"How can a person who in 2009 passes a test administrated by the Illinois Secretary of State have Dementia? "

The question submitted by Mr. Schultz is retorical. A person legitimately in need of a guardian could not pass the driving test administered by the Secretary of State. Mary Sykes passed the written test! Ergo, she was competent and should never have been adjudicated. Mary did one more thing - she went to the Court and with the help of Court employees filled out, verified, and file a Petition for an order of protection. If Mary was incompetent the Court employees had a duty to help her by reporting the matter to the Illinois Department on Aging. They did not do so, and therefore it is clear that this is another coffin nail. But lets go one step further. Dr. Patel who was treating Mary refused to certify her as being incompetent.


This is the dirty little secret at the heart of the ARDC complaints and the attempt to silence both you and me. The suspected avarice of the guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian was so highly developed that they have mustered all their clout to attempt to silence the call for an independent investigation and/or they having to place of record the continued elder abuse in the form of isolation and the financial exploitation.

what has happened in the Sykes is exactly what the 735 IlCS 110 was designed to prevent - i.e. the filing of ARDC complaints,lawsuits and/or frivilous sanction motions designed to stop public inquiry and demands for an independent investigation of what is clearly miscreant conduct.

The Probate Act is replete with protections designed to prevent what has happened in Sykes, Tyler, et al For instance, prior to a petition for a person to be adjudicated incompetent the applicant (CT) must name and serve the close relatives 14 days prior to the hearing. This is jurisdictional. (Sodini). Thus, we have a second dirty little secret as this also was not done.

One of the 'beefs' with the legal system has been the fact that expert witnesses have been known to testify in Court proceedings and one expert will testify that the moon is made of green cheese and the other will testify that it is made of jello and a third will testify to something entirely different. The August 2009 hearing before Judge Connors is very interesting in that regard. It is a must read.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com