From KKD–Where did our Beloved America and US Constitution go?

 Attached hereto is the brief that Mr. Lanre O. Amu forwarded to me.
Indeed, it is the middle of the night and I cannot sleep and upset to the core.
My beloved America has forgotten her origins, her Constitution, the words that appear on the Statute of Liberty, and her heroes.    The sacrifice of Dr. King, et al are all being washed down the drain by a ‘government agency’ (Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission) that has run amok!    The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America have been THROWN UNDER THE BUS!
The Rule of Law has been set forth in vivid terms by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Citizen’s United, Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, et al.    Americans who speak out on political and/or content related subjects may do so with impunity!    Americans can even speak out against Judicial officials in an insulting, disrespectful, and horrible way.    (Mr. Amu appears not have made his statements in Court, he was not held in contempt, nor could his statements appear to be considered an attempt to bully the trier of fact or otherwise influence a Court proceeding.    All he did was voice an opinion that certain judges did not provide his clients with a fair trial)
The issue in the Amu case is not whether the words and phrases that he used were true.    The issue is not whether or not he had due respect for the Court.  (If he did demonstrated contempt of Court the Judge could have held him in contempt and in accordance with due process punished him).   The issue is whether or not Mr. Jerome Larkin of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission can separate Mr. Amu from his liberty and property rights and in particular his right to speak out and be critical of an elected official.    JUDGES IN ILLINOIS ARE ELECTED!
Other attorneys (including me) are being disciplined by Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for speaking out concerning Judicial corruption and that of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC so it is clear that Mr. Amu’s situation is not unique.    Larkin has not have the temerity to try to discipline the United States Attorney for prosecution of Operation Greylord and a few other sundry Judicial officials but, ******.     Our Justice Department in Operation Greylord sent 15 attorneys to federal prison!
Our Supreme Court in a series of cases stretching back to the founding of our United States of America has ruled that only in very limited circumstances can government (including Judicial government) regulate, impede, interfere, or otherwise limit free speech.   The Citizen’s United case and the Alvarez case are the most recent and the most offended by the actions of the IARDC that Mr. Amu complains.      Mr. Amu’s brief and the IARDC’s brief make it very clear that Mr. Amu’s actions were not even close to line.     To be very blunt – the actions of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC in their prosecution of Mr. Amu for saying whatever he said concerning Judicial corruption was not only ultra vires but offensive and disrespectful to the Rule of Law.     The prosecution of Mr. Amu for speaking his mind concerning Judicial corruption in the Court was totally protected speech and the temerity of bringing a prosecution to separate Mr. Amu from his license completely wrong, un-American, and an intentional violation of Mr. Amu’s civil rights.    It was and is ultra vires and therefore a violation of 42 USCA 1983.
Mr. Amu focuses upon the fact that he believes that his words and phrases are true.     You and I and all Americans should not give a tinker’s damn if Mr. Amu’s words are true or not – it is not our right or privilege (or that of our government) to judge.    The Rule of Law in America says that Mr. Amu has the right to express his opinion whether it offends Dr. King, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Ditkowsky, Ms. Denison, President Obama, Mr. Putin, or any, other human being.
I call upon all who read this e-mail to take a moment and reflect on what America stands for and why we love her.    The actions of Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission are shameful, wrong, and in my opinion a direct violation of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.     I for one cannot sleep when injustice and gross disrespect for the our Law is so stark!
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear Ken;

And while you cannot sleep, some of not only cannot sleep but actually wake up crying for our victims and how the IARDC dismisses our complaints out of hand.

A particularly embarrassing case for them is In re Betts (Betts, In re, 485 N.E.2d 1081, 109 Ill.2d 154, 92 Ill.Dec. 838 (Ill., 1985)) where an Illinois attorney was disciplined for NOT serving two close relatives in a guardianship case, even though he knew of their existence.  This left the case without jurisdiction (which was not mentioned in the IARDC decision).

In our case, we complain about miscreant attorneys that appoint CT, do not serve the relatives, now we have it of record that Yolanda and Kathie had no idea what was going on on Dec. 7, 2009, and they never received notice of the time, date and place 14 days in advance of Mary’s guardianship.  We complain about that to the IARDC and our complaints are dismissed, yet the miscreant attorneys who knew better–CF, AS and HW go scott free.  Even worse, PS picked up this case, got involved, did not do his Rule 137 duty as set forth by the Illinois Supreme Court, and he too is exonerated.  He did not report any of the CF, AS and HW under the case In re Betts.

The IARDC is mad at me for saying Judge Stuart, AS, CF, HW, DJS, PS are all “favored attorneys”, that there is obvious bias (which Kathie noted on the stand) that numerous other attorneys have noted, and NO, Mr. Chair, no one believes YOU that the Sykes case is just sour grapes after the dozen of attorneys that family has talked to.  I receive anonymous phone calls all the time regarding Sykes and many, many Illinois attorneys won’t go up against the IARDC because IT DOES NOT FILE ETHICS REPORTS, it does not publish salaries, it does not publish how it selects it’s tribunal members.

Numerous Greylord books noted that the IARDC did nothing during Greylord, and even prosecuted attorneys from a blue ribbon commission assembled by Mayor Richard Daley that reported the IARDC ignored numerous complaints about Greylord activities.

I cry because this isn’t just passing a few hundred dollars over the bench.  We have documented millions missing off of inventories (Sykes, Tyler, Gore, Drabik, etc.) plus the obvious violations of human and civil rights where families are ripped asunder and the elder is isolated until death by narcotics and starvation occurs (Gore and Drabik).  John Wyman’s mother suffered near daily beatings and “attitude adjustments” and a Rockford GAL and probate attorney stood by and did nothing.  They were reported to the IARDC and the IARDC did nothing.  A staffer would get into bed naked next to Mrs. Wyman and masturbate it turns out.  One of the worst nursing homes in Rockford and the Rockford GAL and probate attorney DID NOTHING but probably place more wards at that nursing home.

So I cry tears.  And I don’t sleep.  And the IARDC ruins my life, my dedication and devotion to YOU, my countless probate victims.  Of course, my career is ruined, destroyed and my nights are sleepless and filled with night terrors of how these innocent, elderly, frail victims were starved and dehydrated to death (which is a very painful death and don’t tell me the morphine patches cover up all of that), they were beaten, sexually abused, placed in the hands of individuals they specifically said they did not want to have control them (Drabik, Gore,Wyman, Sykes)

What did the IARDC say that makes the case look like a cover up?

1) Repeatedly arguing with a witness that her aunt’s sordid case was just “sour grapes”, giving no credence, sympathy, empathy or true understanding of the situation.  Like looking into the empty eyes of a soul less alien entity devoid of compassion.  Why was I the only one in the court room crying over the severe, repeated, gross and disgusting injustices.

2) Asking one or more witnesses how many supporters there were of Gloria, family and friends.  The witness had to admit to protests in the Daley center with picket signs bearing the name Mary Sykes, probate court and Judge Stuart.

3) Telling me when they asked about how I investigated cases, that they did not care about Rockford, only Cook County (why, are you only going to cover up for Crook County?  The Rockford courts are on their own, no honor among miscreants?

It doesn’t really matter what my Tribunal does.  I hope they will do the right thing and acquit me of all charges, but they don’t have a very good track record on First Amendment rights (Peel — where all the attorney wanted to do was list his truthful certifications on his letterhead, SCOTUS said that was covered by the First Amendment),

The IARDC still needs to do the right thing.  They needs to tell the miscreants to dismiss the Sykes case and settle with Gloria and her family for damages in that case.

Ken compares the ratty nursing homes that the elderly are sent to to the Gulags or “attitude ajustment” camps in Russia.

But there is a whole long history of people not speaking out and preventing harm.

The T4 program in Nazi Germany instructs us accordingly.

It started with one couple writing to Hitler to ask if they could have their deformed, deaf and blind son euthanized.  Hitler said yes, and more couples with deformed children started writing to him, so he started the T4 Action program to rid Germany of of deformed, useless children. (the following is from Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4)

Like others I have written of, Drabik and Gore who were elderly and frail, children did not protest their own deaths, they did not resist, they did not require restraints. So T4 was expanded to older children, pre teens and then even adolescents.  But by then, the older children and teens would sometimes protest and require restrains as they were poisoned by injection with muscle relaxants which stopped the heart and lungs.  That is when the doctors (yes, T4 undoubtedly involved hundreds, if not thousands of cooperative licensed MD’s and nurses and administrative staff–college educated, licensed professions), developed “the most important discovery” that carbon monoxide can do dozens, and then hundreds of undesirable and incurable patients in asylums and hospitals in one batch, and they were then quickly cremated and the family was sent a death notice the patient “unfortunately” died of made up maladies such as pneumonia, appendicitis, infections, etc.   You name it, these docs spent all day making it up and putting it on a form because “they were told to.”  More and more patients were then classified “T4”.

The most important point of T4?  Out of all the doctors, nurses, college educated hospital staff, NOT ONE OF THEM PUBLICLY PROTESTED.  At one point, in one town, some angry teens who figured out the busloads of patients transferred to hospitals that never left and the crematoria spewing out ashes and bits of human hair, did assemble together and publicly protest.

Hitler was careful to avoid towns that were heavily Catholic due to the deep ingraining  of the sanctity and blessedness of human life.  T4 and the concentration camps were run without a single directive from Hitler in writing.  In fact, one judge threatened a local T4 program noting there was no law, no directive from Hitler and therefore it could not continue.  He was quickly removed from the bench.

But for the most part NO doctors or nurses publicly protested T4.  It is likely if T4 had been stopped in its tracks Hitler could not have proceeded to 6 million healthy Jews not in asylums or hospitals. (Imagine that, a hospital where you go to be evaluated for T4 and then killed if you qualify).  Only ONE doctor reclassified all his patients as outside of T4 and saved them all.  Only ONE.  Like Schindler, though, they did not publicly protest.

So I’m saying it now, and I’m saying it loud and clear to the IARDC and ANY state or federal agencies that will listen–Grandma and Grandpa are becoming nursing home victims to cronyism and a program of “not corruption” so attorneys cannot publicly protest.  I can’t used the word “corrupt” according to my trial, so I won’t.  I’m not supposed to tag anything “corruption” so I will start lying and tag everything “not corruption”.  (Note with tags, this doesn’t work, tags pick up individual words)  (Also note with tags, if you google Ken or myself with the word “corruption” we pop up too.  AND I DON’T CARE.  Tag me with corruption, make the reader read.)

It was not until late in the T4 program and by then the concentration camp program that a German Cardinal finally read aloud a letter protesting forced euthanasia and reaffirming the sanctity of life that protests began among German catholics and the letter was read aloud in all the German churches eventually and protests in German started to take off.  But by then it was simply too late.  A deeply entrenched machine had already flourished for years. Jews and other undesireables were already being sent to their deaths by the bus loads.  Only the end of the war would stop this machine.

So I stand here today and I will trash my law license so that this T4 program with grandma and grandpa will go no further.  Many have gone to the ARDC, the federal and state authorities with credible cases and plenty of evidence and were completely ignored.  T4 was implemented, condoned and covered up by attorneys in the Drabik and Gore cases.

Remember, T4 started with infants.  Our seniors are just as vulnerable.

Just say NO to T4 in the US.  Say NO to involuntary euthanasia for elders. Say NO to elder cleansing and elder trafficing.  Whatever you call it, it’s just plain wrong and people, and especially attorneys must blog and must protest.

Human life and human rights ARE sacred.  They are blessed.  The elderly are a blessing to us, even if they are 95, 100 or more years old.  They are not to be targeted, fleeced and killed off.

Go ahead, ARDC, make me a martyr.  Make me a poster child.

Joanne

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.

A very well drafted letter from Judy Ditkowsky asks, “Why did the GAL’s threatening KDD when all he wants to do is investigate?”

Dear Readers;

Mrs. Ditkowsky has been kind enough to share her very well drafted letter with us on this blog.  In it, the letter asks the most important question underlying the case, why do the GAL’s in a Probate proceeding threaten a third party attorney for merely investigating an alleged wrongful guardianship?

Inquiring minds want to know.

As an attorney, or even an outsider, it doesn’t take much to know that when one is threatened, there is assuredly a fat, thick, scab to pick that probably contains a good amount of pus and infection.  I’m not a criminal atty, but at least I know that one.

Read on for some very interesting news.  I never heard the entire story about the “threats”, I know the ARDC did not want the entire story to come out, so this is very interesting.

JoAnne

Dear Senator ______,
RE:  Attorney SANCTIONED for SEEKING TO PROTECT A NINETY YEAR OLD LADY from severe repression of her civil and human rights!
My husband, Kenneth Ditkowsky, was threatened three years ago, that if he continued to represent the interests of a large group of relatives, personal friends and neighbors in their concern for the ongoing health and safety of a ninety year old lady, he would be hauled before the Court for sanctions and also the Illinois ARDC.  At that point, he had done nothing but investigate what their complaint entailed.  I personally was present in my husband’s office when the two telephone calls in which attorney Peter Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Adam Stern made these threats, and heard them, because he put the calls on speakerphone specifically so that I would hear them.  Ken had done nothing improper, and therefore threat of attorney sanctions were totally improper.
 However, the threats were not made in vain.  Within a year, Ken had been sanctioned, and within six months thereafter, these same sanctions were vacated by the Appellate Court, as having been issued totally without jurisdiction.  Ken had been ordered (by the Circuit Court which incidentally had no jurisdiction) not to represent the ninety one year old lady and he NEVER had done so.  He had, however, as an attorney bound by the Himmel rule, continued to report violations of her civil rights.  He did so continuously, as there was no evidence that his reports had been taken seriously, and he widened the circle to whom the reports were made.  He also had a responsibility as a citizen to take action for the protection of a person whose rights were covered under Federal Statute and the fourteenth and fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution.  He had his own rights under the U.S. and the Illinois Constitution of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the first Article of the Illinois Constitution).
 Then step three was taken by attorney Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Stern, now joined by Guardian ad litem Farenga.  Amazingly, fifteen counts that Ken had misbehaved were brought by the attorney for the administrator of the Illinois ARDC. I use the term misbehaved advisedly.  The fifteen counts met no criterion of specificity.  Under the U.S. Constitution, a defendant has the right to know exactly what he is being accused of, but the attorney for the administrator ADMITTED in her response to the motion to dismiss that she had no idea what lies, deceptions, or interferences with the administration of justice had actually taken place other than that emails had been sent .
 Suffice it to say that the hearing officers attorned completely to the actions of the ARDC and subjected my husband to a hearing.  The hearing officer announced that two days and two days only were allotted to this hearing, and then allowed the prosecution to meander on until after four p.m. on the second day.  Under the U.S. Constitution, how can a defense be limited to less than an hour of a business day, perhaps a hearing going to late in the evening of a weekend day?  Beyond that, apparently there was some “underlying case” which could not be referred to.  The “underlying case” could only have been the matter about which the supposed lies, deceptions and  “interference with justice” were made.
Despite these obstacles, under oath the prosecution witnesses made significant admissions that they did not follow mandated procedures prescribed by state statute to protect the civil rights of their ward.  Furthermore, while each retained the title of Guardian ad Litem after what was a VOID Plenary Guardianship according to the mandatory provisions of the State Statute, neither undertook to actually perform the duties assigned to a Guardian ad Litem, which are to protect the interest of the ward against malpractice by the Plenary Guardian, but instead invented non-existent duties which were to the detriment of their ward. The statement UNDER OATH by Cynthia Farenga was that in most cases the duties of the Guardian ad Litem are over in a few months, while in this case the Guardianship she has been awarded has extended for over three years.  Does this mean that Ken has “interfered” with justice by making it possible for Mary Sykes to remain alive at the age of ninety three, having been kidnapped just before her birthday of nine decades under color of statute, been kept  isolated from her family and friends, and been consigned to “elder day care”, having lost the comfort of her own home and the waste of all her assets?
There are two CD’s, taken a year apart, of Mary Sykes, after her incarceration under false pretenses in a home and daycare center. Neither shows the feeble-minded individual SWORN TO UNDER OATH by attorney Adam Stern. The first was taken a year after the kidnap occurred; the second, shows the ravages of two years spent under hostile conditions; yet Mrs. Sykes is still aware of her situations, her companion(s) and is lucid. In addition, independent observers of  Mrs. Sykes have occasionally seen her at family events and have reported that she has been cogent; there has been no investigation permitted of Guardian Ad Litem’s sworn statement at ARDC hearing, that in his initial interview with Mrs. Sykes, there was no question of her incompetency. Mrs. Sykes is prevented from using the telephone to contact her relatives, but on the very day of the hearing, one was able to speak to her while her captor was not present and Mrs. Sykes was lucid and cognizant of whom she was speaking to (also, she was certainly aware of how to pick up and answer a telephone)  despite her advanced age and the nearly complete isolation from all her family except for the plenary guardian, the guardian’s husband, and the granddaughter and the consignment to a day care center offering no intellectual stimulation, much less rehabilitative activity.
 The General Accounting Office in 2010 issued a report of the nationwide abuses of the rights to life, liberty and property of elderly people.  Has this report been placed into the circular file?  It is up to our elected Senators and Representatives to stand up for the citizens of the United States who have had the nerve to live past the Soylent Green age of thirty and for those who who have had the nerve to care about the rights of their fellow citizens in the face of the actions herein complained of!
 Mr. Ditkowsky has spent untold time, energy and material resources in the fight to free Mary Sykes.  He has exposed, UNDER THE OATHS OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES in the process of this ARDC hearing, numerous instances of egregious disregard of statutes, court decisions, the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.  Under the most adverse of circumstances, his defense was able to show the TRUTH of the statements he has been making.  He was able to bring into evidence even more evidence of the truth of the statements he has been making.
 Nevertheless, the hearing panel did not consider any of this evidence but made their determination before leaving the building, as an order of misconduct was issued first thing the following Monday morning.
 Please be advised that Mr. Ditkowsky has never been accused of mistreating the elderly; he has been sanctioned and his reputation impaired for over two years for OPPOSING the mistreatment of one very feisty and resilient old lady. Isaiah, chapter 58 is quoted yearly at this time that the Lord does not care about fasting and sackcloth when innocents are being abused.  The armada of Government, however, in this case, is being employed to destroy the reputation of one who believes in the words of the Prophets, of the U.S. Constitution and of the Illinois Constitution, federal and state judiciary and laws and statutes.
 I am writing to you in the sincere hope that an investigation into the conduct of this entire matter over a period of over three years will be ordered.  This situation begins with the first attempt to chill any investigation into the circumstances of an almost ninety year old lady, on whose behalf almost twenty friends, neighbors, relative and fellow club members signed a petition and raised money for a retainer to pay my husband to look into the legal issues raised by what then seemed like a miscarriage of justice. It has continued through to the actions of the Attorney Registration and Discipline Committee which refused to dismiss an incompetent Motion for sanctions and in which its hearing officers issued an order of misconduct without taking the time to address any of the evidence allowed into the case as a result of the lines of questions introduced by the prosecution, which showed without a shadow of a doubt that neither the Guardians ad Litem nor the plenary Guardian were appointed in accordance with Illinois Statutes, decisions of appellate ( both federal and state) courts, or decisions of the United States Supreme court, in clear derogation of every free speech, right of association and right to petition for redress of grievances of the government.  Please investigate how this can happen in 2012 in The United States of America!
I apologize for the length and detail of this letter.
Sincerely,
Judith Ditkowsky
Dear Judy;
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for.  I loved your letter.  Tomorrow I am going to try to help John Wyman and test the meddle of the Probate Court in Rockford.  Soon as it is over, I will find the nearest Starbucks and give you all the results.
thanks again for your kind sharing and understanding.
JoAnne

From KDD–Sykes has TWO GAL’s. What are they supposed to be doing and why aren’t they gone in the case?

From Ken, regarding GAL’s and guardianships and jurisdiction
The Court must first determine in every case if it has jurisdiction.   If it has jurisdiction it has inherent powers to address the matters that come before it in the pending “case and controversy.”    The key words are “case and controversy”    After the appointment of a plenary guardian there is nothing more to do except supervise the plenary guardian.
A guardian ad litem functions as the “eyes and ears of the court” and not as the ward’s attorney. In re Guardianship of Mabry, 281 Ill.App.3d 76, 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16 (1996), citing In re Marriage of Wycoff, 266 Ill.App.3d 408, 415–16, 203 Ill.Dec. 338, 639 N.E.2d 897 (1994). The traditional role of the guardian ad litem is not to advocate for what the ward wants but, instead, to make a recommendation to the court as to what is in the ward’s best interests. Mabry, 281 Ill.App.3d at 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16. The role of the guardian ad litem is thus in contrast to the role of the plenary guardian of the person appointed pursuant to the Probate Act. Under section 11a–17 of the Probate Act, the plenary guardian makes decisions on behalf of the ward and must, in general, conform those decisions “as closely as possible to what the ward, if competent, would have done or intended under the circumstances.” 755 ILCS 5/11a–17(e) (West 2000). See also In re Marriage of Burgess, 189 Ill.2d 270, 278–79, 244 Ill.Dec. 379, 725 N.E.2d 1266 (2000) (guardian must generally “make decisions on behalf of a ward in accordance with the ward’s previously expressed wishes”).

In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374, 888 N.E.2d 15, 20 (2008)
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From JoAnne

Dear Readers,

Now one would think that a GAL is supposed to be the “eyes and ears” and not take a side, not isolate a ward, not allow any of her property to be destroyed by the PG’s atty, PS, but it happened.

All of it happened.

Nothing was reported to the court, there is nothing in the court’s files indicating any concern on the part of the GAL’s.

How could this be you ask?

It is most certainly clear that everytime a GAL ticks off someone in the family, they make a bundle.  They sell the ward’s paid for home for atty’s fees, they foment controversy, they get right in the middle of everything.

The other daughter is and has basically been pro se for 95% of this proceeding.  The GAL’s are counting on that too.

It seems to me, when these controversies are involved, perhaps the senior and her family have a constitutional right to an atty–and the Probate Court should pay for that, not the senior or family when wrongs have been committed.  This is especially so when the attys involved will be asking the estate for reimbursement in the case.

It is my opinion that once it became clear there was a conflict of interest with the GAL’s and the other daughter, the GAL’s should have been replaced and the case reassigned a new judge and the other daughter should have been appointed a pro bono atty if she asked for one.  That would have made the proceeding much fairer and ensured justice.

take care

joanne

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

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

Updates about the Court banning the use of laptops

A couple of weeks ago, JoAnne Denison sent a fax to Kevin Connelly (Head of security at the Daley Center) and Judge Evans. Just a quick recap, the fax basically talked about Judge Stuart banning the use of laptops in her courtroom, which is a direct violation of everything a democratic society should stand for.

To no one’s surprise, there has been no response to that fax. No explanation, no discussion, nothing. So of course, JoAnne sent another fax to them today. Let’s see how long they will ignore this one (link provided below)!

JoAnne’s fax to Judge Evans

A complete list of all files in Mary G Sykes case. Please note all the missing documents

Below is a table of the files on the Mary G Sykes case that were found in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. Most of the 2009 files were copies obtained from Ken’s office, not where the main file is. Why is that? Some of the Court orders are also missing, additionally, most of the files filed by Joanne are also removed from the file.

sykes docket sheet