Calls on Gloria to do the right thing and file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit

Apparently Gloria has some reservations regarding filing the Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit, even though it is very necessary and inimical to the proper administration of justice in Mary Sykes’ Guardianship case.
In this case Ken is encouraging her to use my draft or write her own–neither will matter.
Of course, those of you that know Gloria, know that she believes she must put per personality into any writing, so let’s see what she comes up with.

It’s okay to be better than me, Gloria!  I don’t mind.
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky

Gloria rewrite the motion but file it.  …[edited for extraneous information]

Let us get on the next step:

“The Sodini notices were never served on my Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, or me, and at no time was there a scheduled guardianship hearing: Carolyn Toerpe was appointed guardian based on an agreement between her and Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern:: my mother was not present, but when she was present in court, she objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga when asked admitted my mother objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga also admitted my mother had not been served the 14 day notice: this acknowledgement was faxed to Judge Cnnors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”

I understand that the guardianship hearing was dated December 2009  - there is a gap between August and December.

The usual procedure is that when you file the original petition, there is a hearing date set.  This is the reason that the Court has ignored the oral statements and avoided the Sodini issues.    The movant then and there serves a copy of the petition on the alleged incompetent and the close relatives.   (this passes the test of Sodini).   A hearing is held on the date that is scheduled or on a subsequent continuance date.

In the Sykes case, the ccp 211 was not filed with the petition and no hearing date could be set and apparently none was set.   The petition did not disclose the close relatives and therefore was also defective.   The entire guardianship scam was intended to avoid for Carolyn an embarassment of a protective order and most importantly the return of the funds and property from the safety deposit box.   In fact Carolyn did not desire a hearing and when she placed the petition for service on Mary she intentionally gave a cook county address knowing that she had taken Mary to live with her in DuPage County.

In late August 2009 the Court was getting impatient with the fact that there had been no CCP 211 filed rather than dismissing the proceeding did something very strange.   She asked Carolyn’s attorney as to the lack of a certificate of incompetency.  She was told by Carolyn’s attorney that Mary’s doctor refused to sign.   Then our ‘unbiased judge’ made the famous statement to the effect that Carolyn ought to go out an find a doctor who was willing to prostitute himself. (Of course she did not use those words – but the meaning was clear!)

Immediately thereafter Mary was bench served.   I have assumed that the bench server duly read her all the statements required, including the fact that she was entitled to a lawyer.    Mary requested a lawyer – however, GAL Adam Stern thwarted that effort! GAL Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn’s lawyer were upset that Gloria might use the Lumberman settlement to help her mother and therefore the TRO fiasco was successfully commenced and Gloria’s rights were violated.

Mr. Schmiedel disclosed these facts to a judge, who just ignored them.  Mr. Stern attempted to avoid the issue entirely by a bold assertion that Gloria (and/or her attorney) had agreed to the guardianship of Carolyn.   Gloria cut him a new GM with her outrage at the alleged frugality with the truth.   However the fact remains that Mary was denied a hearing by the agreement of GAL Adam Stern, GAL Cynthia Farenga, and Carolyn.    |

As I understand it these are the facts!   Gloria if they are true let us bring them to Circuit Court’s attention and move to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.   Then, move forward with appropriate lawsuits to 1) obtain the work product stolen from you during the forcible entry and detainer action, 2) obtain remediation for interference with you repairs to you home, etc etc.

This case has gone on long enough.   We have called for a law enforcement investigation as the civil rights of everyone are being abused when a Court continues to enter orders without jurisdiction.   What is occurring in the Sykes case is the nadir of the jurisprudence and is rightly called the “SON OF GREYLORD!”

Gloria  - or anyone else – correct any of the facts that I have wrong.  Farenga claims “truth” is on her side.   OK when were the notices sent out?   When were they received?   When was the hearing held?   Who was present?   Who testified?  Ms. Black in the Request to Admit denied that a hearing was not held?   The docket does not show a hearing and no one seems to know about it other than Ms. Black. Maybe the Sodini compliance’s were all accomplished in a parallel reality – how do be access that reality?

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Result of Appeal of Sanction award against Kenneth Ditkowsky for attempting investigation of the Mary Sykes matter.

As you are aware, when I was engaged by the Friends and family of Mary Sykes to investigate the unusual circumstances that surrounded her being isolated (by Court order) and her assets being removed from her possession, I ran into a ‘fire storm.’ The promulgators were the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian. Well knowing that if my investigation of what appeared to be gross ‘elder abuse’ and unconscionable financial exploitation of Mary Sykes was unethical under the rules that govern the practice of law in Illinois then the place to bring a request for an inquiry was the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission.

Mr. Stern, Ms Farenga, and Mr. Schmiedel however filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County a Motion to sanction me in what was in my opinion a blatant attempt to intimidate me and end my investigation. The fact that Illinois Statutes 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (Citizen Participation Act) prohibits the very conduct that was being perpetrated against me was of no concern to anyone, least of all the Circuit Court. Most seriously the Court and the Court appointed guardians were totally disinterested in the fact that there were protections afforded Mary Sykes that had been ignored. The Appellate Court had previously ruled that these basic protections were ‘jurisdictional.’

When the Circuit Court rejected my arguments that it lacked jurisdiction on several basis, the Court awarded almost $5000.00 in sanctions against me. I took an appeal and then did a more comprehensive investigation as to why there should an effort to prevent me from doing the due diligence that Supreme Court Rule 137 , and FRCP 11 mandated as necessary before an attorney can agree to becoming engaged in litigation. I soon found out! The tip of the iceberg was the fact that Mary Sykes owned a safety deposit box and therein were fungible ‘gold (Au) coins,’ fungible United States Dollars, ‘ jewelry, and other valuables. Today with the rise in the value of gold it is estimated that the ‘loot’ had a street value of more than a million dollars.

My appeal addressed two major legal concepts. 1) the sanction motion was brought under Supreme Court Rule 137 which was directed at false pleadings filed in pending court proceedings, and 2) jurisdiction. As I was at best a stranger to Mary’s estate litigation, until I filed an appearance for someone the Court lacked jurisdiction over me. I had not done so – all I did was start the inquiry process. In addition, it appeared to me that the Court was over-reaching in its claim of any jurisdiction. The case of In re: Sodini required that Mary be protected from a ‘railroad job!’ The statute required that 14 days notice to close relatives. Mr. Schmiedel is not shy in admitting that no notice was given to close relatives! Sodini points out that the failure to give this notice is not a casual requirement that can be ignored – it is jurisdictional. Thus, without the Sodini notice it is respectfully suggested the guardians are acting without Court authority. The judge sitting on the bench may be wearing a ‘robe’ but the judge might just as well be sitting his/her basement dispensing justice to the neighborhood children – the proceeding without jurisdiction has not binding force and effect.

Unfortunately, the Appellate Court was not interested in the more sophisticated jurisdictional deficiency. (It would have been a surprise if it had been). However, even though all that would have to be done would be for the plenary guardian (or the GALs) to request a proper hearing and give the close relatives 14 day notice the Court would have been clothe with jurisdiction and then *****. It is respectfully suggested that Stern, Farenga, and Schmiedel were interested in thwarting my investigation because it was reasonable to assume that a scintilla of due diligence would unearth this jurisdictional deficiency.

As the Courts appear to not be interested in addressing in the Sykes case the Sodini issues, the sanction award was vacated upon the more basic jurisdictional deficiency – I was and always have been a stranger to the Mary Sykes case. Thus, I am not subject to Court sanctions. That is not to say that the Supreme Court of Illinois will not investigate to determine if questioning the conduct of such august persons as Farenga, Stern, Troepe, and Schmiedel is unethical – Indeed, the ARDC is investigating me! All of the above persons have been reported to have made frantic pleas to the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission to investigate me! It is interesting that no investigation is going on to ascertain why the plenary guardian denies Mary Sykes visitation with her (Mary's) siblings, her younger daughter, her friends, her neighbors. Indeed there is no investigation in the 'looting' of the safety deposit box, etc. The investigation is whether on not is it unethical to inquire as to the foregoing!

All that said, as the guardians have discovered even a cloutless attorney with a neighborhood office has ‘teeth!’ The sanction motion is ‘garden variety’ malicious prosecution. 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (Citizen Participation Act) provides a State of Illinois claim to sue to recover the lost remuneration, anxiety, etc that I suffered as the result of the sanction motion. 42 USCA 1983 provides a remedy to sue in the Federal Court based upon the fact that Mr. Stern and Mr. Schmiedel (and possibly Farenga) used their office to attempt to deny me my First Amendment Rights. (Right of Association).

All that said, I would trade these causes of action for Justice for Mary Sykes. All that is required is for Mr. Stern, and Ms. Farenga to do their jobs. Turning a blind eye to the financial exploitation, spoliation of evidence, isolation and abuse of Mary Sykes may be the MO that is the current vogue, but Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes are innocents – the fact that Mary Sykes has a few coins (worth a million plus dollars) should not be the focus – the focus should be honesty, honor, integrity, and good will toward all men.

This is the Christmas Season. America needs a Christmas present – giving Mary Sykes back her life and whatever property that has not been dissipated would be ‘good start!’

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Allegations of Drugging

From Ken Ditkowsky, an Illinois Licensed attorney:

Please Note:

One of the facts that I did not stress in my letter to the Illinois Department of Aging that supplements the ignored complaint that Mary Sykes personally filed and the Petition for a Protective order that was never heard, and the various cries of help that she uttered is the fact of the alleged drugging of Mary Sykes.

It has been alleged by family members that on one or more of the rare occasions that they had contact with Mary that she had been drugged. The family members investigated the drugs and discovered that amongst the side affects that were published were effects that mirrored the diagnosis that was published by the guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian. They have however provided no medical information to back up their diagnosis. I do not consider a diagnosis by a doctor who did not physically examine Mary Sykes to be valid or informative. I also suggest that any physican who relies on a history advanced by the alleged abuser - who claimed to be a PhD - having put the letters phd after her signature - to be suspect.

Thus, when a wellness check is done - especially of a woman who has had multiple trips to the emergency room - and virtually none prior to being placed in the custody of a person who she (Mary Sykes) accused in a Petition for a Protective order - a drug test should be done to make certain that the check is not compromised by drugging.

Let me make this very clear. Elder abuse and Financial exploitation is a serious business. Serve and Protect mean exactly that! Jerry Sandusky targeted childen and exposed the Paterno Syndrome of ineffective CYA law enforcement that has been demonstrated as equally applicable to the Mary Sykes case and literally hundreds of other guardian abuse cases across the fruited plain. Now that the 'dirty secret' is out it is time for Law enforcement to redeem itself and earn back the respect of the public. The tea party, the occupiers, and others have demonstrated that the American public is 'fed up' with unresponsive ineffective expensive government replete with a credo of Ignoring substance in favor of 'good form' and meaningless words!

The drugging of the elderly is not a new thing - it is just so reprehensible that the fact slipped my mind. I apologize for not mentioning this unconscionable tact in my previous communication. Anyone who would deny a mother communication with her children and her siblings is a monster! Any public official who would attorn and aid and abet such a situation is a charter member of American branch of the National Socialist Party. Democracy is not a spectator sport, and if we are not diligent in its defense we will lose it.

Happy Thanksgiving -