A letter from Ken to Mr Moossy, Head of Civil Rights Division

Mr.Robert J Moossy

I am disappointed by the cavalier dismissal of the Request for an honest investigation of what is reputed to be the worst of the ‘dirty little secrets’ that plague the elderly in the United States.   Yes, these cases emanate from the Probate Courts; however, so did the Gulag cases the emanated out of Soviet Russia.    The National Socialists were also used the ‘probate courts’ to eliminate troublesome people.

The appeal was made to your office because in spite of the Government Accounting Office report of September last to Congress the arrogance of the miscreants who prey on the elderly has grown bolder.    Literally hundreds of senior citizens are herded into guardianships that are designed to deprive them of the liberty, property, human and civil rights.     The Mary Sykes case is a pregnant example.    The case defies logic and leaves even the casual observer wondering: “how could this happen in America?’

The facts are very straightforward.    Mary at 90 years old (plus or minus a year or so) was taken by her elder daughter to a lawyer, and when she emerged her estate plan that divided her estate equally between her two daughters now favored the elder daughter.     I realize that such a situation is SOP but it did not end at that point.      Mary in an effort to right a routine family situation set for a series of events that are now infamous, to wit:

1)  Order of Protection.   In early Spring of 2009 she discovered  that the elder daughter was finding Mary’s assets before they were lost.   Mary made an effort to remediate the situation, but was unsuccessful.   She applied to the Courts for an order of protection.     Circuit Court of Cook County personnel helped her and a petition was filed.     The older daughter appeared and some ‘Greylord’ appearing events occurred.   The long and short was that the Petition was never heard, the lawyer appointed for Mary never appeared, and the case was transferred to the Probate Court where it was never heard.

2) Petition for Guardianship.     In the Spring of 2009 (approx. April) the older daughter applied in the Circuit Court to be appointed Guardian of her mother.    The Illinois statutes are a model.    To protect the alleged incompetent person the statute requires that the petition list all the close relatives of the alleged incompetent and 14 days prior to a set hearing on the issue for guardianship the close relatives have to be notified of the proceeding.    In addition special warnings and other protections are set out in the statute so that the alleged incompetent is not ambushed.    These include the appoint of a guardian ad litem, and even the appointment of an attorney for the alleged incompetent.   Unfortunately, the statutory criterion was ignored[1].    In Approximate December according to an e-mail sent by one of the GALs the appointment of a  plenary guardian was accomplished by the agreement between the two guardian ad litem and the now plenary guardian older sister.    The Judge is reported in transcripts to have made some very disappointing statements that have caused this situation to be named:  “The son of Greylord.”     The case of Sodini  ______________________  deems these simple steps to be jurisdictional.   Thus to reiterate, the Court record reveals a petition that is defective,  no 14 days’ notice, no return of the notice, and admissions by the GAL of non-compliance.

3.    Guardian ad litem.     Case after case reveals the situation in which guardian ad litem are active thwarting any application of the statutory protections mandated to be afforded the elderly and any inquiry by outside interests.     In simple terms,  if there is vulnerable elderly person with some money to loot a small cadre of Guardian ad litem are on the scene to aid and abet the taking of the liberty, property and civil rights of the elderly person.     Thus, in what was inventoried as a garden variety estate, two GALs were appointed.       These two guardian ad litem were unusually active in thwarting any effort by close relatives to object to the railroading of Mary Sykes into the loss of her liberty and property.     The record is replete with their highly unusual (or what should be highly unusual antics).    As examples:

·         The victim (Mary Sykes) was almost totally isolated from her younger sister (aged 80 plus) her younger daughter, her church, her garden club, and every activity that made her unique and alive.

·         A safety deposit box (in her name and her daughters) was drilled and all the contents were removed.     The contents included but not limited thereto to ‘double eagles’ and other gold coins, jewelry, cash.    (Ms. Gloria Sykes ‘ affidavit is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1)      No one dime of these assets has been inventoried and today the guardian ad litem and the guardian ad litem claim the estate is down to its last dollars.

·         Intimidation.     The guardian ad litem’s actions toward the younger daughter are demonstrative.   

o   Knowing that the younger daughter after protracted litigation received a generous settlement of a hazard insurance claim, Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga asserted that the funds were stolen from Mary.    Thereupon, a temporary restraining order was entered without bond – and it appears without a verified petition or hearing. 

o   Denial of visitation with Mary

o   Threats to attorney of loss of law license[2]

o   Threats of sanctions.    (By in large the threats have been successful.   Gloria Sykes has been unable to keep a lawyer employed.   Her lasted lawyer is from Indiana and even he received a telephone call reasonably calculated to discourage him)

·         The most disturbing aspect of these cases is the GALs are successful in creating the façade that everything is fine.     The affidavit of Mr. Scott Evans is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 2.    The GALs did not report:

o   Unusual expenditures by the plenary guardian.   With the recession in full swing, and with her husband unemployed, an expensive wedding on the horizon, and retirement imminent the plenary guardian engaged in very expensive remodeling of her home.

o   Unusual number of trips by ward to the emergency room

o   Non-inventory of approximately a million dollars in estate assets

o   Lack of hearing on the order of protection and in particular the appointment of the respondent in the order of protection proceeding sans the jurisdictional protections of statute.

o   Admission of neglect by plenary guardian

4) Court proceedings.    The statutory mandates are intended to protect the elderly, however, even a casual observer would note that Mary Sykes and her younger daughter have been denied even basic protections.    The younger daughter was hauled into Court on a citation.   Of course the citation was never served on her, and the protections afforded to citizens denied her.    Little criterion such as a verified petition, service of documents etc. are all absent; however, an order of Court appears as an extraneous document providing for the issuance of a discovery citation.     The Illinois courts because of the invasion of privacy have limited the jurisdiction on these probate citations – except in the Sykes case.      In that case the protections afforded citizens have been ignored and the younger daughter was chained and threatened.    No there was no water boarding – it was not needed!     The lack of jurisdiction and the denial of basic civil rights was totally ignored.    A Circuit Court Judge supervised the atrocity.  

After the Court was able to extract the information that was necessary to impoverish the younger daughter and thusly prevent her from continuing her quest to free her mother the Court Illinois issued an order on an Indiana financial institution to freeze the younger daughters funds.   When this gambit did not induce the younger daughter to cease and desist in her quest to exercise her rights as an “American citizen”  under color of statute the Circuit Court order the younger daughter evicted from her home and the plenary guardian removed from the younger daughter’s belonging documents and paper that might prove embarrassing.    The younger daughter is still resisting, but  is not superman and cannot stand up to this “Gulag” without law enforcement doing an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.   

Unfortunately, this situation is not unique and as the GAO report indicates hundreds of similar cases are occurring right now across the United States of America.    Law enforcement holds meetings and seminars seeking a solution to the ‘son of greylord’ and the America Gulag, but, today they have been impotent and the excuses are the name of the game!      A society in which the elderly are the  new ‘Jews’ of the 2012 holocaust cannot survive.   

Thank you for your help and indulgence.   Democracy is not a spectator sport.[3]

 

Cc:  Honorable Mark Kirk

       Durbin,  Madigan, Chicago tribune, New York time, Wall street journal, Chicago sun times

 

Carolyn Toerpe VS Gloria Sykes 7/13/2012

Below is a link to the full transcript of the proceeding on 7/13/2012 between Carolyn and Gloria in eviction court.
Carolyn vs Gloria-Carolyn FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. TRANSCRIPT
It is clear that this Judge clearly understands that what Carolyn and Fred Toerpe have done IS WRONG. Here are some highlights in the transcript:

Page 24: Attorney Soehlig does not want to cross examine Gloria.

 

Page 32: Judge Garber makes the decision that Fred Toerpe’s actions are wrong.

 

Page 52: Carolyn Toerpe’s testimony starts

 

Page 60: Judge Garber grants the rule to show cause and found Toerpe in contempt of the court order:’You are not the Gestapo here, m a’am.  You’re not to make the decision when the Judge has already made the decision where she can move.”

 

He reminds her of the contempt later on.

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case

In this email, Gloria explains a number of obvious mis steps and bias against her and her mother by the GAL’s from the very beginning.  The GAL’s were never impartial, but showed clear bias.
Oh Scott, it gets better.  Adam Stern just happened to be sitting in the courtroom in Cynthia Farenga’s absense and Judge Connors, who after she admits she doesn’t have the file on the Petition for the Order of Protection (and the only reason Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, Scott, Dorris, Suzie and I were present on August 26, 2009, was to support mother in obtaining the protection order against Carolyn Toerpe),  and notes on the record that mother was not served and is not present, appoints Stern to (1) procure all of the police reports on Toerpe and to investigate mother’s assets (for a reverse mortgage because Toerpe said Mother had no money to live in her home).  The odd this is, that before Toerpe started to financially exploit mother to the extent that she is the Plenary Guardian, et al, Mother lived comfortably in her home.  The mortgage was paid on time every month, property taxes and insurances were paid, phone was paid, electric was paid, gas, et al, and Mother ate well, and we traveled the United States together…..  Mother was so active in the Community that out precious moments together were first thing in the morning when we walked out pooches, and from dinner time until we walked the pooches at 10 pm or so each night.  Looking back and reading the verified court transcripts, the Guardianship appointment of Toerpe was a done deal on June 30, 2009 when Toerpe kiddnapped Mother from the Harrision Street courthouse and took her out of state and hid her and kept her out of Illinois so she couldn’t pursue the protective order.  Neither Adam Stern or Cynthia Farenga were ever at Mother’s home and Toerpe made certain that she took Mother to Farenga’s office.. as well as all the court friendly doctors who signed fradulant CCP211 reports where Toerpe signed PhD after her name.

 

Once Cynthia Farenga showed up on the 30 August 2009, she believed Toerpe had mother medicated enough, or enough undue influence was perpetrated on the 90 year old woman, that Mother would coward, but she didn’t.  She corrected Adam Stern when Stern went on a rampage accusing me of abusing her, and then when Farenga told the Court the same, Mother stood up to all of them and spoke her mind.  Mother has never wavered, and so, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel hired Dr. G. Shaw to testify that mother is not only incompetent now, but she was also incompetent and unable to handle her affairs on October 18, 2008, or so.  This testimony is in complete opposition to Dr. Patel’s medical reports where he clearly told Toerpe he would not sign the CCP211 because my mother instructed him not to.  That my mother ‘makes sense’ out of any topic” and can “communicate on any subject matter”.

 

But let’s go one step forward, the Court orders Toerpe has to bring mother home on September 4, 2009 and Toerpe, knowing that I’m fixing up my back yard, yes my back yard at 6016 for a huge welcome home holiday party for mother, calls me and tells me she will be bringing mother home early, but in about one hour.  But Toerpe is already in the home (6014) and she drove her daughter’s car just so I wouldn’t notice that she’s already there.  But her plan is thwarted because I have ‘workers’ around the house, and he sees Carolyn through mother’s kitchen window as he is fixing a leak on the exterior faucet.  Toerpe then calls me and demands I tell her who the “black man” is along side the house!  I immediately return to 6014 and find Toerpe in the refrigerator, looking through food which I just bought for the party.  Toerpe tells me that she will buy all of mother’s medications at Walgreens (and mother can no longer get her medications from her neighborhood pharmacy where she and Daddy have gone for over 30 years!).  Mom and I hug, but mom is very quiet and looks sickly — she’s lost a lot of weight.

 

Then Toerpe walks mother out to my backyard as if mother is a cripple, and she she leaves, Mother tell me that she doesn’t want to go over to Carolyn’s home any more: that it’s weird over there.  I go back to the home and watch Toerpe get into Kristin’s car, and all Toerpe has are her purse and keys.  Toerpe didn’t bring any of mother’s beautiful summer clothes I bought Mom back with her, and even kept all of the winder clothes including coats and jackets Toerpe took from Mother’s home in August.    Cynthia Farenga said to make a list and she would get the clothes back, but Farenga never planned on getting mother’s property back from Toerpe because she had already agreed to Toerpe’s payment plan for Farenga’s services.  

 

I can go on and on, but I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the States Attorney’s office with the following documents and evidence:

 

(1)  That I had just purchased a ‘flashy new Lexis”

(2)  That I had gone bankrupt twice.

(3) That I dictated the letter mother wrote on September 20, 2009 and the letter 

Mother asked Cynthia to give to the Judge.

(4) That Yolanda Bakken slapped Toerpe in the face and tried to kidnap Mother in August 2009 when visiting on a court order.

(5) That Scott Evans wrote the Toerpes a threatening letter.

(6) That Doris Evans is a threat to Mother’s well being 

(7) That I abused my mother and,

(8) That I financially exploited my mother.

 

Then I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the court with Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as ordered by the Court and provide proof of the $26,000 she took from mother in 2006 and set up a joint savings account in Toerpe and my mother’s name: then of course, proof that there was a CD or a IRA account opened in January 2009 with the $4000 Toerpe took from mother’s bank account.  Then prove to the States Attorneys office that Toerpe didn’t double pay the mortgage in July, August, September, October, November and December of 2009 so it would appear that Mother had no money in 2009!!!.. 

 

I can go on with request but this is a start.  Until you prove all of the above Cynthia Farenga, I think that you have a problem on your hands.  Of course, you believe you are immune from any lawsuits, but I got a feeling that if one person from the State’s Attorney’s office is just a little interested in proving me wrong, they’ll check it out.  What they will find is that Toerpe’s been stealing money from my mother for a very long time and it’s because my mother caught her in Feb. 2009, Toerpe set a course to take control of mother’s person and finances to cover up her crimes.  Then lucky  Toerpe, she hired a lawless attorney who would murder his own mother for money as he ripped off seniors in Indiana on remodeling and reverse mortgages: then Harvey Jack Waller was blessed to have you Cynthia Farenga appointed and now I’m back to the beginning of the case.  

 

The question is Cynthia Farenga, in absence of any evidence as you have none to your malicious allegations, how do you continue to get away with these crimes against the elderly, disabled, and all people the elderly and disabled trust and love?  That said, I know your husband and once in a while you buy and sell estates of Wards of Cook County, and your husband Michael Crowley does your dirty work and serves fraudulent documents on people’s financial advisors and institutions, and you had me served with a Pizza Flyer, too, but who do you sleep at night?  Your daughter appears to be a lovely young woman (the internet is great for ***).  Does she know who you really are?  Does she know that you lie, cheat, steal and will murder in order to earn your living off of the elderly, disabled and all people who stand up for the truth and justice?  

 

So Scott, if there were one person at the Illinois States Attorneys office willing to steal across the LINE Cynthia Farenga drew in the sand (as she keeps moving is), I know for a fact that soon after the investigation there would be a grand jury asking Carolyn Toerpe some serious questions.  I know that Toerpe, however will coward and she will turn Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel in as they are orchestrating all of this by using our courts as their weapons of choice. 

 

But now I’m way a head of myself.  Let’s go back to the court transcripts ……

 

FYI the Court Reporter from the date Kevin Salam testified refuses to call me back and the Official court reporter’s office cannot help me get the transcripts from Salam’s testimony.  Similarly it took six months-for me to get the transcripts format eh Domestic Relations court in and regarding the petition for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe.. That said, the records are available for any one to read and they are a good read.  

 

FYI Ya got three days to turn over the documents Cynthia Farenga  as I am prepared to publish an article — If you have any of this evidence, and proof of course of the Sodini requirements met, you may be able to prove your claims as I always give both sides of the story. As it is, the transcripts and court docket show exactly what I and other people, including Ditkowsky have said.  You, Cynthia Farenga are a liar and a fraud — well, those are my words.  I will retract and apologize once I have the above documents and records in the hands of the Illinois States Attorney — and available or the public to examine.

 

Have a beautiful day all.  I have just started… Watch me!

 

 

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

(edited only for typos and grammar)

---

My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Director at the Illinois Atty General

See below.  This fax was accompanied by my famous “Table of Torts” and the Probate Docket table of missing court orders, pleadings and transcripts that won’t be transcribed (note, I never said “can’t”).  Those are posted on my page of “Important Documents” and I note more than half the probate file is missing and apparently has been “cleansed”.  GDS bless my scanner!
In line is below, or click for the link.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcnNGSXZuZU9La1k
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcnNGSXZuZU9La1k

I want to make this easy peasy for everyone!
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Diane Saltoun
Executive Inspector General
IAG
fax 312-814-8444
From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison,     Pat. Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Troy S. Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, associate, of counsel
For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see fax header  )
July 27, 2012
Re:   In re Estate of Mary Sykes, 09 P 4585
Dear Diane;
While the above case has a long, long history, much of which is documented on a blog to be found at www.marygsykes.com, the reality of the situation is that this probate proceeding boils down to garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and malfeasance by attorneys and the court.  The court has clearly, for 3 long years, been working without subject matter jurisdiction.  In probate court, the Illinois legislature has stated in the Sodini case that in order to take jurisdiction, the court must ensure the following requirements have been met that notice on any hearing for incompetency: 1) be in writing; 2) that the Petitioner serve the notice; 3) that the notice contain the time, date and place of the hearing; and 4) that the notice be served upon “close relatives”–ie, adult children and siblings.
In the above case, the Guardians ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern will admit that no proper written notice was ever served in the case and/or they cannot produce proof of service at all.  In one transcript (all transcripts are published on the blog), counsel for the Guardian admitted no Sodini notices were served upon “close relatives.”  Judge Connors knew at the time she was appointing the plenary guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, without proper notice being served, and Judge Stuart has admitted in her written notes on pleadings that it is “too late” to contest subject matter jurisdiction, which is utter nonsense since subject matter jurisdiction can be brought up at any time–even on appeal.
To add to the obvious corruption, cronyism, embezzlement (there is estimated to be $1 million in gold and silver coins missing from Mary’s estate),   when another attorney (Ken Ditkowsky) and myself complained about the lack of jurisdiction, the railroading of the proceeding without discovery–one of the GAL’s has filed ARDC complaints against us–merely for calling for an investigation.  Leah Black at the ARDC is handling that and has not given up.  The proceeding against Ken Ditkowsky is clearly another railroaded proceeding built upon corruption and cronyism and Leah Black has done nothing to clean up the court system.
See the attached “table of torts” the miscreants have engaged in.  See the attached list of missing files and know that more than half the file is missing because all of the appellate volumes are gone.
Someone is systematically cleansing the Probate files and Judge Evans and security is doing NOTHING about it.
No response.
And then when I go to court to blog about the case and the corruption and cronyism, the miscreants have the court bailiff tell me not to use or open my laptop!
When I first contacted your offices regarding corruption in the courts at the Daley Center you said you “needed proof” actual proof of corruption.
I don’t see how 70% of the file missing PLUS the lack of subject matter jurisdiction could establish any less proof to conduct an investigation.
And I know your buddies at the FBI could look at this case in minutes and come up with a determination that the plenary Guardian is spending tens of thousands of dollars on house remodeling and a fancy wedding for her daughter, whereas back in Jan of 2009 she was struggling with bills and her husband was out of work.  All we need is an asset search done in 2009-2012 for Carolyn and Fred Toerpe.
What more evidence do you need?
I will continue to publish the blog speaking out against corruption in our court system.
Please look at the attached and all the information I will fax you shortly.  This is a case that could be bigger than Greylord–what is being done to deprive grandma and grandpa of their civil rights and how the Probate court (routinely) operates.
Very Truly Yours,
DENISON & ASSOCS, PC
JoAnne Denison
JoAnne M. Denison
cc: Ken Ditkowsky and www.marygsykes.com blog.

Answer to a Question from Scott Evans and the significance of lacking jurisdiction/Sodini notices

Question from Scott Evans:

Gloria,
That was an excellent recap of the first few months of the case.  It is chilling to read. 
It begs the question, something Tim said a year ago, about going back to the beginning. 
Are there Court actions that can be entered into given the string of not just technically wrong, but completely incorrect actions by the opposing lawyers? 
I bring it up because of all the emphasis on the Sodini aspect of the relatives not being properly noticed, events which followed the ones you just wrote about by only several months.  To me, they appear to be more provable, more serious, more compelling, more powerful than Sodini.  Do these glaring gaffs that you refer to have a name, a case law background?   
Since Sodini can be brought up almost 3 years after the fact, can’t these other issues? 
I did a REPLY ALL on this in order to garner wider responses and ideas.  ~Scott

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:35:48 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sykes Case Jurisdiction
To: scottcevans@hotmail.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com
CC: elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; k_bakken@att.net; timlahrman@aol.com

The significance of Sodini is jurisdiction.   Without jurisdiction everything done in the Sykes case is void.   The guardian ad litem are ‘de facto’ and therefore as there is no guardianship their actions are unauthorized.   As there is no jurisdiction their is no guardian ship.  No guardianship means that the drilling of the safety deposit box was not authorized and was a garden variety larceny by trick.    Citatons to discover assets are also ‘ultra vires’ and therefore all this nonsense of questioning Gloria as to her assets, seizing her assets is just garden variety common law fraud, theft, false imprisonment and criminal contempt of court.

Similarly the non-inventory of the assets removed from the safety deposit box is theft!   In addition as the mails were used to commit the fraud our friends are guilty of 18 USCA 1341 (mail fraud).    There are least two predicate action and therefore the government can charge each with RICO.    Of course, theft as well as breach of fiduciary relationship are taxable events.   All of our friends are guilty of conspiracy to evade the United States Income taxes    Carolyn is guilty of tax fraud.

Keeping Mary against her will is kidnapping on the criminal side and false imprisonment on the civil side.

On the other hand, had the Sodini notices been given the guardians have 100% absolute immunity.  Farenga and Stern have discretion as to what they report to the Court, and the Court can issue ‘wrong and unjust orders’ until the cows come home.  Sodini is the lynch pin!

With two of the three necessary close relatives filing affidavits that they did not receive the 14 day notices required to obtain jurisdiction over Mary and her estate any judge who takes his/her duties seriously would order an investigation.  Most judges do not like to enter orders that are beyond their jurisdiction.

What makes this case the ‘son of greylord’ is the fact that every judge has had the jurisdictional issue raised and each avoided the issue liket he plague.   The lawyers who are presumed to know the law admit that the Sondini protections were not afforded to Mary and ‘no one cares.’   An honest investigation would find out why the Judges are reluctant to determine if they had jurisdiction!    An honest investigation would require Carolyn to produce the inventory that Mary kept in the safety deposit box.   An honest investigation would find out why Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al. are so afraid to participate in the investigation and why they mislead the Court on a regular basis.   An honest investigation would look into Judge Connors dates in December 2009.

Sodini goes back to Day One.   If Sodini was not complied with each of the guardians (including the GALs) is guilty of theft etc.
from Atty Ken Ditkowsky

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

A CALL FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION

Ms. Farenga,

 

I thought about your last e-mail this morning and it occurred to me that you actually might not know that the Sykes case is not only a serious matter, but, an innocent senior citizen has in fact been deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights.    Indeed, it is possible that you might not know that the Illinois Legislature enacted the statute described and interpreted by Sodini to protect against exactly the type of situation that has occurred in Sykes.    (Indeed, it appears that jurisdictional protections appear to be honored by non-compliance in many cases such as Tyler, Wyman, etc  – the GAO report of September last confirms this theory)

 

The problem that you face – or will face is the fact that like Justice Sotomeyer the public is getting ‘sick and tired’ of lawyers claiming innocence for bad deeds that are clearly prohibited by statute.   Too often Judges have stated when confronted by a lay person – “ignorance of the law is not excuse!”   Members of the 2nd oldest profession also use the excuse of I did not know the law and other members are sympathetic as they impose strict standards on the public.    The Sykes’ treatment of Gloria Sykes is an example. Thus, while you, Stern, and Schmiedel ‘cut corners’ and act under color of statute to deprive Gloria and others of their civil rights you and the Court demand that people like Gloria Sykes strictly comply with the Rules.    Want an example?   You, Adam, and Schmiedel were well aware when you filed the sanction motion against me that the Court had no jurisdiction!   The net was you wasted your time, my time and the Court’s time.    Further you will spend hundreds of hours in defending a very viable civil rights suit that could result in a seven figure verdict against you personally.  

 

A second example is the Sykes case itself.   You, Stern, and Schmiedel are well aware that the Petition to appoint Carolyn as plenary guardian is defective, and that the required jurisdictional notices were never written or mailed.    Thus, as a matter of law the Probate Court for over three years has operated without jurisdiction.   The ‘cover-up’ is the Son of Greylord and ultimately will result in some sort of serious prosecution of the culpable.   How could you not know of the jurisdictional problem?   Justice Sotomeyer’s decision in Jerman answers the question – you are presumed to know the law and that presumption is very strong.   Clout only works for a short period of time – it works until the ‘clout’ is required to account.   All that said, Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes have a very viable civil rights suit.    [as the court has no jurisdiction there is no immunity and what would be absolute immunity for you as a GAL does not exist in the Sykes case]

 

There are many more examples of the Sykes guardian and guardian ad litem acting sans jurisdiction.   An injunction was entered without the prior filing of a verified petition and without the mandatory bond.   The citation proceeding is flawed!     You as a seasoned lawyer owe a duty to the ‘ward’ and to the ‘court’ to prevent such misconduct.   You have a great deal of temerity even suggesting that you are an innocent and that the only misconduct that you know of is that of Gloria Sykes.   Such a rationalization is obscene!   

 

A while back – after the decision of the Appellate Court throwing out the sanction for lack of jurisdiction – I offered you the simple proposition (Safe Harbor e-mails) of you reporting the facts to the Court in exchange for my just forgetting about the Civil Rights remedy that I am entitled.   Your rejected the proposition.   This of course was your right.   I called upon you to join with me and call for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case – if you had nothing to hide.   Again you and Stern rejected the call.   A simple review of the facts, the docket, the transcripts of the Sykes case and the reason for the rejection is obvious.  

 

No, I am not going to make any more offers of settlement – I have written law enforcement and others demanding a full complete and honest investigation.    Mary Sykes is in her 4th year of captivity.  Over a million dollars in her assets have not been accounted for and certainly not inventoried.   (For the record – I was Mary’s attorney and wrote up her will – I know what her estate consisted of and I know exactly how many double eagles she had and what they were worth – I could care less whether the guardian – who had the safety deposit box drilled shared with you and Stern the ‘booty!’    By your e-mails and non-action you have aided and abetted Income tax evasion)   I am appealing to you as a human being to reach out to Gloria Sykes and the organizations that support Mary Sykes and ‘free Mary Sykes!’   Join with Ms. Denison, and the organizations that support Mary and Gloria Sykes and request a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of not only the Sykes case, but all the cases in which similar events as have occurred in Sykes are rampant!   

 

Right now you are ‘young’ and do not face the avarice that many senior citizens are confronted.   Instead of finding themselves in the bosom of loving families, they are confronted by children who cannot wait for grandma to die before seeking to loot her estate.  Even more troubling is the appearance Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern who aid and abet the scenario and when confronted by the consequences of *** come forth with ” Gloria did it!”   The climate that you helped create is a cancer and will be something that you most probably will personally confront in your household as you have demonstrated to your children and grandchildren that it is OK to deny grandma her liberty, her property, her civil rights and human rights.    Newton point out that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and this is one of the primary laws of nature.    Today we recite the law by – ‘what goes around comes around’    

 

Thus, the joining with me, Denison, Sykes and the Anti Elder Abuse organizations in calling for an honest investigation of the Sykes case you act in your own best long term interests.    Even at this point in time – doing the ‘right thing’ will provide you with great benefits; however, *****     The decision is yours and we all will fight the death to preserve your right to act inappropriately and in derogation of your own best interests.

 

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
And I need to add that Ms. Farenga, you need to do an Emergency Motion for Tuesday to non suit this Probate case due to lack of jurisdiction, attach YB’s declaration and Gloria’s declaration, although I’m sure Gloria will be there in court and Ken and I will be glad to draft up the order for you, and serve the Motion by personal service on each of the adult siblings and children as Illinois Probate Law dictates, and LET MARY GO FREE back to her own home!  You know there is no jurisdiction, AS knows there is no jurisdiction.  Perhaps the other sister’s affidavit will be in my mail today, I’ll go check.  Gloria will just testify.  Hopefully it won’t last an hour as she lambasts you and AS for your outrageous behavior!
Please draft the motion and personally serve it on Monday to all the adult children and siblings of Mary Sykes.
Ken, we need calls to Non Suit on an emergency basis and get the FBI/police to investigate bank accounts.  Where are the gold coins!

String of Emails between Ken and Cynthia tells it all….

Dear Readers;

Something has happened that I never thought would happen, and that is a string of emails between Atty-GAL Cynthia Farenga and Atty Ken Ditkowsky!
I simply cannot believe that CF, a clearly ethics challenged atty is writing KD, an attorney that has been clamouring for an investigation since he first became aware of the Sykes Probate case 09 P 4858 and noted many problems with the case 1) an excellent long term care giver (Gloria) was chosen as guardian over a barely there, somewhat estranged sister (Carolyn), 2) the case was railroaded with a clearly deficient Petition not naming all close relatives (I just got a case like that and the response was oh well–oh well nothing, it’s jurisdictional, babe and an extremely serious fatal deficiency); 3) no discovery,e ven though discovery was asked for; 4) claims of gold coins being in the estate, safe deposit boxes drilled out and looted even though the Plenary Guardian knew that another sister’s name was one it—-oh go see my table of torts for further information of a long history of irregularities in the case.
So please read on below.  Cynthia is amazing in wondering and worrying about this blog.  The information on it is growing.  On Monday I should have up a page of “Important Documents and Evidence against the Miscreants” which will have things like my Table of Torts, the Declaration of Sister 1 saying there were no Sodini notices, etc.
My advice to you Cynthia (and this goes for Adam, the other GAL) is to waltz your butt into court on Tuesday with an emergency motion served to Gloria and the sisters by fax, email and personal delivery (yeah, pay the $50 to get the motion out to the burbs where these ladies live or drive them out yourself and apologize like a big girl) to nonsuit/dismiss and attach the petitions of Sister 1 and Gloria and ask the case be nonsuited because there is no jurisdiction.  There is absolutely no proof in the file that attorney Harvey Waller served Sodini notices, which are jurisdictional with the following 4 elements 1) it must be in writing; 2) it must be served on close relatives (adult siblings and children);  3) it must state the time, date and place of hearing and 3) It must be served by Petitioner 14 days in advance of the hearing.  None of this was done.  The GALs are supposed to attend to these details.  You and GAL Stern did not.  3 years of this nonsense against Gloria and her mother who do want to be together.
My advice to you is to nonsuit the case and join KD and myself in calling for further investigation and a complete asset search of CT.  Heck, do Gloria too and it will show she is not the miscreant in all of this. It will take an FBI officer minutes to look at bank accounts statements, balances, etc. over the last two years.  How did Carolyn pay for her daughter’s fancy wedding and finish up remodeling her house when she is a retired school teacher and her husband was out of work for years?  Pull the tax returns from the IRS and do a comparison!
Your job was and still is to ask questions and protect Mary.
You seriously failed in that.  But don’t wallow in pity–get going!
JoAnne
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 27, 2012 2:29 PM
To: “cfarenga@comcast.net”
Subject: Re: Assorted
It is interesting that you think you did not do anything wrong.  You did and continue to do quite a bit wrong.  As an attorney and as a ‘human being’ you should know what you did wrong.   The first thing you did wrong was to have denied Mary Sykes her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.
Please allow me to be more specific.   [KD response start] The Statute requires that prior to a guardian ship proceeding being held Mary Sykes and all her close relatives are entitled to a written 14 day notice.   As an attorney you should be aware of this jurisdictional criterion.  Thus, it appears that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction.  The de-facto appointment of Carolyn Troepe is therefore flawed. I trust that you are aware that this makes certain actions undertaken not only questionable but patently illegal.   As an example how could Mary (and Gloria’s) safety deposit box be drilled and the content’s removed.   The contents included jewelry and collectibles.   I estimate the value at over a million dollars.    As this million dollars was not inventoried it appears that someone other than Gloria dis something wrong.   It also appears that the total isolation of Mary from her sister and her daughter were also wrong.   [KD response start]The aiding and abetting this conduct was also wrong and in my opinion makes you and Adam Stern Accessories during the fact.    If you want details read the ADA complaint filed in Federal Court.    
[KD response con’t]Of serious concern are your statements concerning Gloria Sykes.  You cannot point to a single act of hers that was wrong.   As a citizen – you know one of those little people protected by the Federal and State Constitutions – she has every right to resist the attempts by you (plural) to deprive her of her liberty, her property and her civil rights.   The reason I am adamant in my defense of Gloria and Mary is the simple fact that I believe in the principles of American democracy!    I would be such as vigorous in defending and standing up for your rights!   If you had done a scintilla of due diligence you would have discovered that Gloria had a serious insurance claim.   Lumberman (Kempers) denied the claim and she sued.   After years litigation they offered her and she accepted a settlement.   As Mary was placed on the title by Gloria to complete her estate Mary was as an afterthought brought into the Lumberman case.    Mary had and has no interest in the property as she has (had) her own home and therefore with the aid of an attorney she signed away her share of the settlement.    As Gloria would say – the statements that you made to the Court were all intentional and knowing untruths (lies).
I do not care if you pay the taxes due for the breach of fiduciary relationship, nor do I give a damn if you got dime one of the ‘loot’ from Mary’s estate.   I will leave it to law enforcement to figure out you culpability.
You keep making statements about the corruption in the judiciary.   As you are constantly upon on the 18th Floor, you must have knowledge of who, what and where.   As my practice is general I would not be privy to whether or not your allegations of corruption are true or false.  I do know however the the Sykes case has a massive jurisdictional problem.   The entire guardianship fiasco in Sykes is clearly without jurisdiction.   Gloria and her aunts were not served with the 14 written notice.   Gloria has filed an affidavit to that effect, and I am informed that Aunt Jo has also provided an affidavit.  Mr.Stern in an e-mail disclosed that in lieu of written notice he, you, and Ms.Troepe agreed that Mary should have a guardian.   Mr.Schmiedel is quoted in the transcripts as pointing out the application for a guardian was also deficient and no written notices were sent out.
On a level playing field a Judge first checks to see if he/she has jurisdiction and then if he/she does not it is ‘game over!’   Why this has not occurred in Sykes is a mystery.   It should not be as the Sykes case has two Guardian ad litem who are aware that the jurisdictional criterion has not been met and each has a duty to report that fact to the Court.   It would seem to me that that failure is not only wrongful but a serious breach of fiduciary relationship on you part.  You are not alone however – Mr.Schmiedel as an officer of the Court and Mr. STern as a guardian ad litem also are culpable.
If there is a word that you do not understand, Ms. Sykes can explain it to you.   I understand that she was an elementary school teacher in another life.    Your ‘clever’ repartee is not appreciated.   The Sykes case is a serious matter.   A senior citizen has been isolated from her family, her activities, her friends and her life with the aid of two guardian ad litem.    This same senior citizen has had too many trips to the emergency room and too little contact with her former life.   There is serious question as to whether this senior citizen was incompetent – it is my believe that she was indeed competent but railroaded by clearly unconscionable means into the loss of her liberty.
Ms. Farenga – if you had a scintilla of ‘good faith’ you would join with me in requesting law enforcement to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.    
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted
Dear Ken,
I  know that you believe your friends throughout every level of law enforcement will soon be at our doorstep. I happen not to believe that since as far as I can tell, the only one who may have acted inappropriately is Gloria. I note you did not answer the question of why you are so eager  to protect Gloria when Mary was allegedly your client.Just what is it about Gloria that impels you to violate your ethical duty to Mary in the event of even a potential conflict between them? Again, using your own logic, how do we know you all aren’t in a a conspiracy to share any funds that Gloria may recover in this litigation?  [KD response start] I have a very viable civil rights (42 USCA 1983) claim against you, Adam Stern and Schmiedel.   As you singled me out and filed a sanction motion against me in a Court that lacked jurisdiction – under color of statute you violated my civil rights.   That should be a 6 or 7 figure verdict. [KD Response end] Very odd. Only you and JD have been paid, but JD continues to post invoices left and right claiming  hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees, yet we are supposed to think that all of your hands are clean? Running a blog is not a legal task. Who is the client that JD proposes to bill upwards of $55k plus interest for running a blog?  [KD response start]Why is that any of your business.  The use of a Blog and communication is a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.      It is my understanding that the National Socialists do not have any candidates running in the current election cycle – ergo, their proposed legislation has not been enacted and the Citizens of the State of Illinois are still free to object to the acts of denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights.  [KD Response end] [JD response—the reason you have not been paid is because you are acting without jurisdiction and engaging in malpractice and malfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty.  It’s hard to get paid when you are ultra vires and committing continuing torts on a routine basis.]
You will all continue to run off at the mouth. There will be no nice view of the prison courtyard for us because We have done nothing wrong. The corruption of Greylord proportions, the corruption of the entire probate division, judges and attorneys, the accusations against Judge Evans and Justice Connors–this is all your imagination. JD’s and Gloria’s. One day in court at the beginning of this mes (sic) Gloria told me she’d pay for care giving in order to bring her mother home pending the resolution of the guardianship. She retracted the offer the next day. You can post, email, fax, blog and do whatever, but in the end, I feel sorry for you. There is not a single fact of wrong-doing you have found (as opposed to your made-up accusations), nor will you. There is none.  [KD response start]Last I heard, it was a crime to take possession of ‘grandma’s’ property without her consent.    Indeed, according to Justice Sotomeyer lawyers are supposed to know the law and to be aware that Court operating without jurisdiction issue void orders!    Persons who knowingly  act pursuant to void orders get free orange jumpsuits! [KD Response end]  
Though I’m busy writing my own book, I feel the need to let you know  that we realize these accusations are all phony. In the meantime, when the IRS knocks on my door, I’ll invite them in for tea and crudites, answer their questions and sit them down to read all of the lunatic postings that are on line. I will be glad to pay tax on the income from my book, however. [KD response start]Unfortunately and unhappily the averments that have been made are all true and correct.    You can blame Gloria Sykes for the troubles of the world, but that does not solve any of them.    My dear friend – if you look in the mirror you will see the person who bears the greatest culpability for Mary Sykes loss of her liberty and her property.   You also will see in the same image the person who failed to report vital information to the Court and/or condoned conduct that is deplored by all civilized peoples.    I sincerely hope that when the IRS comes calling you can be glib and confident; however *****[KD Response end]
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: cfarenga@comcast.net
Cc: “NASGA” <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “probate sharks” <verenusl@gmail.com>, “JoAnne M Denison” <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>, “states attorney” <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>, “Cook County Sheriff” <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>, “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “scottevans” <scottcevans@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:25:24 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted
Ms Farenga,
Please send me the file that you have from the Secretary of State.  The information that I have that in late 2008 or early 2009 Mary and Gloria were going to California and Mary needed her license renewed.   She could not do so as it had lapsed.   Therefore she was required to take the written as well as the driving test.  She passed the written test with flying colors but had to retake the driving portion.  It is interesting (but not unusual in Illinois) that this little fact does not appear on the Secretary of State record.
I grieve for you as to your tale of woe having allegedly not been paid.  Being part and parcel of the looting of a senior citizens’s estate is a breach of fiduciary relationship and a taxable event.  I know what Mary sykes had -  remember I did her Will.  She discussed her Estate with me and I remember a good amount of detail.  I even know the number of gold coins!   Your aiding and abetting the non-inventory of the assets of the estate makes you an accessory!   I let the US Attorney explain to you the consequences at a proper time and place.
Unfortunately Attorney fees must meet the criterion of being ‘necessary’ and provide some benefit to the ward.    The services that you performed were worth absolutely zero to Mary in that:
1) The simple protections that the State affords to Mary – as Mr. Stern reports in an e-mail – were obviated by you, Stern, and Troepe agreeing to appoint Carolyn as the plenary guardian.  If you have been reading JoAnne’s postings at this point in time you have been educated to Sodini and know that this technicality is jurisdictional.   As you should know – no jurisdiction no ‘cover’ of statute and the ‘loot’ is taxable!   
2) you aided a abetted three plus years of abuse to Mary, including an episode that placed Mary in the emergency room having lost ten percent of her body weight.
3) you aided and abetted Mary from having contact with her sister and her younger daughter.
4) you aided and abetted  efforts that were calculated to kee Mary from being represented by counsel and having a day in Court.   I would call this aiding and abetting the deprivation of Mary Sykes’ liberty interests.
5) you aided an abetted in the ‘rape’ of the civil and human rights of Gloria and Mary Sykes.
As the Court has no jurisdiction (Sodini) you are at best a ‘de facto’ GAL and as such you have no immunity.  Of course to the extent that your conduct violates the law you are culpable and have to answer to law enforcement.   As to Gloria, JoAnne, and myself at a proper time and place you will answer in damages.    (Had you seen that the Sodini protections had been afforded Mary – we would have no remedy against you personally – but using Stern’s words – this “technicalilty” *****
Ms. Farenga – a while back I asked you to join with me and requesting a complete, honest and comprehensive examination by law enforcement of the Sykes and related cases.   You and Mr. Stern refused.  It should be very clear that you do not have the ability to intimidate Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison or myself.    We are not going away and win, lose or draw before the ARDC and where-ever you choose to complain for you and Mr. Stern (and Ms. Troepe and Mr. Schmiedel) this is not going to end.   Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison and yours truly have no intention of meekly marching in a ‘box card’ to be later herded into the gulag.   EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A TERRIBLE WRONG HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY FARENGA, STERN, SCHMIEDEL AND OTHERS WHO HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED THEM in denying Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights.
Tomorrow is a new day – Sykes, Denison and I do not seek revenge or even recrimination – we seek the freeing of Mary Sykes and that she be allowed to live out the few days that she has left in the bosom of those who care for her.  How can you as a human being rationalize that Mary has been and is being separated and not allowed contact with her younger daughter and her younger sister!   (The million dollars in assets that have been taken from Mary is irrelevant to Gloria, JoAnne.   It may not be to the IRS or IDR.
If you recall several years ago Gloria begged you to join with her to free Mary and get Mary out the abusive Gulag!   You responded with one of your “Gloria did diatribes.”   At that point in time it was no harm, no foul situation however, you rejected Gloria’s magnanimous offer.   Too bad.
One more point – I do not know what the United States Department of Treasury’s policy is on those who aid and abet the evasion of Federal Income Taxes; however, I suspect that they will be fair and just.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:05 PM
Subject: Assorted
Ken,
Just as soon as I return from visiting my hositalized relative, I’ll send over the secretary of State’s file on Mary’s driver’s license issue dates and test dates. Presumably you haven’t seen the file, because Mary did not take a test in 2009 and her last license was issued in 2005 (working from memory, or 2006 at the latest).
How ironic that Adam and I have in fact been working without payment of a dime thus far, while you and JoAnne have both stated in open court that you have received fees. JD said she received $20k or $25k. [JD response—and I have also done about $180,000 in work or more to root out corruption—time I could spend on other cases and other matters, while you two fiddle on 3 years in a case without jurisdiction]
You can fabricates more “facts”, as you all will, but I continue to question why you, who once allegedly represented Mary, are so anxious to see that Gloria gets all of the settlement money w/o expressing any reservation. Maybe, Ken, you folks are the ones who have a financial interest in this matter and seeing to it that Mary does not receive any money so that Gloria can.Perhaps you are expecting to share with Gloria? [JD response—that’s inane, KD and I call for an investigation and you do nothing.  If we call for an investigation one or all parties can be investigated.  We never said only investigate CT.  You are twising words] Your  theory about Adam and me makes no sense, as we have said before. Adam and I did not know about any alleged money trove, be it gold coins or cash in the mattress and frankly, why would we? Gloria’s OWN cross-petition does not disclose such assets.  [JD Response—Gloria has complained over and over and I know I sent you emails about the gold coins and YOU AND AS REPEATEDLY TELL THE COURT “IT IS A FICTION OF GLORIA’S IMAGINATION”, and you do not tell the judge that Ken Ditkowsky, who did the estate planning for the Sykes for years, lists those gold coins in his estate inventory which lists and information are business records and should be brought to the court’s attention for further investigation]
I know that you are imagining these “facts” [JD Response--how do you know that—have you investigated?  Nope, not one piece of discovery has been served on Carolyn—and you could have done that back in Jan 2010 and prevented misery for all of us, esp. Carolyn because at that time she could have put them back and not spent them], but I occasionally feel the need to tell you that we know they are demonstrably untrue. And you should be ashamed to be putting the law license of a young lawyer, Annie, in jeopardy, as yours and I would guess JoAnne’s will be [JD Response—this is really interesting, it shows how little CF investigates.  Annie is a law clerk and that is on our website.  Cynthia, do you ever read anything?  Annie will be please tho that you think she writes well enough to be a lawyer.  I think her non-lawyer status is clear from her writing, but *****]. Now J has this young woman on the bandwagon commenting on an area of law she seems to have no background in, and parroting JD’s tone when she makes blog entires (sic). You really should be responsible enough to leave this phony expose to yourself and JD and not to stain a young lawyer’s reputation. If you are so sure you’ll be winning a gold medal for your Greylord- like expose, leave her out of it now and promise her the credit in the future. [JD Response--Cynthia, if you don’t do the work and don’t use your own name, then there will be no credit in the future for you.  Plus, it is important that if someone writes for the blog, that person is identified.  Anyone can write and post anon junk.  The web is filled with cyber junk.  I encourage integrity.  And it's obvious all you're trying to do is intimidate and bully around another person--not going to happen, babe.  Annie has read the Probate Act end to end and she has read Sodini.  If you have something to say to Annie, put it on the blog.  But right now you and AS have no jurisdiction to do what you're doing and the world knows it.]]
CRF
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <timlahrman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:29:10 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction
The State of Illinois does not have jurisdiction in Gary Indiana, Cleveland Ohio, or even Milwaukee Wisconsin.    A subpoena stops at the State line.   An Illinois Judge’s order stops at the State line.   An Illinois judgment cannot be enforced in Indiana.
Our friends in writing threatening letters to people outside the jurisdiction of the Illinois are acting without any immunity whatsoever and it is my opinion can be prosecuted in the County of the State where the victim resides.    It is further my opinion that as the Sodini requirements for jurisdiction to vest in the Circuit Court Probate Division have not been met there is no immunity for their acts even though authorized specifically by a judge’s order.    The judge to act as a judge must have jurisdiction.    this is the reason most judges make inquiry as to jurisdiction as issue one.
The fact that a guardian ad litem sends an unauthorized subpoena does not vest the Court with jurisdiction over the person.    A subpoena must be served and must be served within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
In re: Sykes is a case for the ages.  I have never seen so must ultra vires conduct in any case prior and have never seen so much disconnect on the issue of jurisdiction.   Since Jerman the presumption of lawyers knowing the law is in the forefront and all these actions undertaken without jurisdiction are going to have serious consequences.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED

An elderly sister of Mary G Sykes has signed and mailed her declaration back to our office stating that she did not receive proper Sodini notice. This is GREAT news because now we are one step closer to proving how corrupt and unjust the case truly is. JoAnne has already faxed copies of this Affidavit to Lea Black. Now we wait anxiously as we wait for Mary’s other elderly sister  to mail us back her declaration.  Justice MUST prevail!

Below is a copy of the signed declaration!

sister 1 declaration.

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

Comments about PURGING OF FILES from Ken and Joanne

Purging Records is an old Cook County tradition.    When I first became a lawyer the Court house was the old County Building.   On Floor 3 1/2 like clockwork every single year there were two fires – one on the County side and one on the City side.    Each years at approximately the same time the fires occurred and they were confined to one of the two floors.    

 

Today a purge can occur with the click of a mouse!    

 

In these Elder Abuse cases like Sykes there is a great deal at stake.  Do your realize that you, I, Gloria, and various assorted relatives will be giving evidence of the United States of America as to the contents of the safety deposit box.   As Mary was declared incompetent without a hearing and without the Sodini protections the probate court lacked jurisdiction and once again Stern, Farenga, and Toerpe are out a limb!    If I take your money without your permission with the intention of exercising control over the same I commit ‘theft!’  As a million dollars in assets is unaccounted for we have a very serious felony.   Aiding and Abeting is not looked upon fondly – in fact law enforcement usually charges the Aider and Abetters.    

 

The Sykes case is ‘big league’ stuff.   It is the lynch pin that keeps if pulled will bring down a great deal of incentive for the depriving of grandma of her liberty, property, civil and human rights.    Do you think for a minute that without the ‘money in the mattress’ and the contents of the safety deposit box **** would have any interest in Mary Sykes!!    

 

May passing the written test administered by the Illinois Secretary of State could put Dr. Shaw out of business and cause severe economic hardship to a bunch of GALs and other “judicial officials”. I refer to the Sykes case as the ‘son of Greylord” because it is another chapter in the infamous history of Cook County, Illinois.

 

-KEN DITKOWSKY

 

A very important point that this blog keeps reminding its readers is that NO SODINI NOTICES were given when the petition was filed.

 

Ken goes is more details:

 

However, the important aspect of the Sodini protections  (172 ILL App3d 1053) is the actual notice to the close relatives and the providing the alleged disabled person with the knowledge of her rights.   This was not done and any judge examining this file ought to have dismissed the proceeding and as the rights are so important pursuant to Himmel reported this matter to the ARDC and demanded that the attorneys who ignored such vital and important steps be appropriately disciplined.   This is especially the case since the lack of Jurisdiction has been repeatedly pointed out to the court and the GAL’s and ignored.  All should be disciplined.  Jurisdiction is an US Constitutional and Illinois Constitutional and due process right that cannot be ignored.  It is fundamental to a democratic society. (JoAnne Denison)

 

The 3rd aspect of the Sodini is the most important – notification of the alleged disabled person and the close relatives.   This is important as it prevents the ambush of the alleged disabled person and makes certain that at the very least the close relatives have the opportunity to present a defense.    For instance, Dr. Patel refused to sign the CP 211 (certificate of incompetency).    The close relatives could have confronted  Toerpe, Stern and Farenga with the fact that Mary passed a written examination administered by the Secretary of State, etc.    Instead there was an ambush and as Mr. Stern reported, he, Farenga and Troepe just agreed that Mary was incompetent and they and the Court willy nilly deprived her of her liberty, property, civil rights and property rights.    This is not what the statute contemplates.    The Statute reads:

 

§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.

(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.

(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.

(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,¹ where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,² or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.

(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.

(e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:

NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT

You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.

The date and time of the hearing are:

The place where the hearing will occur is:

The Judge’s name and phone number is:

If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.

You have the following legal rights:

(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.

(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.

(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.

(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.

(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.

(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.

You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.

Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.

(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose n

ames and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.   IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10

Sons of Greylord, born of the Illinois ARD

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

Lea Black's Petition to BAR Gloria from testifying at Ken's proceeding against the ARDC

As ridiculous as this sounds, it is true. Lea Black (ARDC) has filed a petition to BAR Gloria from testifying on the basis that she was "uncooperative" in setting up a place and time for her deposition. Gloria has gone to the lengths of transforming a suite room into a conference room to appease Ms Black. Does that sound uncooperative?
Ken puts it eloquently as to what the ARDC is essentially doing by filing this motion:
"I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution

2) Circuit Court Judges and court appointed lawyers ignoring the jurisdictional limitations of the Courts and in particular those designed by the legislature to protect senior citizens.   A judge has a duty to determine if he/she has jurisdiction.   In the Sykes case it appears that (using the words of Adam Stern) 'it is a technicality!'     I just hope that at some point in time Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al have to personally address that technicality.

3) Objecting to the non-inventory of over a million dollars in assets belonging to Mary Sykes!    LG asked Mr. Evans if he considered that theft!   It makes no difference if Mr. Evans considers it theft or not!   Theft is unauthorized control and except in these probate cases that is unauthorized control    It is also a taxable event.    I calculate that with the taxes due, interest and penalties at this point in time the conspirators owe in excess of a million dollars to the United States of America.  (Mr. Dubow - the accountant informs me that the interest is 5per cent per month up to 25% of the tax due.    The fraud penalty - for the breach of fiduciary relationship and the concealment - is 50%.    The tax is 30%.  Ms Toerpe should be sleeping very well at night knowing that at this point in time she and the conspirators to evade the legitimate income taxes owed to the United States of America can help Mr. Obama make a dent in the debt!"

Banning someone simply because setting up a deposition proves a bit difficult is UNHEARD of. It's simply not a reason. But of course, desperate times call for desperate measures. Judicial corruption is about to be exposed and Lea Black is doing everything she can to hinder this.

Below are both the motion to bar Gloria Sykes and Ken's response to that motion. It should not be long before we get news that Lea Black's motion is DENIED if there is even an ounce of justice in the justice system.

Motion to Bar Gloria

Response to Motion to Bar Respondent's Witnesses - 07-24-2012