Showing posts with label Jerome Larkin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jerome Larkin. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

A short course on guardianship appointment and service

A short course on guardianship appointment and service
By 
 
Editors' Note: This article is the second in what is hoped to be a series of articles written by government lawyers with expertise in an area of law in which family and friends often pose questions. We welcome additional articles in this regard.
In a previous article, I reviewed advanced directives and how they may be utilized.* This article will look at what happens when a person has deteriorated to the point that he or she does not have the capacity to execute an advanced directive or never had capacity. As discussed in my previous article, medical decisions may be made for a person lacking capacity under the Health Care Surrogate Act. 755 ILCS 40/1 et seq. Under that Act, a surrogate may not address non-medical decisions such as where the person will live, how his or her funds will be spent and who may see the individual's records. For decisions in those areas and many others, a guardian must be appointed.
Terminology
In this article I will examine the process of appointing a guardian, focusing on the differences from other civil actions. I will then look at how a guardian performs his or her duties. First, though, a couple of terms you will see in this article should be explained. The term "alleged disabled person" designates those persons who are believed to be incapable of making decisions and those persons who are subject to guardianship proceedings until the permanent guardian has been appointed. As used in the Probate Act of 1975, the phrase "disabled person" refers to:
a person 18 years or older who (a) because of mental deterioration or physical incapacity is not fully able to manage his person or estate, or (b) is a person with mental illness or a person with a developmental disability and who because of his mental illness or developmental disability is not fully able to manage his person or estate, or (c) because of gambling, idleness, debauchery or excessive use of intoxicants or drugs, so spends or wastes his estate as to expose himself or his family to want or suffering. 755 ILCS 5/11a-2.
Once a permanent guardian has been appointed, the person is called a "ward." In some older files you may see the term "conservator," the person appointed to make decisions regarding the ward's property. Under current Illinois law, the Probate Act of 1975 refers to that person as the "guardian of the estate" or "estate guardian." 755 ILCS 5/11a-18.
The appointment of a guardian
All guardianship proceedings are actions before the circuit court. Forms necessary to establish a guardianship are available in every circuit clerk's office. The forms for guardianship cases are somewhat specialized and general civil forms would be difficult to modify. The Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education has published a QuickGuide on guardianship with forms included and will publish a more extensive volume of guardianship and mental health law next year.
To initiate a guardianship proceeding, it is necessary to prepare and file a petition, accompanied by a physician's report, a guardianship summons and an Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem. The petition contains the allegations that must be pleaded for the appointment of a guardian. 755 ILCS 5/11a-8. Unlike most petitions or complaints, the Petition for Adjudication of Disability and Appointment of Guardian must also list the nearest known relatives and close friends of the alleged disabled person, an estimate of the alleged disabled person's assets, both real and personal, and the alleged disabled person's estimated annual income. The petitioner usually nominates the person he or she thinks should serve as guardian in the petition. In most cases, the nominated person will be a relative or friend of the alleged disabled person. They know him or her best and in theory would be best able to decide matters as the alleged disabled person would want. The statutory requirements for who may serve as a guardian are not very rigid. The guardian must be at least 18 years of age, not suffer from a mental defect, be a resident of the United States and not be a convicted felon. 755 ILCS 5/11a-5. The requirement that the guardian of the estate had to be a resident of Illinois was removed from the statute.
If there are no willing or suitable family or friends to serve, then other options for the guardian must be explored. There are, throughout Illinois, local voluntary organizations that serve as guardians. The best way to find such organizations would be to contact the circuit clerk's office, probate division. Each county also has a public guardian that handles cases where estates are larger than $25,000. The activity level of the public guardian varies according to local custom and the willingness of the public guardian. For more on the pubic guardians, please review article 13 of the Probate Act. 755 ILCS 5/13-1 et seq.
For cases where the estate of the alleged disabled person is less that $25,000, the State of Illinois has established the Office of State Guardian, a part of the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission. 20 ILCS 3955/1 et seq. This writer is an attorney for the Office of State Guardian. The Office of State Guardian serves as guardian of last resort, accepting an appointment only when no other suitable guardian can be found. To refer cases to the Office of State Guardian you may contact its intake office at (866) 274-8023. The Intake Office can also provide the name and contact information for your county public guardian. More information on the Office of the State Guardian and on guardianship in general may be found on the agency's Web site: <http://gac. state.il.us/>.
If the estate of the alleged disabled person is very large, the petitioner may wish to appoint a bank or other financial institution as guardian of the estate. Such an institution may be better positioned to invest and manage large sums of money. The guardian of the estate and the guardian of the person do not need to be the same person or entity. A bank may be willing to serve as guardian of the estate but unwilling to handle the duties of a guardian of the person. Another person or entity may be appointed guardian of the person.
A physician's report should be filed with the circuit clerk at the same time the guardianship petition is filed. 755 ILCS 5/11a-9. This report, usually in the form of an affidavit, is a functional assessment of the abilities of the alleged disabled person and his or her abilities to make decisions. As the name implies, the report must be signed by at least one physician who has examined the alleged disabled person within three months of the date the petition is filed. If for some reason the report cannot be obtained, such as if the alleged disabled person refuses to see a doctor, then the petitioner may file his or her petition and request that the court order that the alleged disabled person submit to an examination.
A guardian ad litem (GAL) will be appointed at the time of the filing of the petition or soon thereafter. 755 ILCS 11a-10(a). A written order for the appointment needs to be prepared and presented by the petitioner. How the GAL is chosen is a matter of local practice. Some counties maintain a list and the GAL is whoever is next on the list. In other counties the judge appoints the GAL and attempts to choose so the burden is evenly spread. In still other counties, the same person serves in almost all cases. You should consult with the circuit clerk or the judge's office to determine how the GAL is selected in the particular county.
The circuit clerk will issue a summons after the petition is filed. 755 ILCS 5/11a-10(e). Unlike a summons used in most civil matters, the summons for guardianship will name a date and time certain for return. How that date and time are chosen is a matter of local custom. Many counties have regular walk-in times where uncontested guardianship cases may be presented. The petitioner may choose one of those regularly scheduled times that will allow time for the sheriff to serve the summons on the alleged disabled person (14 days notice, not the more familiar 30 days on most civil summonses, required before the hearing in guardianship cases). In other counties, the judge will want to set the matter on his or her calendar for hearing. Unlike other summonses, those used in guardianship cases must list the name and telephone number of the judge who will hear the case. Finally, the summons must have a statement of the rights of the alleged disabled person in guardianship matters. The rights are:
1. You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
2. You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the judge.
3. You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
4. You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
5. You have the right to ask the judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
6. You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
7. You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to be your guardian.
In addition to the alleged disabled person, those listed as family and friends of the alleged disabled person in the petition, as well as the proposed guardian, if the guardian is to be someone other than the petitioner, must receive 14 days written notice of the date and time of the hearing. Failure to provide notice is a jurisdictional flaw that will render the order void. 755 ILCS 5/11a-10(f); Seibold v. Schulte, 195 Ill. App. 3d 891(5th Dist. 1990); Wright v. Carley, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1055 (4th Dist. 1988).
Where there is a need for immediate protection of the alleged disabled person or his or her estate from harm during the period of time between the filing of the petition and the date of the hearing, a petition for the appointment of a temporary guardian may be filed. 755 ILCS 5/11a-4. The filing of the petition for temporary guardian is usually done at the same time as the filing of the petition for a permanent guardian. The petition for a temporary guardian may be presented to the judge immediately after filing and an order may be entered on such notice as the court directs. In most cases, no notice is given to the alleged disabled person. Hasse v. Arbor of Itasca, Inc., 327 Ill. App. 3d 1057 (2nd Dist. 2002). The order appointing a temporary guardian must state the actual harm identified by the court as necessitating the need for the appointment. The order must also innumerate the specific powers that the temporary guardian may exercise. The term of the temporary guardian is no longer than 60 days or until the appointment of the permanent guardian and may not be extended. Meanwhile, the process toward a hearing on the petition for permanent guardian continues.
Prior to the hearing for the appointment of a permanent guardian, the GAL must visit the alleged disabled person and inform him or her about his or her rights during the guardianship process and the contents of the guardianship petition. The GAL should also talk to the alleged disabled person and those who are familiar with his or her condition to determine both the appropriateness of the guardianship and the alleged disabled person's view on whether a guardian should be appointed and, if so, who that guardian should be. The GAL must then prepare a written report of his or her actions and findings and file it with the court. The GAL should also appear at the time of the hearing to elaborate on the report if the court desires further information.
If the alleged disabled person disagrees with the appointment of a guardian, then independent counsel should be appointed to represent the alleged disabled person at the guardianship hearing. In the past, the GAL often served in that capacity but changes in the law have made that a more neutral role. In consultation with the independent counsel, the alleged disabled person may demand an independent medical examination and trial by a six-person jury. The decision to exercise the right to independent examination and trial by jury are matters of trial strategy and must be considered carefully. It is not uncommon for the independent medical examiner to agree that the alleged disabled person is in need of a guardian. Having the alleged disabled person's own physician make that recommendation would, of course, be very detrimental to the position of one contesting the appointment. Likewise, citizens who are called to serve as jurors may not be as accustomed to seeing unique characters as would a judge who sees them every day in court. If the alleged disabled person would not present well to a jury or has a unique lifestyle, it may be wiser to try the case before the judge alone.
Most guardianship hearings, however, are uncontested affairs that take place with the parties gathered at the bench. If the alleged disabled person does not object to the appointment or is in such a condition that he or she is unable to object, many courts will not require that witnesses be called. The judge makes his or her decision based upon the statements of the attorneys, the report of the GAL and the physician's report. If witnesses are required, the testimony is often limited, involving the observed activity of the alleged disabled person tending to show that the alleged disabled person is unable to make decisions for himself or herself.
After the hearing, the jury, or in a bench trial, the judge, will make a determination of whether a guardian should be appointed, and if there is to be a guardian, who that guardian should be. The alleged disabled person has the right to make his or her wishes known as to who should serve, but ultimately the decision on who should be appointed guardian is made by the judge based on what is in the best interest of the disabled person. 755 ILCS 5/11a-8(d). It is not uncommon in cases where the alleged disabled person has been abused or exploited, either physically or financially, for the alleged disabled person to choose his or her abuser as the guardian. Obviously, such an appointment would not be in the alleged disabled person's best interest. At times, even well meaning individuals may not be appropriate if it does not appear they have the ability to carry out their duties. 755 ILCS 5/11a-12(d).
The written order issued by the court must give the factual basis for the need to appoint a guardian. The order will also state whether the ward is in need of a guardian of the person, of the estate or of both. The order should indicate whether the guardian will be limited, granting the guardian the authority to make some but not all of the decisions for the ward, or plenary, where the guardian has all of the power that can be exercised by a guardian on behalf of another. 755 ILCS 5/11a-12. If the guardian is someone other than the Office of State Guardian or the public guardian, the order must specifically provide for residential placement if the guardian is to have that power. 755 ILCS 5/11a-14.1.
After the order is entered, the guardian will have to file an oath of office agreeing to accept the case and promising to carry out his or her duties faithfully. If appointed guardian of the estate, the guardian will also be required to file a satisfactory bond. 755 ILCS 5/12-2. The amount of the bond is twice the value of the personal property if personal sureties are used, and 11⁄2 times the personal property if a commercial bond is obtained. Additional amounts may be added by the court where the real estate of the ward is under the control of the guardian. The judge must approve the bond. Many circuit clerks' offices have a form oath and bond combining the two documents.
After the oath and bond are filed, the circuit clerk will issue letters of office to the guardian and will provide the guardian with certified copies of the letters of office. It is the letters of office that the guardian will show as proof of appointment. At times, a bank or other entity dealing with the guardian may require that the letters of office be recertified to demonstrate that the guardianship is still in effect. The guardian will then have to contact the circuit clerk and ask the clerk to sign, date and seal the bottom certificate form on the letters of office.
If sufficient, the estate of the ward is required to pay for the costs of bringing a guardianship case, including the fees of the GAL and of the independent counsel. If the estate of the ward is not sufficient, it becomes the obligation of the petitioner to pay those costs. 755 ILCS 5/11a-10(c).
The guardian's duties
So the guardian is appointed. Now what? How is the guardian to go about his or her duties? The section of the Probate Act dealing with the guardianship is thin, only a few pages in length. Moreover, the case law is scant, usually addressing a particular circumstance or event. Some of the direction that is provided often seems contradictory and confusing. The powers of a guardian are great. A plenary guardian will make decisions concerning nearly every aspect of the ward's life. Often, however, the guardian must look at what is provided in the statutes and the case law and attempt to extrapolate how he or she should make a particular decision. When in doubt about a crucial issue, the guardian may return to court and seek its advice on how to deal with a particular situation.
Guardians are required to make their decisions, whenever possible, based on substituted judgment: to take what the guardian knows of the ward, his or her beliefs and attitudes, and attempt to make the decision the ward would have made if he or she was capable of doing so. When the guardian is unable to determine what the ward would want, the guardian must make his or her decision based on what is in the ward's best interest. What would a reasonable person do if required to make the decision? 755 ILCS 5/11a-17(e). Neither of these standards is wholly satisfying. It is impossible to truly know what a person would want or what is in the ward's best interest in a particular circumstance. But at least this instruction gives the guardian a framework upon which he or she can begin to make decisions.
Guardian of the person
As the name implies, the guardian of the person makes personal decisions for the ward. Section 11a-17 of the Probate Act provides general instructions for the guardian of the person. 755 ILCS 5/11a-17. The grant of statutory authority includes medical decisions, from minor first aid to end-of-life decisions. As was noted in the previous article on advanced directives, the guardian of the person is the first person listed on the hierarchy of surrogates under the Health Care Surrogate Act. 755 ILCS 40/25. Thus, some minor care decisions may be made in advance with directions to the caregivers.
The guardian of the person also makes decisions on where a ward will live, if that authority is specifically granted in the court's order. The guardian must take into account the ward's preferences but may have to decide contrary to those preferences where the ward's wishes have a reasonable certainty to result in harm to the ward or his or her estate. The guardian should look to what is the least restrictive placement for the ward that provides for his or her needs. The guardian of the person may, but is not required to, provide personal care for the ward. It is not required that the ward live with the guardian. A guardian is a decision-maker. It may often be the case that others, community providers, nursing home staff, or others, provide the actual care.
The guardian of the person also has access to all of the records of the ward. The guardian may review the ward's medical or facility chart and may be asked to authorize the sharing of that information as is necessary for the benefit of the ward. This is often required where a ward sees several doctors or information from a doctor needs to be provided to the ward's residence so that the doctor's orders may be carried out.
The case law setting out the extent of a guardian of the person's authority may be summarized as follows:
• The guardian may not consent to psychotropic medication or elecotroconvulsive therapy over the objection of the ward. Such decisions may only be made pursuant to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1). In re Austin, 245 Ill. App. 3d 1042 (4th Dist. 1993).
• The guardian may not place a ward in a mental health facility or in a specialized portion of a nursing home or other facility specializing in the care of persons with mental illness. In re Gardner, 121 Ill. App. 3d 7 (4th Dist. 1984); Muellner v. Blessing Hospital, 335 Ill. App. 3d 1079 (4th Dist. 2002).
• The guardian may not bring an action for divorce on behalf of a ward. In re Marriage of Drews, 115 Ill. 2d 201 (1986). But a guardian may maintain an action for divorce filed by the ward when he or she was able to do so. 755 ILCS 5/11a-17 (a-5); In re Marriage of Burgess, 189 Ill 2d 270 (2000). The question of what is the guardian's authority to consent to or prevent marriage is not yet settled. Pape v. Byrd, 145 Ill. 2d 13 (1991).
• A guardian may consent to an abortion on behalf of a ward. Jolivet v. Chuhak, 134 Ill. App. 3d 788 (1st Dist 1985).
• A guardian may not remove driving privileges. Thompson v. Patner, 186 Ill. App. 3d 874 (1st Dist. 1989).
The guardian is required to make periodic reports to the court on the progress of the ward and his or her circumstances. Usually these reports are required annually. 755 ILCS 5/11a-17(b). Forms for making the report may be found on the Illinois Guardianship Commission Web site http://gac.state.il.us/ under "Legal Forms You Can Use." The guardian of the person can serve as representative payee for Social Security benefits. Some pensions and annuities will also pay to a guardian of the person or in accordance with the guardian's directions. Some investigation of these issues prior to appointment may eliminate the need for a guardian of the estate and the requirements that come with that office.
Guardian of the estate
The guardian of the estate is charged with the prudent management of the ward's property, both real and personal. Section 11a-18 of the Probate Act provides general instructions to the guardian of the estate. 755 ILCS 5/11a-18. The guardian of the estate begins his or her service with the filing of an inventory. 755 ILCS 5/14-1. The inventory is a listing of all of the assets in the ward's estate on the date that the guardian of the estate is appointed. The inventory must be filed within the first 60 days after appointment. The guardian of the estate is a fiduciary. He or she is required to care for the ward's estate to maximize the benefit to the ward.
One of the most important things a guardian of the estate should do after appointment is to set up a separate account to manage the assets of the ward. The most frequent error that people make as the guardian of the estate is to commingle the guardian's personal funds with those of the ward's estate. To some extent, commingling of funds may feel natural to the guardian. This is especially true when the ward is a family member and lives with the guardian. All of the household money goes into an account and is used to pay the bills of the household. However, the guardian of the estate is required to account for all of his or her actions. An accounting must be filed on the first anniversary of appointment and then at least every three years thereafter. An accounting must also be filed at the close of the estate. 755 ILCS 5/24-11. In this accounting, the guardian of the estate must be able to demonstrate how each asset of the estate and every item of income has been expended for the benefit of the ward. Any remaining funds are shown and form the beginning balance for the next accounting. If the guardian has commingled personal funds with those of the ward, it is nearly impossible to demonstrate which expenditures were made for the ward's benefit and which for the guardian's. The guardian of the estate may be required by the court to reimburse those funds that he or she cannot document as having gone to the ward's benefit. It is still possible for the estate of the ward to pay a portion of the guardian's household expenses. The ward is using items just like other members of the residence. The guardian can use the ward's funds to pay certain bills while using their own funds to pay others. At accounting time, the guardian will then be able to show where the funds of the ward went specifically. If the division of the bills appears to be fair, the courts generally do not have a problem with such an arrangement.
With the approval of the court, the guardian of the estate may be required to sell real and personal property of the ward in order to meet the ward's needs. Procedures for the sale of real estate are found in article 20 of the Probate Act. 755 ILCS 5/20-1 et seq. Those for the sale of personal property are found in article 19 of the Probate Act. 755 ILCS 5/19-1 et seq.
Inability of the guardian to serve
Another area of concern is what to do if the guardian becomes temporarily or permanently unable to serve. If the guardian is unable to carry out his or her duties for a brief period of time, such as if the guardian becomes ill or is going to be away for a time on business or vacation, the statutes provide for the appointment of a short-term guardian. A form for the appointment of a short-term guardian is set forth in the Probate Act. 755 ILCS 5/11a-3.2. The form may also be found on the Illinois Guardianship Commission Web sitehttp://gac.state.il.us/under "Legal Forms You Can Use."
Short-term guardian
A short-term guardian may serve no more than 60 days in any 12-month period. Appointment of the short-term guardian does not require court action. The ward's views on the person to serve as short-term guardian must be taken into consideration. If the ward objects to the person who has been appointed, the ward may request that the court terminate the short-term guardian. 755 ILCS 5/11a-18.3(a). The short-term guardian has all of the powers of the permanent guardian of the person, unless that authority is limited in the appointing instrument. The authority of the short-term guardian over the estate of the ward is limited to the collection of public benefits such as Social Security funds. 755 ILCS 5/11a-18.3(b).
Standby guardian
To plan for the possible death or incapacity of the permanent guardian, the Probate Code provides for a standby guardian. Again, a form is provided in the statutes and may be found on the Illinois Guardianship Commission Web site under "Legal Forms You Can Use." The form designating a standby guardian may be filed with the court either at the time the permanent guardian is appointed or a later date. The court appoints the standby guardian. The standby guardian has no duties until he or she is notified of the death or disability of the permanent guardian. At that time, the standby guardian steps into the shoes of the permanent guardian. The standby guardian has authority to act for up to 60 days. During that period, he or she may file a petition with the court asking to be appointed as permanent guardian. 755 ILCS 11a-18.2.
Successor guardian
The Probate Act also provides for the nomination of a successor guardian by the permanent guardian in his or her last will and testament. The nominated person is a testamentary guardian. 755 ILCS 5/11a-16. Unlike the standby guardian, the testamentary guardian has no authority to act on behalf of the ward until he or she appears in court and is appointed successor guardian. If no successor is named in either the guardian's last will and testament or by appointing a standby guardian, then any interested person may file a simple petition detailing the permanent guardian's inability to serve and the ward's continuing need for a guardian. 755 ILCS 5/11a-15. The court will usually appoint a successor guardian with little delay. The benefit of the standby guardian is that there is no gap in guardianship for the ward. The standby guardian serves essentially like a temporary guardian during that period of time between the death or disability of the permanent guardian and the appointment of a successor.
So now we have learned about advanced directives and the guardianship process. I encourage others of you who have expertise in common areas of the law to take the time to write an article so that other government attorneys may benefit from your knowledge.
_______________
*See "A Short Course on Advanced Directives," ISBA's Committee on Government Lawyers newsletter, August 2003, Vol. 5,
The statute and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b  brings the guardianship act into compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and limits who may be placed under a guardianship and the extent of the guardianship.
 
Terrorist Jerome Larkin and his merry band of 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators knew or should have known of the requirements of the Statute.    Judge M. Connors, the presiding judge in the Sykes case 09 P 4585 should have also known the requirements of the statute.    Each of the attorneys involved in the Sykes case and Gore also should have been cognizant of the Statute and its requirements.   How then did this article and the statute escape notice?    IT DID NOT!
 
A conscious and nefarious pattern of conduct was promulgated in the CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS to enrich a group of corrupt public officials, health care providers, judges and attorneys to isolate selected seniors so that their estates could be redistributed in the hands of more deserving individuals.    The targeted seniors were to be isolated, placed into guardianships that removed them from humanity, their prior lives, and contact with anyone who might interfere with the embezzlement of the estate.      A small cadre of judges were recruited to administer the 18 USCA 371 conspiracy and the criminal enterprise.    Avenues for dissent, exposure, and/or remedy were thwarted.   Jerome Larkin, Lea Black *** and other attorneys at the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission were recruited to silence any public or attorney dissent.      Family members who felt aggrieved would be discouraged and attorneys who had the temerity to object or file Rule 8.3 objections would face severe disciplinary action.   After-all complaining that a Judge engaged in a conspiracy to defraud a senior citizen disparaged the reputation of the judge, especially if the charge was true.    As Ms. Black explained Operation Greylord had the deleterious effect of causing the public to hold the score of judges plus in disrepute.   The IARDC did not want corruption to be so openly exposed again.
 
On the Probate Sharks and the MaryGSykes Blog the Sykes and Gore cases are discussed and detailed.   NASGA site also contains details of these cases and others.     So far, even though on page 91 of her deposition Judge Connors admits that she was wired, and in the JoAnne Denison current proceedings before the Illinois Supreme Court Larkin and the IARDC admit to serious ethically and legally challenged conduct – such as embezzlement of public funds to pay illegal charges and serious misrepresentation to the Supreme Court of Illinois – law enforcement has turned a blind eye and the fraud continues.
 
This corruption of the legal system is the functional equivalent of tossing a bomb in a crowded theater.    Not only has it undermined the legal system and its escape value function, but it has destroyed the lives of innocent citizens.    Yes, Mary Sykes and Alice Gore were old!    Every citizen, young and old is entitled to equal protection of the law.    They and their families are entitled to be safe and no victims of government funded predators.         An elderly person should not be placed in fear to open her mouth, lest M****   **** or some other guardian ad litem might observe there are a few grains of gold in her filings that might bring a few dollars.       An elderly person should according to the ADA be entitled to reasonable accommodation so that he/she because of the infirmity of age continue to enjoy the fruits of America and not fear that government might enter the picture and warehouse you so that a nursing home operator or a hospice provider can purchase a new yacht or a congressman.    The fear of being shot by a crazed gunman is no less a reality than being doped out of your mind in the nursing home of a wealthy predator.
 
When Beverly Cooper asked one of the cadre of Nursing home operators who are infamous in the Chicago area, how he squares his highly publicized religiosity with his exploitation and abuse of Alice Gore, his answer was:  “Because I can!”
 
I pray that these e-mails will induce law enforcement officers who have moral compasses to help us change the answer to – YOU CAN NOT!  
 

Friday, July 15, 2016

Fraud, deception, and extortion have replaced honor, honesty, and truth at the Courthouse.

Fraud, deception, and extortion have replaced honor, honesty, and truth at the Courthouse.   The Alice Gore case grinds at the core of American justice - HOW COULD ANY HUMAN BEING be so cruel as to harvest the few grains of gold in a elderly person's mouth for profit.   Yet that is exactly what was done by a honored guardian ad litem under the supervision of a Circuit Court Judge.   This is exactly the conduct condoned by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission administered by Jerome Larkin.    The miscreants are not even embarrassed by their perfidy and the cover-up.

If Alice Gore were the only case covered up by the Larkin co-conspirators the cover-up would stip be wrapped in infamy - BUT, the policy of the Illinois courts is to foster more and greater infamous outrages.   No dishonor is too dishonorable for the IARDC and Larkin to engage in, foster, nurture or otherwise demonstrate their approval concerning.    The documents that are attached to this e-mail and to the filings in case Mr 27522 and/or 2013 PR 0001 should be sufficient proof to cause the States Attorney of Cook County and the United States of America to take a long look at Jerome Larkin, the IARDC, and all the co-conspirators including the corrupt attorneys, members of the various kangaroo hearing and review boards, and corrupt judges who aided and abetted the 18 USCA 371 criminal conspiracy. 

There is absolutely no excuse for Larkin's conduct, stalling, and theft of public funds.   Larkin as a lawyer is supposed to know the law and to be aware that under section 13 of the Court reporter act it is illegal to pay unlicensed court reporters.    He of course was aware that unlicensed court reporters would be more apt to go along with his subordination of perjury  (See Gloria Sykes chaining and intimidation).    

No matter where you turn you hear cries of 'fix!'   No level of government appears to be immune from severe corruption and the political and judicial elite being immune to the RULE OF LAW.     It may not be practical or even possible to bring honesty, honor, integrity and truth back to National politics, but,  not only is Jerome Larkin expendible, but he has personal liability for the taxes, interest, and penalties associated with his 18 UsCA 371 conspiratorial conduct.    At the very least, the Attorney General seek the civil collection of the interest, taxes and penalties for every dime stolen from the elderly and every dime stolen from the public trust funds that are manatorially paid by the legal profession to support the IARDC.    

Thursday, July 14, 2016

The battle lines have been drawn

 

Inbox
x

kenneth ditkowsky

12:52 PM (17 hours ago)
 
The battle lines have been drawn.   If you are exposing corruption of the privileged political and judicial elite you are "toast!"   No matter where you turn there is an concerted effort to abrogate the core values of America and in particular the First Amendment.

In Florida the Helen Stone case is a beacon of horror.   The extra-judicial judicial treatment of Barbara Stone sands as hallmark of corruption.     Dr. Sugar is now under attack again as he stands up against the illegal guardianships for profit that are so lucrative to Florida judicial miscreants.  Apparently, Dr. Sugar is making headway.   Mrs. Smith had to fight off a guardian and a court the found that her objection to the exploitation of Col Smith warranted the annulment of her marriage.   Mrs. W objected to a guardian seizing her personal monies.  The Circuit Court saw nothing wrong with a confiscation penalty being imposed.  The Appellate Court reversed, so the trial court just assessed the confiscation penalty as the guardian's attorney fees.

In Illinois we have Jerome Larkin totally lawless misconduct and precedent.    Indeed, Larkin usurped the Illinois Constitution and the US Constitution by ruling that it was not unethical to harvest the gold in Alice Gore's mouth, the million dollars of gold coins in Mary Sykes' safety deposit box, *****, but it was ethically challenged to make the same public in the MaryGSykes blog.    He described the disclosure of Judicial corruption and in particular giving public the information as to where to find the evidence of Judicial corruption as akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.    (in particular, at page 91 of her evidence deposition Judge Connors admitted to being 'fixed' and or "wired"  - and in the unaltered transcript of Judge Stuart's testimony she admits to perjury)    Indeed, so necessary to the quest to destroy America's First Amendment and Right of Free Speech that even the Supreme Court of Illinois is apparently willing to look the other way and allow Larkin to misuse public funds (embezzlement) to pay unlicensed court reporters for their 'services rendered' even though the Illinois Legislature in paragraph 13 of the Court reporter licensing Act prohibits such activity.    

I do not know if any of the other claims as to similar action are accurate, but a full court press is in full force and effect to protect the business of elder cleansing, to wit: isolation of the elderly so that a guardian can be appointed to with corrupt Court supervision individual elderly can be stripped of their liberty, their property, their humanity and every dollar that they saved or amassed in their lifetime.   (The Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 is a text book example of exactly how the dastardly deed is done)       
 


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 11:44 AM
Subject: Senate Democrats Attack Our Free Speech

Dear Reader,
You may not have seen it atop the headlines this week, but a group of 19 Democratic Senators have spent the past two nights publicly shaming and threatening The Franklin Center and dozens of other taxpayer groups. Due to policy differences, they are waging an ideologically-motivated scare campaign designed to silence anyone who disagrees with them, and mocking our “so-called” commitment to government and public integrity.
In other words, we’re on their “enemies list.”
The Senators’ message to Franklin Center and our allies is simple: fold - don’t offer counterarguments to a Big Government agenda, don’t engage in meaningful public debates, don’t resist any legal witch hunts into your organization. This is the last thing we need in today’s polarized political climate.
As this incident reminds us, the Franklin Center is not without its critics (we wouldn’t be doing our jobs if we didn’t make people in government angry from time to time), but we would never begrudge them the right to disagree with us and share their side of the story. If Sheldon Whitehouse, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, and their other 16 cohorts in the Senate want to dispute our reporting, they should do it with arguments and facts, not legal intimidation tactics that verge on outright tyranny.
It doesn’t matter what position you take on the policy in question here. We must defend the underlying principle that every American has the right to support causes he or she believes in. It’s not the government’s job to monitor the private opinions of regular citizens by keeping tabs on what groups you or I support.
In Liberty,
Nicole Neily
President
Follow Franklin Center on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube!                   1 2 3 
This message was intended for: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
You were added to the system January 9, 2015. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

Friday, July 1, 2016

response to one of your recent letters




From: j. d.
To: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:36 PM
Subject: response to one of your recent letters

Jerome Larkin, Director of the Illinois Attorney Registration and
Discipline Commission, has formerly charged Jo Anne Denison for the
printed copy of the entire contents of her blogs (marysykes.com), which
were inadmissible as testimony at her hearing before the IARDC, as they
had to be displayed in the original form, and which were downloaded by a
company which is noted for piracy and pornography,  AND the transcripts
of her hearings before the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline
Commission, which were recorded by a(n) unregistered court reporter. 
Both of these were totally unethical actions. The second action went
directly counter to Illinois State Statute. The Illinois Supreme Court
dismissed Mrs. Denison's motion to void these charges.  Since a Supreme
Court has to be presumed to know the law, this in effects VOIDS ALL
professional registrations, including those of attorneys, teachers,
doctors, etc.

OR, more likely, includes the Illinois State Supreme Court as a
co-conspirator in the machinations of Court Appointed Guardians. who
have deprived their wards of their civil rights to the least restrictive
guardianships, and control of their property, access to unprivileged
members of their families, even when they were housed in institutions
which by law are required to allow access of family members, and
contributed to their illnesses and untimely deaths, the court
proceedings in these cases having been published in the above mentioned
blog.  Freedom of the Press of blogs has been guaranteed by Federal
Law.  Certainly commentary on court proceedings is covered under the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Sawyer Case of
the late 1940's, and all of the recent First Amendment Cases including
Alvarez and Citizens United, but not limited to same.

It is believed Federal Taxes have not been paid on the illicit gains of
all Guardians and Judicial Appointers of such guardians who have taken
no action to restrain said Guardians from their appropriation of
sometimes very sizeable estates for their own use.  It is known that
both Judge Kawamoto and Judge Stewart were forced to retire to safeguard
their pensions because of their bad actions in such guardianship cases. 
It is said that both also moved out of Illinois in order to avoid
further judicial action. ((Note that a Supreme Court Chief Justice of
the State of Indiana who also was involved in illegal gains involving
guardianship was forced to resign within the past several years because
of his action involving an ADA case: the elderly are also covered by the
Americans With Disability Act.)

Please take the appropriate actions to make sure that Jerome Larkin pays
the full extent of his Federal Income Taxes owed in consequence of his
misuse of his power as the Director  of the IARDC and that
investigations of all the Judges and Guardians involved in the
violations of the Americans With Disability Act through inadmissible
restrictions of the civil rights, freedoms and even life of the Elderly
with improperly granted and administered guardianships in Illinois and
the many other states of the United States of America which also have
permitted and continue to permit impermissible guardianships.

Thank you.

Judith Ditkowsky


Letter submitted on the Contact Loretta Lynch form at
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice


on June 30, 2016, Thursday, June 30, 2016 1L35 on CDT

Monday, June 27, 2016

This should tell you something!

  


Sunday morning I turned one of the Sunday political shows and watched as Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager was being interviewed.     The interview drew me back to the answers that we received in the elder cleansing schedule and the attorney disciplinary proceedings.     In the disciplinary proceedings the standard answer was to change the subject or object to the question.    In this interview the interviewer would ask:   What foreign policy victories occurred during Hillary Clinton’s watch as Secret of State?   The answer was Donald Trump is unfit to be president.    What did Hillary Clinton do when ****?   Donald Trump is rude, crude, and does not brush his teeth regularly.
 
Brexit is an amazing rejection of exactly that type of disrespect to the intelligence of the public, and the primary victories of Sanders and Trump echo the absolute disgust of the public as to the suggestion that we are too stupid to know when we are being disrespected.     The interviewer of the Clinton Campaign manager was all too happy to accept the non-answers, but, I personally was repelled.      I really want to know what, if any, victories Clinton can claim as I wanted to know what statements that I made, JoAnne made, Amu made **** that were untrue.    So far every statement that I made or JoAnne made is verified in the Court files maintained by the Circuit Court of Cook County.   Barring those files from evidence does not make them untrue and as Larkin and the disciplinary board have the burden of proof it is more than a mystery to ascertain how without evidence they proved anything.       Of course we know!        The commission asserted that the jurisdictional requirement of notice was not necessary as the family of Mary Sykes (as an example) had knowledge of the date and time of a hearing in some undisclosed manner.    Indeed, as there was no hearing held,  whatever soothsayer consulted by the hearing board secretly to ascertain this averred knowledge is a bit frugal with the truth.     (The commission had to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence – and apparently was able to prove the same without a single witness or a single word being uttered)
 
The vacuum of evidence or answers to specific questions is troubling both in the political field and the down to earth field of judicial corruption.      Donald Trump having bad breath is not answer to the question as to what, if anything, Hillary accomplished as Secretary of State.      We all know that during her watch ISIS gained a strong foothold in Northern Africa,  Egypt almost went down the drain as the Muslim brotherhood gained control, Syria and Russia united to fight the rebels and ISIS went from second string terrorists to be major players.     Maybe this is considered by her advocates to be a good thing.     Indeed, in a similar intellectual endeavor when Lanre Amu complained that Judge Egan even though on the Board of Directors of the defendant in his case refused to recuse herself  (and her brother was the attorney for the defendant) Mr. Larkin and the Disciplinary commission determined that Amu was lying and unethical.   Without a scintilla of evidence or a single witness the Illinois Supreme Court suspended him for the outrage.    Even the respected Crain’s Chicago business report making the very same allegations did not merit even a suspicion that not only did Larkin and the disciplinary Commission were less than candid.     (exactly how Larkin proved any wrongdoing on the part of Amu with the Judge testifying and denying that she was on the board of directors of the defendant is another one of those unsolved mysteries – that parallels our understanding how the rise of 2nd string ISIS (or ISIL) is a victory for American foreign policy.
 
A Yale professor and a General speaking for the Administration have been very clear in telling the American people that we are stupid and thus we are pawns for the taking.         Let me assure you all that we are not!     It may take quite an effort to over-come the advantage of the political and judicial elite but IT WILL OCCUR.       None of the elite believed that 52% of the Brits would vote to get the hell out of the Euromarket and the bureaucratic hell that it created, but they did it.    It is not pretty, but it was done.   
 
Quite frankly most of us do not give the tinker’s damn who become the next president of the United States as we do not trust either one of the candidates; however,  most of us resent the condescension.      We do however care that our Courts are a fixed or wired lottery and they have stopped working.    We resent that we are ‘prey’ for the corrupt judges, lawyers, judicial officials and host of political elite.     The idea that when we become infirm we could be elder cleansed is disquieting and most disturbing.   The fact that the Attorney Disciplinary Commissions are set up to protect the miscreants from law enforcement and citizens who are aggrieved is an accurate but disconcerting thought.  
 
The fact has to be accepted that the media is disinterested in elderly and the disabled in this country and co-operating with the miscreant elder cleansers who isolate their prey, obtain guardians for them and their assets and rob the elderly of their homes, assets, property, liberty and humanity before they euthanize them.       This is the same media that accepts the answer to the question – what plan does Hillary have to deal with the economy -  “Donald Trump is unfit to be the President o f the United States”      It is time for some ‘straight answers’ and equal protection of the law.     It is time for us to hear what, if anything, Hillary’s plan is, rather than rare demonizing of her opponent.      It is time for both candidates to demonstrate that they respect the intelligence of the electorate and recognize that if elected they serve us – not the other way around!    That simple understanding will alleviate part of the problem we have with the bureaucracy.  (I may just be paranoid!)
 
The way to address Jerome larkin and his kind is to make them pay the income taxes, interest and penalties that they incurred because of their breach of trusts.    Larkin in the Denison case admitted to wrongfully expropriating and paying out approximately $15000.00 in ARDC funds that he knew or should have know he had no right to pay out.     That $15,000 plus the interest taxes and penalties is owed by Larkin.   When he covered up for the guardian in the Sykes case and 3 million dollars disappeared, Larkin owed taxes (jointly and severally) on that $3,000,000.00.   He therefore owes the interest and penalties.  Similarly each of the estates in which he participated in the cover up he owes interest, taxes and penalties.   
WHY ARE THE TAXES NOT BEING COLLECTED?    
 
 
 



From Ken Ditkowksy–no excuse for Larkin to use unlicensed court reporters!

Posted on June 26, 2016
I think we need to send the IARDC a Media FOIA request right away:
1) How many court reporters has the IARDC hired in the last 10 years that have been unlicensed?
2) do they check the license of every court reporter they hire?
3) who at the ARDC checks for the court reporter’s license.
4) who hired, participated in the hiring of unlicensed court reporters and court reporters coming from agencies that have invalid/expired corporate names?
6) how much has the IARDC paid unlicensed court reporters for the last 10 years?
7) who hired or participated in the hiring of each of these court reporters?
8) has any person employed by the IARDC received any kickback, finders fee or payment of any kind from any court reporter or court reporter agency?
9) has any person employed by the IARDC received any promise or benefit of any kind or type from any licensed court reporter or court reporter agency?
To: Probate Sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, and 30 others…
Subject: this should tell you something!
Date: Jun 26, 2016 1:09 PM
The Supreme Court of Illinois by its obvious mistreatment of Disciplinary Cases including but not limited the JoAnne Denison case has abrogated its position and each of the justices reduced the dignity of the court to zero.
The fact that the court knows or should know that by it obvious attornment to the criminal fraud of Jerome Larkin it has effectually made all licensing in the State of Illinois void.   Larkin at all times relevant knew or should have known that he was violating the law when he engaged unlicensed court reports to provide reports of proceedings for his kangaroo hearings, and he certainly knew (also the Court knew) that his secret petition asking the Supreme Court to engaged JoAnne Denison to reimburse him for the illegal payments was wrongful.
However, the Court cannot act as a Court improperly and attorn to individual officeholders and/or public officials doing wrongful acts.   Thus, it cannot affirm a State agency or even a Judicial entity engaging unlicensed professionals (court reporters) and therefore as licensing statutes are clearly VOID Larkin can engaged unlicensed court reporters in derogation of the Rule of Law.   No valid licensing equates to a carte blanc to engage anyone as a court reporter.
The net is simple – the State of Illinois and the IARDC have been illegally licensing people for years and every dime collected must be returned to the people who have been misled by the State officials and judicial officials.   
It is dishonest for the State of Illinois and the IaRDC to not return this money immediately!
 
Ken Ditkowsky