Statute of Uses and Conflict of Interest for Plenary Guardian Carolyn Toerpe

The following is an email that Atty Ken Ditkowsky agreed to post with some explanation of the facts to new readers:

Background (by JMD):

In 2005, Mary was taken by her daughter Carolyn to an attorney to change her Will and Power of Attorney which a Power of Attorney for Health Care and Property was granted to Carolyn. The other younger daughter, Gloria, did not know about this until after she and her mother returned from a vacation trip in 2010 and noticed that keys to their safe deposit box were missing, and the staff at the local bank informed them that Carolyn had the box drilled out, without permission, while both of them were gone. Now, since Gloria's name was on the safe deposit box, the bank should have required written permission from Gloria, but that was never done. Carolyn knew Gloria's name was on the safe deposit box. A trust document was created which purportedly transferred title from Mary Sykes to a Trust wherein Mary Sykes was the trustor, trustee AND beneficiary. There was an approximate $150,000 mortgage on Mary's home.

From Ken:

Let us go over the facts. The house owned by Mary had a mortgage on it that had a due on sale cause in the Chain of title. Carolyn to obtain a benefit for herself, induced her mother to sign a Deed in Trust that violated the due on sale clause. This document was intended to be deceptive in that in the early pages of the document that Mr. Stern provided, the Deed in Trust purports to divide the subject real estate equally, yet later on it attempts to portray the entire property being given to Carolyn.

Now add up the facts: 1) Mary with the aid of Court personnel prepared a petition for a protective order against Carolyn. 2) Carolyn obtained a power of attorney, but never filed the appropriate accountings even though she raided the Safety Deposit Box. 3) Carolyn took without authorization $4000.00 that she claimed that she was using to allegedly "create an IRA account" - this precipitated Mary going to the Courthouse.

4) The petition for an order of protection was sidetracked by the agreed order promulgated by the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian. (I believe that at that point in time Schmiedel had replaced Waller). The document that Stern provided does not have a document number or time stamp. When did Carolyn file the Deed in Trust?

It is my opinion that the Deed in Trust violates the Statute of Uses and therefore transfers the property right back to Mary. The net is that Carolyn has no authority to institute the forcible entry and detainer action against Gloria. The net also is that this document (furnished by Stern) is strong evidence of misconduct on the part of the plenary guardian.

Stern's furnishing the document and correcting Schmiedel's misstatment as to the disposition of the petition for an order of protection is a positive. I understand he arranged one of the rare Christmas contacts for Mary's siblings. His complains about your blog however are a negative. There has been so little reported that is positive concerning Stern, it is a pleasure to be able to say something nice. It is possible by highly improbable that he is going to surprise us by revealing to the Court the fact that Carolyn has not been candid with the Court as to the assets of the disabled person's estate and she has a real conflict of interest - i.e. does she foster her own interests or that of the estate. The expectation the either Farenga or Stern would do anything that was not in the best interests of Carolyn is 'slim and none.' As a lawyer, Stern is supposed to be familiar with the Statute of Uses.

I copied Stern on this e-mail because I do not want him to suggest at some later date that it never occurred to him that the Statute of Uses would apply and that ****.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Additional note from JMD: At the time the $4,000 was removed from Mary's account without permission, Carolyn claimed it was for an "IRA" or retirement fund for Mary. This is despite the fact that in 2009 Mary was 90 and ineligible for any retirement fund with any tax or other benefits.
Further, at the very last hearing, Gloria brought up the fact with Judge Stuart that Carolyn should not be guardian because she was the Respondent to an Order for Protection and that was against Illinois state law. Judge Stuart responded, "wasn't that heard earlier in this case" to which Mr. Stern admitted, "no it wasn't." Judge Stuart then indicated she would not entertain and was interested or concerned about the fact that Carolyn Toerpe was, and still is, the respondent to a Motion for a Protective Order! Certainly the court personnel helping Mary would not have filed the Petition if they felt Mary was incompetent or suffered from dementia, they would have brought it to the attention of the court.

Daley Center Probate Court: Secret Tribunals? Where is the Inventory and Where is the Accounting? 2 years have passed!

As many of you know, the Probate Court file for Mary G. Sykes is pretty much a complete mess. Documents, Briefs, Pleading and Motions are not in date order, they are all over the place, and many, many important filings appear to be completely missing.
Last week I was looking for the "Inventory" and Accountings. An Inventory is required to be filed by any new Guardian no less than 60 days after opening up an estate. An accounting should be filed at the end of each year from date of appointment.
Carolyn Toerpe was appointed Pleanary Guardian in Dec. 2009. This means the first inventory was due by Jan. 2010 and the first accounting by Jan. 2011. I searched the file thoroughly, but found no Inventory and no Accountings. I found one court Order that referred to the Inventory and a "Current Accounting" but as I recall, it indicated both of these documents to be amazingly late (over a year, if memory serves me right--but I will check and update as I have more time to look at the file. Currently, the court does not allow the file to be transported to the file room and you have to look at it in court as one is able to.)
One of the most hotly contested issues in this guardianship IS the accounting and inventory, and now all those are missing and a second accounting is supposed to be due soon in this case.
I have no idea why Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga allow for such shenanigans to take place. They are supposed to be actively involved in ensuring a timely and accurate (to the best of their knowledge) accounting has been filed with the court, and if the relatives are making loud protestations that items are missing, they are supposed to take notes, conduct an investigation and report to the court their findings. Ken Ditkowsky was Mary's attorney for many years, if he is asserting items were missing, well he knew Mary and Charles Sykes (deceased) and their affairs the best, and his comments should be taken seriously.
My question, is why are these important documents apparently missing from the file? What happened to them? Why was the entry of one "Current Accounting" and the inventory "entered and continued" at a very late date? This should be all public record so the relatives will know that AS, CF and Judge Stuart are not running "secret tibunals" that do not conform to Illinois Probate Laws and Procedure.

Seizure of an Attorney's Laptop--is this the US of Russia or what?

Today I had a most unusual experience. I have never seen this before in 25 years of practice.

In court room 1804, Judge Stuart, while I was attending a hearing on the Sykes case, the bailiff walked up to me and took my laptop! She didn’t ask me to put it away. She just took it. I told her that the courts allow electronic note taking, but she took it anyway.

This is at a hearing where Adam Stern and Peter Schmeidel were going on and on about how I was disqualified from representing Gloria for notarizing one document and how I was running a blog about the Mary Sykes case (horrors)!

Some have speculated (this is only a rumor now) about how I might have been blogging about the case in the court room!

The court personnel (where were they during 6th grade US constitution exam) thought I couldn’t take notes because I was not a court reporter. Interesting, but no cigar. The reality is, I cannot take the place of a court reporter because they have specialized training and a license. But as a US citizen in an open court, I do have the constitutional right to take notes.

The big questions are tho: 1) why are Adam Stern and Peter Schmeidel and the court so overly concerned about my running a court room blog? 2) No one has asserted how anything posted on this blog is untrue (other than Cynthia Farenga, and adequate evidence was attached to a communication sent to her that completely dispels this notion) and 3) why is it no one in that count room seems to know that blogging, public dissemination of court room proceedings are a basic and important US constitutional right?

Open courts are inimical to a free and just society. It is of the most urgent importance that reporters, bloggers and anyone with a quest for truth and justice be allowed to enter into any US court room and take notes and publish them anywhere there is an audience interested in the proceedings and the free and open flow of information (or in this case, lack thereof).

We all have an interest in keeping our courtrooms open and free. By that we can ensure that justice is done there.

Sadly, today it was severely lacking. And even more sad was a courtroom filled with about a dozen people that didn’t seem to know or care about how important that right was.

I recall getting 100 on my 6th grade US and Illinois constitution exam. I guess it’s sad when you put the people that got all the low scores in charge of the courtroom!

PS–the files on my laptop go back to documents and emails prepared for clients back to 1990! I wonder how Judge Stuart is going to explain to clients why their information was placed into the hands of a court room bailiff who knows nothing of them or their business. She was a part of it. I will publish the transcript when I get it.

PPS–there are devices on the market that can scam a hard drive via an open port in minutes! Why did the judge allow a meagerly paid court room bailiff access to a lap top of an attorney that had years of confidential and highly sensitive client information which should have the eminence of attorney client privilege on it with very little apparent forethought and absolutely no safety precautions for the data contained therein?

All good questions.

Another day in probate. Another day with more questions than answers.

Result of Appeal of Sanction award against Kenneth Ditkowsky for attempting investigation of the Mary Sykes matter.

As you are aware, when I was engaged by the Friends and family of Mary Sykes to investigate the unusual circumstances that surrounded her being isolated (by Court order) and her assets being removed from her possession, I ran into a ‘fire storm.’ The promulgators were the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian. Well knowing that if my investigation of what appeared to be gross ‘elder abuse’ and unconscionable financial exploitation of Mary Sykes was unethical under the rules that govern the practice of law in Illinois then the place to bring a request for an inquiry was the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission.

Mr. Stern, Ms Farenga, and Mr. Schmiedel however filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County a Motion to sanction me in what was in my opinion a blatant attempt to intimidate me and end my investigation. The fact that Illinois Statutes 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (Citizen Participation Act) prohibits the very conduct that was being perpetrated against me was of no concern to anyone, least of all the Circuit Court. Most seriously the Court and the Court appointed guardians were totally disinterested in the fact that there were protections afforded Mary Sykes that had been ignored. The Appellate Court had previously ruled that these basic protections were ‘jurisdictional.’

When the Circuit Court rejected my arguments that it lacked jurisdiction on several basis, the Court awarded almost $5000.00 in sanctions against me. I took an appeal and then did a more comprehensive investigation as to why there should an effort to prevent me from doing the due diligence that Supreme Court Rule 137 , and FRCP 11 mandated as necessary before an attorney can agree to becoming engaged in litigation. I soon found out! The tip of the iceberg was the fact that Mary Sykes owned a safety deposit box and therein were fungible ‘gold (Au) coins,’ fungible United States Dollars, ‘ jewelry, and other valuables. Today with the rise in the value of gold it is estimated that the ‘loot’ had a street value of more than a million dollars.

My appeal addressed two major legal concepts. 1) the sanction motion was brought under Supreme Court Rule 137 which was directed at false pleadings filed in pending court proceedings, and 2) jurisdiction. As I was at best a stranger to Mary’s estate litigation, until I filed an appearance for someone the Court lacked jurisdiction over me. I had not done so – all I did was start the inquiry process. In addition, it appeared to me that the Court was over-reaching in its claim of any jurisdiction. The case of In re: Sodini required that Mary be protected from a ‘railroad job!’ The statute required that 14 days notice to close relatives. Mr. Schmiedel is not shy in admitting that no notice was given to close relatives! Sodini points out that the failure to give this notice is not a casual requirement that can be ignored – it is jurisdictional. Thus, without the Sodini notice it is respectfully suggested the guardians are acting without Court authority. The judge sitting on the bench may be wearing a ‘robe’ but the judge might just as well be sitting his/her basement dispensing justice to the neighborhood children – the proceeding without jurisdiction has not binding force and effect.

Unfortunately, the Appellate Court was not interested in the more sophisticated jurisdictional deficiency. (It would have been a surprise if it had been). However, even though all that would have to be done would be for the plenary guardian (or the GALs) to request a proper hearing and give the close relatives 14 day notice the Court would have been clothe with jurisdiction and then *****. It is respectfully suggested that Stern, Farenga, and Schmiedel were interested in thwarting my investigation because it was reasonable to assume that a scintilla of due diligence would unearth this jurisdictional deficiency.

As the Courts appear to not be interested in addressing in the Sykes case the Sodini issues, the sanction award was vacated upon the more basic jurisdictional deficiency – I was and always have been a stranger to the Mary Sykes case. Thus, I am not subject to Court sanctions. That is not to say that the Supreme Court of Illinois will not investigate to determine if questioning the conduct of such august persons as Farenga, Stern, Troepe, and Schmiedel is unethical – Indeed, the ARDC is investigating me! All of the above persons have been reported to have made frantic pleas to the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission to investigate me! It is interesting that no investigation is going on to ascertain why the plenary guardian denies Mary Sykes visitation with her (Mary's) siblings, her younger daughter, her friends, her neighbors. Indeed there is no investigation in the 'looting' of the safety deposit box, etc. The investigation is whether on not is it unethical to inquire as to the foregoing!

All that said, as the guardians have discovered even a cloutless attorney with a neighborhood office has ‘teeth!’ The sanction motion is ‘garden variety’ malicious prosecution. 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (Citizen Participation Act) provides a State of Illinois claim to sue to recover the lost remuneration, anxiety, etc that I suffered as the result of the sanction motion. 42 USCA 1983 provides a remedy to sue in the Federal Court based upon the fact that Mr. Stern and Mr. Schmiedel (and possibly Farenga) used their office to attempt to deny me my First Amendment Rights. (Right of Association).

All that said, I would trade these causes of action for Justice for Mary Sykes. All that is required is for Mr. Stern, and Ms. Farenga to do their jobs. Turning a blind eye to the financial exploitation, spoliation of evidence, isolation and abuse of Mary Sykes may be the MO that is the current vogue, but Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes are innocents – the fact that Mary Sykes has a few coins (worth a million plus dollars) should not be the focus – the focus should be honesty, honor, integrity, and good will toward all men.

This is the Christmas Season. America needs a Christmas present – giving Mary Sykes back her life and whatever property that has not been dissipated would be ‘good start!’

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

A letter from Gloria Sykes regarding her mother

From Gloria J Sykes:

Dear All,

My mother is the most amazing woman in the world. We played miniature golf (in February, 2011) and she completed 16 holes before she got "dizzy". I learned the PG gave her a "late breakfast" -- so at 2:30, unbeknownst to me she was in need of some protein. Nothing around, i bought her a sorbet with fresh blueberries and we shared it. She went back and we completed three more holes and my sister was waiting, watching, about 50 feet away. My cousin Debbie, who had it not been for her, the visit would never had happened, took a couple of pictures of us (I guess AS didn't tell her about the court order) and **** What I remember most is how mom was in awe... being able to feel free, around people she loved, and people she didn't know, but people active and having fun. There was a family playing before us, and the father/husband, tried hard, but couldn't break 4 - 6 strokes before getting the ball in the hole. His wife wasn't that must better, but at one point we went before them to complete the course. And I watched him watch mother play. One whole she landed the ball in the hole in three shots, and the other hole, well it was considered a hole in one -- and mom won a free game at the course. The man walked over to my mother to congratulate her, "Will you teach me how to golf?" he asked her. Mom's eyes were wide opened, she felt important, good and told him she was 92 years old.

We talked about Julie Smith, mom's long time friend and mom asked, "Are the gals getting together soon...Do you think you could put together a visit with the gals at the garden club?" I asked Kathie to see what she could do. I told mom my friend asked me to come to Greece and she replied, "you have to fly to get there.... oooooh." Mom said she didn't like to fly and she recalled a simulator we had experienced.. which brought back good memories with Daddy, and Kristin when she was about 8 or so.

At one point a little boy walked by mom carrying a golf club, and mom laughed and smiled, "Look at that little guy..."

She reminded me of a wrongfully imprisoned person who upon release, is cautious, subdue, and wide-eyed: look how much I've missed. She definitely showed signs of isolation, and gaslighting. But she enjoyed herself and before i had to turn her over to Debby to connect with the PG, mom asked me which home she was going to. I said in a cherry voice, "you will be with Carolyn now" and mom said, "I'm so confused....where are you living now?" I told her in Norwood Park, Chicago, and she sighed. I smiled and said, "Everything will be okay." and she said, "As long as it's a good outcome." and then kissed me and said, "As long as we have our health, we can do anything." I wanted to just grab her and run, but I hugged her and kissed her and told her how much I love her and that I am always there for her." She told me that she loves me very much too, and I thought she was going to cry, so I kissed her again, and said goodbye and walked away. I didn't turn back. I didn't want to watch her or see the PG. I walked fast and thought it all to be so unbelievable. How could anybody do this to a beautiful and amazing woman like my Mother.

It took me 30 minutes longer to arrive today: my navigator look me the wrong way (go figure) and the PG wouldn't give me a few minutes more. It was like a lockdown at a prison...

I didn't say see you later, or I'll talk to you tomorrow, because I don't know if I'll see her ever again or talk to her again. Debbie will give a good report and like all the other good reports, the person witnessing our love and friendship, the kindness and love between mother and daughter, are told they can't supervise any more.

There is no dementia; Mom isn't seriously demented as Adam Stern, the GAL, told Judge Stuart; and I don't agitate her. She is agitated because when she sees me she wants to know when she can go home. She desperately wants to go home and quietly live out her days with me. What there is, however, is a woman who has given up and realizes she has no rights or control over her life-- and she's resolved that it is what it is.

So hug the person you love, and remember that in a wink of an eye, a nod, or a signature on a dotted line, that person can be taken away from you and you'll never see them again...

I am blessed that my cousin Debbie gave up her afternoon and played miniature golf with us.

I saw my Mother two more times: she played winning hands of canasta and we went for a long walk, and both times she didn't want to return to Toerpe's home. She asked Debbie if "Carolyn was going to sell [her] home from under [her]?" and asked Debbie to help stop Carolyn. That was in March 2011. Toerpe is not only selling Mother's home from under her, Toerpe stopped all communications between Mother and me after Debbie told GAL Adam Stern what mother asked. We think that in American this activity should not happen, but it does, so it's foolish of me to rant about how wrong it is, because it is. What I know is that Carolyn Toerpe, through her counsel Fischel and Kahn, (Peter Schmiedel, et al), and TWO GALs, Cynthia Feranga and Adam Stern, have lied to FOUR courts -- Probate, Forcible Eviction and Detainer, U. S. Bankruptcy, and the U.S. District Courts-- in order to get the Judges to rule to their benefit and it's all about money. The lives of HUMAN BEINGS are irrelevant. Cynthia Feranga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, are attorneys who should not practice law, but practice how to survive wearing orange jump suits in FEDERAL PRISONS for standing idly by when the following was occurring: obstruction of justice, abuse of process, spoilation of evidence, malicious prosecution, financial exploitation, and isolating my mother, allegedly drugging her, and neglecting her medically, socially and emotionally, causing a slow death -- and ultimately MURDER is the next step. Yes, as soon as they get rid of me they will assuredly MURDER my mother through over-or under-medication, suffocation, or feeding her high levels of sugar. That said, Probate Courts are Courts of Pre-meditative sanctioned murder and the Sykes case is a good sample of just how far attorneys like Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, Harvey Jack Waller, and Adam Stern will go for money. Of course, by 'agreeing' to appoint my sister, Carolyn Torepe, the known and named respondent to a petition of a protective order, they agreed to do Toerpe's dirty work against our mother and me, in order to get paid. Yep, again... I sincerely believe Toerpe told them that if they got ride of me, they froze my accounts, pauperized me and hopefully the stress would kill me, too, they would get paid handsomely. That was back in in and around June 2009, after mother filed a verified petition for an order of protection to stop Toerpe from doing exactly what Judge Connors and now Judge Jane Louise Stuart has rubber stamped.

FYI after I complained about Judge Connors, she was spontaneously promoted to the Appellate Court where she now seeks to retain her seat on the bench.

Any help anybody can give us by republishing this open letter is a blessing. All my Mother wants for Christmas is to be able to return to her home. Help me stop Toerpe and Company from selling Mother's home, isolating her and returning Mother home for Christmas. Saving my Mother's life will save the lives of millions of seniors and disabled people, Happy Holidays.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

First Amendent Rights and the GAL's

The First Amendment is the first line of defense in protection of the disabled, the elderly and those who cannot help themselves. In reading the postings of the victims of Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation and in particular the transcripts from the Sykes case it is very disturbing to observe the conscious effort exhibited by many of the clout heavy court appointed guardians to prevent communication and deny to the victims and their families their First Amendment Rights. In the Sykes case as an example, the Guardian ad litems made a conscious effort to attempt to prevent me from communicating with Mary Sykes' treating doctor. Even though Supreme Court Rule 137 applies only to Court filings, the guardians were able to obtain a sanction order against me for writing to the doctor! this attempt at intimidate is alien to the American culture and in particular the American Constitutional liberties.

The attempts at abrogating the First Amendment are replete. The transcripts of the Sykes case reveal that an attorney was wrongfully and inappropriately disqualified because she notarized a document - the guardians at litem claiming that she might be a material witness. Thus, the victims were deprived of the attorney of their choice by what essentially was a 'fraud on the Court. Of course, this frugality with the truth by the guardians, was exposed by the lapse of time; however, it to date has gone unpunished.

The younger daughter of Mary Sykes' rights of communication with her mother were thwarted by other and different misrepresentations by the guardians, and when she persisted the attempt to silence her took the form of tying up her assets. The record reveals that most of the attorneys appearing in the Sykes case were threatened with either a discipline complaint and/or the loss of their license. The transcripts in the Sykes case reveal a chilling disregard for the First Amendment rights of all who oppose the will of the 'august' court appointed guardians.

It occurs to me that the blatant and persistent attempts by the clout heavy court appointed guardians to infringe on the First Amendment Rights of the exploited and abused victims and those members of their families who protest is a serious problem that cannot be countenanced. The Department of Justice has a Civil Rights Division. It occurs to me that one of the remedies that the victims and their families have that they have not exploited is a complaint to the United States of America and the Attorney Generals of the State in which they reside' This complaint should focus strictly as as to the violations of their civil individual right. This complaint should be strictly focused upon the patent attempts by the guardians to thwart protest, and free speech. The complaints may not be successful, or may get 'deep sixed' but with the number of examples of this miscreant attack on our Constitutional Liberties by this group of politically elite predators it is only a question of time before Justice will prevail.

It may not be politically correct to complain to law enforcement concerning the 'clout heavy' political elite who exhibit their magic in denying us of our First Amendment Rights - but if we keep silent we are condoning and contributing to the National Socialist agenda.

The Christmas Season is the season to stand up and be counted in the fight against the erosion of our Civil Rights. The full and complete exercise of our Civil Rights is the greatest gift that we can give our loved ones and especially our children and grandchildren. Democracy is not a spectator sport!

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

An open letter to the GALsAn open Letter to the Guardian ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern: A guardian ad litem owes a duty of candor to his/

An open Letter to the Guardian ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern:

A guardian ad litem owes a duty of candor to his/her ward. An attorney owes a duty of honesty to the Court. I have observed the two guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian in these proceedings and in my opinion they have breached their collective responsibilities and have conspired to not only deprive Mary Sykes of her civil rights but to deny her access to a judicial remedy. Mr. Stern's statements recorded in the transcripts of proceedings that Mary did not want legal representation is reprehensible and contradicted by writings in her own hand and by statements that she made.

The Circuit Court has two responsibilities that it has been lead away from by the guardians ad litem. The first is to protect the orders of the Court. The Lumberman order is a final order and entitled to full faith and credit. Ergo, the ad hoc attempt to mislead the probate court is at the very least a contempt of the judicial process. The fact that the paterno syndrome has acted to protect the wrongful action does not change the fact that the action is indeed wrongful. The 2nd responsibility of the GAl is to be the 'eyes and ears' of the Court and protect the ward from a predatory plenary guardian. This second responsibility has been observed by what I would opine is a conspiracy to 'cover up' financial exploitation and elder abuse.

In the past I have noted examples of the 'cover up' and the dereliction of responsibility so I will not repeat them at this point in time. I do understand that you will be filing one or more lawsuits against the persons responsible for retaliation against you and for the violation of your civil rights. It therefore as the factual situation herein is so complicated and so replete with examples of official misconduct a trier of fact could be overwhelmed.

The question as to whether or not your sister is the trustee is yet to be determined. The appointment provision requires the treating physican to certify to Mary's incompetency. Mr. Schmiedel is not a certified medical person. Dr. Shaw never having examined your mother is not an appropriate individual to certify anything. Dr. Patel refused to certify. It also appears amongst the documents that you showed me is a document that amounts to a revocation of the trust. Attorney Dennison informed me by e-mail that there is no evidence that the trust was ever funded.

When Carolyn took your mother to the lawyer and together they attempted to make Carolyn the primary beneficary of your mother's estate to your detriment she (Carolyn) became the attorney in fact of your mother. As such she became a fiduciary. Pursuant to statute Carolyn when she undertook the responsibility undertook the responsiblity to comply with the statutory disclosure requirement. Carolyn has never provided the required accounting. The probate court ordered the accounting, but with the assistance of both guardian ad litem in distracting the Court no accounting was provided. One of the items that must be accounted for is the contents of the safety deposit box and mattress with cache of currency. The safety deposit box had an inventory in it. The duty of GAL is not to thwart the inquiry of the Court as to the assets of the Estate but to enhance the opportunithy of the Court to regulate the activites of the estate and the protection of the disabled person.

The issue that should be address is 'why first are there two guardian ad litem?' and second why are they so protective of the plenary guardian. The failure to report the admitted abuse of Mary Sykes (December 2010) pales by the fact that absolutely obnoxious 'conflict of interest' petition that Stern filed to claim that by Ms. Dennison's notarization of a document she had a conflict of interest. Why should Stern even be involved? The plenary guardian might have an objection - but not a guardian ad litem. Certainly not a guardian ad litem who watched the plenary guardian during his horrible recession and the unemployment of her (plenary guardian) husband do extensive remodeling of her home. This is the very same GAL who attempted to stop my investigation with a bogus Rule 137 sanction petition well knowing that Rule 137 applied to documents filed in the Court proceeding and nothing had been filed. The fact that Schmiedel keeps referring to the sanction order demonstrates his culpability.

Unfortunately, the foregoing is just frosting on the cake. Mary herself filed a petition for a protective order. The personnel at the courthouse who helped her with the procedures for the petition all attest to the fact of Mary's competence, yet, neither Adam Stern or Cynthia Farenga talked to any of them - Stern wrote you an e-mail admitting that the order finding Mary incompetent was the agreement of the plenary guardian, the two guardian ad litem and the rubber stamp of the Judge. It obviously was a device to avoid a hearing by an impartial judge of the abuse claim that Mary made against the successful applicant for plenary guardian. Thus, by the breach of fiduciary relationship by both GALs there was no hearing on the petition for a protective order and the further complaint that Mary made to the Illinois Department of Aging also against the successful applicant for protective order.

As Tim point out - with such a conspiracy how is Mary not denied access to judicial process and the protections of a citizen. The is obscene that the very person that Mary sought protection against is appointed her plenary guardian. The obscenity never ceases as illustrated by the frugality with the truth that was exhibited by people appointed to protect the interests of Mary Sykes. IF THE GUARDIANS DO NOT RESIGN AND FILE TRUE AND ACCURATE ACCOUNTINGS INSTANTER, in addition to filng the proper responses in the Federal court, ask the Legislative Committee chairman who in the Justice Department to discuss this matter. The current investigation is going too slow!

Mary's estate has a value at this point in time of over a million dollars. The contents can be traced to the B*** estate and your father's estate. - It is my opinion this is how your sister was able to remodel her home and this is the reason that she has almost unlimited funds to retailate and otherwise prosecute you. At your 341 meeting your expectancy as these funds should be reiterated to the representative of the IRS who was interested in your Bankruptcy filing.

_____________________________________________________________




Ken Ditkowsky
www.ditkowskylawoffice.com