Citizen Participation Act (SLAPP) 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq.

Citizen Participation Act (SLAPP) 735 ILCS 110/1

As we discussed last night on "Cooper's Corner North Shore Live" cable TV, in cases in which the New National Socialists feel the way to address investigations into conduct in guardianship cases (such as Sykes)


if pursuant to the protections of the SLAPP statute 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. As you aware, an attempt has been made to silence me and thwart my representation of the interests of my clients i.e. the friends and family of Mary Sykes.

The policy of the State of Illinois is reiterated in Section 5. The Constitutional Rights of my clients and I are intended by the State to be protected. They therefore have set forth a credo and a remedy. Unfortunately the Probate Judge was not interested in hearing about the Citizen Participation Act (SLAPP) 735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. and I will have to address this matter in the Appellate Court. This has to this date been the pattern of the Sykes case and it will probably continue. However, that said, the cases are being to flow.

Just for the record it is my position that the (Sykes) GALs motion for sanctions against me was brought to silence my clients and me and to punish us for enjoying our Constitutional Rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why else would a GAL be concerned that I was conducting my FRCP 11 investigation? Why else would the GAL not furnish me a copy his report or assist me in conducting my examination so that I could report to my clients and if everything was indeed Kosher mollify them? [What frightened the GAL so badly by my benign letter that he wrote not once but several times to the Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission (according to his time record) to complain about my making inquiry from Mary's treating doctor? This was the same treating doctor who refused to certify Mary as incompetent)]

There are two cases that anyone who feels his/her Constitutional Rights were thwarted by the a 'legal action' promulgated by a plenary guardian or a GAL should read. We as citizens have an absolute right to address our greivances in the Court and to have a 'level playing field.' A Guardian ad litem is not appointed to discriminate or guide the deprivation of a senior citizen's rights - the GAL is the 'eyes and ears' of the Court. The Court is delegated the responsibility to protect the senior and mininize the deprivation, if any. The first case is Shoreline Towers v. Debra Gassman. 3010 WL 3834520. The second case is reproduced below.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/


Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

Editor's Note:  Links to complete caselaw will be available on this posting soon.