Questions to the GAL's from Ken Ditkowsky

JoAnn,

Thank you for posting these videos. I understand that the two guardian ad litem have seen them and that they have been from time to time displayed; however, for some reason they were not publicly disclosed to the probate court judges, the ARDC etc.

In light of the continuing elder abuse and financial exploitation that has been reported concerning Mary Sykes, and what appears to be the refusal of the three guardians to allow anything but severely censored material out concerning Mary, and the pattern of intimidation promulgated by the guardians that has permeated the Sykes case using the tactic that was successful in bringing down oppressive governments (posting on the internet) I am asking that everyone who can send copies of these videos to law enforcement. We need to have the following questions answered:

1) Why has Mary Sykes been isolated from family, friends, and her activities? In particular what possible justification was there for the guardians not allowing her sister (aged 80) and her younger daughter contact with Mary? Why the complete segregration of Mary from her friends and activities?

2) Why were these videos not openly submitted to the Court by the GALs? In particular, how could the GALs stand by and say nothing as Mary wrote letters requesting legal representation and while the plenary guardian openly did the acts that Mary sought an order of protection to protect herself? Why did the GALs not insist on a hearing on the petition for an order of protection? Why did the GALs join with the plenary guardian to attempt to intimidate me with a extra-jurisdictional sanction motion? Why did the GALs act to sanction me when they knew that the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with my investigation? Ditto for JoAnn.

3) Why have the GALs and the Court not requested the plenary guardian to disclose the contents of the safety deposit boxes that plenary guardian entered and removed the contents. In open Court Mary 's sister disclosed that the box contained substantial gold coins. The gold coins have a value of between 1500 to 3000 dollars each!

4) What have the GALs allowed the travisty that is occurring in reference to Gloria Sykes property? They certainly are aware that the allegations of Mary Sykes incompetency is very very questionable in light of the contents of the tape, the participation of court personnel in assisting in the preparation and filing of the petition for the order of protection, Mary's treating doctor's refusal to sign the certification of incompetence, the plenary guardians false claim to be a PhD, the allegations of Mary being drugged, the affidavit of the attorney who participated in the Lumberman's case etc?

The questions go on and on - the real question that everyone is asking? "Why does our society tolerate sworn officers of the Court not doing the job that they sought and obtained appointment? Why the complacency? By spreading these tapes as wide a possible no one with the power or authority to protect the dissipation of an older person's rights can say that they have not seen the tapes and are ignorant to the problem of Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation. A side effect is that the two GALs (why are there two?) cannot suppress or misrepresent the true state of affairs!

JoAnne thank you for making this opportunity available. Mr. Larry Chambers (lawoffice5940@yahoo.com) of my office is the contact person - he will forward the tapes to everyone in sight.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Legal Disclaimer--
Although this is obvious, no person in this blog has been accused of any wrongdoing, crime or even arrested unless stated otherwise from a website reporting actual arrests and convictions. We are stating our opinions and we have the right to do this. Only the particular author is responsible for his or her content. (So don’t blame me if you dislike some posts from someone else).  This site is newsworthy because it is picked up automatically by many other blogs and is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution and violations will be taken seriously with charges under the Illinois Citizens Participation Act.  We ARE participating in government here–we are lawyers trying to make a difference to make things better for grandma and grandpa.  We don’t care how much money you’re making–directly or indirectly from Probate or a nursing home or home health care wired-in business.  Do yourself a favor and get a different job, it’s not worth it.

Statute of Uses and Conflict of Interest for Plenary Guardian Carolyn Toerpe

The following is an email that Atty Ken Ditkowsky agreed to post with some explanation of the facts to new readers:

Background (by JMD):

In 2005, Mary was taken by her daughter Carolyn to an attorney to change her Will and Power of Attorney which a Power of Attorney for Health Care and Property was granted to Carolyn. The other younger daughter, Gloria, did not know about this until after she and her mother returned from a vacation trip in 2010 and noticed that keys to their safe deposit box were missing, and the staff at the local bank informed them that Carolyn had the box drilled out, without permission, while both of them were gone. Now, since Gloria's name was on the safe deposit box, the bank should have required written permission from Gloria, but that was never done. Carolyn knew Gloria's name was on the safe deposit box. A trust document was created which purportedly transferred title from Mary Sykes to a Trust wherein Mary Sykes was the trustor, trustee AND beneficiary. There was an approximate $150,000 mortgage on Mary's home.

From Ken:

Let us go over the facts. The house owned by Mary had a mortgage on it that had a due on sale cause in the Chain of title. Carolyn to obtain a benefit for herself, induced her mother to sign a Deed in Trust that violated the due on sale clause. This document was intended to be deceptive in that in the early pages of the document that Mr. Stern provided, the Deed in Trust purports to divide the subject real estate equally, yet later on it attempts to portray the entire property being given to Carolyn.

Now add up the facts: 1) Mary with the aid of Court personnel prepared a petition for a protective order against Carolyn. 2) Carolyn obtained a power of attorney, but never filed the appropriate accountings even though she raided the Safety Deposit Box. 3) Carolyn took without authorization $4000.00 that she claimed that she was using to allegedly "create an IRA account" - this precipitated Mary going to the Courthouse.

4) The petition for an order of protection was sidetracked by the agreed order promulgated by the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian. (I believe that at that point in time Schmiedel had replaced Waller). The document that Stern provided does not have a document number or time stamp. When did Carolyn file the Deed in Trust?

It is my opinion that the Deed in Trust violates the Statute of Uses and therefore transfers the property right back to Mary. The net is that Carolyn has no authority to institute the forcible entry and detainer action against Gloria. The net also is that this document (furnished by Stern) is strong evidence of misconduct on the part of the plenary guardian.

Stern's furnishing the document and correcting Schmiedel's misstatment as to the disposition of the petition for an order of protection is a positive. I understand he arranged one of the rare Christmas contacts for Mary's siblings. His complains about your blog however are a negative. There has been so little reported that is positive concerning Stern, it is a pleasure to be able to say something nice. It is possible by highly improbable that he is going to surprise us by revealing to the Court the fact that Carolyn has not been candid with the Court as to the assets of the disabled person's estate and she has a real conflict of interest - i.e. does she foster her own interests or that of the estate. The expectation the either Farenga or Stern would do anything that was not in the best interests of Carolyn is 'slim and none.' As a lawyer, Stern is supposed to be familiar with the Statute of Uses.

I copied Stern on this e-mail because I do not want him to suggest at some later date that it never occurred to him that the Statute of Uses would apply and that ****.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Additional note from JMD: At the time the $4,000 was removed from Mary's account without permission, Carolyn claimed it was for an "IRA" or retirement fund for Mary. This is despite the fact that in 2009 Mary was 90 and ineligible for any retirement fund with any tax or other benefits.
Further, at the very last hearing, Gloria brought up the fact with Judge Stuart that Carolyn should not be guardian because she was the Respondent to an Order for Protection and that was against Illinois state law. Judge Stuart responded, "wasn't that heard earlier in this case" to which Mr. Stern admitted, "no it wasn't." Judge Stuart then indicated she would not entertain and was interested or concerned about the fact that Carolyn Toerpe was, and still is, the respondent to a Motion for a Protective Order! Certainly the court personnel helping Mary would not have filed the Petition if they felt Mary was incompetent or suffered from dementia, they would have brought it to the attention of the court.

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

A letter from Gloria Sykes regarding her mother

From Gloria J Sykes:

Dear All,

My mother is the most amazing woman in the world. We played miniature golf (in February, 2011) and she completed 16 holes before she got "dizzy". I learned the PG gave her a "late breakfast" -- so at 2:30, unbeknownst to me she was in need of some protein. Nothing around, i bought her a sorbet with fresh blueberries and we shared it. She went back and we completed three more holes and my sister was waiting, watching, about 50 feet away. My cousin Debbie, who had it not been for her, the visit would never had happened, took a couple of pictures of us (I guess AS didn't tell her about the court order) and **** What I remember most is how mom was in awe... being able to feel free, around people she loved, and people she didn't know, but people active and having fun. There was a family playing before us, and the father/husband, tried hard, but couldn't break 4 - 6 strokes before getting the ball in the hole. His wife wasn't that must better, but at one point we went before them to complete the course. And I watched him watch mother play. One whole she landed the ball in the hole in three shots, and the other hole, well it was considered a hole in one -- and mom won a free game at the course. The man walked over to my mother to congratulate her, "Will you teach me how to golf?" he asked her. Mom's eyes were wide opened, she felt important, good and told him she was 92 years old.

We talked about Julie Smith, mom's long time friend and mom asked, "Are the gals getting together soon...Do you think you could put together a visit with the gals at the garden club?" I asked Kathie to see what she could do. I told mom my friend asked me to come to Greece and she replied, "you have to fly to get there.... oooooh." Mom said she didn't like to fly and she recalled a simulator we had experienced.. which brought back good memories with Daddy, and Kristin when she was about 8 or so.

At one point a little boy walked by mom carrying a golf club, and mom laughed and smiled, "Look at that little guy..."

She reminded me of a wrongfully imprisoned person who upon release, is cautious, subdue, and wide-eyed: look how much I've missed. She definitely showed signs of isolation, and gaslighting. But she enjoyed herself and before i had to turn her over to Debby to connect with the PG, mom asked me which home she was going to. I said in a cherry voice, "you will be with Carolyn now" and mom said, "I'm so confused....where are you living now?" I told her in Norwood Park, Chicago, and she sighed. I smiled and said, "Everything will be okay." and she said, "As long as it's a good outcome." and then kissed me and said, "As long as we have our health, we can do anything." I wanted to just grab her and run, but I hugged her and kissed her and told her how much I love her and that I am always there for her." She told me that she loves me very much too, and I thought she was going to cry, so I kissed her again, and said goodbye and walked away. I didn't turn back. I didn't want to watch her or see the PG. I walked fast and thought it all to be so unbelievable. How could anybody do this to a beautiful and amazing woman like my Mother.

It took me 30 minutes longer to arrive today: my navigator look me the wrong way (go figure) and the PG wouldn't give me a few minutes more. It was like a lockdown at a prison...

I didn't say see you later, or I'll talk to you tomorrow, because I don't know if I'll see her ever again or talk to her again. Debbie will give a good report and like all the other good reports, the person witnessing our love and friendship, the kindness and love between mother and daughter, are told they can't supervise any more.

There is no dementia; Mom isn't seriously demented as Adam Stern, the GAL, told Judge Stuart; and I don't agitate her. She is agitated because when she sees me she wants to know when she can go home. She desperately wants to go home and quietly live out her days with me. What there is, however, is a woman who has given up and realizes she has no rights or control over her life-- and she's resolved that it is what it is.

So hug the person you love, and remember that in a wink of an eye, a nod, or a signature on a dotted line, that person can be taken away from you and you'll never see them again...

I am blessed that my cousin Debbie gave up her afternoon and played miniature golf with us.

I saw my Mother two more times: she played winning hands of canasta and we went for a long walk, and both times she didn't want to return to Toerpe's home. She asked Debbie if "Carolyn was going to sell [her] home from under [her]?" and asked Debbie to help stop Carolyn. That was in March 2011. Toerpe is not only selling Mother's home from under her, Toerpe stopped all communications between Mother and me after Debbie told GAL Adam Stern what mother asked. We think that in American this activity should not happen, but it does, so it's foolish of me to rant about how wrong it is, because it is. What I know is that Carolyn Toerpe, through her counsel Fischel and Kahn, (Peter Schmiedel, et al), and TWO GALs, Cynthia Feranga and Adam Stern, have lied to FOUR courts -- Probate, Forcible Eviction and Detainer, U. S. Bankruptcy, and the U.S. District Courts-- in order to get the Judges to rule to their benefit and it's all about money. The lives of HUMAN BEINGS are irrelevant. Cynthia Feranga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, are attorneys who should not practice law, but practice how to survive wearing orange jump suits in FEDERAL PRISONS for standing idly by when the following was occurring: obstruction of justice, abuse of process, spoilation of evidence, malicious prosecution, financial exploitation, and isolating my mother, allegedly drugging her, and neglecting her medically, socially and emotionally, causing a slow death -- and ultimately MURDER is the next step. Yes, as soon as they get rid of me they will assuredly MURDER my mother through over-or under-medication, suffocation, or feeding her high levels of sugar. That said, Probate Courts are Courts of Pre-meditative sanctioned murder and the Sykes case is a good sample of just how far attorneys like Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, Harvey Jack Waller, and Adam Stern will go for money. Of course, by 'agreeing' to appoint my sister, Carolyn Torepe, the known and named respondent to a petition of a protective order, they agreed to do Toerpe's dirty work against our mother and me, in order to get paid. Yep, again... I sincerely believe Toerpe told them that if they got ride of me, they froze my accounts, pauperized me and hopefully the stress would kill me, too, they would get paid handsomely. That was back in in and around June 2009, after mother filed a verified petition for an order of protection to stop Toerpe from doing exactly what Judge Connors and now Judge Jane Louise Stuart has rubber stamped.

FYI after I complained about Judge Connors, she was spontaneously promoted to the Appellate Court where she now seeks to retain her seat on the bench.

Any help anybody can give us by republishing this open letter is a blessing. All my Mother wants for Christmas is to be able to return to her home. Help me stop Toerpe and Company from selling Mother's home, isolating her and returning Mother home for Christmas. Saving my Mother's life will save the lives of millions of seniors and disabled people, Happy Holidays.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.