This is what happens when Justice comes “from a list”

This is what happens when Justice comes “from a list”

by jmdenison



Dear Readers;

This is in response to my assertions that Mary should not have to continually beg and plead for an attorney to get one, or make a complete stink, that she should be allowed to see her former attorney Ken Ditkowsky freely, that he should be allowed to help her and the Probate Court's assertions that a Probate Judge, such as the august Judge Connors requires that a ward "really need" an attorney then she would appoint one. Of course, the GAL's are appointed "from a list", any independent counsel, if some ward really made a stink and it somehow got back, would not have their counsel of choice, but would have someone appointed "from a list"--which does absolutely no good, may as well have two GAL's, oh that right, that already happened-- and Judge Stuart's assertions before a tribunal and Adam Stern's that a ward cannot contract for an attorney is absolutely not supported by the case law. Of course, they're both "from a list."

Further, court supervisors are appointed "from a list" and are not chosen for their thriftiness, nor do they work for free, as here where the court has taken away all of the other daughter's money, and the GAL's threaten family members they cannot see Mary if they don't tow the line.

The court is "from a list", the GAL's are "from a list", anyone who speaks out if there is something wrong will require a supervisor "from a list" and you can't get independent counsel because they won't be "from a list".

But the $1 million is well documented, not investigated and everyone "from the list" sticks together to deny an elder of her life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights--clearly those must only come "from a list."

Read on for further ideas from KDD.

JoAnne

Now, from Ken:

The probate act is intended to be non-adversarial. In other words, the community is intended to come together to protect the elderly, the lame, the sick, and all who are unable in one way or another to help themselves. The intentions of the act are good. The history of the act goes back to basic Judio/Christian dogma.

The idea of fiefdom for any individual is alien and the idea that the civil rights of an individual would be forfeit by the Act is heresy. Unfortunately, the GAO report, the Sykes case and the others related thereto,i.e. Gore, Tyler, etc illustrate the avarice is a cancer that has pervaded the best of intentions. The idea that is advanced by Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al that these guardianship proceedings are 'secret' rituals to be closely supervised by the elite (obviously themselves) is nothing short of pornographic. 755 ILCS 11a -18 makes it clear that if a guardian is to appointed the guardian does not have carte blanche - the guardian is an 'angel' whose appointment is intended to carry out the wishes of the ward in the highest fiduciary manner possible.

As Mr. Stern testified - the guardian is given absolute discretion to govern the life of the ward, including but not limited to isolating the ward (elder abuse) from family friends, willy nilly making the assets of the estate vanish, and punishing the 'Gloria Sykes'' who oppose the arbitrary governance of the ward's estate.

The letter of NASGA to Judge Stuart that called attention to infamy that was being perpetrated in the Sykes case should have been welcomed by the Court and an immediate investigation should have followed. The idea of ignoring the citizen report was and is intolerable. Persons paid by the public are not anointed. The are not better than the rest of us peons. The government employee whether a judge, a guardian ad litem, etc is a 'public trust' and impacts a duty. The fact that Farenga, who ignored her duty repeatedly, made denials that Carolyn had sequestered and ignored not inventorying approximately a million dollars in collectibles (Au Coins), when Carolyn has not denied the same is obscene. The fact that Farenga and Stern knew that Carolyn was drilling the safety deposit box and could not be bothered to find out what was in the box is equally obscene; however, to not report the allegation to the Court and suggest that the allegation is imaginary when both neglected to observe or properly call for an investigation is pernicious. I do not have to state what I think of the attempts to deny First Amendment rights and to silence the protest of the alleged "theft" and the what followed.

In these cases in which a senior citizens rights, privileges and immunities are compromised (and in many cases forfeited) the failure of a Court to give credence to all public protestations of possible corruption is reprehensible. The attempts at 'cover up' are intolerable and require law enforcement at all levels to conduct 'honest', comprehensive, and complete investigations instanter. Justice Marshall, and Lord Mansfield are turning over in their graves! Buck vs. Bell and Dred Scott are alive and well in the Probate Division. Shame!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/