From: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Sent: Jul 31, 2013 10:24 AM
To: "
kenditkowsky@yahoo.com" , "
joanne@denisonlaw.com" , scott evans , Kathy Baakern
Cc: Judy Ditkowsky , Tim Lahrman NASGA , Elaine NAsga , LUCIUS VERENUS , GLD , Annie NASGA
Subject: RE: Fabulous jobs on depositions
Good Morning,
I want to first thank JD for taking the initiative to do these depositions, that should have been taken last year by the IARDC and if they had, there should not have been a complaint filed and the waste of money and time this year against JD. Suffice, let me make myself clear: the world of internet has spurred a whole new form of "journalist" which is the every man and person who witnesses a crime, an incident, a wrongdoing, or even something spectacular. This of course has created either problems for bona fide news gathering teams or, it has helped keep the industry on the straight and narrow. Either way, I do not approve of bloggers, per se, because all too often, he or she puts their spin on the 'situation' or 'issue'. However, in this case the record is clear: I was not served. Josephine Depietro was not served. Yolanda Bakken was not served, and perhaps most important, Mother was not served and my mother is the most important person in the world then, and now. Further, and this explains why there was NEVER (emphasize NEVER) a hearing, and instead, a rush-to appoint Toerpe plenary guardian: Toerpe was initially appointed temporary guardian of my mother in order to protect Mother's assets. (if you recall, in October, Harvey Jack Waller reported to the court that "We just received a package with Mary's name all over it and Gloria stole 1.3 million dollars".) [Yes, a "package of lies"]. I believe the statute reads that within 60 days the Temporary Guardianship ends, therefore, attorneys Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga agreed with Carolyn toerpe that she should be the Plenary Guardian and on December 7, 2009, the Court entered an order. Never mind, that the statute also reads that "within 30 days of filing the Petition for Guardianship" there shall be a hearing. The petition filed on July 20, 2009, two days after Toerpe got Judge Kirby of the Domestic Relations Court to transfer Mother's petition for an order of protection naming Toerpe a known abuser and financial exploiter, and THERE WAS NO GUARDIANSHIP OR DOCKET TO EVEN TRANSFER TO. In other words, Kirby transferred it on July 18, 2009, into a black abyss. The Domestic Relations court scheduled August 26, 2009, for the Petition to be heard. I had a copy of that order and invited Aunts Yo, Jo, Scott, Doris, and others to attend and they did. The Petition on August 26, 2009, although deficient, was void, as it had to be heard on or before the 20th of August 2009!
Are we all on the same page?
Toerpe did not bring Mother to court on the 26 August 2009 and held her hostage at her home in Naperville, where mother was held-up as a security, to, among other criminal acts perpetrated by Toerpe and Waller, for their financial gain. At that time, Toerpe was very aware of the fact that Mother held wealth and Toerpe wanted it all. She also needed to pay Harvey Jack Waller, which she did, without permission to pay, paid him $17,000 cash! This is on Toerpe's 2010 inventory, which, and although I objected, Judge Connors ignored.
THERE WAS NO HEARING TO ADJUDICATE MOTHER INCOMPETENT OR OTHERWISE IN NEED OF A PLENARY OR LIMITED GUARDIAN until 2012, when Toerpe retained Dr. Shaw to testify that it's his "opinion" that in October 2008, mother was incompetent to sign the appropriation agreement in the Lumbermen's case: however, Mother was competent to, among other things, sign the Lumbermen's release form (on the same date) as well as in 2009 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, to discuss with GAl Adam Stern whether she wanted an attorney, whether she wanted to be examined by Dr. Amdur, and most recent, but not limited to, whether she was happy and wanted to stay at the Sunrise Senior Living LLC in Naperville.
All said, for ages news collecting agencies have sent reporters and sketch artists into Courtrooms where cameras are not allowed, to cover various trials. The Reporters are able to bring their notepads, or most recent, their laptops, and in a moment's notice, send back the story(s) to the networks for immediate release. In other words, without a reporter sitting in a courtroom, we would not have gotten, for example, what was going on in the Gov. Blago case. Of course the cameras are set up in the lobby of the courthouse, so when and if available, the attorneys or main players can take an interview, but in all cases, reporters (and now bloggers) report what they heard or quote from court documents they receive(d) during the trial(s). To suggest that reporting what happens during a trial or proceeding, or to report what is quoted from or missing from the verified records, is obscene.
Again, I do not agree with non-trained men and women to report the news as way too often, they do make mistakes, and sometimes the mistakes are extremely harmful, but in those cases, it is not the ARDC who punishes, if applicable, the person. If you recall, the Killian documents controversy, where 60 Minutes presented the documents as authentic. Dan Rather, given misinformation from producer Mary Mapes. The authenticity of the documents were challenged within hours of the broadcast on internet forums and blogs, with questions focusing on alleged anachronisms in the documents typography and content and this soon spread to the mass media. Dan Rather defended the authenticity and his producer: CBS fired Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. Mr. Rather took an early retirement. (This is also why CBS killed our story, because AS, CF, and PS threatened to sue and create the same scenario, claiming that the digital recording of my Mother was fake and ****) Let me also say this, many of the bloggers were attorneys, who, with no dog in the fight, took to the internet and exposed the irregularities of the documents.
The attorneys and all people who blogged were not disbarred or punished: they had a right to speak out and publish their so-called reports. In 2005 it was the Killian Controversy -- today it's the Sykes controversy. No matter the controversy, any person who wants to blog can -- and if like JD has the authentic and verified court records, which she does--can blog as much as she wants. The problem is, law enforcement elect to believe AS, CF, PS et al. rather than the facts as recorded in 14 verified court records of the Sykes case. [But these are the same law enforcement personnel that ask to delete pictures and video thereby engaging in obstruction of justice and witness tampering, spoliation of evidence, etc.]
I The title to the chapter in my book is "The Sykes Documents Controversy".
People, blog away!
Finally, I've contacted the Official Court Reporter's office this morning and spoke to *****, and my first step it to question the court reporter *** as to why she accidently omitted, ignored, intentionally left out, or otherwise edited the court record of June 25, 2013. As there were highly respected and educated court watchers in the Courtroom on this date who recorded and then reported what occurred and what Judge Stuart said, there can be no doubt that highly important directions to Carolyn Toerpe from the Court were omitted from the transcript, including but not limited to the fact that the Court recognized that Toerpe "co-mingled" her funds with that of Mother's money: I await a call back from the Court reporter.
finally, since I read for the first time, yesterday, during the deposition, the answers of Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga and even Peter Schmiedel, let me reiterate this: these attorneys open their mouths and they LIE. The problem is that they have gotten away with these LIES for such a long time, and in fact, they LIED to the US District Court, the US Bankruptcy Court, the FED Court, the Illinois Appellate court and to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and each time they have prevailed in spite of the misinformation and egregious lies. These people are People of The LIES. Because the courts have empowered them, they actually believe each word they utter. It is unfortunate that proverbial and profound LYING has yet to be diagnosed as a mental illness, but it is. Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga have been in the business of financially exploiting the elderly and disabled through guardianships for a very long time: similar to the July 20, 2012 mass shooting inside a Century Movie theater in Aurora Colorado, where James Egan Holmes fulfilled a delusion -- AS, CF, PS, and Carolyn Toerpe are simply fulfilling a delusion.
Finally, all of this is simply a distraction to divert all of our attention away from my Mother, who, is suffering greatly and whose life is being shortened by the minute because the IARDC and law enforcement has refused to act and investigate. If you recall, the beginning of this year, Ms. Blunk, a widow of the movie theater killings, filed a lawsuit against the University of Colorado in Federal court claiming that had the school psychiatrist done her/his job, the slaughter would have been prevented as Holmes would have been detained after he admitted he "fantasized about killing a lot of people". This type of lawsuit had been anticipated in an August 2012 article co-authored by bioethicist Arthur Caplan which discussed the applicability of the landmark California Supreme Court decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) to the facts of the Aurora shooting. This case is applicable here, although I pray daily and often each day, that my mother survives this horrifying ordeal, but should she be murdered because the ILARDC and law enforcement fail to act, knowing the 'facts' as they do, I, and I know other family and friends will move to file a similar suit in Federal Court. All have a good day.
Again, the IARDC, Toerpe, AS, CF, PS have simply distracted you, me, the media, the Courts from the true issue at hand: MARY G. SYKES. We need to be focused. Altered and amended official transcripts are problematic not just for the court reporter, but the Court. Judge Stuart told me when I reported other transcripts altered, edited and amended, and told me that she, as the Judge, had a right to delete narrative from the transcripts.
Healthy Regards,
Gloria Jean Sykes
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.