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