We are all aware including the De-facto guardians ad litem that
there was no petition that meets the Sodini requirements and certainly
no notice. The net effect is:
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
130 East Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601 -6219
Attn: Leah Black, Esq. RE: JoAnne Denison in relation to Cynthia Farenga
Dear Ms. Black:
As
you are allegedly investigating the spurious charges that Ms. Farenga
generated against Ms. Denison, and that she and Ms. Stern generated
against me, it stands to reason one of the first items of business on
the agenda of any person connecting an ‘honest’ investigation would be
to ascertain if Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern’s appointments were
viable. Holding oneself out to be guardian ad litem when the Court
appointing you has no jurisdiction is not in the best traditions of the
bar! Indeed, it is a material misrepresentation of fact in the
nature of fraud.
What Ms. Denison is asking is whether or not the ARDC was interested enough in the facts of the Sykes
case to ascertain if the ‘jurisdictional’ protections that are
mandatory statutory criterion were complied. Our investigation of
the docket and the record indicate that 1). The petition filed by Ms.
Troepe was defective in that it did not disclose all the close
relatives, 2) Mr. Schmiedel and Mr. Stern both admitted that there was
no compliance with the Sodini requirements - an ‘ambush’ in which
another subject is to be discussed does not meet the Sodini
requirements, and as these requirements are intended to protect an
alleged incompetent (disabled person) from exactly what has happened in
the Sykes case, the requirements cannot be waived. Indeed, if Mary was indeed incompetent she did not have the capacity to waive the requirements.
3) there is no notice of incompetency proceedings and/or proceedings
for the appointment of a plenary guardian filed in the court record and
no return of service is reported on any of Mary Sykes’ close relatives.
Thus,
unless the ARDC was able to in its search of the record to ascertain
something we could not find that contradicts the admissions of both
Stern and Schmiedel Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern are not duly appointed
anythings – they are at best volunteers! The proceedings in the Sykes
case without are extra jurisdictional. If the ARDC did an
investigation the ‘declarations’ that you refer to in your letter would
be in your file. In the documents that you furnished me there were
no such pleadings, petitions, motions and/or certificates of
service. As you affidavit suggests that you did a complete search
the net effect is that Ms. Farenga’s complaints against Ms. Denison are
not only inappropriate but ‘fraudulent!’ How such action by Ms.
Farenga is condoned and allowed to continue is *****.
Of course, if as we suspect that the Sykes
incompetency proceeding is one of those proceedings reported by
Solzhenitsyn the facts are secondary to the result! The record of
intimidation and frugality with the truth by the ‘de facto’
guardians’ ad litem is now legend. Just about every ‘internet site’
that exposes ‘elder abuse/ financial exploitation of the elderly’ has
posted examples of the perfidy that has taken place in the Sykes
case. Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga are feathered players in the
vitiation of ‘grandma’s rights.’ Ms. Denison and I individually and as
her attorney would appreciate copies of any statements that were taken
by ARDC investigators that could give any credibility to any claim that
the protections that were mandated to be provided Mary Sykes and other
persons similarly situated were indeed provided. As of this moment
100% of the evidence points to the fact that the mandate of the Illinois
Legislature and the Appellate Court of Illinois are being ignored and
senior citizens – such as Mary Sykes – are systematically having their
liberty, property, human rights and civil rights confiscated. It
also appears that any attorney who complains of the abrogation of
justice is the subject of either ARDC discipline or harassment.
This creates another wonderful image for the legal profession and the
administration of justice. In fact it is the ‘son of Greylord!’
Of course, it the Sodini protections
were not afforded Mary Sykes there was no jurisdiction in the Circuit
Court of Cook County and the ARDC (and its Administrator) under its own
rules and under the Supreme Court rules is mandated to bring charges
against the attorneys who have ‘railroaded’ Mary Sykes into a situation
in which she has been deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil
rights, and unfortunately even her human rights. I have previously
called upon the ARDC to join in the call for a complete, honest and
comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter. The silence is deafening!
Yours very truly,
Kenneth Ditkowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment