Mary G Sykes: What exactly IS the definition of theft? LB was asking Scott the other day.

Posted on July 25, 2012

I am told that during Scott’s deposition the other day, he was asked if he thought the non inventorying of $1 million in gold coins constituted theft (objection–witness is not a lawyer and cannot formulate legal opinions).

I can’t believe LB asked Scott if he considered the noninventorying of $1 million in gold coins to be theft or not! that’s a complete hoot.

first of all, you’re right about who cares if scott knows the legal definition of theft, but second of all, it begs a better question and that is, why would LB want to even consider bending the legal definition of theft.

okay, so if I see a million dollars in a safe deposit box with your name on it, can I just use it for a little and put it back, or,
maybe if I move it here for awhile or there for awhile, you won’t mind now will you,
or I’m just using it for a bit until Mary is no longer incompetent and then she’s gonna get competent and say what I did was fine because she likes me and I’m her beloved daughter Carolyn.

hmmm. i’m not impressed.

if it looks like a theft, sounds like a theft, smells like a theft and quack liks a theft, then it’s a duck?

joanne

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:06:18 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Larry – indeed, copy it and sent it JoAnne and anyone else who wants a copy.

I always hated to hear lawyers start a sentence with I have been practicing law for 2000 years and I have never seen anything like this; however, I’ve only been practicing law for five decades and I have to admit that I have have not seen a petition like the petition that LG filed to bar me from presenting Gloria Sykes as my witness in the ARDC proceeding that seeks to punish me for complaining of judicial corruption. If the law were applied uniformly the United States Attorney is in real trouble as he not only complains about corruption, but he even sends corrupt judges to jail.

If I were to approach you and tell you that the ARDC attorney after doing everything possible to create an acrimonious relationship with Gloria, and after Gloria attempted to appease her by renting a suite, converting one room into a conference room etc, the ARDC attorney filed a sanction motion (Rule 219) to bar me from using Gloria as a witness in defense of the frivolous and spurious complaint that the ARDC authored – would you believe me? Well it is true! JoAnne, Larry will send you the Motion so that you can verify that what I say is indeed not my being delusional!

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 90 plus) 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 5 per 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 Troepe 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!

Oh well! four years ago we were promised ‘change!’ This change did not come from Washington, but come via Naperville! The new National Socialists are a bonus! As law enforcement is quiet concerning our demands for an honest, comprehensive, and complete investigation maybe we ought to start a fund at BOA to purchase brown shirts, and jack boots so that all our new found friends can be in uniform as they goose-step to the Daley Center.

JoAnne – it all fits into the grand scheme of things – The golf course that Betty Maltese purchased would make a wonderful camp. Mr. Schmiedel can rave over the progress that grandma is making as she learns to breathe MIC. The ARDC does not believe that the last sentence is protected speech – fortunately they are the only ones – and the United States Supreme Court has mandated. Indeed, if you want to verify that I am again speaking the truth – the ARDC complaint against me is on their web-site. While the document takes a great deal out of context, is misleading and replete with unfounded conclusions it nevertheless clearly demonstrates, the due process, the first amendment, and other liberties are a thing of the past!

If law enforcement and the politicans who really care about the United States do not wake up, smell the coffee and act to preserve our democratic society we will not have one – we will be sent to the Gulag!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
-

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:06:18 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote
To: JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com; lawoffice5940@yahoo.com; lawrence@Lhyman.com
CC: drditkowsky@aol.com

Larry – indeed, copy it and sent it JoAnne and anyone else who wants a copy.

If I were to approach you and tell you that the ARDC attorney after doing everything possible to create an acrimonious relationship with Gloria, and after Gloria attempted to appease her by renting a suite, converting one room into a conference room etc, the ARDC attorney filed a sanction motion (Rule 219) to bar me from using Gloria as a witness in defense of the frivolous and spurious complaint that the ARDC authored – would you believe me? Well it is true! JoAnne, larry will send you the Motion so that you can verify that what I say is indeed not my being delusional!

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

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 Troepe 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!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: Larry Chambers <lawoffice5940@yahoo.com>
Cc: ken ditowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>;
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Dear Larry;

Can you please scan and email a copy of the motion filed by LB to bar Gloria’s testimony.

i would like to publish that, it’s soooo amazingly incredible.

thanks

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 24, 2012 2:44 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

You will in testify – I cannot envision the ARDC acting so overtly to protect Stern and Farenga et al that they would even attempt to have you barred from testifying.

I was wrong! A petition came in in today’s mail. Even though you have gone through hoops and gone the extra mile to accommodate, Ms. Black wants to bar your testimony. I am sorry – she wants to prevent me from calling you as a witness. As you are on her witness list, she still can call you.

The incentive to join Farenga, Stern, et al in the corruption is must be incredible. I estimated the gold coins at about a million dollars in value; however, I must have underestimated the value as the harassment continues unabated. We have to have an honest, comprehensive and complete investigation. It appears that we hit a nerve and the Constitution has been suspended! The Administrator of the ARDC’s petition to bar your testimony in a trial in which I am the respondent is not only outrageous but a declaration that if you oppose the denial of liberty, property, civil rights and human rights in the eyes of the Illinois Judiciary you also lose your rights, privileges and immunities. I find that concept totally unacceptable and I will not walk quietly into the gas chambers! It is my intention to continue to fight for ‘grandma’s rights’ and win, lose, or draw I have no intention of allowing my civil rights to be compromised.

For your information I prepared a draft of a response to the petition filed by the Administrator. It states what I wish to say:

Response to Motion to Bar Respondent’s witnesses based upon failure to Administrator to comply with Rule 201(k)

The Petitioner’s prayer for relief reads:

“The Administrator’s motion is Allowed/denied. Respondent is barred from presenting Gloria Sykes as witness at the hearing in this matter.”

The motion of the Administrator does not allege any wrong doing on the part of the respondent or that Gloria Sykes is not a person named on the Administrator’s witness list and/or an independent person and citizen entitled to her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights. Indeed, the relationship between the respondent and the potential witness Gloria Sykes necessary for the Administrator motion to be viable was abrogated in 1865 with the adoption of the 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The respondent is a bystander in the discovery dispute between Ms. Sykes[1] and the Administrator.

It is respectfully submitted that the Petition of the Administrator to Bar use by respondent of the Testimony of Gloria Sykes reveals that the only action of the respondent in the dispute between Ms. Sykes and the Administrator were the attempts by the respondent to assist the Attorney for the Administrator in reaching an accommodation between her acrimony toward Gloria Sykes. [Ms. Sykes is disclosed by the Administrator as one of his potential witnesses.] The Respondent was not involved in the discovery dispute that is the subject matter of the Motion. It is further respectfully suggested that in the United States of America there is no precedent for any duly constituted judicial body or panel barring an opponent’s witness because a discovery accommodation cannot be accomplished by the petitioner (plaintiff) with a witness. It is respectfully suggested that the inappropriateness of these proceedings, the Administrator’s bias and lack of concern for due process and the Rule of law is evident in the Motion and mandate that the panel re-examine it prior rulings in relation to dismissal of the proceeding.

Under American Law , the respondent has no duty to ‘blackjack’ or intimidate persons who have knowledge of the falsity of the Administrator’s disciplinary complaint to appear for discovery depositions conducted by the Administrator. To require such a duty would be in derogation of the civil and criminal laws of the State of Illinois and the United States of America. Every person, regardless of race, color, National origin, or status in the case of in re: Mary Sykes is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the United States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and the human rights declared by the mesne Nations of the World. There is no exception that reads: “except Kenneth Ditkowsky” or “except the witnesses of Kenneth Ditkowsky” or “except Gloria Sykes.”

It is significant that the Administrator does not seek to enforce the subpoena served on Ms. Sykes, but instead seeks sanctions against the respondent[2] . The Administrator cites no authority for punishing the respondent for his own failure to conduct a meaningful 201(k) conference with Ms. Sykes or his failure to attempt to enforce his subpoena. Rule 219 addresses discovery sanctions and the cases interpreting those cases provide that in order to seek enforcement the petitioner must allege a meaningful attempt to resolve disputes pursuant to Rule 201(k). The draconian sanction against the respondent (who is involved only tangency in this discovery dispute between the petition and a witness who appears on the Administrator’s witness list is directly contrary to the mandate of the Appellate Court of Illinois to wit:

Because the purpose of these sanctions is to effect discovery, rather than to punish the dilatory party (Jones v. Healy (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 255, 52 Ill.Dec. 695, 422 N.E.2d 904), a “just order” under Rule 219(c) is one which, to the degree possible, ensures both the accomplishment of discovery and a trial on the merits (White v. Henrotin Hospital Corp. (1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 1025, 34 Ill.Dec. 349, 398 N.E.2d 24). For these reasons, default judgment or dismissal of the action, being the most drastic sanctions, are ones which courts are reluctant to impose and should be imposed only as a last resort in cases where the actions of the party demonstrate a deliberate, contumacious and unwarranted disregard of *374 the trial court’s authority, all other enforcement powers at the court’s disposal have failed to advance the litigation, and which may be set aside where a trial on the merits could be had without hardship or prejudice. (Kubian, 178 Ill.App.3d at 196-97, 127 Ill.Dec. at 407, 533 N.E.2d at 25.) Martinez v. Pfizer Laboratories Div., 216 Ill. App. 3d 360, 373-74, 576 N.E.2d 311, 320 (1991)

Fairness, which apparently is a foreign word that is unknown in certain legal circles, usually requires that documents and circumstances be reported in context and that completely. It appears that some of Ms. Sykes’ communications have not been submitted as part of documentation. This morning one Ms. Sykes’ e-mails to Ms. Black appeared on the net. It is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.

Wherefore the respondent moves that the Motion of the Petition be denied and that the deposition of Gloria Sykes go ahead as scheduled, to wit: July 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM at the Chicago Holiday Inn and Suites, Chicago, Illinois.

[1] Ms. Sykes is on the Administrator’s witness list, yet the Administrator seeks only to bar the respondent from using her as witness. This conduct is consistent with the Administrator’s ignoring 735 ILCS 110 et seq, The First Amendment, land the recent Alvarez case decided by the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Syke’s testimony is expected to disclose the unusual events that have occurred in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, the unusual conduct of several of the Administrator’s witnesses who apparently claim to be judicial officials, confirm the words and phrases of one of the Judges of the Circuit Court in December 2009 that is most troubling, and the significant facts recited in her affidavit that verifies the respondent’s answer and counterclaim. In addition Ms. Sykes is a signatory on a American Disabilitly Act complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that is consistent with whatever statements the Administrator claims were stated by the respondent pursuant to his First Amendment and Article One rights. Picking a ‘discovery dispute’ with a person on his own witness list and seeking to bar ‘his own witness’ from being called by the respondent is not only a obvious attempt to ‘salt’ the evidence but a further demonstration of the improper conduct that respondent has attempted to have law enforcement honestly, and comprehensively investigate. The Administrator in filing this instant motion places the legal profession is total dispute and demonstrates why there is reputedly a Spanish proverb to the effect that mouse would rather be assigned to a ‘cat’s mouth’ rather than a “lawyer’s care!”

[2] Rule 219 specifically provides that nonparties are subject to discovery sanctions for noncompliance.¹ When faced with a refusal to comply with discovery by a nonparty, the primary sanction available to the trial judge is a finding of civil contempt and a corresponding fine. This sanction is designed to coerce compliance with court orders or subpoenas to testify at depositions.10 Ill. Prac., Civil Discovery § 19:21 (2011)

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: "kenditkowsky@yahoo.com" <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; maria 60 Minutes <lutzenm@cbsnews.com>; Dave Silver Iphone account <dmsilver@me.com>; ARDC springfield <12175222417@myfax.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Lea Black filed a petition to have me banned from testifying because I am an 'uncooperative' witness and 'unneeded' according to her paralegal. This came after I wrote her and asked her to call me on Friday to resolve this matter. I changed all my plans this week in order to testify and Scott holds no weight in this matter.

Ken you suggested I find a hotel and I did. Then Lea Black faxes me a letter she claims she mailed to me on the 16th: I never received such a letter! She then claims she can't fax me, and refuses to e me. She then says that she cannot fax me because it's filled up.

Then she offers me to take the depo at an attorney's office that will allow Shaggy, and since I fear ambushes and with all that Peter Schmeidel,, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, and Deborah Jo Soehlig have been able to accomplish, I asked Mr. Larkin to step in. He refused.

I am scared to death of our Judicial and the Officers of the Court and now the ARDC, who are suppose to protect the public from attorneys such as those I mentioned above. I know that Lea Black needs to have me disqualified or banned as my testimony stands between my mother's life being saved and being slowly murdered by a Probate Division and the officers of the court for greed. Since I cannot afford an attorney in this matter I am pro se, and obviously, Lea Black can get away with 'murder' and ***.

I have jumped through hoops Ken to schedule a convent place as you suggested, and since Hotel's no longer have 'conference rooms' but banquet halls, which I cannot afford. (There are business centers, but not good for meetings). That said, I was going to have the Suite set up as a conference room.

Yes, Lea Black and the ARDC have caused me much pain and suffering and yes they have intimidated me. On Monday they filed a motion to have my testimony banned and this comes after I asked Mr. Larkin to step in and/or Lea Black to call me (pursuant the letter, which I did not have a copy of when I wrote the first letter on Friday). I have filed a complaint with the U.S. Postal inspector for stolen mail, but I did not get this letter of the 16h or any letter from Lea Black. What is evident is that Ms. Black will go to any extent to prevent me from doing this deposition. She and the ARDC do not want the truth and that is a matter of fact. I don't know what to do except to write a letter to the Commissioners and file another affidavit, as now it's understood the questions they asked Scott Evans, who, unfortunately cannot testify to my mother asking for an attorney, the gold and silver coins, or even the Sodini requirements/notices. The ARDC would have to have my Aunt Yo or Aunty Jo or even me testify to that. Had I not been so terrorized by the Probate Division and Peter Schmieel, Deborah Soehlig, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, who area sanctioned by the court to LIE and live above the law, I would have quickly agreed to allowing Ms. Black to arrange for one of her attorney friends offices. As it is, and after yesterday where Toerpe defied the courts instruction and stole all my property, *****.

This is America Ken is it not? I'm not scared to death to come near Chicago and the Crooks of the Court as officers of the court are protected by the ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court to do great harm to innocents. This is witness tampering.

(Apparently and according to Black's paralegal, they're satisfied with Scott Evan's testimony as the only witness in your case Case. Unfortunately, Scott's testimony is simply hearsay, and he cannot testify to mother asking me to find you Ken, mother repeatedly asking for an attorney, any of the digital recordings (including audio recordings of August 2009), or the Sodini requirements. Let this email stand to my testimony that (1) I never received notice of a guardianship proceeding and was in court on the 26 August 2009 I, and mother's sisters, Josephine DePietro, and Yolanda Bakken, (along with family Kathie Bakken and dear friends Scott Evans, Doris Evans, and Suzanne) were in court on the petition for the order of protections authored by and verified by my mother, Mary G. Sykes on June 9, 2009. That on December 10, 2009, without notice, Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent to a petition for a protective order was appointed guardian of Mary G. Sykes (and this was done even though Mary G. Sykes objected profusely to such a guardianship) by an agreement between Toerpe, and attorneys Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga. That even the docket is evidence that there were no notices, which are jurisdictional, and that the order clearly testifies to the 'agreement' between Toerpe, Stern and Farenga. That there is NO ORDER setting a guardianship hearing because there were no 14 day notices. The Petition or the order of protection is still pending and Illinois Statue clearly states that if a 'respondent' to a "petition for an order of protection' is a guardian a 'temporary substitute guardian SHALL be appointed". Given that the court lacks jurisdiction, and that Toerpe is a respondent to not only (now) two petitions for an order of protection, but also a contempt order for not complying with a court order, it is unfair and unreasonable to believe that the ARDC would go to such extremes as to prevent the one testimony that would save my mother's life, but instead, protect the lawless and evilness of attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and Peter Shcmiedel. I don't know how high this 'corruption' goes, but it must be very deep and powerful.

That said, I will not be intimidated and will do what I need to do to testify, Ken. I have that right and you have a right to call me as one of your witnesses. I have cooperated, but Lea Black and the ARDC have done everything to stop and prevent the deposition as they do not want the truth on record. With what happened yesterday, indeed I am scared to death, Ken, that Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga will go to any extreme to cause me pain and suffering for their financial benefits. Lea Black is conveniently not in today and Mr. Larkin has repeatedly redirected

Please advise.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

Mary G Sykes

Pages

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

What exactly IS the definition of theft? LB was asking Scott the other day.

No comments:

Post a Comment