From Gloria Sykes–Why has Peter Schmeidel not been disciplined.

Dear Readers;

GJS has a number of complaints against PS, yet the ARDC keeps on ignorning them and dismissing them–despite the fact they have received the 3 affidavits here and have more than adequate reason to KNOW the probate court has been acting without jurisdiction for THREE years, and yet they do nothing, they say nothing.

In a similar vein, I sent Leah Black and the Administrator a copy of John Wyman’s book, and they know that case is operation without jurisdiction for three years.  Mr. John Wyman, as you know, has been complaining at the top of his lungs against everyone involved in that–including the US atty’s office, and nothing has been done there.

Big sigh.

So please read GJS’s letter below and take care

JoAnne

ARDC Chicago and Springfield offices
Via facsimile
October 8, 2012
 
From: Gloria Jean Sykes 773-910-33310
          6016 N. Avondale Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60631
 
RE:  Attorney Peter Schmiedel
 
Dear Administrator,
 
I have filed many complaints against attorney Peter Schmiedel and to date, none have been investigated, let alone acknowledged, but each has been willy-nilly dismissed (although I have yet to receive one letter from the ARDC dismissing a complaint against him: apparently, the complaints just vanish!)  Below please find the last complaint against attorney Peter Schmiedel, the attorney I once spoke to (October 2009) outside Judge Connors Courtroom and after providing him with privileged information, and asking him if he would represent me, upon his request, he gave me his business card and asked me to call his office and contact the ‘intake’ personal and set up and appointment.  Remember, I provided him with information about ‘my’ situation, to which he gave me his business card and asked me to call. I find that Peter Schmiedel then, three months later, being retained by Carolyn Toerpe quite interesting and terribly wrong!  That said, on Oct. 3, 2012, once again Peter Schmiedel LIED to the Court in order to sway the ruling in his favor.  I am getting the transcripts, but let it be known, that Judge Stuart stayed her ruling pending the outcome of an appeal based on the core of this wrongful guardianship of my Mother, Mary G. Sykes: jurisdiction.
 
To wit, let me resubmit the complaint filed on March 31, 2012 against attorney Peter Schmiedel as none of the violations of the Codes of Professionalism have changed, he has simply been more empowered because the ARDC apparently is protecting him in order to use his testimony to disbar or sanction or do harm to attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky. It is also apparent that ARDC agent Lea Black has filed similar charges against Kenneth Ditkowsky — and attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky has never had an appearance on file in the Sykes case or in any case regarding me or my mother.  Attorney Lea Black, according to attorney Joel Brodsky, gave out confidential information in and regarding the first face to face interview with Kenneth Ditkowsky — as I guess she has give out documents he may have provided her in order to discredit me.  I find this behavior very sad, and in light that I complained about Joel Brodsky and provided the Administrator with verified court transcripts showing that Brodsky said that Lea Black provided him with confidential information about the aforesaid meeting with Ditkowsky — it is interesting that Lea Black is still an investigator at the ARDC and in fact, held to be the lead attorney in the case against Kenneth Ditkowsky.  Is this behavior appropriate for ARDC attorneys?  
 
Finally, and with all due respect, how do I file a complaint against ARDC attorney Lea Black, when in fact, she is an agent of the ARDC. Apparently she has used an unverified email claiming I wrote claiming I “Lied”.  Let me remind this Administration, Lea Black’s statement of fact to bring this document into the ARDC trial as evidence to discredit me as a witness, is a forged and altered documents, and I emphatically deny that I have ever been untruthful in any position I have taken, or continue to take, and/or asserted in any Illinois court proceedings, and/or in any court proceeding, including in the Probate Division, Forcible and Detainer Division, U.S. District Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and or the Indian Court. 
 
Thank you for your quick response on the complaint below as it was file on March 31, 2012 and as far as I see, NEVER investigated. That said, doesn’t attorney Peter Schmiedel have a serious conflict of interest in representing Carolyn Toerpe when in fact, he asked me questions about my situation in the Probate proceedings where I was just an ‘interested party’ and gave me his card merely three months before being retained by Carolyn Toerpe through a payment agreement that financially exploits and willfully deprives my mother of her assets, her home, and all of my assets and home/property, too!  
 
I AM RESUBMITTING THE FOLLOWING COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY PETER SCHMIEDEL of which I’ve asked and given permission for all people to republish in order to protect my mother, Mary G. Sykes’ rights, liberties, and LIFE.
 
ARDC Chicago and Springfield offices
Via facsimile
March 31, 2012
From: Gloria Jean Sykes 773-910-33310
          6016 N. Avondale Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60631
RE:  Attorney Peter Schmiedel
To Whom It May Concern at the ARDC,
(Most of this was filed with the ARDC in Nov. 2011: as I heard nothing from the ARDC regarding this complaint, I am refiling and adding recent violations perpetrated by attorney Peter Schmiedel.  Please note that Peter Schmiedel instructs other lawyers and law enforcement on how to investigate and prove)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR COMPLAINT(S) AGAINST ATTORNEY PETER SCHMIEDEL:
Professionalism should be a part of every Illinois lawyer’s daily practice, or so I’ve read and been told. Attorney Peter Schmiedel may have memorized the Rules of Professional Responsibility in order to procure a license to practice law, but clearly he has failed in application. The rules, he can argue are unclear, and ethical dilemmas, ambiguous, but since he filed his appearance In Re the Estate of Mary G. Sykes, 2009 P 4585, Peter Schmiedel has repeatedly distorted the facts, misrepresented the facts, maliciously and intentionally LIED not only to Probate and Forcible judges, but also a Federal Judge (Transcript attacked from Bankruptcy proceeding, October 25, 2011): Mr.    the rules and case law make clear what is required.   In Jerman v. Carlisle, it is noted, “ignorance of the law is no excuse****) Pursuant Winthrop v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 848 N.E. 2d 961 (2006) 219 Ill.2d 526 302 Ill.Dec. 397,  “Our goal in imposing discipline on an attorney is not to punish the attorney, but rather to protect the integrity of the legal profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach”. (also see In Re Cutright, 2009), Peter Schmiedel must be disbarred and sanctioned!
Arguing via Winthrop, HOW ABOUT AT LEAST PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE  LEGAL PROFESSION?
Schmiedel has violated so many of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it is impossible to name them all, although I will touch on a few.
Counts I, II, III  and IV are set before you clearly and concisely as possible: court transcripts have been provided to you in the past: PLEASE TURN TO TRANSCRIPTS OF October 25, 2011 where Peter Schmiedel appeared before a Federal Judge Hollis n Bankruptcy Court.134 Ill.2d R. 3.3(a)(2).    (1) failure to disclose a material fact to a tribunal (134 Ill.2d R. 3.5(h));  (2) engaged in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation (210 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(4));  (3) engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice (210 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(5));  and (4) engaged in conduct “which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute” in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770 (210 Ill.2d R. 770).
(1)  FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A MATERIAL FACT TO A TRIBUNAL.
Peter Schmiedel committed violations of Rule 3.3(a)(2) when he failed to advise the Probate Court that his client closed Mary G. Sykes’ account at the Pullman Bank and removed all the contents from a safety deposited box at the same location, one that had not only Mary G. Sykes’ name on it I was a renter too!
1.     Peter Schmiedel knows his client is in possession of a substantial amount of Mother’s funds, as well as legal contracts between Mother and Me, Mother and lawyers, including a draft of the new Trust mother had initiated on June 25, 2009.
2.     Peter Schmiedel kept from the court Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008 2009, and 2010 because he knows that Mother had substantial funds in three accounts (Schmiedel’s client only gave numbers to two of the accounts),
3.     Peter Scshmiedel knows that Mary G. Sykes / Gloria Jean Sykes (me) had a bag of gold and silver coins in the safety deposit box owned by Mother and me, and that his client is now in possession of those coins;
4.     Peter Schmiedel knows that there is no CD or IRA account that Mother opened in January 2009 for $4000, leaving his client the sole beneficiary;
5.     Peter Schmiedel knows that there is no “joint’ account between Mother and his client wheeby Mother gave his client about $25,000 in 2005 (or 06);
6. Peter Schmiedel knows that his client Carolyn Toerpe is not the Trustee of the Mary G. Sykes Trust and that it’s a “naked trust” and that Mary G. Sykes, if she were to diagnosed incompetent and there was a trustee, then only Mary’s primary doctor, P. Patel can authorize such diagnosis.  (Peter Schmiedel has seen the letter Dr. Patel wrote to his client stating that he refused to sign the CCP211 because Mary is competent and Mary told him not to!)
7. Attorney Schmiedel knows that his client is not a PhD and yet he did not notify the court that the legal document his client filed signing PhD after her name is fraudulent (the CCP211);
8.  Attorney Schmiedel knows that his client has over medicated, and medically neglected Mary G. Sykes and that he has in fact told his client to isolate Mary from family and friends;
9.  Attorney Sschmiedel has seen the letters Mary has hand-written denouncing Toerpe and asking for an attorney: he has viewed all the digital recordings of Mary proving she is not only highly competent, but also that Mary stated her wishes clearly and that Schmiedel’s client cannot sell Mary’s home, cannot evict me from Mary’s home and cannot force the sale on my home;
10.     Peter Schmiedel knows that none of the settlement money from the Lumbermen’s case belongs to Mother and that Mother was as she still is, highly competent then and now;
11.     And, Peter Schmiedel knows that his client is the named respondent on a petition for an order of protection and therefore, his client cannot be the guardian of Mary G. Sykes, my Mother; that it was Mother who filed the verified Petition for an order of protection to stop Peter Schmiedel’s client from doing exactly what she is trying to do, and that is financially and emotionally sterilize Mary G. Sykes through retaliating against me!
  This rule provides, “In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not ***(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact knows to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.”  134 Ill.2d R. 3.3(a)(2).  Furthermore, Peter Schmiedel has told not only the Probate Court, but the Forcible and the Bankruptcy courts that he also represents Mary G. Sykes, which leads me to…
(2)  Peter Schmiedel has a serious CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  His client Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent to the petition for an order of protection, has also secured herself as the sole beneficiary of the Mary G. Sykes estate, of which Peter Schmiedel made an agreement for payment from the (1) assets belonging to me from the Lumbermen’s case (see Lumbermen’s v. Gloria Sykes), the sale of Mother’s home, and the forced partition and sale of my home, where I placed Mother as a joint tenant for survivorship only and mother, in her trust stipulates that her “ONLY INTEREST’ is if she precedes me in life. Peter Schmiedel knows that it’s an “expectancy of an inheritance” and not an asset to Mother’s Trust and yet Peter Schmiedl has hired a court friendly psychologist, Gefforey Shaw, who having never met, treated, or even spoke with Mother’s physician in 2008 or current, took the stand many months ago and stated that Mary G. Sykes was ‘incompentent’ on October 18, 2008 and therefore didn’t know what she was signing ****”  Peter Schmiedel also made a pack with one of his GAL buddies to be the Commissioner who determines the sale of my property.
As confusing as this sounds, attorney Peter Schmiedel is a ‘pathological liar’ and has repeatedly misrepresented facts to five judges, including State and Federal Justices; he has deliberately provided false information to Judge Connors, Judge Stuart, Judge Flemming, Judge Garaber, Judge Hollis, Judge Gilbert and to a string of Justices sitting on the Appellate Court, where Judge Connors was spontaneously promoted in Oct., Dov 2010.  That said attorney Peter Schmiedel opens his mouth and ‘lies’ spew in the form of and including misinformation, and false information to the ARDC and it’s Commissioners!  ”Pseudologia fantastica’, or ‘story telling’ in order to prejudice the Court and discredit — a sort of a matrix of fantasy interwoven with some facts is narrated in over 11 volumes of verified court transcripts and most of which the ARDC has in it’s files if, in fact, it kept the numerous and large files of complaints I have submitted. It is my humble opinion that a psychiatrist expert able to read the transcripts and watch and listen to Peter Schmiedel in action in front of a Court, any Court, would probably conclude, attorney Peter Schmiedel is a pathological liar.
Peter Schmiedel should be reminded that “[a] lawyer’s high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions.”  In re Braner, 115 Ill.2d 384 392 105 Ill. Dec. 233, 504 N.E.2d 102 (19987) quoting People ex rel. Attorney General v. Beattie, 137 Ill. 553, 574, 27 N.E. 1096(1891).  Peter Schmiedel should be disbarred and sanctioned.
(3)  Peter Schmiedel violated Rule 4.1(a) by providing false information to 3rdparties, including the Probate Court, Forcible Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, a Federal Judge, Naperville Police, Catholic Charities, (the list is endless).  Therefore, Peter Schmiedel has provided FALSE STATEMENT(S) OF MATERIAL FACT(S) TO A THRID PERSON in order  benefit himself and his client.  To do so, he has also demonized me, all in retaliation for me standing up to protect my Mother (almost 93 years old) and because I have filed complaints against him and asked for his disbarment.  He does this all by hiding behind the color of office and law…. Rule 4.1(1) provides: “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not (a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false.”  134 Ill.2dR. 4.1(a).
(4)  Suffice to say, Peter SChmiedel’s CONDUCT INVOLVES DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT AND MISREPRESENATION, and therefore he is also in vilation of Rue 8.4(s)(4) and Supreme Court Rule 771.  Rule 8.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shal not “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”. 188 Ill.2dR. 8.4(a)(4).  Supremee Court Rule 771 provides that conduct “which tend to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute shall be grounds for discipline by the court.”  134 Ill.2d R. 771.  Peter Schmiedel violated both of these rules when he (recently) relayed false information to the Federal Court (Judge Pamela Hollis and the U.S. Trustee) regarding the “Probate Exception” and that my assets, mother’s home, and my home were being probated, therefore the Bankruptcy Court should modify the automatic stays.  (Peter Schmiedel, as transcribed in the attach Transcript, also intentionally prejudiced the court and told Judge Hollis that I “hid money”, “was arrested”,  et al. Peter Schmiedel, in order to fraud the court, had me served with a “Pizza Flyer” and then had attorney Cynthia Farenga’s husband write a verified letter to the court stating that I was served according to procedures…..”)  Peter Schmiedel LIED TO THE COURTS so many times, that this transcript shows that since the ARDC has not disbarred and sanctioned him, but empowered him.
Peter Schmiedel’s conduct involves dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation which has brought the legal profession into disrepute!.
(5)  SANCTIONS:  Peter Schmiedel has defrauded not only an elderly woman and knows that her money has been converted (or he is attempting to convert her funds and property), (see In re Holst, 201 Ill.2d 628 (2002); In re Wiard, 198 Ill.2d 662 (2002); In re Garside, 195 Ill.2d 607 (2001); In re Bartley, M.R. 15176 (1998); In re Singer, M.R. 14064 (1997); In re Rotman, 136 Ill.2d 401, 144 Ill.Dec. 776, 556 N.E.2d 243 (1990).)
By not disbarring Peter Schmiedel and sanctioning him, too, you are allowing him to continue his dishonesty and deceitful conduct, and continue to pilfer not only my mother’s property and funds, but my property and funds, too and gives his client, Carolyn Toerpe further opportunity to victimize, financially exploit, and emotionally and medically neglect mother, while Peter Schmiedel and his client continue to retaliate against me.
This retaliation and obstruction of justice also includes the theft of my mail, U.S. Mail he actually brought to the Bankruptcy Court and the Probate Court, that had my name and address on it: Peter Schmiedel refused to return my mail and in fact, the US Postal Inspector is still involved in an investigation.  The one envelop he had was addressed to me: the court read into record also evidence that it had no authorized or any markings ‘return to’ Peter Schmiedel.  Peter Schmiedel told me to my face and with witnesses, that I am a “waste of” his time.  He’s accused me of theft, abusing my mother, and of lying: however, Peter Schmiedel has no evidence of this but obviously clout with certain Courts. That said, Peter Schmiedel admitted to the Probate Court that he “had a good day” when I was illegally and fasely imprisoned, chained to a chair with handcuffs, my freedoms threatened as well as the life of my companion healing pooch: Peter Schmiedel then got the court to cross over state lines and freeze assets of a third party’s bank account.
The ARDC will have a good day too, should the agents do the right thing and investigate Peter Schmiedel, who also orchestrated and succeeded in persuading the sickly Judge Garber to enter an order of possession for his client and denying Mary G. Sykes the right to be in court: this action has caused me serious emotional, physical and financial hardships.  Peter Schmiedel lied to me when he told me that his client was agreeable to giving me ‘ample’ time to remove my property, when in fact, he also told his client to loot, seize evidence and do whatever she can to harass, intimidate and silence me.  Under attorney Peter Schmiedel’s authority, his client is in serious violations of the bankruptcy stays as they have taken unauthorized control and converted all of my person and professional property to the ownership of Carolyn Toerpe.  Peter Schmiedel is also obstructing justice as he has authorized his client to remove, destroy or discard all of my litigation evidence for the Probate Court, Forcible and Detainer, U.S. District Court (ADA complaint where Peter Schmiedel’s client is a defendant); U.S. District Bankruptcy Court adversary proceedings where he, Peter Schmiedel and also his client are Defendants; as well as in the U.S. District Court of Appeals where I will prevail on the merits that Peter Schmiedel has no standing and is not a creditor and therefore, cannot bring a motion to modify any bankruptcy stay.
Additionally, the respondent had also entered into a business transaction with a client without full disclosure[1], made a statement of material fact or law that he should have known was false, and engaged in conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or brings the courts or legal profession into disrepute.  Twohey, 191 Ill.2d at 84, 245 Ill.Dec. 294, 727 N.E.2d 1028.
Therefore a minimum of two year suspension is justifiable as well as Peter Schmiedel reimbursing the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any client protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.[2]

[1] Peter Schmiedel entered into a business transactions with Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent for a petition for a protective order, that he would only get paid if (1) he helped get rid of me, Gloria Jean Sykes; and to do that (2) have me evicted and take possession of Mother’s home located at 6014 N. Avondale, (3) sell Mother’s home; (4) take control of my assets and leave me penniless, (5) force a partition of and then sale of my home located at 6016 N. Avondale (6) render me homeless, and (7) not provide any of Mother’s financial statements to the Courts.  Another words, Peter Schmiedel(s) only source of payment was through the wrongful and fraudulent acts of  ***********.
[2] Peter Schmiedel has received numerous complaints to the ARDC verified by me of which court transcripts were made available to the ARDC and the JIB.  He has at all times never been able to defend his actions, but in his replies, he continues to LIE, and misrepresent the facts to the ARDC.  Peter Schmiedel’s actions have shortened my mother’s life: his arrogant, blatant and ever consistent actions and narrative to various Judges, including the Civil and Federal Courts will in fact, “murder” Mary G. Sykes and also cause me irreparable and egregious harm.
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
Advertisements

The Constitution vs. Pole Dancers of Justice*

 
 
What is most amazing is the fact that the Courts should be so benign in their defense of the victims of Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation of the Elder and so pro-active in their defense of the criminals who are appointed by it and who misuse their offices as guardians to exploit and abuse senior citizens (or assist others in their endeavor of abusing and exploiting grandma).    What is also amazing is the fact that decent and normally caring people can sit on their hands and allow this tragic situation to continue.     Two faced and disingenuous members of the political elite who ‘rape’ grandma and then boast about the fact that they are distressed that she might have her social security reduced by a dollar are expected to be miscreants.       The Courts and Law Enforcement are expected to be vigorous in defense of liberty, justice, and the American way.     It may all sound trite – but ****.
 
The Illinois ARDC prosecution of yours truly for the exercise of my First Amendment Rights has opened my eyes and generated the realization that the slogan “democracy is not a spectator sport” is not only true but a dire warning.        The bulwark of America is her Bill of Rights and in particular the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.    The Right protected by the Sixth Amendment to counsel is also important but I am not of record in any of the cases that I are mentioned in the ethics complaint filed by the ARDC against me.  The rights of citizens to employ a lawyer who is not married to the ‘status quo’ or the current politics is only a tangent.       So the fact that I stand accused of doing a FRCP 11 investigation and communicating with my clients and reporting serious misconduct on the part of some ‘august’ court appointed vultures is relevant only as it relates to whether or not the ARDC can engage in a prior restraint of my continued calls for an investigation and my advocating for the Right of a senior citizen not to be wrongfully deprived of his/her liberty property or human rights to further the avarice of some ‘whore of justice.’
 
As an American Citizen and a lawyer who takes the oath that I took in 1961 seriously, I will and intend to continue to call on Law Enforcement to Investigate the Mary Sykes case and all of those similar cases regardless of the personal consequences to me.     Indeed, I call for an honest and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes, Tyler, Wyman and similar cases.    I call for the investigation of Farenga, Stern, and Schmiedel and their conduct in relation to the Sykes case, their wrongful prosecution of a sanction motion against me knowing that the Court had no jurisdiction, their interference with the property rights of Gloria Sykes etc.       This is America.     Mary Sykes who just weeks before a petition was filed to determine her incompetent and eligible to be deprived of her liberty, her property, civil rights and human rights is reported to have passed a written examination administered by the Illinois Secretary of State in addition to filing a Petition for a Protective order against the very person who was appointed her plenary guardian.    Thanks to efforts of the two guardian ad litem appointed in the Sykes case this petition was never addressed or heard in the Circuit Court.
 
   If legal justification for my conduct is necessary, the rationale and justification is ‘set in stone.     The New Times vs. Sullivan case and the Pentagon Papers cases affirm that the effort to silence me and/or intimidate me whether by the actions of Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga or Mr. Schmiedel or a government agency is wrong.      The ‘assault’ on the liberty, property and civil rights of Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, their family, their friends et al is not necessitated by National Security –  the avarice of the plenary guardian and her co-conspirators does not meet the criterion set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case.       As a lawyer I have a greater duty to speak out against the corruption of the legal system and even if I had been or record the precedent of Nebraska Press v Stewart obviates all argument that justifies the attempt to silence me.    Indeed, my calls for an investigation and for Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga to report to the Court the non-inventory of about a million dollars in assets, numerous trips by Mary Sykes to the emergency room of the local hospital, failure to provide proper notice etc. does not create a situation in which there would be a substantial probability of interference with a fair trial (Gentile v State Bar of Nebraska).       Indeed, the stated principle of the Illinois State Bar is recorded in Himmel.   Therein Attorneys were mandated to report improper conduct of other lawyers.     
 
I’ve cited a few cases not to impress but to demonstrate that I am not a pioneer.     The Gulag mentality that is robbing the senior citizens of the liberty, their property, civil rights and human rights reported on the blogs and on the inter-net (and virtually ignored in the press and by law enforcement) is foreign.    Our heroes are not the guardian ad litem who aid and abet a plenary guardian who isolates a senior citizen and separates her from her family, her activities, her friends and her property.      Today we live in the year 2012, however, we have allowed a small group of miscreants to create in seniors the fear, desperation, and hopelessness that millions of Europeans felt in 1936.    
 
            The Sykes case and all those cases in which senior citizens are either losing their liberty, property, civil rights, human rights need to be investigated and the miscreants given free room board and time to contemplate the error of their ways.      A Free society cannot tolerate or condone the events that have been reported in the Sykes case and similar cases!       Citizens have to speak out and avoid the 1936 scenario for grandma!      Grandma’s protectors cannot be silenced or intimidated.     We have law enforcement to protect us!     It is time for them to start doing exactly that.
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

 

*an no offense to Pole Dancers.  I know they honest, hard working women trying to support a family or get thru college.  Corrupt officials are pretty much the low of the low dirty, flea dogs.  Okay no offense to dirty flea dogs, I wish a good family for them.

From Ken Ditkowsky–an epidemic of worries concerning the elderly

ELDER ABUSE EMERGENCY
America faces a crisis.   Suddenly a large number of our older citizens have discovered that they are the ‘Jews’ of 2012 and the replacements for the Nazi and Communist criminals have targeted them.    The ARDC complaint filed against me was my wakeup call that the Constitutional protections of the Federal and State Constitutions were not applicable to protect protest.    The regulators of the Legal Profession determined that if you protest the actions (or the non-actions)  of the two guardian ad litem and or the plenary guardian in the Sykes case no matter how accurate your statements – they are all lies!     If you ask a question it is intimidation!
The unintended consequences of the ARDC complaint are to induce some elderly citizens to confide in me as to their personal plight and their fears that they too can become victims.    Yesterday, an elderly accountant whose wife has become severely encumbered expressed in confidence that he was afraid that an impaired child of his could be induced into a Tyler or Gore  situation.    This morning an elderly retired businessman was concerned that a daughter was planning to make him a Mary Sykes.    It appears yesterday his daughter was ***** (attorney client privilege).
Over the years other elderly people ( 70/80 years old) have talked to me over the years about similar problems, but, I was not aware of the extent of the problem and we used irrevocable trusts to obviate the problem which I dismissed as paranoia or maybe a mild dementia.       After all my children would never ‘steal’ from me – or my wife, thus your children would not either.       Unfortunately we are in a different world today.     Who would believe that the World Trade Center could be destroyed by a motley group of terrorists!!     Who would believe that the First Amendment rights of an attorney would not be defended to the death by legal organizations and the profession in general!!    Who would believe that the non-inventory of about a million dollars in assets would not stir and investigation!!!     The idea that Court appointed attorneys would write letters of complaint to the ARDC and they would be taken seriously concerning the call for an investigation is utterly surreal!
Our complaints as to current outrages directed to you and me all beg the question!      What happens to me or any friend or family of a victim is irrelevant.     How do we protect our senior citizens from exploitation and abuse?     In 1936 the world sat on its hands while millions of innocents were marched into gas chambers!    Our government had no problem refusing entry to a ship load of escapees!   We sent them back so that they could be killed in the gas chambers.    We openly placed some of our citizens of Oriental descent in ‘concentration camps’ in the Mohave Desert!    Today we march our senior citizens in ‘nursing homes,’ ‘sheltered care facilities’,  etc.      I call your attention to the affidavit of Mr. Scott Evans as to his observations concerning Mary Sykes environment.    Death is a little more painful and a little longer than the ‘gas chambers!’     Like our National socialist ancestors some our bolder and less principled Court appointed guardians separate the victims from their assets.    Mary Sykes had about a million dollars of assets not inventoried.    Ms. Tyler about nine millions missing.   The list goes on, and the silence is deafening.
I support the call for a comprehensive and honest investigation by law enforcement of every one of these alleged Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation claims.    There is no reason why an alleged incompetent should be segregated and isolated from his/her family.   There is no reason why an alleged incompetent should be held in isolation and without stimulation.   There is no reason that the assets of an alleged incompetent have to disappear and lost.    There is no reason why guardians ad litem  should not immediately report nursing home accidents (such as an alleged incompetent falling on his her head),  emergency visits – especially those in which neglect is admitted,  allegations of pecuniary misconduct – non-inventory of precious jewelry, collectibles, gold coins etc.     There is no reason why probate courts should not investigate the alleged misconduct and determine that it has jurisdiction.
Unfortunately before a solution for this growing problem can be formulated law enforcement, the Courts, the Congress, the State Legislatures have to do a full investigation.     The serious allegations that have been made need to be fully and honestly investigated – investigation of the complainants is ridiculous but unfortunately the CYA and avarice mentality that has created the crisis.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And KD fails to mention that the other day I received a completely shocking report from Ms. Belanger–a Mass. licensed atty whose father is in a guardianship where a CPA and GAL asserted in court that unbelievably his $9 million estate will be depleted in 7 years!  She asks me if that is true.  I replied, it is as long as they figure a way to churn those fees into millions and give business to each of their buddies over the next 7 years–nursing homes, mega pharma treatments at wired in docs, rehab that goes on forever, psychiatric care that goes on forever.  You name it and this $9 million lawyer that gave his two daughters POA and set up a trust to protect his estate from probate, now has a GAL and a CPA as guardian churning those fees and preventing the daughters from seeing their own father!  They have been told it is “too upsetting”. Dad is on major psychotropic medicines because he wants to pick up the phone to call his daughters, he wants to get it in the car and drive to their homes and see his own grandchildren.  But Mass. Probate court prohibits it because–he has $9 million in a bank account at Mellon, NYC and the court appointed a lawyer and a CPA over his own daughters and ignored his well planned estate wishes.  All because Ms. Belanger was dealing with the bank one day and threatened to move the money and they swept in with dad’s former CPA and attorney and put them in charge!  Scary.  He is now a doped up prisoner in his own home.  He too, was “not interested” in attending the competency hearing–when in fact he was and the temp guardian already had it in place to have him drugged that day.

From Gloria–weekly fax to ARDC

Because it seems the ARDC has repeatedly ignored any complaints Gloria has filed and they also seem to conveniently and accidently-on-purpose lose anything she sends them (a familiar event in this department–just ask Ken Ditkowsky how the ARDC managed to lose his two attachments — important Affidavits from Gloria and Scott which confirms that all allegations asserted in his emails and ultimately on this blog and other blogs–are in fact true and accurate allegations.)

 

The papers filed clearly indicate the affidavits were enclosed.

 

But then somehow they were “Lost” by the ARDC.  All this does is make the ARDC look inept, corrupt or both.

 

What are our Illinois state tax dollars paying for then? 

 

From Gloria:

 

 

“*** It is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice under law

– in Cunningham v. Public Service Co., 1992

 

In 1951 the Supreme Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugees Comm. v. McGrath, 341 US 123, took a close look at what happens when ‘due process’ is ignored and American Courts are lawless in their quest to ‘condemn’!.  “The right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.”  Apparently, attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga have no “respect for the elementary rights of men” and to these attorneys, “democracy” is a spectator sport of which, as attorney Peter Schmiedel expressed, when he perpetrates his lawlessness he “has a good day” and “accomplishes a lot”.  That said, in this complaint to the ARDC let me add the following violations against Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, attorneys apparently protected by the ARDC and perhaps some political clout who are empowered to do great harm for their own financial gain:

 

1.  Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, one or all were suppose to send me a copy of the 13 April 2012 court ordered that had been entered: I have yet to see that court order and yet, on May 11, 2012, proceedings were held and ex parte discussions with the Court caused actions to take place, including decision to hold more hearings knowing that the Court lacks jurisdiction as Sodini notices were not served on my mother, Mary G Sykes’ two sisters and/or me.

 

2.  Attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga have yet to served me with a 2-1401, and yet continue to collaterally attack a 2008 final order and Cynthia Farenga generated fradulent documents in order to coerce my financial adviser and financial institution into providing her confidential financial information.

 

3.  Attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, and Cynthia Farenga never served me with appropriate legal documents to even commence a partition action against me and yet, they have had a commissioner appointed (whose report was to be filed on or about the 16 March 2012, and a report I have yet to see) and continue to push for the sale of property of my estate knowing that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter, too.

 

4.  That the US Trustee called attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and/or Cynthia Farenga and told them to return the property of my estate, and the three Attorneys, have refused to return all of the property of my estate.  (Judge Murrey entered an order that commencing at 8 am on the 19th May Toerpe and Company are to give me full access to my homestead 6014 N Avondale so I can “take as much time as I need to remove all of my personal property, including intellectual properties and confidential legal documents: that said, I have provided attorneys Peter Schmiedel and Amanda Byrnes with a list of personal property their client ‘removed’ from the property already and so far, I have no response to whether or not the property will be returned.)

 

5.  That there is a Court order entered giving me rights to visit with my mother  ‘approximately eery two weeks’ and thus far, I have yet to see or talk to my mother since March 2011: I am also being denied any telephone access to my mother.  This is also a violation of my mother’s rights and my  rights of association, which in a case that Cynthia Farenga perpetrated, James Srruck v. Public Guardian, the Appellate court made reference to and suggested that Mr. Struck has a right of association with his mother and therefore may sue his brother.

 

6.  That attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern repeatedly attempt to or have ‘influenced’ Judges in the State, Appellate, and Federal Courts by misrepresenting the facts and malicious lies, including writing a letter to the Fed. Bankruptcy Judge (Cynthia Farenga) and as recent as a couple of days ago, Adam Stern’s attorney attempting to provide the Bankruptcy Judge with a Rule 23 Appellate order he claims  is law that should cause the court to dismiss an adversary haring against Adam Stern!

 

7.  Attorney Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga lied to the court on Mary 11, 2012, reporting that they were not notified that I would not be in court: I will send the ARDC copies of proof of successful faxes to each attorney fax number(s).

 

“No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss, notice of the case against him and opportunity to met it.”

 

Neither my mother nor I have had due process or equal protection of law because of the malicious contentions and efforts of attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga…

 

And now, Fischel and Kahn have taught attorney Amanda Brynes to copy their lawless behavior and so, further complaints will also include the young attorney Amanda Brynes.

 

Meanwhile I have not spoken to or have had quality time with my mother, who is suffering the most, and her life shorted by the isolation, drugging, medical and emotional neglect, and the undue influences.  As Adam Stern wrote to me in an email which the ARDC has a copy of, ‘they’ have told my mother I abandoned her.  He went on to say he could tell my mother that I “abused her” instead!  Adam Stern does not have absolute immunity for murdering my mother!

 

Let me remind you that there are now TWO petitions for protective orders naming Carolyn Toerpe the respondent: Carolyn Toerpe is the client of Fishel and Kahn — Peter Schmiedel, Deborah Jo Soehlig, and Amanda Brynes.  If you read the 11 + volumes of verified court documents including transcripts, you will note that attorney Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern also advocate for Carolyn Toerpe.  In fact, there are about 20 proceedings where the Ward, Mary G. Sykes is not even considered.  The court proceedings have been all about me, a 3rd party and only an “interested” party to the case. The need to intimidate, harass, and silence me apparently is the law of attorney Peter Schmiedel et al.

 

And attorney Cynthia Farenga actually had her husband Michael Crowley serve these fradulent papers on my financial adviser and institution(s).  I guess it truly is a ‘family affair’…

 

 

“The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights.”

– in Lankford v. Idaho, 1991

 

 

 

 

Gloria Jean Sykes

Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

773.910-3310(cell)

773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

 

 

Gloria also informs me that while CF has told the court she served Gloria with the Partition Action (note that document is not in the file between Mar 2011 and the present), it turns out that “Michael Crowley” is CF’s husband and he served the alleged documents (which turns out is only a pizza flyer).  CF got angry about that and emailed Gloria about doing “background checks on her” and Gloria replied she only checked on the internet which had all of the following information: Where CF’s kids went to school which was a private school, the church they attended and the obit of CF’s father who was a well connected lawyer AND worked for the water dept.  (Somehow someone directed Gloria’s water to be turned on causing damage to her house and a $500 bill.)  Again, CF’s using Michael Crowley, her husband to serve papers when that is expressly prohibited by statute because neither the parties nor their attorneys may serve papers in any lawsuit, nor can they use their family members to serve papers.  Somehow the law is not standing in the way of the abilities of the miscreants to terrorize Gloria, strip her of home and property and leave her couch surfing and penniless.

When Probate Court is full of troubles and issues…..

Mother’s day stinks.

From Gloria, read on.

Dear All,


It’s not unusual for your client, Carolyn Toerpe to be so mean-spirited and controling: she’s been that way her entire adult life.  Just ask any people who ‘use’ to consider her a friend (from grammar, high, or college schooles: even from past work relationships).  That said, for attorneys to promulgate and perpetuate the isolation of Mary G. Sykes, one must wonder the agenda.  In this instant case, the questions been asked and answered: GREED AND MONEY>  What kind of monsters are you?  That question has been asked and answered, too, as noted in the Kangaroo Court presentation yesterday.  Suffice it is Mother’s Day and this is the third Mother’s Day the three of you and your client have prevented me from sharing with MY MOTHER.  What is most disturbing is that you actually believe that this isolation has not taken a serious toll on her health, her spirit, and untimely her LIFE.  All said, I have yet Mr. Schmiedel seen a copy of the 13 April 2012 Order you said in Court you would mail to me.  That said, I have proof of successful transmission of faxed letters to all three of you, not just of recent, but from a months or so ago where I also notified you all (and the Court and the ARDC) that I could not be in court on the 11th May because of a conflict of scheduling.  Whether or not you can accept this, and I’m certain you never will, I am an American Citizen, protected under the Illinois and United States Constitutions and I do actually have a life outside the harassment and torture you three apparently under the sanction of the Court, have and continue to perpetrate against me and all people who my Mother asked for help and all people who will continue to tell you, “No. Hell NO  you cannot deprive me of my Civil and Human Rights, or deprived my Mother of the same, just because you are attorneys.  You are monsters, plain and simple, dangerous people who live lawless because of your arrogance and criminal minds.  Therefore, I ask to see my mother and that the three of your and your client comply with court orders.  That said, your client(s) Carolyn and Fred Toerpe, are respondents to petitions for protective orders, with CArolyn having two pending. Suffice I understand you chose another date to continue your lawlessness in the Probate Division, and a date that all of you know or should know I am also busy.  I won’t say more, as I have yet to see the court order from yesterday 11 May.  

Please note the U.S. Postal Inspector is still very involved in the theft of my mail, and Mr. Schmiedel you claim to still be holding on to two letters addressed to me of which you and your attorney  brought to two courts to attempt to persuade the court(s) that and again, unless you can provide me with the envelop(s) showing that you received returned mail, clearly you and your clients have and continue to steal U.S. Mail.  That said, your client has already looted my Homestead, two of my safety deposit boxes, et al.  

Btu now I’m off subject because I wrote attorney Soehlig yesterday or the day before, a note asking to talk to your client and make certain my Mother can see and or at least talk to me on Mother’s Day.  I didn’t expect to hear back from either of you regarding this and I’m certain, just like the last two Mother’s Days past, my mother will be prevented from spending quality time with me on her celebrated day.  What is even more interesting is that your client won’t allow me to speak to my mother on the telephone and has once again clogged the voice mail and I can not even leave messages for my mother.  I will call your clients cell phone today again and again. It’s Mother’s DAy and I want to speak with my Mother.

I have copied the ARDC because I want to make certain that your buddy Ms. Lea Black is fully aware of the repeated violations of the Professional Codes of EThics.  How far will you go Mr. Schmiedel to steal all of my mother’s assets, my money and leave us both paupers and  homeless?  WEll, today you win.  My heart is broken as is my Mother’s.  I imagine your Hitler complexes are kicking in as you read this and your once again having a “good day” and thinking you’ve “accomplished a lot”, but I believe that what goes around comes around.  

Perhaps you’ll show up at my book signing.  Im certain the public would love to hear your side of the story and how you Cynthia Farenga will tell them that the Court Reporter erred: you never said x y, or z.  I say, thank God for Court reporters — as most of them can’t be bought.

I hope your Mother’s Day Cynthia Farenga is as **** as my Mother’s.  Yes, what goes around does come around.

Please send me copies of the two orders and while your at it, try and obtain jurisdiction and then we may be able to talk.  All I want … all my mother wants is to spend quality time with each other on Mother’s Day.  
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
And I personally know that when Gloria was caring for her mother, she gave parties for her frequently (Gloria was a party/social animal) and her mother was always there as well and any family that wanted to be there. Gloria let her mother call family and friends all the time.  CT was never barred from the house or calls, it’s just she rarely bothered.
Mark my words and others, the next step will be drugging and a nursing home and then a quick death.  Carolyn benefits and while a wired in court looks at the floor.

Requests to Admit

Dear Readers;

I sat in a car yesterday to pick up my kids at college, which took about 6 hours, and have some fun them.  This Holiday Inn has high speed internet, so that is great (soon as I figured out how to diagnose and fix it!). This is what I drafted up during the car sit.  These were the questions I had about the case.

BUT Requests to Admit are a fun tool to use.  I saw that Gloria had some in the file and they were apparently filed but unanswered.  If that is the case, then they have been deemed admitted by operation of law, other than the fact I think that the court might have told Gloria she has no standing to file anything, which makes no sense since there is a provision in the Probate Act that any interested party can file a Petition to Remove the Guardian, and even just a note.  Well, as any attorney knows, the only way to really do a good job at that is to file pre-discovery before filing such a document.

But I don’t know, and I looked at the Probate Cases and I couldn’t find any Illinois cases that talk about how a daughter is not entitled to file something, or serve pre-filing discovery, or anything like that.  It just sounds like more AS and CF intimidation against Gloria.

Now that more than one year of pleading have been filed, the pattern of ignoring, snubbing and making Gloria out to be some sort of false pariah in the case when she really has done nothing bad at all–except take excellent care of her mother for 10+ years, I guess it’s just business as usual for those guardians, because once the house is sold, they get paid.  Carolyn thinks her Trust is valid and she gets all the money and needs no reporting to anyone.

So read on below.

JoAnne

Requests to Admit.        These are directed mostly to the GAL’s.  I know these are the questions I have on the case.  I think answering such interrogatories would be most important.

The term “GAL’s” refers to AS and CF collectively.

The term CRLTO refers to the Chicago Landlord Tenant Ordinance.

The term “Estate” refers to the “Estate of Mary G Sykes” or case 2009 P 04585.

The term “White House” refers to the home where Mary G Sykes lived, or 6014 N Avondale.

The term “Brown House” refers to the home where Gloria Sykes lived prior to it being destroyed by mold, or 6016 N Avondale.

The term “Gloria” or “GS” means Gloria Sykes

The term “MGS” or “Mary” means Mary G Sykes

“PS” is Peter Schmeidel; “HW” is Harvey Waller; “CT” is Carolyn Toerpe; “FT” is Fred Toerpe; “CF” is Cynthia Farenga; “AS” is Adam Stern

The term “wired” means any type of corruption or preferential treatment in court, including promises of money, position, continued employment in and out of the courtroom, etc.  This also includes promises from any judge (Daley center or not), political favor, or court room employee for money, continued employment or preferential treatment.

You are directed to admit or deny the following statements:

1.    That you have been told by GS that $4,000 was removed wrongfully from the Pullman bank account of MS in 2009 and you took no action.

2.    That you are aware that this action caused MGS to prepare a Petition for an Order of Protection against CT.

3.    That you have been told that the removal of $4,000 from the bank account of MGS was allegedly to start a retirement account for MGS.

4.    That you have been told that the removal of $4,000 from the bank account of MGS was purportedly to start a retirement account for MGS

5.    That you knew that MGS at age 90+ was ineligible for a retirement account pursuant to IRS rules, regulations and/or statutory law.

6.    That at the time, MGS was not in need of establishing a retirement account.

7.    That you did not serve any discovery upon Pullman Bank regarding the withdrawl of the $4,000.

8.    That you did not track the $4,000 from Pullman Bank to any other bank account and find out who moved it and when.

9.    That you are not interested in whether CT misappropriate $4,000 from the funds of MGS and therefore did not conduct any proper investigation.

10.    That GS paid two mortgages for approximately 10+ years.

11.    That GS paid the mortgage on 6014 for approximately 10+ years.

12.    That GS paid the mortgage on 6016 for approximately 10+ years.

13.    That the income of MGS was substantially $1900 per month in the year 2010.

14.    That the income of MGS from 2005 to 2010 was $1900 per month.

15.    That the income of MGS being only $1900 per month was insufficient to pay all the expenses of MGS.

16.    That MGS prefers to eat vegetarian.

17.    That MGS prefers to eat vegetarian and organic.

18.    That CT does not provide MGS with organic, vegetarian food which MGS prefers.

19.    That GS always fed MGS a vegetarian diet.

20.    That GS regularly bought MGS high quality vegetarian food.

21.    That GS regularly shopped for MGS at Whole Foods.

22.    That GS regularly purchased a meal plan from Ambutol in Chicago.

23.    That you are aware Ambutol prepares gourmet vegetarian meals.

24.    That GS provided MGS with gourmet vegetarian meals from Ambutol.

25.    That CT does not shop at Whole Foods for the food for MGS.

26.    That CT does not provide as many vegetarian, organic foods as she can for MGS.

27.    That no GAL has ever recommended setting up a retirement account for a 90+ year old person, that you have ever head of.

28.    That you have never obtained any bank records from Pullman bank regarding the $4,000 withdrawal.

29.    That you were aware that CT was the Respondent in a Petition for an OOP in 2009.

30.    That prior to appoint CT as Plenary Guardian you did not properly inform Judge Connors of this fact.

31.    That when CT was appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was served upon the two sisters of MGS.

32.    That when CT was appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was never served upon sister Josephine.

33.    That when CT was appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was never served upon sister Yolanda.

34.    You have never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction.

35.    PS has never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction since Dec 2009.

36.    HW has never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction since Dec 2009.

37.    A competent attorney would have promptly brought this issue to the court’s attention promptly after having been discoveed.

38.    KD and Gloria have been repeatedly informing you that the Probate Court is acting without jurisdiction.

39.    HW has admitted that no 14 day notices were timely served on sisters Yolanda and Josephine prior to the hearing appointing CT.

40.    HW has admitted on the record that no 14 day jurisdictional notices were timely served on Gloria prior to the hearing appointing CT.

41.    That the doctor’s report presented with CT’s Petition for Guardianship in July 2009 was legally deficient in that it was not signed by a medical physician that actually conducted the examination.

42.    That Dr. Motckya who signed the CP211 form was in fact a PsychD.

43.    That Dr. Motckya who is a PsychD cannot sign a CP211 pursuant to the Probate Act for the purposes of presenting a Petition for guardianship.

44.    That counsel for GS repeatedly asked for discovery prior to appointing CT as PG in Dec 2009.

45.    That GS was repeatedly denied any requests for discovery prior to appointing CT as PG in Dec 2009.

46.    That you did not tell the court that GS was entitled to discovery in this case in Dec 2009.

47.    That you have never, in fact told the court GS should be allowed discovery.

48.    That AS knowingly filed a wrongful petition for sanctions against KD.

49.    When AS filed a petition for sanctions against KD, both GAL’s knew he never had appeared in the Probate Court.

50.    That the filing of ARDC complaints against KD and JMD for expressing opinions on a blog constituted a violation of the Illinois CPA. 735 ILCS § 110 et. Seq.

51.    As a GAL, the filing of that ARDC complaint against KD brings liablity to the estate.

52.    A GAL that brings liability to a ward’s estate should immediately report it to the court and be removed.

53.    The reason why AS was not sanctioned by the the Probate Court for filing a false Petition for Sanctions against KD is because the court is wired–or it sure looks like it.

54.    AS filed a Petition to Disqualify JMD as counsel for Gloria because as CF said JMD will assuredly “paper me [meaning the GAL’s to death].”

55.    JMD accordingly became the subject of a Motion to Disqualify (“MTDQ”) filed by AS and endorsed by CF because she is a competent attorney.

56.    CF and AS knew that the filing of a MTDQ JMD was wrongful and in derrogation of well established law.

57.    CF and AS misrepresented to the court they had sufficient grounds to file the MTDQ when in fact they did not.

58.    That in Dec 2009 GS had filed a number of pleadings, and AS asked the court to strike all the pleadings of GS because she was pro se.

59.    That those pleadings in Dec 2009 were in fact filed pro se and so there was no reason to strike those pleadings.

60.    That only sleezy, underhanded attys pull such stunts mentioned in the two prior RFA’s.

61.    That CF and AS meet the description in the last RFA.

62.    That I am not surprised either one would pull such a low down stunt.

63.    That you have been informed by numerous family and friends that Gloria took excellent care of her mother for 10+ years.

64.    You have been informed that Gloria returned from California after her father died to take care of her mother.

65.    You have been informed that Gloria provided Mary with designer clothes to wear.

66.    You have been informed that Gloria provided Mary with monthly trips to the salon for hair and nails.

67.    That the Probate Court trashed Gloria’s care plan on purpose.

68.    That Gloria’s care plan was more than adequate.

69.    That while Gloria didn’t know the name of Mary’s one hypertension medication, she knew what a CBC was and the judge didn’t.

70.    Most people know that a CBC is a Complete Blood Count or Blood Panel and it is an essential part of a regular physical.

71.    One of the reasons the court trashed Gloria’s care plan was because Gloria lived upstairs and Mary lived downstairs at 6014 N. Avondale (“White House”).

72.    CT has a two level home with a basement.

73.    The court did not have a problem with the fact that Mary’s bedroom was on the second level and the other living areas were o the first floor of CT’s home.

74.    Mary lost 10% of her body weight due to a sore throat that lasted a week before CT dropped Mary off with Gloria.

75.    Mary subsequently required several trips to the emergency room which were not reported to the court.

76.    Gloria recognized that something was very wrong with Mary and took her to the doctor the day Mary was dropped off.

77.    That CT represented to the court that family would care for Mary during the day when she was at work.

78.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, her daughter Kristen moved out of the home.

79.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, FT did not want to care for Mary during the day.

80.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, FT did not in fact care for Mary during the day.

81.    That Dr. Rabin signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was incompetent.

82.    That Dr. Amdur signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was incompetent.

83.    That Mr. Motckya, PsychD signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was icompetent.

84.    That you reviewed these reports and agreed with their accuracy.

Each of the following questions refer to the “Doctor’s Reports” of Amdur, Rabin and Mr. Motckya, PsychD and the “Competency Examination.”

85.    You either knew or should have known at the time Mary wore custom hearing aids.

86.    Mary’s hearing was not tested before the Competency Exams were completed.

87.    You knew or should have known at the time Mary suffered from time to time with hypoglycemia or low blood sugar.

88.    A CBC or Blood Panel was not conducted immediately before any Competency Examination.

89.    That in derogation of CT’s care plan, Mary has been put in “adult day care” for low functioning adults.

90.    That while Mary was in “adult day care” she could have been living

91.    That prior to this, Mary wrote checks, was involved in the neighborhood gardening club, walker around her neighborhood nearly every day, walked to and from her doctor’s office and was very involved with her community.

92.    That Mary is now isolated with limited phone calls and visits from family.

93.    That the guardian CT is careful to isolate Mary from family.

94.    That CT claims that Mary is upset by Gloria when in fact Mary is upset when Gloria is around because she wants to go home.

95.    That CT claims Mary is upset by Gloria when in fact Mary asks Gloria to get her an attorney so she can go home.

96.    CT saw Mary only a few times per year before summer of 2009.

97.    CT filed a Petition for Guardianship because Mary filed a Petition for a Protective Order for wrongfully withdrawing $4,000 from her Pullman bank account.

98.    That you have been told that Carolyn drilled out Mary’s safe deposit box at Pullman Bank.

99.    That Gloria was also listed as a joint owner of the safe deposit box.

100.    That you have been told that valuables amount to X were found missing from the safe deposit box.

101.    That you have not investigated the missing contents.

102.    That you have not informed the Probate Court that CT drilled out a safe deposit box owned by Gloria without her permission.

103.    That you have been told that CT had Gloria’s Chase safe deposit box drilled out and the content removed.

104.    That the contents of Gloria’s safe deposit box was approximately $5,000.

105.    That you have not obtained the records from Pullman (now US Bank) regarding the drilling of Mary and Gloria’s safe deposit box.

106.    That you have no obtained the records from Chase regarding the drilling out of Gloria’s safe deposit box.

107.    That CT believes she is the Successor Trustee (“ST”) in the Mary G. Sykes Trust dated 2005(“Mary’s Trust”), when in fact she is not.

108.    That Mary’s Trust names Mary as the initial Trustee and also the Trustor which violates the Statue of Uses and renders the entire Trust document invalid.

109.    That KD and Gloria have repeatedly informed the GAL’s that Mary’s Trust is invalid because it violates the Statue of Uses.

110.    That CT filed an eviction proceeding against Gloria based upon her position as ST under Mary’s Trust knowing that this trust was invalid for violating the Statue of Uses.

111.    Because CT was not in fact the ST of Mary’s Trust, the eviction was wrongful.

112.    CT’s wrongful eviction has created substantial liability upon the Estate of Mary Sykes.

113.    CT also turned off the gas for the White House where Gloria was living in 2010, which in fact violated the CRLTO.

114.    Because she violated the CRLTO, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation fine of $200 to $500 per day.

115.    Because CT violated the CRLTO for several months, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation totaling more than $5,000.

116.    Because  CT violated the CRLTO for several months, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation totaling more than $10,000

117.    AS and CF should have filed a Petition for the Removal of CT for shutting off the gas where Gloria was living based upon these violations of the CRLTO creating massive liability to the Estate.

118.    Because AS and CF failed to remove CT for wilfully violating the CRLTO, they should have been removed as GAL’s.

119.    In winter of 2010, PS called Chase, Gloria’s mortgage holder and told Chase the brown house was abandoned.

120.    PS convinced Chase to “secure the property.”

121.    Gloria arrived home one day to find herself locked out of the Brown House, her secuirty cameras were disabled and the security system disabled and tampered with.

122.    Gloria arrived home to also find that interior walls in her Brown House were trashed, rendering the property completely uninhabitable–well beyond any remaining mold remediation.

123.    Gloria arrived home one day to find all of the furnishings remaining in her brown home were put in the snow behind her home.

124.    When Gloria’s home was locked and trashed, the GAL’s were promptly informed and failed to investigate.

125.    The GAL’s have told the Probate Court the Estate has a valuable interest in the Brown House and it should be partitioned.

126.    The prior statement is in fact a lie because the GAL’s have been informed repeatedly that Gloria owned the Brown House and Gloria only put Mary G on title as a joint owner as a testamentary convenience.

127.    That all the family members except CT agree that the Brown House is Gloria’s and the White House is Mary’s.

128.    That Gloria paid the mortgages on both homes for approximately ten+ years.

129.    That you were told repeatedly Mary’s income for ten+ years was approximately $1900 per month which was insufficient for her to pay her $1000 per month mortgage, plus utilities, clothing and other expenses.

130.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown House because they, as well as PS, desired to ensure Gloria was rendered utterly homeless for the purpose of intimidation.

131.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown House because they, as well as PS, desired to ensure Gloria was rendered utterly homeless for the purpose of intimidation.

132.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown House because they, as well as PS, were operating in a wired courtroom.

133.    The GAL’s failed for file a Petition to Remove Carolyn for violating the RLTO because they were operating in a wired courtroom.

134.    On May 11, 2012, you informed the Probate Court that Mary’s $1 million in gold coins was “Gloria’s fiction.”

135.    At that time, you did not inform the Probate Court how sister Yolanda could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.

136.    At that time, you did not inform the Probate Court how sister Josephine could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.

137.    At that time, you forgot to inform the Probate Court how sister Yolanda could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.

138.    At that time, you forgot to inform the Probate Court how sister Josephine could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out

139.    That you have not conducted a complete and independent asset search for CT’s accounts.

140.    That you have not conducted a complete and independent asset search for FT’s accounts.

141.    That Mary wrote in her own handwriting (“Mary’s Directions) in Sept. 2009 that she wanted an attorney and wanted to live at home until she died.

142.    That you told the Probate Court that Mary’s Directions were dictated to her by someone else and she did not know what she was writing and this was a false statement

143.    That videos were posted on youtube.com and Vimeo.com which firmly confirm Mary’s Directions (“Videos”).

144.    Those Videos show Mary writing once again she wanted to live in her own home until she died and to have Gloria and Carolyn care for her there.

145.    You are aware that Gloria holds the last valid and enforceable Power of Attorney for Health Care from Mary. (The “POA”)

146.    This original POA document was produced in court in December of 2009 and the court ignored it.

147.    You initially told the court that this original POA document was a fake.

148.    When it shown to you and the court and it was determined it was an original and valid, Judge Connors summarily invalidated the document, without findings or a hearing.

149.    Judge Connors quipped it had to have been produced sooner–yet Gloria had mentioned it to her in several prior court status hearings and Gloria’s requests to effecutate this document were ignored.

150.    That a person who can pass an Illinois written Rules of the Road test does not have dementia.

151.    That a person who can pass an Illinois written Rules of the Road test does not have severe dementia.

152.    That a person who passes an Illinois written Rules of the Road test in January should not be declared incompetent later in July of that same year based upon a diagnosis of dementia, which is a chronic, progressive disease.

153.    That filing a motion to Disqualify JMD for merely notarizing a document is improperl

154.    That the notary clause in the document only stated the person appearing before the notary was in fact known to the notary to be that person and nothing more.

155.    That the GAL’s misrepresented to the court that JMD would be used to testify to show Mary’s competence or incompetence in August 2008.

156.    That JMD was never called to testify regarding the competence level of Mary.

157.    That the issues regarding the Lumberman’s funds disbursing payment in August 2008 (“Lumberman’s Settlement) are full and final and may not be attacked in any court of law.

158.    That 735 ILCS § 1401 provides in its pertinent part that an attack on a judgment must be brought within 2 years of the date of entry of judgment and therefore the Lumberman’s Settlement may no longer be attacked.

159.    That Gloria’s funds were illegally frozen in 2009, and the wrongful freeze continued to the date of this pleading.

160.    That in August of 2012 the GAL’s should have asked the court to unfreeze all of Gloria’s funds because the time to attack the Lumberman’s Settlement had passed.

161.    That in Dec 2009, HW wrongfully caused all of Gloria’s funds at Chase to be wrongfully frozen, rendering her penniless for more than a week.

162.    That the freezing of all of Gloria’s accounts in Dec 2009 in excess of the Order entered by the court was wrongful, bringing substantial liability upon the Estate.

163.    That the freezing of all of Gloria’s accounts in Dec 2009 should have created cause for the GAL’s to remove CT as plenary guarding for the wrongful actions of her counsel.

164.    That a guardian is legally responsible for the wrongful actions of her counsel.

165.    That you enjoy terrorizing Gloria.

166.    That it was funny that you complained Gloria had no current address when it was your plan all along to render her homeless and penniless.

167.    That this put a crimp in your evil plans.

168.    That no one cares you never have a master plan of evil.

169.    That PS’s evil deed on the 6016 home (“Gloria’s Home”) is pretty much going the same way, that is, south.

170.    That the mortgage on the home of approx. $200,000 is likely more than the home is worth.

171.    That it is not worth partitioning this house.

172.    That you have not figured this out.

173.    That mini-me had better master plans of evil than CF and AS.

174.    That your filing of ARDC complaints against KD and JD are about the same as whining like a 3 year old girl that has wet her pants and it feels real yucky now.

175.    That you have exerted undue influence in the 2009 P 4585 Probate Case (“MGS Case”).

176.    That you are aware that the MGS Case was wired.

177.    That you are aware that the appointment of CT as Plenary Guardian was wired.

178.    That the Probate court is about as corrupt as the Circuit Court was in the days of Greylord.

179.    That you form an integral part of this corruption.

180.    That you just don’t care anymore because the money is just too damn good in this poor economy.

Easy peasy Discovery

Interrogatories:

See attached Table of Torts.

1. Identify any statement(s) which you believe are incorrect and provide a corrected statement in lieu thereof.
And finally, don’t forget to read the Disclaimer on this website!

Are we missing the forest for the trees? Question from Scott Evans

I thank Scott very much for going to court for both Mary and Gloria about a gazillion times and taking wonderful notes and thinking these very inciteful thoughts he is willing to share with us all.  Read on…..

From Scott:

Overview: All endeavors that are a work-in-progress tend to suffer from, “… the forest for the trees syndrome”.   Hardworking persons in any endeavor can get wrapped up in their own immediate perspective and miss things or take them for granted, things that a broader view would consider important.

Since Mary passed the Illinois written drivers test plus the driving test just a few months before being declared incompetent and thus being made a Ward of the Court, I can’t help but wonder what other similar anomalies go along with her case. For instance, what would be the typical events in the life of someone who actually had significant dementia? The driver’s license issue begs the question of what else is out there that the Friends and Family of Mary Sykes (FFMS) have gotten so used to that these other keys points have been ignored, lost in the forest.

Some examples: If the Sykes case was a legitimate Plenary Guardianship based on significant dementia ——-

REGULAR REPORTING ON HEALTH OF WARD: In other Probate cases I and Gloria have sat through, the Plenary Guardian (PG), the GAL, and family members regularly report on the health and wellbeing of the Ward of the Court. Usually, this is in some detail, occasionally in strict medical terms plus medical reports that are entered into the record.

For Mary Sykes, an abbreviated, very generalized and short discussion is used, which varies from “….she is doing wonderfully..”, to “….she has taken a turn for the worst….” — all without details, without prior reporting to other family members and without written medical statements put into the record.

FAMILY ACCESS TO THE COURT: In other cases, family members gather at the bench, tell their relevant stories on the condition of the Ward, often at length while the lawyers just give important but usually concise information.

For Mary Sykes, Mary is discussed minimally or not at all.

DUTIES OF GUARDIANS: I would bet that most Wards of the Court have friends and family that are encouraged by the Court to visit the Ward and foster independence and wellbeing. Those concepts are included in “Guidelines for Guardians” as put out by the Presiding Judge of Probate Court. Gloria and I have watched Judge Stuart go to noticeable and even poignant lengths on the proper treatment of the Ward and the Duties of the Plenary Guardian.

The exception is Mary Sykes. Has the Plenary Guardian ever met the Judge? Isn’t a report required every 12 months on the health, wellbeing and financial condition of the Ward?  Given all the hearings, would most Judges make a point of meeting the Plenary Guardian?

CONTINUING CONFIRMATION OF NEED OF 24/7 CARE. If the need for 24/7 care was what made the Plenary Guardianship necessary in the first place, shouldn’t that be reported on regularly and supported in detail?  [On May 11, I watched Judge Stuart give strict instructions to a new Plenary Guardian that follow-up reports on the condition of the Ward CANNOT say, “…same as before…or… no change….” The condition must be spelled out in each report.]

For Mary Sykes, what gets used are short, glib statements by three lawyers ( I use that term loosely) who  have a glaring and roughly 6 figure conflict of interest.

SOCIAL CONTACT: For persons suffering from dementia, contact with old friends and family members would be part of their ‘prescription’ for wellbeing.  [On May 11, 2012, Judge Stuart read to two new Plenary Guardians from the guidelines for guardians and emphasized that the duty of a guardian includes helping the Ward of the Court to achieve, “…maximum self-reliance and independence….within limits of safety….”

For Mary Sykes, isolation, minimal to zero self-reliance, total and enforced DEPENDENCE on the Guardian,  including forced isolation such as not being allowed to use the phone to make or even receive calls except for special occasions, about twice a year , is considered by her Plenary Guardian and her two GALS as what is ‘best’ for Mary’s wellbeing.  Of course as we all know, it is only best for the ease of looting Mary’s hard-earned financial assets, the entire purpose of the Guardianship in the first place.  The ‘lawyers’ who practice this type of ‘law’ refer to it as, “churning the estate”.   It is their business plan to transfer an elder’s money to their own pockets.

WISE USE OF FINANCIAL ASSETS: For most dementia suffers, careful husbanding of the financial assets is carefully prescribed by the Court. I have seen it discussed in detail while sitting through other probate cases.

For Mary Sykes, the lawyers (that keep Mary in the situation she clearly has stated she does not want be in) have openly complained that they haven’t been paid. Clearly, the sale of Mary’s house is to pay the people (I use that term loosely) that are responsible for Mary losing her Constitutional rights as opposed to being sold for Mary’s future care.

In fact it can be argued that if Mary actually did suffer from Plenary Guardianship levels of dementia, she would have been treated far better. And since the FFMS know Mary does not have significant dementia, it is overlooked because it is a false accusation. However, the result of knowing that truth has been to inadvertently allow the alleged criminals (sorry Ken, “miscreants” is just too much of a euphemism) to carry on to approach their self-centered financial goals. And since we take it for granted that this case is only about Carolyn and her lawyers protecting their own financial windfall and to counter Carolyn being cut out of half of Mary’s Will/trust, if not all of it, as of June through September 2009, the tendency has been to get caught up in the ‘crisis du jur’ and not concentrate on the basics, the merits of the case. There is no finger pointing here; this is just how these things work out sometimes in any endeavor.

Until an incident like the driver’s license issue acts as a reminder, the broader picture gets lost in the current events; …the forest for the trees. After all, Tim, initially a year and a half ago, suggested that going back to the beginning was a solution. An April or May, 2009 drivers test would certainly qualify as going back to basics.

As far as dealing with dementia of an elder family member goes, I have no background in that. My paternal grandparents died early, my maternal grandparents and great grandparents were in fine mental shape up to their passing.  So, please modify or add to the above examples of standard treatment and actions concerning a Ward of the Court versus the “special” actions surrounding Mary.

I suspect there are many relevant issues similar to the driver’s license issue that could be added to it. I assume that putting them into play at the same time is better than doing it piecemeal.

~Scott