Re: Department of Justice STatement on Enforcement of the Title II of the ADA

In dealing with government you have to repeat the same steps over and over until they get the picture. Government bureaucrats are trained to:


1) direct you to another department as whatever department that you contacted is the wrong one.

2) tell you that the act does not apply

3) take the matter under advisement

4) lie to you.

However, when and if your particular matter reaches the desk of someone who is under pressure to make some problem go away, until government loses interest in the project you might make some progress. I looked over the complaint form, and was amazed at its simplistic approach. The complaint is designed so that it can be rejected for not providing sufficient information.

The Sykes complaint is really quite simple. Mary Sykes (age 90 plus and suffering from 'old age' maladies such as hearing loss and the strength to physically overpower and resist two guardian ad litem and an alleged abuser, who was appointed as her plenary guardian, was denied her rights as a disabled person because:

1) Her adjudication was done in a manner that was adverse and contrary to the criterion of the Sodini case. Thus, her adjudication was without jurisdiction. (Sodini requires that her close relatives be given prior notice of the hearing for adjudication. This was not done)

2) Mary filed with the Court (and was assisted by a Court intake person) a Petition for a Protective order. This Petition was verified and generated by Court personnel. These personnel (like her treating physician) did not find her to be disabled. In fact, on August 2009 the Court record revealed that even though the petition had been pending the treating doctor continued to refuse the alleged abuser's requests for a medical certification of incompetency. The Petition for a Protective order was and continues to be ignored; However, the alleged abuser was appointed plenary guardian.

3) Two guardian ad litem were appointed and in e-mails received by the younger daughter of Mary there is an admission that they and the applicant for plenary guardian determined that Mary needed the abuser as her plenary guardian - the judge abdicated her responsibility and without a scintilla of medical testimony and without prior notice to the family or making certain that Mary had legal representation appointed the abuser as the plenary guardian.

4) The safeguards of guardianship have been ignored. Guardianship is supposed to provide an aid for a disabled person to live an independent life accompanied by benign assistance of a guardian who takes care of the problems that the disabled person cannot address. In Mary Sykes case it was a total denial of civil rights, to wit;

a) her money and property were confiscated and not inventoried. It has been reported that almost a million dollars in cash, jewelry, gold coins etc has not been inventoried.

b) she has been totally segregated from her friends, her younger daughter, and family who have not turned a blind eye to the isolation and continued abuse of Mary Sykes.

c) she has been denied medical care - in December 2010 Mary suffered a swallowing disorder. She was denied medical care until she lost 10% of her body weight. After this neglect she was taken to the emergency room. State reporting Laws were ignored by the Hospital, Edwards Hospital, the Guardian ad litem (Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga), the plenary guardian (Carolyn Troepe) etc.

The entity causing this discrimination if the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The individuals involved are all Court appointed. This unfortunately is an institutional violation of ADA. In essence it is a nullification of a Federal mandate by the State.

The similarity between Sara's case, Rudy's case, etc is very striking. What you are asking the United States of America to do is to enforce on a non-discriminatory basis ADA addressing the worst offenders who are institutionalizing the violation rather than some inadvertent citizen who does not provide a handicapped bathroom.

As a first principle of the current American society it is unreasonable to suggest that government should prioritize its enforcement efforts in such a way as to address the most serious offenses. It is heresy to suggest that government should get its own house in order! It is a second principle that if you as a government employee makes waves you will shortly no longer be a government employee!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Editor's note: Mr. Ditkowsky, Absolutely brilliant! Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com