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

Posted on March 27, 2014 by jmdenison

Dear Ken,

I am most saddened by how the IARDC has treated you and the ISC has sanctioned such treatment: when I saw my Mother on the 22nd of June, 2013, I told her you too were trying to help her. As you know, she contacted me I believe in Feb. 2010 and begged me to “find” you and “hire” you to “save” her life. The conversation is stoned in my memory: if you need money to pay (attorney), my Mother told me, take it from my mattress. The next day the mattress was gone and so was the at least $20,000 cash (mostly $100 bills). You are correct that there is a pack of attorneys who parade around on the 18th floor empowered by a few judges who do what needs to be done to protect them. For at least 4 years I have learned a lot about this Cottage Industry of Attorneys, complete with Guardians Ad Litem, who use the Probate Division to launder money. It’s easier than you have described.

As you know every year the court appointed guardian must provide the court with an inventory of the Ward’s assets. In the Sykes case, Carolyn Toerpe would claim, for example, she paid the property taxes, insurance and mortgage on Mother’s home. I would object and provide the Court good evidence that the taxes, insurance and mortgage was not paid (in this case, mother’s home was put into foreclosure). The amount of money equaled at least $18,000. Judge Stuart role plays so the record gives the impression she gives a damn, but after putting Toerpe under oath and asking a series of question to her, she would then allow GAL Stern to ask questions too. Satisfied that Toerpe paid the mortgage, property taxes and insurance on the home, approves the inventory: no proof of payments are required.

Another example is medical expenses. My mother has very good insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield and of course Medicare. However, one year Toerpe inventories medical and medication expenses totaling at leas $10,000. I objected, providing the court proof that mother has insurance coverage for all of the medical, dental, and pharmaceutical expenses. Again, the show goes on: Judge Stuart places Toerpe under oath asks a few questions then Adam Stern (GAL) asks a few questions, and the inventory is approved. Two years ago Toerpe got approved $5000 to pay for dental and new partials for my mother and yet when I saw her on June 22, 2013, her teeth were rotting and she had no front teeth and could not chew. The loss of weight and rotting teeth evidence no new partials were purchased and the money Toerpe claimed when for my mother’s dental care, was not spent on mother’s health. Mother has had pyorrhea for most of her life and she had great dental care and healthy teeth until she was forced under Toerpe’s care.

This is how the money is laundered under the nose of the Judges and with the Court’s rubber stamp. One last fact. My mother’s home was worth at least $425,000: Toerpe sold it for cash for $238,000. Not one penny was inventoried. The home and mother’s assets were a part of a Living Revocable Trust —

Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel admitted under oath that they were paid attorney fees from mother’s assets: Stern $15,000: Farenga $15,000 and Schmiedel $12,000 with Schmiedel testifying that mother owes him and the law-firm of Fischel and Kahn where he is associated yet another over $200,000 (the exact amount he stole from my medical funds/bankruptcy estate from the Lumberman’s settlement). The law of the Probate is that the attorneys and GAL’s must file fee petitions within 90 days — there has never been any fee petitions filed — until now. Since the Court converted all of my assets to my bankruptcy estate into the possession of Toerpe and granted Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel to file fee petitions *****

So for the sake of this email, let’s do the math. In plain sight, at least $500,000 cash has been laundered through the Probate case of In Re. the Estate of Mary G. Sykes. Half of it is my money! Mother had gold and silver coins in the US Bank safe box, but I had at least $350,000 of my own coins stored in the safe box. Mother had her will and new trust in the box with a laundry list of who got what? Toerpe did not inherit any of the coins from Daddy or All Bibby — Al Bibby gave me all of his coins. Daddy left his to Mother and me and Mom left me as the sole beneficiary to the valuables in the box.

But the Probate Court is able to live above the Law and so the Cottage Industry of Probate attorneys and guardian ad litem’s are empowered to launder the estates of the elderly, disabled and all people, such as myself, who dare to stand up and say, “No. You can’t do this”.

I don’t mean to sound so cavalier, Ken, but the end game is always the same in these situations, and I need to stay focused on my next move(s): the end game being that once Stern, Schmiedel, Farenga, and Toerpe have all of Mother’s money (which they already do) and all of my money and assets, which they almost do, then they will either over medicate or suffocate my mother. Although my mother has her last resting place paid for at All Saints Cemetary in Morton Grove, I am certain Toerpe will cremate her, sell mother’s site (will get at least $15000) and bury mother’s ashes next to her mother (grandma) where there is a lot available. This was of course not my mother’s wishes, but thus far, none of my mother’s advance directives have been acknowledged — and clearly it was my mother’s wish, desire, and intent to have an order of protection placed on Toerpe which would have prevented Toerpe from doing all that she had done.

I imagine Ken that had Schmiedel, Stern, and Farenga won the sanction claim against you (the appeal) they would have been each many thousands of dollars happier — and, would have done to you to other attorneys who tried to step in and help the elderly and disabled. That said, now the IARDC and the ISC has sent a clear and loud message to any attorney who would do the right thing, to not accept a probate case where the alleged disabled person has wealth. It was a sad day for me, and I know my mother, to learn that you have been suspended from practicing law — but it’s a sadder day for all of the people of Illinois knowing that we have no protections from a highly active and aggressive cottage industry of attorneys who are empowered by the IARDC, ISC and of course the Probate Judges who wish to partake in the laundering of the well-earned assets/money of the elderly and disabled.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

BELIEVE (BeLive) LLC

773.910-3310(cell)

773-751-1310 (fax)
855-376-0040 (business)

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

Posted on March 27, 2014 by jmdenison

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

To: Attorney General Holder

Dear General Holder,

A friend referred me to the following:

(2) Money laundering and related financial crime.–The term “money laundering and related financial crime”–

(A) means the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of, or through the United States, or into, out of, or through United States financial institutions, as defined in section 5312 of title 31, United States Code; or

(B) has the meaning given that term (or the term used for an equivalent offense) under State and local criminal statutes pertaining to the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds. 31 U.S.C.A. § 5340 (West)

Reviewing the abusive guardianship cases across the United States a common pattern exists.

1) a senior citizen is railroaded into a guardianship. In our posterboard case, it is Mary Sykes. The provisions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. have been ignored in the effort to obtain control over the body and the property of the victim. It should noted that mostly seniors with substantial assets are targeted.

2) a senior citizen is stripped of his/her assets. These funds disappear into the ‘cloud!” The funds obtained by the perpetrators are clearly illicit. Except for Mr. Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission few public officials have been know to defend the people (in this case attorneys) who act either for themselves or associates to garner control over the funds of the elderly and thereby either enrich themselves of others. In the Sykes case over a million dollars in collectibles (gold coins) was taken from a safety deposit box and never inventoried.

3) Obviously these illicit funds are moved – in the case of the elder cleansing victim the movement is to the pockets of the favored.

Thus, the definition is met. General Holder = Do you agree?

Do you agree the RICO statute concept applies? Are the proceeds obtained by the abusive guardianship and the corrupt courts such illicit funds so as to be mony laundering? Do you agree that the usurpers have to address the Federal and State Income tax laws – the breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event – but forfeitures (civil constructive trusts) etc. Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 a broad brush is appropriate as the only way for a Democratic Society to win the War on the Elderly and the Disabled is to make it pecuniarily unattractive for the bad acting guardians, judicial officials and those who aid and abet them in the struggle.

Getting down to specifics. 1.5 million dollars was exhausted in a few short month in the Alice Gore estate. (We have no valuation on the gold fillings in her teeth!). Someone owes to the United States of America taxes and penalties on those funds. Somehow these illicit funds were translated in an expensive home for ****, etc. According to the definition this is money laundering. The culpable people engaged are: 1) the plenary guardian, 2) the guardian ad litem, 3) the judge who assisted the enterprise by entering orders that she knew or should have know were reasonably calculated to separate the family of Alice Gore from Alice Gore. In addition the IARDC people who fended off Ms. Gore’s family’s complaints are part and parcel of the scheme. A similar situation occurred in the Sykes case. This time Mr. Larkin and the IARDC were more overt ****

I do not know if the $60,000 Federal Tax Lien placed on Adam Stern relates to his activities in the War on the Elderly and the disabled, but it that were to be related let me thank you on behalf of the Sykes family, the Community in which Mary Sykes resided before she was taken hostage for this positive step.

The Congress and the Legislature have provided the tools to address this official corruption – What we need now is an Honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation by a Grand Jury of the Alice Gore/Mary Sykes/ Tyler, et al Estates.

Justice for the elderly is wasted when it comes after death!

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Lanre Amu–his Supreme Court Brief

Posted on March 25, 2014 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;

Please take a look at the following:

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

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

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

There are many similarities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) commit a crime;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the bill stated:

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

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

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

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

Price v. Indiana

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

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

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

Mr Amu’s recent brief can be found here:

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

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

You go, girl.

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

Posted on March 22, 2014 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;

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

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

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

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

See my answer to her below.

JoAnne

Dear Friend;

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

Review the Sarah Barrielles song on this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to stop that nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for all you do for the probate victims.

I wish you many blessings, peace and love.

JoAnne

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

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

Posted on October 31, 2013 by jmdenison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joanne

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

From Ken D.

JoAnne,

The reason for a dispositive motion is to give Mr. Larkin and the IARDC every opportunity to comply with the law and to inform the panel of the fact that

1) they have no jurisdiction and as lawyers are charged with knowing that without jurisdiction there is no immunity. The lawyers should know that the IARDC attorneys have misrepresented the Supreme Court cases of the last century and have ignored the most recent cases that set the RULE OF LAW. A clear example is the Sawyer case which not only upheld Attorney Sawyer’s rights of Free Speech but pointed out that tradition did not trump the Constitution.

2) It is a violation of the public policy of the State of Illinois for any government agency (Judicial, Legislative, or Administrative) to interfere with the First Amendment Rights of citizens . 735 ILCS 110/5 restates the public policy of the State and County of DeWitt 298 Ill App3d 634 points out that actions in violation of the public policy will not be protected.

3) 42 USCA 1983 provides criminal and civil penalties against the individuals who use the ‘color ‘ of statute to deprive others of their First Amendment Rights. In light of the foregoing lack of jurisdiction and the public policy of the State of Illinois Mr. Larkin, his panels, and his staff lack jurisdiction.

4) As to Attorney Emu – 42 USCA 1981 is applicable

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require not only an investigation but something resembling a ‘safe harbor’ warning to people like those at the IARDC. It is true that all the Himmel notices that we have been sending and the blog postings are more than sufficient; however, it appears that some members of the panels are being snowed by the IARDC staff and they should have the opportunity to indicate if they are acting in concert with those who are using their position as employees of the State of Illinois (IARDC) to undermine the Constitutional Rights of American citizens.

I’ve copied this e-mail to the IARDC. If they wish to ignore it, that is their privilege. I’ve also copied law enforcement as the assault on the First Amendment by government is a serious matter and pursuant to the First Amendment I am demanding that law enforcement take such action as might be required to act affirmatively in stopping the criminal activity of violation of citizen civil

rights.

Government pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is limited and in particular required to respect every citizen’s First Amendment Rights. Judges are elected in Illinois, and no agency of government has the right to restrict political speech or content related speech.

Department of Justice Report on Elder Absue and Exploitation

Posted on April 25, 2013 by jmdenison

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

Report by US Dept. of Justice concerning Elder Abuse

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

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

Posted on March 11, 2013 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoAnne

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________

_________________________

__________________________

______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prayers from the church are working and I thank them all!

Posted on March 11, 2013 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;

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:

From: SD

To: joanne <joanne@denisonlaw.com>

Subject: Your Recent E-mail

Date: Feb 22, 2013 12:50 AM

Hello JoAnne,

Our mission is one of sympathy, friendship and Christian witness. Personally, I do not know the law profession….But I will be happy to keep you in prayer, particularly in your law work, just as I lifted up every member of your immediate family for blessing recently. I wish I could give you a more helpful answer for your specific legal concerns. Thank you for the good work that you do.

With every good wish,

Here is the powerful prayer he used:

Holy Father/Mother God, the truth, justice and light, be with [all lawyers] in particular and all of your children in general who believe in, and stand up for, the poor, the physically-challenged, seniors and the elderly, and all those without a strong voice in society. Strengthen and augment the efforts of [] and all attorneys, as well as social workers, other human welfare workers, and all others earnestly engaged in your work of justice and good will to all peoples, locally and globally; we thank them for following the path of your only Son in assisting your children, including the downtrodden and needy. Lift them up in their abilities to fight for right over might.

Inspire the hearts of those in established and institutionalized positions of authority to be merciful, compassionate and mindful of the highest good for all, including the little people under their jurisdiction, from public defenders to judiciary to governing agencies of the legal system. As Lincoln may have said it, let the better angels of their nature guide their important decisions, which stand to empower or defeat your very weakest and rejected children. Help shape the judgments of public officials in the vital roles they play in sanctioning loving moral and ethical principles inherent in laws and in the U.S. Constitution, and may they always discharge their duties to the best of their abilities.

Help us all combat corruption in any and all forms in social justice and replace it with principles grounded solely in love for you and love of our neighbor. We ask these things in your righteous and perfect name. Amen.

JoAnne, I hope this helps you and your cause. But please do invoke my name to the ARDC, as prayer is supposed to be done quietly and anonymously and not for our personal glory, etc.

Best wishes,

My response: whatever you can do in prayer is just fine. Do what you can. Throw away what you can’t and never, never look back. There is great work to do here and many churches and houses of worship can be a great part of it.

I do believe in prayer, thought and meditation. I put my name on things, but I have learned to be brave, very brave. I care not about the opposition. I charge ahead, but I think that takes years of prayer, discipline and higher though.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR POWERFUL WORK IN PRAYER, THOUGHT AND MEDITATION AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. Do not let it go. Seniors, the disabled and their families are suffering greatly from lack of justice in our courtrooms.

Peace, blessings and love to you all.

JoAnne

Some thoughts on the First Amendment by Tim Lahrman

Posted on March 7, 2013 by jmdenison

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

I do not disagree with one thing Ken advocates for or the positions he has taken. The 1st Amendment is a very interesting and powerful subject

I once wrote a letter to the only elected Probate Court Judge in Indiana and I opened my letter with the fact that the letter was presented in the spririt of the 1st Amendment and the right to freely exercise one’s right of political free speech freely exercised. I cited the applicable articles of the Indiana State Constitution and then I proceeded to tell this Judge he was a bully and that I did not mind calling him out as a bully. It was indeed a bold letter, some might think even a crazy man’s rant, but nonetheless I had every right to write the letter and say what I did. I simply called the guy out to be known as a notorious prick throughout the community and asked him if his parents were proud of him and raised him to be a prick — anyhow,

I have said some bold things to a few judges and authority figures over the years, it is never really enjoyable at the time and I often have no idea where the words come from when I open my mouth, the words just come out and I guess I have just been lucky —– I am always cautious and mindful not to make any threats, use fighting words and or assert any revenge —- The Indiana Supreme Court has held that telling a state actor to f*** themselves is free speech, it is a statement that illicits no response. Moral of the ruling, you can tell them to f***-off, just don’t add to the statement, what are you going to do about it? I love the 1st Amendment, its all a guy like me has —– and never would I care to have a Bar Association license, not in today’s world anyhow …

But my point is this —— what about the words we don’t hear from the people we are prohibited for associating with — and the words in the hearts and minds of those held in seclusion, secreted from society and from any opportunity to exercise their right to free expression, silenced and unheard from. What about their words? Is not this the real reason you find ourselves now arguing and fighting to express and protect your words ?? Why, if it was not for wanting to hear Mary’s words, and witness Mary exercise her 1st Amendment rights, none of us would even be here —- Brodsky included …..

New and exiciting gift for this blog–The ARDC gets a lesson from the Virginia Bar Assn

Posted on March 3, 2013 by jmdenison

Dear readers;

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:

Hunter-v-VA-State-Bar-03-01-13

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
11
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
19
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).
Moreover,
[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.”

JoAnne

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

Posted on March 1, 2013 by jmdenison

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

See the letter below

Letter from ARDC that they DO NOT do email

and my and Ken’s reponse is below.

Dear Jessica and Sharon;

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

joanne

cc: http://www.marygsykes.com

Dear ____,

The Illinois ARDC has a mission to address unethical conduct on the part of attorneys. This mission arose to a great extent out of the Greylord era wherein a large number of ‘judicial officials’ and others were tried and convicted of serious crimes while the mechanism for protecting the public failed.

The mandate to the ARDC was not to ‘lord it over’ the members of the legal profession, but to protect the Rights, Privileges and Immunities of All citizens. As you are totally aware my blog is 99.9% accurate, however, the pleadings that you have filed are misleading and unethically attempt to deny me my Rights, Privileges and Immunities. It is obvious that if you did a scintilla of investigation you would have determined that the ‘so called’ “judicial officials” have for more than 3 years denied a ‘senior citizen’ of her liberty and property rights. Indeed, you would have ascertained the jurisdictional requirement of 11a -10(f) has not been complied with and as determined by the Supreme Court of Illinois the ‘judicial officials’ have been appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.

Let me respectfully suggest to you that pursuant to my Himmel responsibility let this letter be a formal complaint against both of you for not informing the panel when you knew or should have known that the jurisdictional criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq, and in particular 5/11a – 10 had not been following. The ‘games playing’ of nitpicking my discovery request is interesting but just compounds the unethical behavior. The unethical conduct of attempting to deny me my First Amendment Rights is repulsive and abhorrent.

Mr.Ditkowsky on my behalf as filed with the Illinois Supreme Court a motion for a supervisory order. The rationale for this motion is very simple – This is the United States of America and last I heard there were some basic propositions that were in full force and effect i.e. you are I are equal before the law, and I have an absolute right to complain and speak out against the evil of a 90 year old lady being sequestered in the home of a person she appropriate claimed to have abused her so that she (Mary Sykes) could be denied her liberty and property by order of a Court that lacks jurisdiction. I as an America have a right to speak out and ‘blog’ to the public this act of terrorism by the “judicial officials’ who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction.

Simply put – if you have evidence that my blog is untruthful – let’s see it. If you have no evidence as a public employee having a fiduciary relationship to the public admit your error and dismiss this obscene disciplinary action.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Dear Jessica;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, just wondering.

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

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

thanks and take care and have a blessed day

joanne

cc: MaryGSykes blog

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

Posted on February 27, 2013 by jmdenison

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

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

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

Dear C_____;

OKay to publish your comments? Withour without your name?

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

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

take care

joanne

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

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

Signed [name and address redacted]

From Joanne;

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

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

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

Posted on February 27, 2013 by jmdenison

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

JoAnne,

We were surprised when we discovered that we have to wait until March 1 to file things electronically. [Please note, dear readers, the SCOI issued an order but forgot to change the “efiling instructions” online. They still read that efiling to SCOI is available starting 02-12-13 when in fact they issued a subsequent Order to delay this to March 1, 2013] This afternoon, Larry delivered the paper copies to the post office and they will be delivered tomorrow. Yesterday, I caused to be e-mailed to Farenga, Schmiedel and Stern as interested persons a copy of the Motion and the exhibits. We also sent each a paper copy. The postman is going to get a hernia these things are so heavy. We also sent copies to the ARDC attorneys and the Administrator. If there is anything that does not arrive, Larry will be happy to e-mail copies.

That said, copies were electronically sent to law enforcement as the prime purpose of the Motion is to get the Supreme Court to force the legal profession to ‘honor’ the First Amendment as it is core of our civilization and to order an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes affair. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged that jurisdiction cannot exist unless 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is followed this situation may also be a fifty and fourteenth Amendment matter. We have therefore forwarded a copy to the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department.

Frankly, I cannot see any justification for this facade to continue on. Everyone knows that the 10(f) Sodini notices were never given and thus our judicial officials were appointed by a Court that lack jurisdiction. Thus, they are not ‘judicial officials.’ For the record – that is not a threat! It is fact and at this point in time they run but they cannot hide. It is still not too late to do the ‘right thing!’ Mary is alive and still wants to go home and still wants to rejoin her sisters, her family, her younger daughter and he garden club. As I told Gloria – there is no percentage in asking the ‘judicial officials’ to do what is right. Too bad. (I copied each of them in the hope that they would allow Mary her life back for the few moments that she has left and so that they know what I sent them and if there is a document that they did not receive all they have to do is call Mr. Chambers at my office)

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

More flotsam and jetsam from the ARDC

Posted on February 27, 2013 by jmdenison

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

ARDC Motion to Strike Discovery Requests

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

The ARDC should know all that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carol Wyman Beating Report

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

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

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

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

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

Very few do what Ken and I do.

JoAnne

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

Posted on February 27, 2013 by jmdenison

Of a broken heart.

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

here is the link to the full story:

Benjamin Alfano’s Harrowing Probate Story

Synopsis of facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did all the money go?

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

Pagnano the GAL received $19,022.

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

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

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

Think about that.

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

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

None of those children plans to be in Guardianship court.

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

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

They have, however, filed an objection.

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

— Steve Duin is an Oregon reporter on this story

***End of Story****

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

I wonder

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

Posted on February 26, 2013 by jmdenison

Dear Ms. Farenga, Mr.Stern, Mr. Schmiedel,

Attached hereto is the Motion of attorney JoAnne Denison that was electronically filed by Ms. Denison (via my office) with the Illinois Supreme Court.

Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

This Motion seeks in part that the Illinois Supreme Court order an investigation of the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation cases – such as the case of Mary Sykes in which sans jurisdiction a plenary guardian was appointed who is reported to not have inventoried a large number of gold coins and other valuables.

By the United States Postal Service mail a copy of the document is being mailed to the ARDC as it is an interested party.

In the interests of justice and the interest of Mary Sykes and the other persons similarly affected, we invite you to join with us in requesting an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter and in particular, the admitted lack of the service of the 14 day notices required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

The First Amendment and Attys JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky

Posted on February 25, 2013 by jmdenison

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

okay to publish?and many of these stories act as if these cases are MY grievances that I’m airing and they’re not. (Some of the news stories did get this wrong and said that I was petitioning for guardianship, when I was not, but many corrected that and said I only filed an appearance and then was disqualified because I notarized a document, and then a couple years later started the blog when the Sykes case drug on and was clearly without jurisdiction and then via the probate victims’ blogs I was finding a similar disturbing pattern of cases not following the Illinois Probate Act with large amounts of funds uninventoried, no jurisdiciton, etc.).
I am REPORTING these stories, I am calling for an INVESTIGATION by the authorities and by the ARDC because courts are acting without jurisdiction and the authorities are not investigating and they should. The probate victims come to me AND you Ken and they wonder why they are not getting the basic forms of justice–due process, notice to all relatives so the court can be fully informed and appoint the best guardian, inventory of all assets and possible assets belonging to the estate. Millions in about half a dozen cases reported directly to me are uninventoried and missing. The family and legatees/heirs want to know why.

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?

Subject: The First Amendment and Attorney JoAnne Denison.

Ms. G___ S____ in an e-mail furnished me with a list of some of the blogs that are carrying the JoAnne Denison story. The attack unconstitutional attack on Ms. Denison’s First Amendment Rights by the Illinois ARDC is not unprecedented. The First Amendment is often not held in high regard by government when it decides not to be transparent or decides to obviate the rights of a particular group of people. Government with something to ‘hide’ or that is embarrassed by its own conduct is usually behind the miscreant conduct. A review of the Mary Sykes case 09 P ____, pending in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County is clear in disclosing a quagmire of bad behavior by ‘judicial officials.’ In Sykes and in all of these situations, the victims are senior citizens, the disabled (with money) and their families.

It is our belief that the ARDC did not receive a mandate to suppress Attorney speech and therefore lacks jurisdiction. The ARDC’s mandate comes from the Illinois Supreme Court and that Court is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The Alvarez, NY Times, et al decisions are clear in pointing out that ‘content’ based speech cannot be suppressed. That is not to say that the same speech might under the right circumstances be subject to defamation suit, but government (including the ARDC) does not have standing to prevent the publication. l

In light of the history of Illinois and the 15+ judges who went to jail in the Greylord scandal and the number of Illinois high ranking political types that are in jail the ban on suppression of free speech is vital and a core basis of America. The blogs who are reported to have carried the story are:

http://www.sofloridaestateplanning.com/2013/02/articles/probate-1/attorney-charged-with-ethics-complaint-over-probate-blog/

http://lberezin.com/2013/02/04/lawyer-faces-ethics-charges-for-blogging-about-corruption-in-illinois-probate-system/

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202586530125&Attorneys_blogging_prompts_ethics_complaint_&slreturn=20130124210350

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

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

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202586530125&Attorneys_blogging_prompts_ethics_complaint_

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

http://thedailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2013/02/07/to-blog-or-not-to-blog/

http://lawyerswithtroubles.wordpress.com/category/rules-of-court/

http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/estate-elderlaw/blogs/estateplanningandprobateblog/archive/2013/02/06/attorney-charged-with-ethics-complaint-over-probate-blog.aspx

http://www.globallegalpost.com/global-view/patent-lawyer-in-hot-water-over-blog-64101574/#.USrJQ4WxpZ0

http://themedicalmalpracticecases.com/attorneys-blogging-prompts-ethics-complaint/

http://blog.martindale.com/chicago-attorney-faces-ethics-violation-for-airing-grievances-on-blog

http://quest.law.com/Search/Search.do?Ntt=Illinois+Attorney+Registration+and+Disciplinary+Commission&x=0&y=0&Nty=1&site=nlj&N=8357&Ntk=SI_All&cx=1&sortVar=1

http://www.estateofdenial.com/2013/02/10/attorneys-blogging-prompts-ethics-complaint-il/

http://lberezin.com/2013/02/04/lawyer-faces-ethics-charges-for-blogging-about-corruption-in-illinois-probate-system/

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From Gloria today—

Posted on August 1, 2012 by jmdenison

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com> [Edit Address Book]

To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>,Date: Aug 1, 2012 1:41 PM

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-****.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

[edited for typos only].

From: gloami@msn.com
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; dmsilver@me.com; timlahrman@aol.com; anniezhou@denisonlaw.com; wmrcls@hotmail.com; verenusl@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; yostwright@aol.com; pahah@verizon.net; scottcevans@hotmail.com; k_bakken@att.net; ildbambic@govabuse.org; wwdovew@aol.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com; gloami@msn.com
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:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVnpBTjc3NThMS1E

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!

Attached to the note from Cynthia Farenga is a copy of the POA for medical care. The document was filled out by my mother in front of attorney Mr. Lippman, (he gave her the form: she met with Lippman on 25 June 2009 and vacated the 2005 trust and named her friend Marlene Kroll executor) and it was witnessed by neighbor and long time friend, retired LT from Chicago Fire Department, Chuck Maderer. Kelly Yost notarized this document. An affidavit by Chuck is also attached. All of this can be posted as a reminder that the truth leaves tracks.

That the Court sanctions these criminal acts against the elderly and disabled are crimes beyond comprehension.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

[edited for typos only]

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:09:26 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com

“The Sodini notices were never served on my Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, or me, and at no time was there a scheduled guardianship hearing: Carolyn Toerpe was appointed guardian based on an agreement between her and Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern:: my mother was not present, but when she was present in court, she objected to the guardianship. Cynthia Farenga when asked admitted my mother objected to the guardianship. Cynthia Farenga also admitted my mother had not been served the 14 day notice: this acknowledgement was faxed to Judge Connors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”

Rather the vilifying everyone in sight – the expenditure of the same amount of time generates a Motion to dismiss using the above quote. What is the big deal?

In the upcoming ARDC hearing I will want you to testify as to the quoted facts. If you have a copy of the acknowledgement I would like it.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
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!

Form to get any Probate case dismissed for lack of Sodini Jurisdiction or proper Notice to Close Relatives

Posted on August 1, 2012 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;
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:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwaWU1aFBZRjUtbDQ

for the link to the WPD version of the form

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweGwwemJ6cEw1NUU

for the link to an RTF version of the form:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwREt4ZS1LQ0dHYmM

From Cynthia Farenga– A special Request to Stop Helping her out

Posted on August 1, 2012 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;
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.

take care

JoAnne

From: [special person]
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 2:03 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Subject: cease and desist

JoAnne:
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.
[special person]

My Response to her:

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: redactedname@comcast.net
Cc: ken ditowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>, Annie Zhou <anniezhou@denisonlaw.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.

thanks

joanne

Calls on Gloria to do the right thing and file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit

Posted on August 1, 2012 by jmdenison

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.
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky

Gloria rewrite the motion but file it. …[edited for extraneous information]

Let us get on the next step:

“The Sodini notices were never served on my Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, or me, and at no time was there a scheduled guardianship hearing: Carolyn Toerpe was appointed guardian based on an agreement between her and Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern:: my mother was not present, but when she was present in court, she objected to the guardianship. Cynthia Farenga when asked admitted my mother objected to the guardianship. Cynthia Farenga also admitted my mother had not been served the 14 day notice: this acknowledgement was faxed to Judge Cnnors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”

I understand that the guardianship hearing was dated December 2009 – there is a gap between August and December.

The usual procedure is that when you file the original petition, there is a hearing date set. This is the reason that the Court has ignored the oral statements and avoided the Sodini issues. The movant then and there serves a copy of the petition on the alleged incompetent and the close relatives. (this passes the test of Sodini). A hearing is held on the date that is scheduled or on a subsequent continuance date.

In the Sykes case, the ccp 211 was not filed with the petition and no hearing date could be set and apparently none was set. The petition did not disclose the close relatives and therefore was also defective. The entire guardianship scam was intended to avoid for Carolyn an embarassment of a protective order and most importantly the return of the funds and property from the safety deposit box. In fact Carolyn did not desire a hearing and when she placed the petition for service on Mary she intentionally gave a cook county address knowing that she had taken Mary to live with her in DuPage County.

In late August 2009 the Court was getting impatient with the fact that there had been no CCP 211 filed rather than dismissing the proceeding did something very strange. She asked Carolyn’s attorney as to the lack of a certificate of incompetency. She was told by Carolyn’s attorney that Mary’s doctor refused to sign. Then our ‘unbiased judge’ made the famous statement to the effect that Carolyn ought to go out an find a doctor who was willing to prostitute himself. (Of course she did not use those words – but the meaning was clear!)

Immediately thereafter Mary was bench served. I have assumed that the bench server duly read her all the statements required, including the fact that she was entitled to a lawyer. Mary requested a lawyer – however, GAL Adam Stern thwarted that effort! GAL Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn’s lawyer were upset that Gloria might use the Lumberman settlement to help her mother and therefore the TRO fiasco was successfully commenced and Gloria’s rights were violated.

Mr. Schmiedel disclosed these facts to a judge, who just ignored them. Mr. Stern attempted to avoid the issue entirely by a bold assertion that Gloria (and/or her attorney) had agreed to the guardianship of Carolyn. Gloria cut him a new GM with her outrage at the alleged frugality with the truth. However the fact remains that Mary was denied a hearing by the agreement of GAL Adam Stern, GAL Cynthia Farenga, and Carolyn. |

As I understand it these are the facts! Gloria if they are true let us bring them to Circuit Court’s attention and move to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Then, move forward with appropriate lawsuits to 1) obtain the work product stolen from you during the forcible entry and detainer action, 2) obtain remediation for interference with you repairs to you home, etc etc.

This case has gone on long enough. We have called for a law enforcement investigation as the civil rights of everyone are being abused when a Court continues to enter orders without jurisdiction. What is occurring in the Sykes case is the nadir of the jurisprudence and is rightly called the “SON OF GREYLORD!”

Gloria – or anyone else – correct any of the facts that I have wrong. Farenga claims “truth” is on her side. OK when were the notices sent out? When were they received? When was the hearing held? Who was present? Who testified? Ms. Black in the Request to Admit denied that a hearing was not held? The docket does not show a hearing and no one seems to know about it other than Ms. Black. Maybe the Sodini compliance’s were all accomplished in a parallel reality – how do be access that reality?

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Joanne’s continued communication with Diane Saltoun-Illinois Executive Director Attorney General

Posted on August 1, 2012 by jmdenison

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

FAX_20120801_1343785279_36

A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

Posted on July 31, 2012 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;

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!

thanks

JoAnne

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.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Gloria Sykes, daughter,
Pro Se
Prepared By:

Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com 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

EMERGENCY
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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Gloria J. Sykes, Daughter, an interested party
to Respondent, Mary G. Sykes
Prepared By:
Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com

A letter from Ken to Mr Moossy, Head of Civil Rights Division

Posted on July 31, 2012 by jmdenison

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.

sykesblog–moossy-ltr-jul31-civ.rights

sykesblog–moossy-ltr-jul31-civ.rights2

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case.

Posted on July 28, 2012 by jmdenison

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.

Once Cynthia Farenga showed up on the 30 August 2009, she believed Toerpe had mother medicated enough, or enough undue influence was perpetrated on the 90 year old woman, that Mother would coward, but she didn’t. She corrected Adam Stern when Stern went on a rampage accusing me of abusing her, and then when Farenga told the Court the same, Mother stood up to all of them and spoke her mind. Mother has never wavered, and so, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel hired Dr. G. Shaw to testify that mother is not only incompetent now, but she was also incompetent and unable to handle her affairs on October 18, 2008, or so. This testimony is in complete opposition to Dr. Patel’s medical reports where he clearly told Toerpe he would not sign the CCP211 because my mother instructed him not to. That my mother ‘makes sense’ out of any topic” and can “communicate on any subject matter”.

But let’s go one step forward, the Court orders Toerpe has to bring mother home on September 4, 2009 and Toerpe, knowing that I’m fixing up my back yard, yes my back yard at 6016 for a huge welcome home holiday party for mother, calls me and tells me she will be bringing mother home early, but in about one hour. But Toerpe is already in the home (6014) and she drove her daughter’s car just so I wouldn’t notice that she’s already there. But her plan is thwarted because I have ‘workers’ around the house, and he sees Carolyn through mother’s kitchen window as he is fixing a leak on the exterior faucet. Toerpe then calls me and demands I tell her who the “black man” is along side the house! I immediately return to 6014 and find Toerpe in the refrigerator, looking through food which I just bought for the party. Toerpe tells me that she will buy all of mother’s medications at Walgreens (and mother can no longer get her medications from her neighborhood pharmacy where she and Daddy have gone for over 30 years!). Mom and I hug, but mom is very quiet and looks sickly — she’s lost a lot of weight.

Then Toerpe walks mother out to my backyard as if mother is a cripple, and she she leaves, Mother tell me that she doesn’t want to go over to Carolyn’s home any more: that it’s weird over there. I go back to the home and watch Toerpe get into Kristin’s car, and all Toerpe has are her purse and keys. Toerpe didn’t bring any of mother’s beautiful summer clothes I bought Mom back with her, and even kept all of the winder clothes including coats and jackets Toerpe took from Mother’s home in August. Cynthia Farenga said to make a list and she would get the clothes back, but Farenga never planned on getting mother’s property back from Toerpe because she had already agreed to Toerpe’s payment plan for Farenga’s services.

I can go on and on, but I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the States Attorney’s office with the following documents and evidence:

(1) That I had just purchased a ‘flashy new Lexis”

(2) That I had gone bankrupt twice.

(3) That I dictated the letter mother wrote on September 20, 2009 and the letter

Mother asked Cynthia to give to the Judge.

(4) That Yolanda Bakken slapped Toerpe in the face and tried to kidnap Mother in August 2009 when visiting on a court order.

(5) That Scott Evans wrote the Toerpes a threatening letter.

(6) That Doris Evans is a threat to Mother’s well being

(7) That I abused my mother and,

(8) That I financially exploited my mother.

Then I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the court with Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as ordered by the Court and provide proof of the $26,000 she took from mother in 2006 and set up a joint savings account in Toerpe and my mother’s name: then of course, proof that there was a CD or a IRA account opened in January 2009 with the $4000 Toerpe took from mother’s bank account. Then prove to the States Attorneys office that Toerpe didn’t double pay the mortgage in July, August, September, October, November and December of 2009 so it would appear that Mother had no money in 2009!!!..

I can go on with request but this is a start. Until you prove all of the above Cynthia Farenga, I think that you have a problem on your hands. Of course, you believe you are immune from any lawsuits, but I got a feeling that if one person from the State’s Attorney’s office is just a little interested in proving me wrong, they’ll check it out. What they will find is that Toerpe’s been stealing money from my mother for a very long time and it’s because my mother caught her in Feb. 2009, Toerpe set a course to take control of mother’s person and finances to cover up her crimes. Then lucky Toerpe, she hired a lawless attorney who would murder his own mother for money as he ripped off seniors in Indiana on remodeling and reverse mortgages: then Harvey Jack Waller was blessed to have you Cynthia Farenga appointed and now I’m back to the beginning of the case.

The question is Cynthia Farenga, in absence of any evidence as you have none to your malicious allegations, how do you continue to get away with these crimes against the elderly, disabled, and all people the elderly and disabled trust and love? That said, I know your husband and once in a while you buy and sell estates of Wards of Cook County, and your husband Michael Crowley does your dirty work and serves fraudulent documents on people’s financial advisors and institutions, and you had me served with a Pizza Flyer, too, but who do you sleep at night? Your daughter appears to be a lovely young woman (the internet is great for ***). Does she know who you really are? Does she know that you lie, cheat, steal and will murder in order to earn your living off of the elderly, disabled and all people who stand up for the truth and justice?

So Scott, if there were one person at the Illinois States Attorneys office willing to steal across the LINE Cynthia Farenga drew in the sand (as she keeps moving is), I know for a fact that soon after the investigation there would be a grand jury asking Carolyn Toerpe some serious questions. I know that Toerpe, however will coward and she will turn Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel in as they are orchestrating all of this by using our courts as their weapons of choice.

But now I’m way a head of myself. Let’s go back to the court transcripts ……

FYI the Court Reporter from the date Kevin Salam testified refuses to call me back and the Official court reporter’s office cannot help me get the transcripts from Salam’s testimony. Similarly it took six months-for me to get the transcripts format eh Domestic Relations court in and regarding the petition for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe.. That said, the records are available for any one to read and they are a good read.

FYI Ya got three days to turn over the documents Cynthia Farenga as I am prepared to publish an article — If you have any of this evidence, and proof of course of the Sodini requirements met, you may be able to prove your claims as I always give both sides of the story. As it is, the transcripts and court docket show exactly what I and other people, including Ditkowsky have said. You, Cynthia Farenga are a liar and a fraud — well, those are my words. I will retract and apologize once I have the above documents and records in the hands of the Illinois States Attorney — and available or the public to examine.

Have a beautiful day all. I have just started… Watch me!

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

(edited only for typos and grammar)

My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Directior at the Illinois Atty General

Posted on July 28, 2012 by jmdenison

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.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcnNGSXZuZU9La1k

I want to make this easy peasy for everyone!

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Diane Saltoun
Executive Inspector General
IAG
fax 312-814-8444

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

Dear Diane;

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.

No response.

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 Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

cc: Ken Ditkowsky and http://www.marygsykes.com blog.

Answer to a Question from Scott Evans and the significance of lacking jurisdiction/Sodini notices

Posted on July 28, 2012 by jmdenison

Question from Scott Evans:

Gloria,

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
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sykes Case Jurisdiction
To: scottcevans@hotmail.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com
CC: elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; k_bakken@att.net; timlahrman@aol.com

The significance of Sodini is jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction everything done in the Sykes case is void. The guardian ad litem are ‘de facto’ and therefore as there is no guardianship their actions are unauthorized. As there is no jurisdiction their is no guardian ship. No guardianship means that the drilling of the safety deposit box was not authorized and was a garden variety larceny by trick. Citatons to discover assets are also ‘ultra vires’ and therefore all this nonsense of questioning Gloria as to her assets, seizing her assets is just garden variety common law fraud, theft, false imprisonment and criminal contempt of court.

Similarly the non-inventory of the assets removed from the safety deposit box is theft! In addition as the mails were used to commit the fraud our friends are guilty of 18 USCA 1341 (mail fraud). There are least two predicate action and therefore the government can charge each with RICO. Of course, theft as well as breach of fiduciary relationship are taxable events. All of our friends are guilty of conspiracy to evade the United States Income taxes Carolyn is guilty of tax fraud.

Keeping Mary against her will is kidnapping on the criminal side and false imprisonment on the civil side.

On the other hand, had the Sodini notices been given the guardians have 100% absolute immunity. Farenga and Stern have discretion as to what they report to the Court, and the Court can issue ‘wrong and unjust orders’ until the cows come home. Sodini is the lynch pin!

With two of the three necessary close relatives filing affidavits that they did not receive the 14 day notices required to obtain jurisdiction over Mary and her estate any judge who takes his/her duties seriously would order an investigation. Most judges do not like to enter orders that are beyond their jurisdiction.

What makes this case the ‘son of greylord’ is the fact that every judge has had the jurisdictional issue raised and each avoided the issue liket he plague. The lawyers who are presumed to know the law admit that the Sondini protections were not afforded to Mary and ‘no one cares.’ An honest investigation would find out why the Judges are reluctant to determine if they had jurisdiction! An honest investigation would require Carolyn to produce the inventory that Mary kept in the safety deposit box. An honest investigation would find out why Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al. are so afraid to participate in the investigation and why they mislead the Court on a regular basis. An honest investigation would look into Judge Connors dates in December 2009.

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

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

Posted on July 28, 2012 by jmdenison

A CALL FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION

Ms. Farenga,

I thought about your last e-mail this morning and it occurred to me that you actually might not know that the Sykes case is not only a serious matter, but, an innocent senior citizen has in fact been deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights. Indeed, it is possible that you might not know that the Illinois Legislature enacted the statute described and interpreted by Sodini to protect against exactly the type of situation that has occurred in Sykes. (Indeed, it appears that jurisdictional protections appear to be honored by non-compliance in many cases such as Tyler, Wyman, etc – the GAO report of September last confirms this theory)

The problem that you face – or will face is the fact that like Justice Sotomeyer the public is getting ‘sick and tired’ of lawyers claiming innocence for bad deeds that are clearly prohibited by statute. Too often Judges have stated when confronted by a lay person – “ignorance of the law is not excuse!” Members of the 2nd oldest profession also use the excuse of I did not know the law and other members are sympathetic as they impose strict standards on the public. The Sykes’ treatment of Gloria Sykes is an example. Thus, while you, Stern, and Schmiedel ‘cut corners’ and act under color of statute to deprive Gloria and others of their civil rights you and the Court demand that people like Gloria Sykes strictly comply with the Rules. Want an example? You, Adam, and Schmiedel were well aware when you filed the sanction motion against me that the Court had no jurisdiction! The net was you wasted your time, my time and the Court’s time. Further you will spend hundreds of hours in defending a very viable civil rights suit that could result in a seven figure verdict against you personally.

A second example is the Sykes case itself. You, Stern, and Schmiedel are well aware that the Petition to appoint Carolyn as plenary guardian is defective, and that the required jurisdictional notices were never written or mailed. Thus, as a matter of law the Probate Court for over three years has operated without jurisdiction. The ‘cover-up’ is the Son of Greylord and ultimately will result in some sort of serious prosecution of the culpable. How could you not know of the jurisdictional problem? Justice Sotomeyer’s decision in Jerman answers the question – you are presumed to know the law and that presumption is very strong. Clout only works for a short period of time – it works until the ‘clout’ is required to account. All that said, Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes have a very viable civil rights suit. [as the court has no jurisdiction there is no immunity and what would be absolute immunity for you as a GAL does not exist in the Sykes case]

There are many more examples of the Sykes guardian and guardian ad litem acting sans jurisdiction. An injunction was entered without the prior filing of a verified petition and without the mandatory bond. The citation proceeding is flawed! You as a seasoned lawyer owe a duty to the ‘ward’ and to the ‘court’ to prevent such misconduct. You have a great deal of temerity even suggesting that you are an innocent and that the only misconduct that you know of is that of Gloria Sykes. Such a rationalization is obscene!

A while back – after the decision of the Appellate Court throwing out the sanction for lack of jurisdiction – I offered you the simple proposition (Safe Harbor e-mails) of you reporting the facts to the Court in exchange for my just forgetting about the Civil Rights remedy that I am entitled. Your rejected the proposition. This of course was your right. I called upon you to join with me and call for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case – if you had nothing to hide. Again you and Stern rejected the call. A simple review of the facts, the docket, the transcripts of the Sykes case and the reason for the rejection is obvious.

No, I am not going to make any more offers of settlement – I have written law enforcement and others demanding a full complete and honest investigation. Mary Sykes is in her 4th year of captivity. Over a million dollars in her assets have not been accounted for and certainly not inventoried. (For the record – I was Mary’s attorney and wrote up her will – I know what her estate consisted of and I know exactly how many double eagles she had and what they were worth – I could care less whether the guardian – who had the safety deposit box drilled shared with you and Stern the ‘booty!’ By your e-mails and non-action you have aided and abetted Income tax evasion) I am appealing to you as a human being to reach out to Gloria Sykes and the organizations that support Mary Sykes and ‘free Mary Sykes!’ Join with Ms. Denison, and the organizations that support Mary and Gloria Sykes and request a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of not only the Sykes case, but all the cases in which similar events as have occurred in Sykes are rampant!

Right now you are ‘young’ and do not face the avarice that many senior citizens are confronted. Instead of finding themselves in the bosom of loving families, they are confronted by children who cannot wait for grandma to die before seeking to loot her estate. Even more troubling is the appearance Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern who aid and abet the scenario and when confronted by the consequences of *** come forth with ” Gloria did it!” The climate that you helped create is a cancer and will be something that you most probably will personally confront in your household as you have demonstrated to your children and grandchildren that it is OK to deny grandma her liberty, her property, her civil rights and human rights. Newton point out that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and this is one of the primary laws of nature. Today we recite the law by – ‘what goes around comes around’

Thus, the joining with me, Denison, Sykes and the Anti Elder Abuse organizations in calling for an honest investigation of the Sykes case you act in your own best long term interests. Even at this point in time – doing the ‘right thing’ will provide you with great benefits; however, ***** The decision is yours and we all will fight the death to preserve your right to act inappropriately and in derogation of your own best interests.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

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!

String of Emails between Ken and Cynthia tells it all…..

Posted on July 28, 2012 by jmdenison

Dear Readers;

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!

JoAnne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 27, 2012 2:29 PM
To: “cfarenga@comcast.net”
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.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Dear Ken,
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” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: cfarenga@comcast.net
Cc: “NASGA” <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “probate sharks” <verenusl@gmail.com>, “JoAnne M Denison” <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>, “states attorney” <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>, “Cook County Sheriff” <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>, “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “scottevans” <scottcevans@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:25:24 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Ms Farenga,

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.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:05 PM
Subject: Assorted
Ken,
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.]]
CRF
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <timlahrman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:29:10 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction

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.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED

Posted on July 26, 2012 by jmdenison

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)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28

MaryGSykes.com

Tag Archives: probate court

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

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

From Lanre Amu–his Supreme Court Brief

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

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

Department of Justice Report on Elder Absue and Exploitation

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

Prayers from the church are working and I thank them all!

Some thoughts on the First Amendment by Tim Lahrman

New and exiciting gift for this blog–The ARDC gets a lesson from the Virginia Bar Assn

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

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

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

More flotsam and jetsam from the ARDC

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

Copy of Petition to SCOI for a Supervisory Order

The First Amendment and Attys JoAnne Denison and Kenneth Ditkowsky

From Gloria today—

Form to get any Probate case dismissed for lack of Sodini Jurisdiction or proper Notice to Close Relatives

From Cynthia Farenga– A special Request to Stop Helping her out

Calls on Gloria to do the right thing and file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit

Joanne’s continued communication with Diane Saltoun-Illinois Executive Director Attorney General

A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

A letter from Ken to Mr Moossy, Head of Civil Rights Division

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case.

My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Directior at the Illinois Atty General

Answer to a Question from Scott Evans and the significance of lacking jurisdiction/Sodini notices

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

String of Emails between Ken and Cynthia tells it all…..

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED