On March 13, 2012 at https://www.iardc.org/12PR0014CM.html a complaint was filed by the ARDC or the organization in Illinois that Registers and Disciplines attorneys. In this Complaint, Atty Ditkowsky is accused of scurrilous behavior, when in fact he was doing nothing but pointing out the abuse, isolation and financial exploitation of Mary G. Sykes.
Read my response and pass it on! Sign the Petition to Protest this clout heavy and unfair action again Attorney Ditkowsky and thank heavens we can live in a country where we can freely protest unfair, unethical and undeserved restrictions on our right to free speech.
Find the Petition at https://www.iardc.org/12PR0014CM.html
In the Matter of:
KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 642754.
Commission No. 2012PR00014
FILED - March 9, 2012
COMPLAINT
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Lea S. Black, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Kenneth Ditkowsky, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on November 28, 1961, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute and which should subject him to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770:
COUNT I
(False statement to a third person in relation to Mary Sykes)
1. In or about 2000, Respondent prepared estate planning documents for Mary Sykes ("Sykes"). Respondent revised those estate planning documents for Sykes in 2002 and in 2003. Both wills devised Sykes’ personal effects and other items of household goods and furnishings to her daughters, Carolyn Toerpe ("Toerpe") and Gloria Sykes ("Gloria"). At all times alleged in this complaint, Respondent had not had contact with Sykes since 2004.
***Response***
Prior to 2004, Respondent had been the long time family counsel for Mary G. Sykes (Mary G) and her husband Charles, and Respondent was well acquainted with this couple, their legal needs and their finances and family history. If Atty Ditkowsky (“KD”) is talking about gold coins missing, there is no doubt in my mind he knows of what he speaks–without betraying prior atty client privileges. Moreover the gold coins, Mary G and Charles stuffing cash into mattresses, is well known legend in the family and both Charles and his nephew, Mr. Biddy, now deceased, collected gold coins for decades.
2. On July 20, 2009, Toerpe filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County to have Sykes adjudicated a disabled person due to concerns that Sykes’ suffered from dementia. Toerpe’s petition also sought Toerpe’s appointment as the guardian of Sykes’ estate and person. The Circuit Court Clerk docketed the matter as Estate of Mary Sykes, docket number 2009 P 4585.
***Response***
Carolyn Toerpe for years had been estranged to many family members and her relationship with her mother and her sister was tenuous at best. Gloria was invited by both her mother to move back to Chicago in 2000 (father Charles recently died) and that she would “buy her” a home on the back lot. Gloria put down a down payment, bought the house, put her mother’s name on the property as a testamentary convenience, and began to care for her mother while engaging in her profession of being a journalist. Gloria did the brunt of the work in shopping, entertaining and caring for her mother, who was active, but getting on in years. Still, Mary knew what she wanted and when she wanted it and clearly expressed her love for Gloria.
3. On or about July 24 2009, the court appointed Cynthia Farenga ("Farenga") as Sykes’ guardian ad litem. On August 26, 2009, because Farenga was unable to attend court, the court appointed Adam Stern ("Stern") special guardian ad litem, and both Farenga and Stern served as guardians ad litem for Sykes at all times alleged in this complaint.
***Response***
After Atty. Farenga (CF) returned from her vacation in August 2009, Atty Stern (AS) should have been dismissed. The appointment of 2 GAL’s is highly atypical and a strain on any estate and family. The question is, why were there 2 GAL’s.
4. On November 3, 2009, Gloria filed a cross-petition in case number 2009 P 4585, nominating the Cook County Public Guardian to serve as Sykes’ guardian. Shortly thereafter, Gloria orally sought to be appointed the guardian of Sykes’ estate and person without amending her written cross-petition.
***Response***
More important is prior to this, Mary G, who liked to frequent the neighborhood bank one block away, and who checked on her accounts there perhaps several times per week, discovered that $4,000 was missing in July, 2009. Mary G immediately went to court, and with the assistance of one of the paralegals (and not Gloria), swore out a complaint for a Protective Order–a Complaint that STILL has not been heard by the Probate Court. More importantly Illinois Law expressly prohibits the Respondent to a Petition for a Protective Order as serving as Guardian. Carolyn was not and still is not eligible to serve as Guardian of anyone. Carolyn’s excuse was she moved the money to set up a retirement account for her mother–a preposterous alibi because at age 90, Mary G is clearly unable to qualify for a retirement account. No investigation of where that money went has been done so far, despite repeated requests by KD, myself and family and friends of Mary G to have that money tracked. Because the Probate court early on denied Atty Dolgin’s several requests for discovery prior to appointing CT, no bank records of these transactions have ever been produced–though they should have been.
5. On December 10, 2009, the court adjudicated Sykes disabled based upon the report of Dr. Mark Amdur (Dr. Amdur never saw Mary G Sykes) that Sykes was incompetent, and the court appointed Toerpe the plenary guardian of Sykes’ estate and person after a contested hearing on the care plans proposed by Toerpe and Gloria. On December 18, 2009, Gloria filed a motion to reconsider the December 10, 2009 order appointing Toerpe as Sykes’ plenary guardian.
***Response***
I was there during this hearing and it was clearly “wired”, “fixed”, “predetermined” or whatever you want to call it. Atty Jay Dolgin is a witness. Atty Dolgin told me the exact same thing on the way out of the courtroom. After the GAL’s disqualified my appearance–for notarizing a document and nothing further, the court then proceeded to trash Gloria’s “home care plan” whereas prior to this they helped Carolyn with her home care plan. Typically, prior to any trial or hearing, any party asking for discovery gets it. Atty Dolgrin, in open court asked Judge Connors for discovery and she responded with a snotty “why would you need that?” or something of the equivalent. In his great bravado, Atty Dolgrin responded, well I need to depose CT and ask her questions regarding a number of issues. The court immediately shut that down.
6. Between December 2009 and April 2010, Respondent was contacted by Gloria and other friends and family of Sykes regarding Sykes’ estate and Gloria’s desire to be appointed Sykes’ guardian. Respondent agreed to represent Gloria and other friends and family of Sykes in matters relating to Sykes’ estate.
7. On or about April 22, 2010, Respondent or someone at his direction sent a letter to Dr. Pramod Patel, Sykes’ treating physician. The letter, which sought information from Dr. Patel about his medical evaluation of Sykes, began by stating that Respondent represented "the interests of Mary Sykes." Respondent enclosed with the letter a document he created and signed that purported to be an appearance form relating to case number 2009 P 4585. The purported appearance form bore the caption "Estate of Mary Sykes" and the case number 2009 P 4585, and it stated: "The undersigned does hereby enter the additional appearance of Mary Sykes (sic) in the above-captioned and numbered case." Below the signature line, where Respondent listed his address and telephone number, Respondent identified himself as "Attorney for Mary G. Sykes."
***Response***
This form should be an Exhibit to the complaint. I’m not too sure how important this is regardless. An appearance form means nothing. Any competent doctor would know that he has to obtain written consent of the person themselves in order to disseminate any information to third parties. An appearance form and a naked request is not enough. Moreover, KD was likely responding to a request from Gloria to obtain the information, and most likely Gloria was listed on her mother’s forms as being a person to release medical information to. In addition, Gloria holds the last Medical Power of Attorney Form for her mother and KD knew that. Regardless, KD was clearly trying to help Mary G, stop the isolation and the relentless persecution of Gloria by the GAL’s who had always favored Carolyn and treated Gloria with disdain.
8. At no time was Respondent representing Sykes, and at no time was he appointed to represent Sykes, and at no time had Respondent filed the purported appearance form in case number 2009 P 4585.
9. Respondent also sent the letter and attachments described in paragraph seven, above, to Sykes, Stern, Farenga, Gloria, and Peter Schmiedel (the attorney for Toerpe) ("Schmiedel").
10. Respondent’s statements in his letter to Dr. Patel that he represented Sykes, as described in paragraph seven, above, and his attachment of an unfiled appearance on Sykes’ behalf, were false and misleading, and Respondent knew that they were false and misleading because at no time before sending the letter and attachments described in paragraph seven above, did Respondent speak to Sykes about representing her in relation to case number 2009 P 4585, Sykes had not communicated with Respondent nor authorized him to send the letter to Dr. Patel, and at no time prior to sending the letter and attachments described in paragraph seven, above, did Respondent seek or obtain leave of the court to file an appearance on behalf of Sykes.
***Response***
See above. Gloria held the last Power of Attorney form for her mother, she likely was listed on her mother’s medical information form as being allowed to obtain information, and KD was at all times working with Gloria’s permission. At the time, KD was clearly seeking a method to help Mary G.
11. Respondent’s letter to Dr. Patel and his attachment of a purported appearance on behalf of Sykes were intended to mislead Dr. Patel that Respondent represented Sykes, and were designed to get Dr. Patel to release information to Respondent regarding Sykes’ medical and mental health condition in order for Respondent to assist Gloria in her desire to be appointed plenary guardian over Sykes.
***Response***
Correction, by this time CT had already been appointed. The only thing KD was to try to represent Gloria and/or her mother to get Carolyn removed–and based upon his knowledge of the Protective Order Petition, the isolation of Mary and missing unaccounted for funds, it was well deserved. Since Gloria has never subsequently filed a Petition to become her mother’s guardian since Dec. of 2009, this paragraph is pure speculation. KD simply wanted a dangerous guardian removed. He knew his former client well, he knew that Gloria cared for Mary G for 11 years and helped support her, and he was well aware of the situation.
12. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. making a false statement of material fact of law to a third person, in violation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
c. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
d. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.
***Response***
Nothing could be further from the truth. KD was fulfilling his obligations as a lawyer and officer of the court to make the court aware of serious issues involved in the appointment and continuing appointment of CT as Plenary Guardian–issues presented in great detail below.
COUNT II
(False Statements about judicial officials)
13. The Administrator realleges paragraphs one through 11 of count I, above.
14. In or about 2010, Gloria contacted Respondent regarding the court’s appointment of Toerpe as Sykes’ guardian. After being contacted by Gloria, Respondent began a campaign of sending emails to various family members and friends of Sykes, the guardians ad litem (Stern and Farenga) ("the GALs"), and various law enforcement agencies, in which Respondent made allegations that Sykes was the victim of elder abuse, and that the GALs and the court had acted inappropriately with respect to Sykes’ estate, that they had violated the law, and had physically or mentally harmed Sykes. Respondent sent emails on almost a daily basis from April 2010 through the date the Administrator referred an investigation of Respondent’s conduct to the Inquiry Board.
Calls for an investigation are a constitutional right. An attorney does not leave his constitutional rights at the door step upon taking the oath of officer; rather, these constitutional rights become more important than ever and every attorney should take the type of proactive initiative that KD has taken in this case–all without interest and all without pay. He is to be commended.
15. The e-mails referred to in paragraph 14, above, include, but are not limited to:
a. An October 10, 2010 e-mail to Gloria and other friends and family of Sykes, wherein Respondent accused the court of impropriety and accused the GALs of criminal conduct after the judge adjudicated Sykes incompetent based upon an evaluation by a doctor obtained by Gloria by stating:
Your personal rights have been violated by the Court acting against its own rules and by the judge directing doctor shopping…
***Response***
Isn’t it true if you’re having a doctor make an evaluation, if the doctor is not independently selected, and moreover this doctor never even saw Mary G but wrote up a report, that is likely “doctor shopping?”
**** End Response****
however, when a Judge knowing she has not (sic) jurisdiction issues orders that under color of statue deprive a citizen of his/her civil rights there are civil and criminal penalties…
[the failure of the Court to investigate ‘doctor shopping (see August 31 transcript) including Judge Connors counseling on the subject, the application for protective order etc is also not protected…
This is also the reason that we contacted and will continue to contact Federal officials who have jurisdiction to address the criminal conduct that is polluting the Probate Division of the Circuit Court.
In my opinion Stern and Feranga (sic) are at the very least accessories to criminal conduct.
***Response***
The GAL’s in probate are supposed to investigate allegations of fraud and crime. In this instance, they have turned a blind eye. While numerous family members repeatedly state there were numerous gold coins and cash, the GAL’s have not investigated. They have not asked for discovery of CT’s finances, her bank records, investigated the remodeling of her home or purchases therein. KD is right to ask the GAL’s to simply do their job. The Probate Court summarily denied discovery on CT (Atty Dolgin is witness to this), and the GAL’s continue to ignore these issues. It is further important to note that there is no inventory or accounting to be found in the court’s files when I reviewed it back in January of 2012. Nothing, nada. Oh, there were orders to file an inventory, BUT nothing is actually in the file. Now, why is that?`
***End Response****
b. A February 11, 2011 e-mail to the GALs, Naperville Police, Illinois State Police, Schmiedel, and friends and family of Sykes, stating:
Re: Mother isolated again
After reading and doing my own investigation I’ve come to the understanding that the Mary Sykes case is a posterboard (sic) Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation case in the worst traditions of the legal profession. Yesterday in an e-mail Mr. Stern admitted that even though the order appointing a plenary guardian referred to a hearing – THERE WAS NO HEARING. What there was (sic) an agreement between the two GALs and the plenary guardian accepted by the Court that Mary Sykes was incompetent and that the very person who Mary filed a verified petition for an order of protection should be appointed plenary guardian.
c. An April 9, 2011 email through the contact page on the website for the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, stating:
This situation appears to be a scandal greater than Greylord! Yet because of politics et al – the financial exploitation is protected. It has been alleged that no (sic) only do the abusers profit, but so do the GALs but also the judges.
d. A May 11, 2011 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes, stating:
Re: gloria (sic) on TV
Time is short! It is getting shorter! Fish or cut bait.
As gold is over $1500 an ounce, the gold coins are worth about $3000 each. That means there is almost a million in coins! That would make the theft a Class 1 felony! Aiding and Abetting is also a criminal act. A GAL is the eyes and ears of the Court – that fact creates a duty.
e. A June 7, 2011 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes, stating:
Re: Significant fact that appears to have been suppressed
As you are aware, the NASGA people, Gloria Sykes and the friends and family have been complaining bitterly that there is something inappropriate with the appointment of the very person who Mary Sykes filed a complaint for a protective order against as her plenary guardian. [T]he fact that this appointment was done by the Court entering an order upon the agreement of the proposed plenary guardian, and the two guardian (sic) ad litem suggest (sic) impropriety! The fact that even serious neglect admitted by the plenary guardian is defended by the GAL is highly suspicious.
f. A January 12, 2012 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes as a result of YouTube videos of Sykes posted by Gloria and never produced in court or to the GALs, stating:
Re: Financial statement(s)/inventory due on the 10th of January 2012
With the videos now on the internet, they cannot be altered or surpressed (sic). They stand today as stark evidence that in August/Oct/Nov 2009 Mary Sykes was totally competent and the agreement referred to by Mr. Stern in his e-mail to you which was turned into a court order by the presiding Judge Connor was wrong and inappropriately and miscreantly (sic) took away your mother’s civil rights.
g. A January 17, 2012 email to Sergeant Tom Krammer of the Naperville Police Department, stating:
Re: How to pay off your congressman
I suspect that the plenary guardian has dipped into Mary’s money and to keep the GALs happy has given them some cash. Of course the cash had to be shared with their clout. The clout is not going to return dime one, and thusly, doing the right thing would create a ‘cash flow problem.’ Someone is going to have to account and that means the million dollars in cash, Au coins, and jewelry will have be (sic) returned. The Tapes that you have been playing on your blog demonstrate that the determination that Mary was incompetent was pure fraud. Ergo, the Judge, the two guardian ad litem, and the plenary guardian committed old fashioned theft!...
The guardians and their ‘clout’ had fool proof scam going with massive protection from the political elite. It was a perfect crime as every theft would be approved one way or another by a judge’s rubber stamp. I am not certain the Judges actually have (had) any idea of what they were ‘covering up!’ For instance, reading the transcripts and the statements made by Judge Connors, it is questionable if she knows any law whatsoever.
***Response***
I believe he is referring to the fact 1) the Probate court was reversed on the issue of sanctions; 2) the Probate court dispensed with procedure and denied Gloria discovery after repeated requests; 3) the Probate court helped Carolyn with her care program and trashed Gloria’s on trivial grounds (read the transcript, I have it and will publish it on the internet); 4) the court was informed by PS that the sisters never received Soldini notices and the court said it was enough they were in court–despite the fact those notices contain important legal information and warnings and despite there is no case law that says that; 5) the court knows that Carolyn shut off Gloria’s gas for months and this is a violation of the CRLTO amounting to thousands of dollars in liability against the Estate of Mary G (“Estate”) and did not immediately remove her; 6) the court has stated that it does not need to comply with § 1401 regarding a judgment entered in another court–the Probate court said it could attack any judgement at any time–which is not the law or the caselaw in Illinois; 7) the court was told but ignored the fact that CT was the Respondent in a Petition for a Protective Order and no hearing was ever noticed or set; 8) Gloria had filed numerous motions in Probate and was told after I was disqualified that her pro se motions could not be heard because “she had no attorney”–how bad is that?; 9) the Probate court now knows that the § 1401 two year limitations period has well passed to attack the Lumberman’s funds frozen in Indiana, but refuses to dissolve that injunction because it believes it “can attack any judgment at any time”, 10) the GAL’s and PS know better they must file a § 1401 motion to attack a judgment, and they let the two years pass creating a liability of $200,000 to the Estate based upon malpractice and CT should be removed for that reason alone and PS should be barred from representing any Estate in Illinois; 11) the Probate court took my laptop during one status call and refused to let me take notes–creating a § 1983 violation and abuse of process, –and so on and so on.
*** End Response****
h. A February 16, 2012 email to the GALs, Schmiedel, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, and the Illinois State Police, accusing a judge of violating another court’s automatic stay order, even though he knew that the automatic stay had been lifted, by stating:
Re: Dissipation of the Mary Sykes Estate
You reported to me that Judge Stuart appeared to just give lip service to Schmiedel's protestations and really did nothing negative. That has been the pattern. I was surprised that she violated the automatic stay - you (sic) home is part of the Bankruptcy proceeding and Mr. Schmiedel in seeking to partition it without a specific modification of the stay is contempt of Court. The contempt of court provides for the assessment of attorney fees. That might help you get an attorney. In my opinion Mr. Schmiedel took a very risky course of action! I do not know why he would do such a thing.
i. A February 16, 2012 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes, suggesting that he was going to pursue criminal action against Schmiedel by stating:
Re: Sykes
Gloria, check with the postal inspector – I understand that Schmiedel produced an envelope that missed a key element. If in fact he mailed it, he also intercepted it. The interception of mail is a federal crime.
j. A February 17, 2012 email to Stern and Schmiedel, threatening criminal action and sanctions alleging that two of Sykes’ sisters did not have notice of a the petitions for guardianship filed by Toerpe and Gloria when they were present in court, by stating:
Re: Safe harbor note
No matter how this matter is sliced and diced it is clear that without the Sodini notices having been appropriately served, there is no jurisdiction for the probate court to do anything, and when this matter is examined by law enforcement it will be examined by the clear light of hindsight. The partition action against scheduled property is clearly improper and violates the automatic stay.
All that said, the Federal Courts historically have not been very tolerant of 'gotta' type enforcement. Therefore, even though I am not representing Ms. Sykes I am suggesting to you (and Mr. Schmiedel) that if you do not unwind whatever action you have taken in connection with the illegal partition lawsuit by the close of business on Tuesday next, Ms. Sykes will seek a Court order from the United States Bankruptcy Court seeking to hold you in contempt and damages. (Monday is a holiday)…
****Response***
Since when has it been an ethical violation to inform a client or even a member of the public what elements constitute a crime and they should contact the authorities promptly? This is what attorneys are supposed to do!
***End Response***
k. A February 17, 2012 email to Farenga, stating:
Re: safe harbor
I did not include you in the safe harbor letter that I sent to Stern and Schmiedel as I was informed that you were not in Court on Thursday and therefore was (sic) not part of the partition fiasco. If you were indeed part, I am certain that Stern will share my e mail with you. It should be taken seriously.
The policy that has been demonstrated in the Sykes case has been naked intimidation. Gloria is the first target, and everyone else who was upset by the perfidy exhibited a secondary target. Even I was not immune. It has been part of the makeup of my generation of lawyers not to ambush adversaries, but, to give them every opportunity to do the right thing. It has been my experience that a better result is obtained if you give the miscreants an opportunity to back off! Thus, the safe harbor letter.
l. A February 18, 2012 email to Farenga, the Cook County Sheriff, and the Illinois State Police, threatening criminal action against the GALs by stating:
Re: safe harbor
I sent you the safe harbor letter as a courtesy - you have every right to ignor (sic) it, and you have every right to have to deal with the consequences…
The safe harbor letter gave you and your friends an opportunity to mitigate the damages that you caused and are causing. The letter and your responses are strong evidence that the miscreant actions were and are intentional. The abuse and financial exploitation of Mary Sykes is now of record as an intentional act on the part of court appointed individuals! The law enforcement people now have no excuse for not prosecuting the villians (sic) to the full extent of the law!
m. A February 18, 2012 email to Gloria, Farenga, Cook County Sheriff, Illinois State Police, and Naperville Police, threatening criminal action against the GALs by stating:
Re: safe harbor 42 USC sec 1983
Spoilation (sic) of evidence is a cause of action - you should add it to your adversary complaints.
***Response***
This in particular is a good one, I never knew spoliation of evidence is a cause of action. I thought it was the subject matter for a Motion to Compel that the recipient of discovery did not turn over the document or thing but instead destroyed it.
***End Response***
Mr. Schmiedel's statement to the Court that the Estate of Mary Sykes was down to fourthousand (sic) dollars is most disturbing. That means that about a million dollars in assets have been dissipated or have been divided. That explains why both GALs refuse to perform the simple tasks that were assigned to them…
Generally, the appointment of a person as a guardian is not the granting of a license to steal! The commission of a felony is not part of the job description of a guardian. Buck vs Bell is not authority to perform 'retro active abortion' on a senior citizen. We will have to read the Obama care legislation, but I have doubts if congress authorized funds for the procedure.
Gloria - I copied the Naperville Police Department on this and several other e-mails. I desire that they do some wellness checks to assure us that Mary Sykes has not been retroactively aborted!
***Response***
Okay, that was funny BUT see my comment elsewhere. The murder of a victim of financial exploitation is common where funds are finally depleted.
***End Response**
n. A February 21, 2012 email to friends and family of Sykes, stating:
RE: Today’s hearing and yesterday’s visit
They are no (sic) aware that the tide has turned and 1) they are going to be paying a humongous sum in income taxes and penalties, 2) they are going to face a bunch of lawsuits that their insurance does not cover, and 3) every dime that the (sic) stole must be returned. As they paid a referral fee to their clout they are going to have to make this up out of their own pockets.
The question has to be asked: Why do they not just start persecuting Gloria and Mary? They are of the generation that does not make an analysis of a problem before addressing it. Farenga's impulse is to try to intimidate, PS to lie is (sic) way out, and Stern to slime his way out. This has worked for them in the past. The problem that they have is that Gloria is not going to let them out! She is going to make each of them famous. She will quote from the treasure trove of transcripts and e-mails that has garnered, and with a few pictures and a compelling narative (sic) every one of Farenga's words is going to echo in each of their ears for years after each goes to his/her final reward. In the Mary Sykes case the miscreants picked on the wrong people!
Gloria's previous documentaries were very effective and well thought of. Her documentary on the Mary Sykes case will have special meaning and be very effective. It is very foolish not to take her seriously. Gloria's work product will be written and viewed through the filter of hindsight. I predict that ******
o. A February 21, 2012 email to friends and family of Sykes, stating:
Re: Today’s hearing and yesterday’s visit
If the guardians/Judge/clout et al have skin in the game as we suspect that they do, they have a great deal to lose. Gloria's demeanor protects her! Judge Stuart will go to her grave regretting the day she put Gloria in 'chains!' We are far from done with that outrageous act.
16. Respondent’s emails, as set forth in paragraph 15, above, that there was impropriety going on in relation to the Sykes case; that the GALs, the judges, and/or law enforcement were engaging in financial exploitation or had financially profited in some way in relation to Sykes’ guardianship case; that the judge had inappropriately taken away Sykes’ rights; and that Stern, Farenga, and the judge had committed theft were false.
***Response***
The statements are not false. The case was likely wired. Whether cash changed hands or not, no one will ever know. However, the result is the same. A railroaded Guardianship with no discovery and no Soldini notices. CT helped with her care plan while Gloria’s was dismissed for ridiculous petty reasons. A Dr. Amdur who filed a report but had not seen or met Mary G. A Dr. Patel who was Mary’s primary case physician for years and would not sign a letter of incompetency. A raft of close family friends and family (sisters) who would testify they knew of hundreds of gold coins, thousands of dollars hidden in the home–all gone. Two GAL’s–to protect one another’s backsides. CF and AS who have not obtained the bank records regarding the missing $4,000. A Petition for a Protective Order filed by Mary G that was never heard nor considered. The GAL’s filing a complaint now saying that Soldini notices were not required because the sisters were in court on the date of the hearing. What? Now Illinois law or some (new) case says these maybe waived. Don’t the sisters have the right to 14 days advance notice of the hearing? Videos that slowly disappear off of Youtube without explanation and emails to youtube go unanswered. (The videos are now safely up on Facebook under MaryGSykes and are the subject of numerous cross posts on the internet). Gloria’s $200,000 in assets were frozen in a preliminary injunction motion but no hearing has ever been set for those. My disqualification for notarizing one document–preposterous–the GAL’s wanted me gone because they knew about the family and what was going on. They did not want a competent attorney in there.
Last year, Carolyn T. had Gloria’s gas turned off at her residence, a violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (“CRLTO”) for approximately 5 months, rendering the unit uninhabitable, and Gloria had to rent elsewhere. This violation is or will be part of the adversarial proceedings in bankruptcy for Gloria. AS and CF knew about Carolyn T’s gross violation of these ordinances in managing property for her mother, yet AS and CF had no calls to remove her for violating the CRLTO and bringing liability of $200 to $500 per day plus reasonable attorneys fees upon Mary T’s estate.
And let’s talk about the court system. The judges are buddies with the GAL’s and vice versa because the judges appoint them so they can make money from a well funded estate. Many a GAL has done nothing but stir up controversy in a family to churn a bill. The judges tolerate it because the GAL’s support them and make campaign contributions. The nursing homes and elder care facilities donate to the campaign funds of probate court judges. The judges have an interest in cozying up to those that are linked into the nursing home and elder care business and finding incompetency where there might not be anything at all because once declared incompetent the person can be put in a facility without any fuss or say in this whatsoever. Any senior that complains or kicks up a fuss is drugged or sedated there. The judges have an interest in accepting testimony from “doctors” that always find incompetency–even where the doctor never even saw the patient. The courts have good reason to deny all discovery against the doctor, how he was chosen, in how many cases he found incomptency and which side he was on.
Ever go to a nursing home and take a survey? 90% of the patients want to go home. They don’t understand why they are there when they say they have money and had a good home or apartment. No one ever investigates. No one cares. If anyone, anywhere, protect the rights of these most vulnerable persons in our society, the nursing homes would be much emptier–and so would the pockets of a lot of attorneys, court systems and elder care facilities. That does not make the system right–it makes it pitiful. We treat animals in shelters better than our elderly in nursing homes–at least a cat or dog can hope for a fur-ever home.
It is not true that Mary G didn’t want to come to court. The one time she was there, she tried to talk but the judge would not permit it. Mary G wants to go home. She wants to live in her own home and have Gloria care for her–as Gloria did for 11 years. But what is happening right now? CT has evicted her own sister. She is in the process of selling the home and putting it into a trust fund–a trust fund that CT will benefit from. This was the goal of CT all along. The entire case and procedure is nothing but the unmitigated evil of CT. A bigger conflict of interest could not exist.
PS apparently went to the mortgage holder, Chase, on Gloria’s home and told them that the home was abandoned and they had to secure it. One day Gloria came home and found all her furnishings from the home thrown into the snow, interior walls of the home destroyed by smashing the walls open, and a lock box put on the house. Chase admitted liability. Further CT lied to Chase, told them she was on Gloria’s safe deposit box, when she was not, and had the box drilled open.
Further, the GAL’s knew that they wanted to attack Gloria’s August 2008 settlement agreement and final order on her Lumberman’s case. Atty Brodsky in August 2010 told the court and the GAL’s if they wanted to attack a judgment, they had to file a 1401 petition in 2 years. (The deadline was nearly up at that point). Judge Connors said she could alter that judgment at any time–which is contrary to Illinois law on the subject. The GAL’s never filed any motions to attack that judgment and the funds that are frozen should now be released to Gloria. The GAL’s should do it and the court sua sponte.
Currently KD has determined that Illinois nursing homes are LLC’s that under the law may not charge for administrative services to the corp. However, these entities have traditionally charged the state millions in administrative fees–do you really think there is no conflict? Do you really think there is a reason to “get rid” of KD. It would be very convenient for a lot of clout happy people right now.
Moreover, the Petition does not mention that CF and AS had KD sanctioned for $5,000 and that sanction was overturned on appeal. Where is the complaint against them for hailing KD into a court where he had never appeared before as a means to intimidate him? They filed under § 137 and this requires a filing or pleading in that court. KD never filed any documents in the Probate proceeding, but he was hailed in there by CF and AS and chewed out by the court and sanctioned–a sanction that was ultimately reversed.
17. Respondent either knew that his statements as described in paragraph 15, above, were false or he made the statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
KD has done nothing but state the truth and ask the questions that no one wants to hear. Why did Judge Connors deny Atty Dolgrin his repeated requests for discovery prior to a hearing to appoint Carolyn? Why was the medical report of a doctor that never even saw Mary G used to declare her incompetent? Why were the sisters never given their Soldini notices and why now are the GAL’s and even the ARDC saying that notices were not required when in fact there were and they contain important disclosures regarding the legal rights pertaining to those two sisters. Why was this repeated ad infinatum with no inquiry and response by either Judge Connors or Judge Stuart? Why did Judge Connors say in August of 2010 that she did not have to follow Illinois State law § 1401 and she could declare any judgment anytime invalid? When PS and the GAL’s failed to file a Petition against Gloria and serve her with a motion to reopen that judgement pursuant to § 1401, the judge did not remove all of them for malpractice? Why was not CT removed for shutting off Gloria’s gas when she knew Gloria was living there and that was a breach of the CRLTO entitling Gloria in an adverse proceeding against the Estate of Mary G a fine of $200 to $500 per day, which amounted to thousands of dollars in fines.
KD has not said that the Judges were thieves or that AS, CF and PS are thieves. It is clear from his writing he is making a statement that these miscreants have obvious motives to form a conspiracy and exploit Mary G and her millions in gold coins. He has repeatedly asked the Naperville police to investigate and they ignore him. He has the right to do this and request wellness checks because Mary G’s life IS clearly in danger. Case studies of elders that are financially abused show that once the money is depleted, the victim is then murdered. Why is no one concerned? The Naperville police very well should be. They should be out there every day. When they were told money was missing, why did not a detective perform a simple asset search? Why is there no warrant for the home to check on expensive repairs and upgrades?
18. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding, in violation of rule 3.6(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
What harm? CT has already been long appointed. All of the above emails were written after that occurred in Dec of 2009. Blogs on the internet are now “serious and imminent threat[s]?” This is no jury case of major importance. It has been repeated in no media outlets. Gloria has not filed a Petition to Remove CT (though it is well deserved). There are no upcoming proceedings. This is all clearly after the fact. There is no judge to influence regarding appointment of a Guardian, CT has already been appointed and then these emails have been written.
making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, in violation of Rule 8.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, in violation of Rule 8.4(g) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
***Response***
KD has NEVER threatened to present criminal charges. He has merely analyzed the situation at hand, and based upon his decades of experience in law, he has provided his legal opinion based up the facts presented to those that are or maybe harmed by criminal actions. He has only called upon the Naperville police to further investigate and he has that right. In fact, it is a duty under Himmel.
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.
WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.
***Response***
Many people have already written the ARDC that it is CF, AS and PS that should be investigated and not KD or myself. KD has no financial motive in any of this and has never present Gloria with any bill. I have not worked for Gloria except to answer limited questions since January of 2010 when CF and AS wrongfully and with ill intent, disqualified me. (CF stated in the hallway outside the court that she did not want me on the case because I would “paper her to death.”) After that, Gloria never trusted me again and doesn’t fully understand what happened. All the caselaw, in Illinois and throughout the nation, is clear that you can’t disqualify an attorney based upon a simple notarization of a document.
The only persons saying that KD and myself need investigation is only CF and AS. A petition on the internet has already collected over 100 signatures attesting to the fact that CT should be removed as guardian. KD is only repeating what has already been well ascertained and documented in this family and in the court proceedings. The videos are on the internet showing Mary is competent, capable and thinks logically about herself, her situation and her family. From those videos, it is clear that CF lied to the court when she said that Mary dictated letters to the court for help because the videos clearly show Mary writing more letters for help and Gloria only helping with spelling. This is a half hour of video! Mary G Sykes wants to go home and live in her own home. Gloria has pledged to support her and care for her–something she had done quite capably for 11 years prior to this proceeding. It is time to get rid of all of CT, PS, AS and CF and make them the subject of a thorough investigation.
Legal Disclaimer--
Although this is obvious, no person in this blog has been accused of any wrongdoing, crime or even arrested unless stated otherwise from a website reporting actual arrests and convictions. We are stating our opinions and we have the right to do this. Only the particular author is responsible for his or her content. (So don’t blame me if you dislike some posts from someone else). This site is newsworthy because it is picked up automatically by many other blogs and is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution and violations will be taken seriously with charges under the Illinois Citizens Participation Act. We ARE participating in government here–we are lawyers trying to make a difference to make things better for grandma and grandpa. We don’t care how much money you’re making–directly or indirectly from Probate or a nursing home or home health care wired-in business. Do yourself a favor and get a different job, it’s not worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment