New decision from Ill Supremes – Karbin v. Karbin 2012 IL 112815

Editor's note: Let's hear it for the Supremes.

New decision from Ill Supremes – Karbin v. Karbin 2012 IL 112815


by jmdenison



From: kenneth ditkowsky

Sent: Oct 12, 2012 9:20 AM

To: Michigan Advocacy Project

Cc: Gloria Jean Sykes

Subject: Re: Karbin v Karbin 2012 Il 112815

The Abuses that have occurred in connection with these guardianship cases is outrageous and continues without 'letup.' The potential for abuse by the Karbin decision is monumental; however, the need for honest guardians to have the tools to act in the interests of their wards is also very great. To be very candid, it is my opinion that certain guardians would curl my hair if they had the ability to decide if a particular was in need of a 'haircut!' There other guardians who I would trust with great authority. In the past years dealing with Stern, Farenga, and Schmiedel has been an eye-opener. My respect for the 2nd oldest profession at this point in time is at a nadir.

The tendency is to judge a profession by is lowest common denominator. This is human nature and each of us suffers from the malady. Worse yet the minute we let up our guard, up pops a Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, et al. When I won in the Appellate Court the vacation and reversal (based upon jurisdictional grounds) the sanction award, realizing that I am 'long in the tooth' I offered Stern, and Farenga a pass on the Civil Rights lawsuit that I intended to file. The condition was that they 'do their jobs.' I did not tell them how to do the jobs, all I wanted them to do was to report to the Court honestly and appropriately the claim of the non-inventory of large number of gold coins (Au) and the December emergency room incident in which Mary Sykes had in a very short time by the admitted neglect of the plenary guardian lost 10% of her body weight. This offer was determined by the Mr. Larkin of the ARDC to be intimidation and is part of the ARDC complaint against me. When this and a letter to the United States Attorney General are considered unethical by the State of Illinois ARDC - it is very hard to have any faith in the 2nd oldest profession.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: Michigan Advocacy Project

[MAP relates a story of a black sheep daughter requesting a divorce for her parent who was under a guardianship so she could inherit. I think that’s pretty creepy, but apparently the court agreed to it eventually. Don’t know the case name or cite, it was not passed on.]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM, kenneth ditkowsky wrote:

Depending on your point of view and your confidence in the Judicial process the Illinois Supreme Court handed down a major decision on October 6, 2012.

The Supreme Court over-ruled the case of In re: the Marriage of Drews 115 Ill 2d 201 (1986) and provided that a 'guardian' can now petition the Probate Court to obtain permission to file a divorce action. The Court took this step so as to make certain that an incompetent was not denied his/her privileges and immunities. This right was not 'willy nilly' granted to a guardian. The Court provided that the guardian must make application pursuant to section 11a -17 and prove the this is the best interest for the disabled person by 'clear and convincing evidence.'

If we examine the Sykes case and the application of the standard 'clear and convincing evidence' I do not believe any one of us feels 'warm and fuzzy.' This is a case that is a must read!

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

--jmdenison
October 14, 2012 at 9:41 am
Categories: Uncategorized

Re: NASGA Blog: "Attorney Ken Ditkowsky: The Constitution vs. Whores of Justice"

Re: NASGA Blog: "Attorney Ken Ditkowsky: The Constitution vs. Whores of Justice"


kenneth ditkowsky kenditkowsky@yahoo.com

11:46 AM (17 minutes ago)

This problem is not a game. Everyone can do only what they can do. If people want to blog, or do as little as talk in public about the problem of Elder Abuse, and the Financial Exploitation of the Elderly I applaud their efforts. Everyone who reads Mr Wyman's book is making a statement and is doing something to advance the cause.

It is sophomoric and disingenuous to even suggest that that Courts support the financial exploitation and/or the abuse of the elderly. What the Courts support is independence and the rule of law. The Courts do not take the position that 100% of the people giving their time and self to protect the elderly and those in our society who cannot protect themselves are criminals, miscreants, and abusers. The guardians have a difficult job. They have to navigate through troubled waters and many adverse interests. The interests of the disabled person are most important and has to be protected - even if the family attorns to and recommends actions. The judgment of the fiduciary is done in the clear light of hindsight.

Let me give you an example. A number of years ago, at the request of the family of Mr. W, an attorney agreed to be appointed plenary guardian of the estate. He accepted the assignment, and the first question to be addressed was what should happen to Mr W's house. The family got together and decided that they would like to bring Mr. W home as soon as possible and therefore requested the attorney to neither rent the house or sell it. As luck would have it Mr W's condition got worse and about 18 months later Mr W. died. The attorney filed a final account, and a petition for fees. The Court of its own motion was concerned that for almost two years the house was a liability to the estate and had not yielded a dime of rental. The Court reasoned that as a fiduciary the attorney had the obligation to not dissipate the assets of the Estate. The family, filed a claim against the attorney's bond (as plenary guardian) and the Court approved the award. (I was retained to represent the attorney (plenary guardian) in regard to the claim. The bonding company would pay the estate, but then would - and did - see reimbursement from the attorney's personal assets). The argument that the family had requested and the attorney had attorned to them was rejected by Judge Doddle, and the Appellate Court. The plenary guardian had an independent responsibility to protect the assets of the estate and it was nice that he followed the instructions and wishes of the family, but as his actions were not by the clear light of hindsight in the best interests of the estate, he had to reimburse the estate for the lost revenue.

We want honest, diligent, independent, and intelligent people assuming the 'parens patrie' responsibilities. We do not want 'rubber stamps' and/or miscreants. For this reason the Courts have given the guardians total immunity and encourage their independence. The court also provides the guardians with a 'presumption' that they act within the law and their authority. Thus, there is nothing wrong with Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Judge Connors, Judge Stuart, etc disagreeing with you, me, etc. The wrongful conduct is the not doing their jobs: 1) not reporting to the Court the fact that the Sodini notices were never served, 2) not reporting and not insisting on all the probate court protections for Mary, for you, and all those similarly situated, 3) not reporting suspicious and criminal conduct - the drilling of the safety deposit box, the non-inventory of about a million dollars in assets etc etc. It is my opinion that the non-inventory of assets is 'theft!' It is also my opinion that what has occurred in the Sykes case, Tyler, etc are serious breach of fiduciary relationship and therefore 'taxable events!' The conspiracy to evade United States of America income taxes is a serious matter.

The misconduct that has been exhibited in the Sykes case is documented and overt. In many situations it is less clear and in those cases we need the Court and the guardians to act independently and honestly. It is too bad in Mr. W's estate that the attorney let his judgment be perverted by his friendship with the family - but, as the Appellate Court pointed out he undertook a responsibility and it was his job to protect the ward even if he had to stand alone and take a position that was adverse to everyone else. Obviously, this is not the situation in Sykes but while you and I know it, law enforcement does not. This is the reason that you and I have been calling for an independent , complete, and honest investigation by the States Attorney or other law enforcement agency. (law enforcement should be impressed by the fact that FArenga, Stern, Schmiedel, and the presiding judge are so dead set against any independent or comprehensive investigation - Why? What do they have to hide? What are they all afraid of? Unfortunately you and I know and the potential scandal may cause a population explosion in the prisons.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com