who is an interested party and should have been named in Exhibit A to the Petition for Guardianship filed by Carolyn Toerpe in the above proceeding and is made pursuant to Probate Code 735 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f) requiring written Notice for any Hearing on Guardianship be provided by the Petitioner in the matter to all close relatives (as defined by the Probate Act) and served no less than 14 days in advance of the hearing. The one and only necessary ground for this motion is that Petitioner, Carolyn Toerpe, and her attorneys of record, failed to serve ANY close relatives as required under this Probate Code section with ANY written form of notice 14 days in advance of the hearing date, as declared in the attached pleadings recently brought to my attention.
The grounds for this motion are:
1. The Illinois Probate Act 755 ILCS § 5/11a:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. 755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
2. The Illinois Probate Act define the required notice be served upon adult children and siblings of the Respondent. In the above case, Mary G. Sykes has two adult sisters, Ms. Yolanda Bakken and Ms. Josephine DiPietro, as well as a daughter Gloria Sykes who should have been served under 755 ILCS § 5/11a.
3. Attached is a declaration, Exhibit A, from one of the elder sisters, Ms. Bakken, attesting to the fact that she was not served in accordance with 755 ILCS § 5/11a (f).
4. Attached hereto is a second declaration, Exhibit B, from the undersigned adult daughter Ms. Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”) attesting to the fact that she was not served any Notice of Hearing on Petition as provided for in 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f).
1. The case, In re Sodini, (cite) (Exhibit C, hereto), makes it clear that these notices are jurisdictional in nature and must be served strictly in compliance with the procedure set forth by the Illinois State Legislature. In Sodini, the adult sisters were not served with proper notice and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Cite).
2. WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that
a. The above cause of action be dismissed/non suited for lack of jurisdiction;
b. All orders, including an Order to invalidate Ms. Gloria Sykes’ Power of Attorney be voided Ab Initio.
c. All orders freezing Gloria’s assets be voided Ab Initio
d. Mary be allowed to freely return to her home.
e. Carolyn Toerpe be barred from conducting any mental or psychological examination on Mary G. Sykes.
f. Carolyn Toerpe be permanently barred from ever filing an Illinois CCP 211 or its equivalent until further order of the court and for good cause shown, bearing in mind she instigated, continued and fomented a Probate Cause lacking jurisdiction since December 7, 2009 or nearly three (3) years, causing great harm, stress and hardship to Mary G. Sykes and her immediate family;
g. And for any additional relief and remedies deemed proper by this honorable court.
Gloria J. Sykes, Daughter, an interested party
to Respondent, Mary G. Sykes
Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Mr. Moossy is the head of the US department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Ken wrote him a letter on July 31, 2012 to bring to his attention the “cavalier dismissal of the Request for an honest investigation” regarding the Sykes case. Below are links to two PDFs containing the contents of this letter.
In this email, Gloria explains a number of obvious mis steps and bias against her and her mother by the GAL’s from the very beginning. The GAL’s were never impartial, but showed clear bias.
Oh Scott, it gets better. Adam Stern just happened to be sitting in the courtroom in Cynthia Farenga’s absense and Judge Connors, who after she admits she doesn’t have the file on the Petition for the Order of Protection (and the only reason Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, Scott, Dorris, Suzie and I were present on August 26, 2009, was to support mother in obtaining the protection order against Carolyn Toerpe), and notes on the record that mother was not served and is not present, appoints Stern to (1) procure all of the police reports on Toerpe and to investigate mother’s assets (for a reverse mortgage because Toerpe said Mother had no money to live in her home). The odd this is, that before Toerpe started to financially exploit mother to the extent that she is the Plenary Guardian, et al, Mother lived comfortably in her home. The mortgage was paid on time every month, property taxes and insurances were paid, phone was paid, electric was paid, gas, et al, and Mother ate well, and we traveled the United States together….. Mother was so active in the Community that out precious moments together were first thing in the morning when we walked out pooches, and from dinner time until we walked the pooches at 10 pm or so each night. Looking back and reading the verified court transcripts, the Guardianship appointment of Toerpe was a done deal on June 30, 2009 when Toerpe kiddnapped Mother from the Harrision Street courthouse and took her out of state and hid her and kept her out of Illinois so she couldn’t pursue the protective order. Neither Adam Stern or Cynthia Farenga were ever at Mother’s home and Toerpe made certain that she took Mother to Farenga’s office.. as well as all the court friendly doctors who signed fradulant CCP211 reports where Toerpe signed PhD after her name.
See below. This fax was accompanied by my famous “Table of Torts” and the Probate Docket table of missing court orders, pleadings and transcripts that won’t be transcribed (note, I never said “can’t”). Those are posted on my page of “Important Documents” and I note more than half the probate file is missing and apparently has been “cleansed”. GDS bless my scanner!
In line is below, or click for the link.
I want to make this easy peasy for everyone!
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Diane Saltoun
Executive Inspector General
From: Admitted Ill., N. Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat. Atty. Reg. No. 34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202 CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642 PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Troy S. Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, associate, of counsel
For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy WILL ✔ will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see fax header )
July 27, 2012
Re: In re Estate of Mary Sykes, 09 P 4585
While the above case has a long, long history, much of which is documented on a blog to be found at http://www.marygsykes.com, the reality of the situation is that this probate proceeding boils down to garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and malfeasance by attorneys and the court. The court has clearly, for 3 long years, been working without subject matter jurisdiction. In probate court, the Illinois legislature has stated in the Sodini case that in order to take jurisdiction, the court must ensure the following requirements have been met that notice on any hearing for incompetency: 1) be in writing; 2) that the Petitioner serve the notice; 3) that the notice contain the time, date and place of the hearing; and 4) that the notice be served upon “close relatives”–ie, adult children and siblings.
In the above case, the Guardians ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern will admit that no proper written notice was ever served in the case and/or they cannot produce proof of service at all. In one transcript (all transcripts are published on the blog), counsel for the Guardian admitted no Sodini notices were served upon “close relatives.” Judge Connors knew at the time she was appointing the plenary guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, without proper notice being served, and Judge Stuart has admitted in her written notes on pleadings that it is “too late” to contest subject matter jurisdiction, which is utter nonsense since subject matter jurisdiction can be brought up at any time–even on appeal.
To add to the obvious corruption, cronyism, embezzlement (there is estimated to be $1 million in gold and silver coins missing from Mary’s estate), when another attorney (Ken Ditkowsky) and myself complained about the lack of jurisdiction, the railroading of the proceeding without discovery–one of the GAL’s has filed ARDC complaints against us–merely for calling for an investigation. Leah Black at the ARDC is handling that and has not given up. The proceeding against Ken Ditkowsky is clearly another railroaded proceeding built upon corruption and cronyism and Leah Black has done nothing to clean up the court system.
See the attached “table of torts” the miscreants have engaged in. See the attached list of missing files and know that more than half the file is missing because all of the appellate volumes are gone.
Someone is systematically cleansing the Probate files and Judge Evans and security is doing NOTHING about it.
And then when I go to court to blog about the case and the corruption and cronyism, the miscreants have the court bailiff tell me not to use or open my laptop!
When I first contacted your offices regarding corruption in the courts at the Daley Center you said you “needed proof” actual proof of corruption.
I don’t see how 70% of the file missing PLUS the lack of subject matter jurisdiction could establish any less proof to conduct an investigation.
And I know your buddies at the FBI could look at this case in minutes and come up with a determination that the plenary Guardian is spending tens of thousands of dollars on house remodeling and a fancy wedding for her daughter, whereas back in Jan of 2009 she was struggling with bills and her husband was out of work. All we need is an asset search done in 2009-2012 for Carolyn and Fred Toerpe.
What more evidence do you need?
I will continue to publish the blog speaking out against corruption in our court system.
Please look at the attached and all the information I will fax you shortly. This is a case that could be bigger than Greylord–what is being done to deprive grandma and grandpa of their civil rights and how the Probate court (routinely) operates.
Very Truly Yours,
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC
JoAnne M. Denison
cc: Ken Ditkowsky and http://www.marygsykes.com blog.
Question from Scott Evans:
That was an excellent recap of the first few months of the case. It is chilling to read.
It begs the question, something Tim said a year ago, about going back to the beginning.
Are there Court actions that can be entered into given the string of not just technically wrong, but completely incorrect actions by the opposing lawyers?
I bring it up because of all the emphasis on the Sodini aspect of the relatives not being properly noticed, events which followed the ones you just wrote about by only several months. To me, they appear to be more provable, more serious, more compelling, more powerful than Sodini. Do these glaring gaffs that you refer to have a name, a case law background?
Since Sodini can be brought up almost 3 years after the fact, can’t these other issues?
I did a REPLY ALL on this in order to garner wider responses and ideas. ~Scott
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:35:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Sykes Case Jurisdiction
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sodini goes back to Day One. If Sodini was not complied with each of the guardians (including the GALs) is guilty of theft etc.
from Atty Ken Ditkowsky
A CALL FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION
And I need to add that Ms. Farenga, you need to do an Emergency Motion for Tuesday to non suit this Probate case due to lack of jurisdiction, attach YB’s declaration and Gloria’s declaration, although I’m sure Gloria will be there in court and Ken and I will be glad to draft up the order for you, and serve the Motion by personal service on each of the adult siblings and children as Illinois Probate Law dictates, and LET MARY GO FREE back to her own home! You know there is no jurisdiction, AS knows there is no jurisdiction. Perhaps the other sister’s affidavit will be in my mail today, I’ll go check. Gloria will just testify. Hopefully it won’t last an hour as she lambasts you and AS for your outrageous behavior!
Please draft the motion and personally serve it on Monday to all the adult children and siblings of Mary Sykes.
Ken, we need calls to Non Suit on an emergency basis and get the FBI/police to investigate bank accounts. Where are the gold coins!
Something has happened that I never thought would happen, and that is a string of emails between Atty-GAL Cynthia Farenga and Atty Ken Ditkowsky!
I simply cannot believe that CF, a clearly ethics challenged atty is writing KD, an attorney that has been clamouring for an investigation since he first became aware of the Sykes Probate case 09 P 4858 and noted many problems with the case 1) an excellent long term care giver (Gloria) was chosen as guardian over a barely there, somewhat estranged sister (Carolyn), 2) the case was railroaded with a clearly deficient Petition not naming all close relatives (I just got a case like that and the response was oh well–oh well nothing, it’s jurisdictional, babe and an extremely serious fatal deficiency); 3) no discovery,e ven though discovery was asked for; 4) claims of gold coins being in the estate, safe deposit boxes drilled out and looted even though the Plenary Guardian knew that another sister’s name was one it—-oh go see my table of torts for further information of a long history of irregularities in the case.
So please read on below. Cynthia is amazing in wondering and worrying about this blog. The information on it is growing. On Monday I should have up a page of “Important Documents and Evidence against the Miscreants” which will have things like my Table of Torts, the Declaration of Sister 1 saying there were no Sodini notices, etc.
My advice to you Cynthia (and this goes for Adam, the other GAL) is to waltz your butt into court on Tuesday with an emergency motion served to Gloria and the sisters by fax, email and personal delivery (yeah, pay the $50 to get the motion out to the burbs where these ladies live or drive them out yourself and apologize like a big girl) to nonsuit/dismiss and attach the petitions of Sister 1 and Gloria and ask the case be nonsuited because there is no jurisdiction. There is absolutely no proof in the file that attorney Harvey Waller served Sodini notices, which are jurisdictional with the following 4 elements 1) it must be in writing; 2) it must be served on close relatives (adult siblings and children); 3) it must state the time, date and place of hearing and 3) It must be served by Petitioner 14 days in advance of the hearing. None of this was done. The GALs are supposed to attend to these details. You and GAL Stern did not. 3 years of this nonsense against Gloria and her mother who do want to be together.
My advice to you is to nonsuit the case and join KD and myself in calling for further investigation and a complete asset search of CT. Heck, do Gloria too and it will show she is not the miscreant in all of this. It will take an FBI officer minutes to look at bank accounts statements, balances, etc. over the last two years. How did Carolyn pay for her daughter’s fancy wedding and finish up remodeling her house when she is a retired school teacher and her husband was out of work for years? Pull the tax returns from the IRS and do a comparison!
Your job was and still is to ask questions and protect Mary.
You seriously failed in that. But don’t wallow in pity–get going!
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 27, 2012 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted
It is interesting that you think you did not do anything wrong. You did and continue to do quite a bit wrong. As an attorney and as a ‘human being’ you should know what you did wrong. The first thing you did wrong was to have denied Mary Sykes her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.
Please allow me to be more specific. [KD response start] The Statute requires that prior to a guardian ship proceeding being held Mary Sykes and all her close relatives are entitled to a written 14 day notice. As an attorney you should be aware of this jurisdictional criterion. Thus, it appears that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction. The de-facto appointment of Carolyn Troepe is therefore flawed. I trust that you are aware that this makes certain actions undertaken not only questionable but patently illegal. As an example how could Mary (and Gloria’s) safety deposit box be drilled and the content’s removed. The contents included jewelry and collectibles. I estimate the value at over a million dollars. As this million dollars was not inventoried it appears that someone other than Gloria dis something wrong. It also appears that the total isolation of Mary from her sister and her daughter were also wrong. [KD response start]The aiding and abetting this conduct was also wrong and in my opinion makes you and Adam Stern Accessories during the fact. If you want details read the ADA complaint filed in Federal Court.
[KD response con’t]Of serious concern are your statements concerning Gloria Sykes. You cannot point to a single act of hers that was wrong. As a citizen – you know one of those little people protected by the Federal and State Constitutions – she has every right to resist the attempts by you (plural) to deprive her of her liberty, her property and her civil rights. The reason I am adamant in my defense of Gloria and Mary is the simple fact that I believe in the principles of American democracy! I would be such as vigorous in defending and standing up for your rights! If you had done a scintilla of due diligence you would have discovered that Gloria had a serious insurance claim. Lumberman (Kempers) denied the claim and she sued. After years litigation they offered her and she accepted a settlement. As Mary was placed on the title by Gloria to complete her estate Mary was as an afterthought brought into the Lumberman case. Mary had and has no interest in the property as she has (had) her own home and therefore with the aid of an attorney she signed away her share of the settlement. As Gloria would say – the statements that you made to the Court were all intentional and knowing untruths (lies).
I do not care if you pay the taxes due for the breach of fiduciary relationship, nor do I give a damn if you got dime one of the ‘loot’ from Mary’s estate. I will leave it to law enforcement to figure out you culpability.
You keep making statements about the corruption in the judiciary. As you are constantly upon on the 18th Floor, you must have knowledge of who, what and where. As my practice is general I would not be privy to whether or not your allegations of corruption are true or false. I do know however the the Sykes case has a massive jurisdictional problem. The entire guardianship fiasco in Sykes is clearly without jurisdiction. Gloria and her aunts were not served with the 14 written notice. Gloria has filed an affidavit to that effect, and I am informed that Aunt Jo has also provided an affidavit. Mr.Stern in an e-mail disclosed that in lieu of written notice he, you, and Ms.Troepe agreed that Mary should have a guardian. Mr.Schmiedel is quoted in the transcripts as pointing out the application for a guardian was also deficient and no written notices were sent out.
On a level playing field a Judge first checks to see if he/she has jurisdiction and then if he/she does not it is ‘game over!’ Why this has not occurred in Sykes is a mystery. It should not be as the Sykes case has two Guardian ad litem who are aware that the jurisdictional criterion has not been met and each has a duty to report that fact to the Court. It would seem to me that that failure is not only wrongful but a serious breach of fiduciary relationship on you part. You are not alone however – Mr.Schmiedel as an officer of the Court and Mr. STern as a guardian ad litem also are culpable.
If there is a word that you do not understand, Ms. Sykes can explain it to you. I understand that she was an elementary school teacher in another life. Your ‘clever’ repartee is not appreciated. The Sykes case is a serious matter. A senior citizen has been isolated from her family, her activities, her friends and her life with the aid of two guardian ad litem. This same senior citizen has had too many trips to the emergency room and too little contact with her former life. There is serious question as to whether this senior citizen was incompetent – it is my believe that she was indeed competent but railroaded by clearly unconscionable means into the loss of her liberty.
Ms. Farenga – if you had a scintilla of ‘good faith’ you would join with me in requesting law enforcement to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.
From: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted
I know that you believe your friends throughout every level of law enforcement will soon be at our doorstep. I happen not to believe that since as far as I can tell, the only one who may have acted inappropriately is Gloria. I note you did not answer the question of why you are so eager to protect Gloria when Mary was allegedly your client.Just what is it about Gloria that impels you to violate your ethical duty to Mary in the event of even a potential conflict between them? Again, using your own logic, how do we know you all aren’t in a a conspiracy to share any funds that Gloria may recover in this litigation? [KD response start] I have a very viable civil rights (42 USCA 1983) claim against you, Adam Stern and Schmiedel. As you singled me out and filed a sanction motion against me in a Court that lacked jurisdiction – under color of statute you violated my civil rights. That should be a 6 or 7 figure verdict. [KD Response end] Very odd. Only you and JD have been paid, but JD continues to post invoices left and right claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees, yet we are supposed to think that all of your hands are clean? Running a blog is not a legal task. Who is the client that JD proposes to bill upwards of $55k plus interest for running a blog? [KD response start]Why is that any of your business. The use of a Blog and communication is a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. It is my understanding that the National Socialists do not have any candidates running in the current election cycle – ergo, their proposed legislation has not been enacted and the Citizens of the State of Illinois are still free to object to the acts of denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights. [KD Response end] [JD response—the reason you have not been paid is because you are acting without jurisdiction and engaging in malpractice and malfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty. It’s hard to get paid when you are ultra vires and committing continuing torts on a routine basis.]
You will all continue to run off at the mouth. There will be no nice view of the prison courtyard for us because We have done nothing wrong. The corruption of Greylord proportions, the corruption of the entire probate division, judges and attorneys, the accusations against Judge Evans and Justice Connors–this is all your imagination. JD’s and Gloria’s. One day in court at the beginning of this mes (sic) Gloria told me she’d pay for care giving in order to bring her mother home pending the resolution of the guardianship. She retracted the offer the next day. You can post, email, fax, blog and do whatever, but in the end, I feel sorry for you. There is not a single fact of wrong-doing you have found (as opposed to your made-up accusations), nor will you. There is none. [KD response start]Last I heard, it was a crime to take possession of ‘grandma’s’ property without her consent. Indeed, according to Justice Sotomeyer lawyers are supposed to know the law and to be aware that Court operating without jurisdiction issue void orders! Persons who knowingly act pursuant to void orders get free orange jumpsuits! [KD Response end]
Though I’m busy writing my own book, I feel the need to let you know that we realize these accusations are all phony. In the meantime, when the IRS knocks on my door, I’ll invite them in for tea and crudites, answer their questions and sit them down to read all of the lunatic postings that are on line. I will be glad to pay tax on the income from my book, however. [KD response start]Unfortunately and unhappily the averments that have been made are all true and correct. You can blame Gloria Sykes for the troubles of the world, but that does not solve any of them. My dear friend – if you look in the mirror you will see the person who bears the greatest culpability for Mary Sykes loss of her liberty and her property. You also will see in the same image the person who failed to report vital information to the Court and/or condoned conduct that is deplored by all civilized peoples. I sincerely hope that when the IRS comes calling you can be glib and confident; however *****[KD Response end]
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: “NASGA” <email@example.com>, “probate sharks” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “JoAnne M Denison” <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>, “states attorney” <email@example.com>, “Cook County Sheriff” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <email@example.com>, “scottevans” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:25:24 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted
Please send me the file that you have from the Secretary of State. The information that I have that in late 2008 or early 2009 Mary and Gloria were going to California and Mary needed her license renewed. She could not do so as it had lapsed. Therefore she was required to take the written as well as the driving test. She passed the written test with flying colors but had to retake the driving portion. It is interesting (but not unusual in Illinois) that this little fact does not appear on the Secretary of State record.
I grieve for you as to your tale of woe having allegedly not been paid. Being part and parcel of the looting of a senior citizens’s estate is a breach of fiduciary relationship and a taxable event. I know what Mary sykes had – remember I did her Will. She discussed her Estate with me and I remember a good amount of detail. I even know the number of gold coins! Your aiding and abetting the non-inventory of the assets of the estate makes you an accessory! I let the US Attorney explain to you the consequences at a proper time and place.
Unfortunately Attorney fees must meet the criterion of being ‘necessary’ and provide some benefit to the ward. The services that you performed were worth absolutely zero to Mary in that:
1) The simple protections that the State affords to Mary – as Mr. Stern reports in an e-mail – were obviated by you, Stern, and Troepe agreeing to appoint Carolyn as the plenary guardian. If you have been reading JoAnne’s postings at this point in time you have been educated to Sodini and know that this technicality is jurisdictional. As you should know – no jurisdiction no ‘cover’ of statute and the ‘loot’ is taxable!
2) you aided a abetted three plus years of abuse to Mary, including an episode that placed Mary in the emergency room having lost ten percent of her body weight.
3) you aided and abetted Mary from having contact with her sister and her younger daughter.
4) you aided and abetted efforts that were calculated to kee Mary from being represented by counsel and having a day in Court. I would call this aiding and abetting the deprivation of Mary Sykes’ liberty interests.
5) you aided an abetted in the ‘rape’ of the civil and human rights of Gloria and Mary Sykes.
As the Court has no jurisdiction (Sodini) you are at best a ‘de facto’ GAL and as such you have no immunity. Of course to the extent that your conduct violates the law you are culpable and have to answer to law enforcement. As to Gloria, JoAnne, and myself at a proper time and place you will answer in damages. (Had you seen that the Sodini protections had been afforded Mary – we would have no remedy against you personally – but using Stern’s words – this “technicalilty” *****
Ms. Farenga – a while back I asked you to join with me and requesting a complete, honest and comprehensive examination by law enforcement of the Sykes and related cases. You and Mr. Stern refused. It should be very clear that you do not have the ability to intimidate Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison or myself. We are not going away and win, lose or draw before the ARDC and where-ever you choose to complain for you and Mr. Stern (and Ms. Troepe and Mr. Schmiedel) this is not going to end. Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison and yours truly have no intention of meekly marching in a ‘box card’ to be later herded into the gulag. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A TERRIBLE WRONG HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY FARENGA, STERN, SCHMIEDEL AND OTHERS WHO HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED THEM in denying Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights.
Tomorrow is a new day – Sykes, Denison and I do not seek revenge or even recrimination – we seek the freeing of Mary Sykes and that she be allowed to live out the few days that she has left in the bosom of those who care for her. How can you as a human being rationalize that Mary has been and is being separated and not allowed contact with her younger daughter and her younger sister! (The million dollars in assets that have been taken from Mary is irrelevant to Gloria, JoAnne. It may not be to the IRS or IDR.
If you recall several years ago Gloria begged you to join with her to free Mary and get Mary out the abusive Gulag! You responded with one of your “Gloria did diatribes.” At that point in time it was no harm, no foul situation however, you rejected Gloria’s magnanimous offer. Too bad.
One more point – I do not know what the United States Department of Treasury’s policy is on those who aid and abet the evasion of Federal Income Taxes; however, I suspect that they will be fair and just.
From: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:05 PM
Just as soon as I return from visiting my hositalized relative, I’ll send over the secretary of State’s file on Mary’s driver’s license issue dates and test dates. Presumably you haven’t seen the file, because Mary did not take a test in 2009 and her last license was issued in 2005 (working from memory, or 2006 at the latest).
How ironic that Adam and I have in fact been working without payment of a dime thus far, while you and JoAnne have both stated in open court that you have received fees. JD said she received $20k or $25k. [JD response—and I have also done about $180,000 in work or more to root out corruption—time I could spend on other cases and other matters, while you two fiddle on 3 years in a case without jurisdiction]
You can fabricates more “facts”, as you all will, but I continue to question why you, who once allegedly represented Mary, are so anxious to see that Gloria gets all of the settlement money w/o expressing any reservation. Maybe, Ken, you folks are the ones who have a financial interest in this matter and seeing to it that Mary does not receive any money so that Gloria can.Perhaps you are expecting to share with Gloria? [JD response—that’s inane, KD and I call for an investigation and you do nothing. If we call for an investigation one or all parties can be investigated. We never said only investigate CT. You are twising words] Your theory about Adam and me makes no sense, as we have said before. Adam and I did not know about any alleged money trove, be it gold coins or cash in the mattress and frankly, why would we? Gloria’s OWN cross-petition does not disclose such assets. [JD Response—Gloria has complained over and over and I know I sent you emails about the gold coins and YOU AND AS REPEATEDLY TELL THE COURT “IT IS A FICTION OF GLORIA’S IMAGINATION”, and you do not tell the judge that Ken Ditkowsky, who did the estate planning for the Sykes for years, lists those gold coins in his estate inventory which lists and information are business records and should be brought to the court’s attention for further investigation]
I know that you are imagining these “facts” [JD Response–how do you know that—have you investigated? Nope, not one piece of discovery has been served on Carolyn—and you could have done that back in Jan 2010 and prevented misery for all of us, esp. Carolyn because at that time she could have put them back and not spent them], but I occasionally feel the need to tell you that we know they are demonstrably untrue. And you should be ashamed to be putting the law license of a young lawyer, Annie, in jeopardy, as yours and I would guess JoAnne’s will be [JD Response—this is really interesting, it shows how little CF investigates. Annie is a law clerk and that is on our website. Cynthia, do you ever read anything? Annie will be please tho that you think she writes well enough to be a lawyer. I think her non-lawyer status is clear from her writing, but *****]. Now J has this young woman on the bandwagon commenting on an area of law she seems to have no background in, and parroting JD’s tone when she makes blog entires (sic). You really should be responsible enough to leave this phony expose to yourself and JD and not to stain a young lawyer’s reputation. If you are so sure you’ll be winning a gold medal for your Greylord- like expose, leave her out of it now and promise her the credit in the future. [JD Response–Cynthia, if you don’t do the work and don’t use your own name, then there will be no credit in the future for you. Plus, it is important that if someone writes for the blog, that person is identified. Anyone can write and post anon junk. The web is filled with cyber junk. I encourage integrity. And it’s obvious all you’re trying to do is intimidate and bully around another person–not going to happen, babe. Annie has read the Probate Act end to end and she has read Sodini. If you have something to say to Annie, put it on the blog. But right now you and AS have no jurisdiction to do what you’re doing and the world knows it.]]
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <email@example.com>, “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:29:10 AM
The State of Illinois does not have jurisdiction in Gary Indiana, Cleveland Ohio, or even Milwaukee Wisconsin. A subpoena stops at the State line. An Illinois Judge’s order stops at the State line. An Illinois judgment cannot be enforced in Indiana.
Our friends in writing threatening letters to people outside the jurisdiction of the Illinois are acting without any immunity whatsoever and it is my opinion can be prosecuted in the County of the State where the victim resides. It is further my opinion that as the Sodini requirements for jurisdiction to vest in the Circuit Court Probate Division have not been met there is no immunity for their acts even though authorized specifically by a judge’s order. The judge to act as a judge must have jurisdiction. this is the reason most judges make inquiry as to jurisdiction as issue one.
The fact that a guardian ad litem sends an unauthorized subpoena does not vest the Court with jurisdiction over the person. A subpoena must be served and must be served within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
In re: Sykes is a case for the ages. I have never seen so must ultra vires conduct in any case prior and have never seen so much disconnect on the issue of jurisdiction. Since Jerman the presumption of lawyers knowing the law is in the forefront and all these actions undertaken without jurisdiction are going to have serious consequences.
An elderly sister of Mary G Sykes has signed and mailed her declaration back to our office stating that she did not receive proper Sodini notice. This is GREAT news because now we are one step closer to proving how corrupt and unjust the case truly is. JoAnne has already faxed copies of this Affidavit to Lea Black. Now we wait anxiously as we wait for Mary’s other elderly sister to mail us back her declaration. Justice MUST prevail!
Below is a copy of the signed declaration!
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28 – (cut and paste if link does not work)