Showing posts with label Sykes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sykes. 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.
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. Byrd145 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. Patner186 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!  
 

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

What is the definition of a “fix?”

what is the definition of a “fix?”
 
Because of my background I use the words ‘fix’ and ‘wired” court in my regular discourses.    Even though everyone knows or should know what these words mean in the context of corruption, we have never defined them and thus have not made certain that we are speaking together.    As I use the word “fix” it does not mean or portray the sour grapes of a party receiving  an adverse ruling because a judge presiding in some court did not agree with you,   Such is true even if in a perfect world you would have been successful and vanquished your opponent.    Fix or wired is intended to mean that a decision has been made (usually involving a judicial matter) by a trier of fact due to some improper outside influence introduced by some interested party. 
 
The Sykes case is a wired case.   The recent Tim Lahrman cases were fixed.     Here in Chicago a notable fixed case involved the Mayor of the City of Chicago’s nephew.   He killed another person on the streets of Chicago in a fight.    Normally arrest, prosecution and Jail would be offered to the miscreant for the offense however, a massive cover-up was instituted and for more than year the political establishment kept the hue and cry at bay.    The ‘fix’ was in.    Indeed the jail sentence finally extracted was a disgrace.   The case is an anatomy of a fix.     We have many examples - A Senator from Mass drove his automobile off a bridge, swam to safety himself as she drowned.    The wife of former president used a personal server to distribute State Secrets and to solicit foreign contributions to the personal Foundation.    In short, when the result of fact finding or application of the law is obvious from day one and prior to a presentation of the facts and the playing field is not level – we have the fixed case and the wired judge.    
 
Just to be clear it is not a fix in the situation wherein a judge, who has no prior relationship to either you or your opponent or any other interested party, rules against you after giving you a full hearing and the opportunity to present your side of the case.     Under that circumstance, if the Judge rules against you, no matter how strong you believe your evidence your loss is not a fix.      There are exceptions such as cafeteria courts wherein as matter of Jurisdictional policy you are guilty without any evidence being presented.    Traffic Court, building Court, Forcible Entry and Detainer Court are examples.     These courts are an anomaly as well as a disgrace; and merely revenue producing entities or a place to house incompetent judges.   
 
 
Institutional bias may or may not constitute a fix.       There are judges who harbor bias against certain ethnic and racial groups.      Most of the time these biases are subtle.     For example, how do we classify the situation in which Judge A just does not like Jews and does not believe them.    One of the Presidential candidates complained that he was getting the short end of the stick because of the personal makeup and demeanor of a particular judge.   (This judge made certain rulings that appeared to be bit more than questionable).     The unlevel playing field creates a fix.    However, if the same judge could not care and does not care about who you are , what ethnic group you belong, or anything personal concerning either you or your opponent even if he/she is a moron and has the intelligence of an idiot the case is neither wired or fixed.    Such a case is a bit more challenging.    It should be noted that not all (in fact not many) of the cases going to the Appellate Courts are the result of fixes or ‘wired court.’
 
Now that we defined the fix or wiring of the court as the denial of a level playing field, how do we know a fix when it bites us?    
 
At one point in time judges were less subtle.   The wired judge received something tangible and a cost of living analysis by the Treasury Department would detect the remuneration.     Today it is very difficult to detect as today ‘wiring’ courts and ‘fixing’ judges is much more subtle.    Campaign contributions to the Judge and/or his political action committee mask the remuneration.    As Illinois Judges as an example stand for retention and it is rarer than hens having gold teeth for a judge not to be retained, the political campaign contribution while legal is nothing more than a scam payment to the judge.
 
 
  The scams are much more inventive.   A couple of payments on the Judges’ mortgage create a bribe that is virtually untraceable.    A sweetheart purchase of a commodity, real estate, condominiums, vehicles etc. go unnoticed.   Similarly a job for a family member is almost untraceable.    Of course there is other currency other than the US Dollar.    One of the bad guy nursing home operator distributed the proceeds of nursing home beds in addition to finder’s fees to deserving judges and other judicial officials.    The long and short is that whatever the consideration (whether it is corporeal, tangible, or quid pro quo) it is always present in the ‘fixed’ or ‘wired” Court.     Detection is usually fortuitous.
 
The Alice Gore case as an example was not a case of just bad judgment, or avarice on the part of judicial officials.   1.5 million dollars disappeared and was not accounted for.    In fact, the records kept were so terrible that the attorney who closed the file for the State literally tore his hair out to try to present to the Court something reasonable.    As the fix was in the miscreant parties escaped and laugh all the way to the Bank.  
 
 Even though we have not run across another situation (such as Gore)  in which the avarice was so openly and notoriously displayed by the prospecting for the gold in her teeth the felonies committed by the miscreants the active parties, i.e. the Judge and the Guardian ad litem were not investigated, not prosecuted, but rewarded for their perfidy.     Jerome Larkin using the IARDC attempted to silence dissent and hide the fact a senior citizen was elder cleansed by ‘wired courts’ and ‘fixed’ judges.    
 
What is disgusting is the tie-in between the guardian ad litem in the Gore case and the nursing home empire of her health care mogul relative.    Any investigation would have made public the clear disclosure of the relationship and its perfidious effect on the judicial system and the cancerous corruption in the Illinois judicial system.      The 1.5 million dollars in missing and/or misapplied assets is the consideration for the corruption.   
 
 
The Guardian ad litem’s relative is not a casual visitor to the fixing of cases and the wiring of courts.   He was exposed in the Chicago newspapers for his relationship with the Public Guardian’s office and the disappearance of homeless people from lower Wacker Drive.    (They wound up – at government expense – in his nursing home facilities.     The ‘wiring’ of the Court was easily paid for by ‘finder’s fees’, referral gratuities, or Court assignments as guardian, guardian ad litem, attorney for guardian *****.    Indeed, the elder cleansing of Alice Gore was part of the pay to play scenario that rocks Illinois.   The cesspool has few limits, except the need to intimidate the family to ‘stay away’ and the realization by the miscreants that the cover-up is quite difficult when family members are not easily intimidated.   Direct assaults and demonization of the family member who object the elder cleansing then follows.   
 
A case study and anatomy of a fixed or wire case is he Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585.  The MaryGSykes case is the case that is most pregnant with corruption.     Thanks to Judge Connors’ evidence deposition on page 91 we have a judge admitting that the ‘fix was in.’    What was done about it?    Nothing.  
 
How do we know that Judge Connor’s admission was true?
 
The file in case 09 P 4585 is just short of incredible.    As I pointed out previously, the Illinois legislative requirements are designed to fully protect the elderly and the disabled from misuse of the guardianship statute and the use of guardianship to separate the elderly from their civil rights.     Section 3b (755 ILCS 5/11a -3b) provides that the guardianship is an accommodation to be used only to prove whatever aid that might be appropriate to the disabled person.     It was not to be used to seize all the assets, liberty, and property of the senior.      
 
To assure that the limited invasion of the statute be observed the Legislature in section 10 made certain that the proceedings would not be disguised, ignored, or otherwise obviated.     The Legislature then provided that a particular summons be issued and served on the affected person.    The Legislature even directed how the summons was to be served.     The Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County ignored the mandate of the legislature and never provided the required summons during the relevant period of time.      A quick view of the Sykes file points out that the complaint was not appropriately filled out by the miscreant attorney for the petitioner, and even though Mary Sykes had been kidnapped and taken out to DuPage County the summons in the filed were directed to a Chicago Address.    The façade was complete with the petition with a Court order obtained leave to serve Mary be a special process server.  The Sheriff in a letter points out that no service was had by his office of Mary Sykes.[1]
 
To make certain that an incompetent person is fully protected in section 10 the legislature required (as a jurisdiction condition precedent) that some of the nearest family members be notified i.e. Sisters, children ****.      The file indicates that there were no notices given to anyone 14 days prior a hearing on Mary’s competency.
 
Of course notice would have been a waste of time as no hearing was ever held.   The two guardians just appeared before the ‘wired’ judge and she made an appointment of a guardian to elder cleanse Mary Sykes.     
 
Thus, we have irregularities!   The core values of NOTICE AND HEARING (due process) were not afforded to Mary Sykes.    However, do these irregularities ipsofacto provide proof that Judge Connors was wired?     The answer has to be no, even though the evidence is strong.    Do these irregularities prove proof that Judge Connors was ‘fixed?’       Again – not yet.
 
What is the proof required?     We have to show that Judge Connors got something for it and was induced to come to the same conclusion regardless of the proof presented.     We presume that the Judge is honest, filled with integrity, and a purer that Caesar’s Wife.    
 
 Gloria Sykes, who happens to be an investigative producer, rummaged through the political files and found some interesting relationships that an HONEST INVESTIGATION would have to follow up upon.   The political ties she appeared to uncover suggest that elder cleansing is a very profitable cottage industry that has many adherents in the political arena.    Of course, no HONEST investigation has been undertaken and every effort to induce such an investigation has been met with opposition from the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court.     It does not take much acumen to suggest exactly why there is such opposition to any investigation of the elder cleansing industry conducted in our court.      
 
 
  In our role as Caesar’s wife we are deprived of the ability to RUSH TO JUDMENT.       We do have proof!   
 
1.     All citizens are presumed to know the law, and Judges in particular in addition to being presumed to know the law are presumed to know whether or not they have jurisdiction.     Judge Connors if she did a scintilla of work in the Sykes case she would have examined the file and discovered that no legitimate attempt had been made to serve Mary Sykes with summons as required by due process, and that the jurisdictional obligation of prior 14 days’ notice of hearing had not been provided, or that a hearing was never held.     Judge Connors could not plead ignorance of the fact that she was never present at the required hearing as to Mary Sykes’ competency.
 
2.   Judge Connors admitted the fact that she was Fixed/Wired on page 91 of her evidence deposition.
 
The wiring of Judges does not have to occur in the initial stages of the case.    I can occur at any time.    It can take on many faces.      The key to the ‘wired’ judge is the fact that even though the evidence in favor one side is overwhelming the other side cannot win = the judge has made up his/her mind prior to hearing the evidence.      Judge Connors made it very clear on page 91 of her evidence deposition.     Had she known of the jurisdictional deficiencies she would have stopped the proceedings to correct them.     
 
A judge has very specific duties.   An unwired judge does not aid either side – she at all times remains neutral.    The judge is the trier of fact and therefore if the plaintiff/petitioner cannot make his/her case that is tough *****.     The unwired judge would protect that alleged incompetent’s rights and dismiss the proceedings – no jurisdiction – no legal proceeding.       In the Sykes case Judge Connors ignored her legal and moral obligations.   In the same case Judge Stuart demonstrated that she was wired, when she was informed of all the irregularities, including the fact that she did not have jurisdiction but continued to rule on the miscreant’s requests.    Ditto for every single judge assigned to the Sykes case who filed to dismiss it.    The epidemic of ‘wired’ judges exists across the Nation in these guardianship cases.    Our governments solution so far has been to ignore the corruption and in the case of [2]States like Illinois – clamp down and silence all who demand HONEST investigations.    In short, they are trampling on America’s liberty and core values[3].    
 
 
Either accepting or soliciting or receiving, or paying something of value to a public official or a judge is a felony.    A promise to get my son a favorable hearing in relation to school is just a serous bribe as my paying a public official for the result.  In Summary, the ‘fixed’ judge or ‘wired court’ is a court where the natural equilibrium is changed by something a value.       The judge who abandons his position of trust for illegal personal enhancement of his pecuniary position deserves to be disbarred and jailed.   Those in public service who cover up for the dishonest judge pursuant to 18 USCA 371 ought to be in jail.
 
We are citizens are helpless, unless we can be heard and can make enough of a hue and cry to require government to consider the 5th and 14th Amendment admonition to the effect that we are all EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW and the political elite and judicial elite are subjected to the same rules as we – the great unwashed![4]      


[1] The guardian’s attorney claims a bench service, but does claim that he served the required documents.      The IARDC panel ruled that notice of a hearing had been waived.   Exactly how does an incompetent ‘waive’ anything?  How do you waive attendance at a hearing that never occurred, especially when the party with the burden of proof failed to present any?     The action of “panel” is strong evidence that it (the panel) is fixed.     (When no evidence being presented is evidence of ‘guilt’ it is pretty clear that the trier of fact is wired.    In the Amu case not only was no evidence of his wrongdoing presented by the IARDC, but Crain’s Chicago Business echoed his charges against Judge Egan almost word for word.    Of course the IARDC tribunal found Amu guilty.
[2] This case must be distinguished from the ‘sour grapes’ situation in which the Court erroneously rules that black is white, or the case wherein the plaintiff cannot prove that today is Tuesday.     (Yes, I am aware that the Judge should take judicial knowledge that today is Tuesday).     Judges are entitled to make mistakes and within limited parameters even be stupid.    BUT if one half of one penny has an influence on the Judge’s decision the case is wired.
 
[3]
[4] The desperation of the IARDC is so great at this point to protect a source of remuneration that they unwittingly exposed the fact that they used unlicensed court reporters in their kangaroo proceedings.   It is suggested that they did so so that they have leverage to alter transcripts.     The case in point was Judge Stuart admitted facts that indicated that she committed perjury.   By the stroke of pen *****.     By Statute the unlicensed reporters cannot be paid, especially by a public agency.    Ergo, when Jerome Larkin did so, he committed a felony.   When he attempted to obtain reimbursement from JoAnne Denison he compounded the felony.     
 

Friday, April 8, 2016

From the NASGA blog - Another example of why we need HONEST INVESTIGATIONS & Why we need to defend our core values

The Sykes, Gore, Wyman, Smith, **** cases are horrific and terrorist assaults on America's core values.  Like the Lahrman case in Indiana the assault if successful puts a stake into America's basic Civil and Human liberties that is irrevocable.

The MaryGSykes, Probate Sykes, NASGA blogs (protected by 47 USCA 230) reference literally hundreds of cases of criminal guardianship abuse that cannot be tolerated in a free society.   The blogs point out not only judicial corruption but a well organized cover-up 18 USCA 371 and a fraud the jeopardizes the future of every single American.   

The Tim Lahrman affair is a direct attack on Equal Protection of the Law and if not re-mediated by the United States of America renders the legacy of the last three National administrations naked words - coupled by the deed of burning our Constitution by tolerating systemic corruption reasonably designed to foster profiteering and exploitation of our elderly and disabled.

In Florida the Col Smith case stands out as a murder of due process by corrupt judges and judicial authorities.   The NASGA blog points out:

by John Pacenti
Glenda Martinez-Smith found the love of her life as a senior citizen.
Martinez-Smith, 68, said she felt like she hit the lottery when she met retired Army Col. J. Alan Smith of Boynton Beach through a senior dating website. “It was like a fairy tale,” she recalls.
But the retired school teacher said their bliss was destroyed when a judge found her husband incapacitated after a car crash and appointed a professional guardian..
With the blessing of two Palm Beach County circuit court judges, the guardian put Smith, who had suffered a traumatic brain injury, in a nursing home, got Martinez-Smith banned from ever seeing him again and annulled the couple’s marriage.
“That was the most horrible day of my life, the day my marriage was annulled,” she said.
Besides annulling her marriage, one judge kicked her out of court and another threatened her with arrest. Still, Martinez-Smith persevered, winning appeal after appeal and wresting control back from the professional guardian.
Professional guardians are the subject of several bills moving rapidly through the Florida Legislature. Critics and lawmakers themselves say many guardians are siphoning the assets of wards to pay for their exorbitant fees.
$200,000 in legal fees
Business is also very good for the attorneys who flock around these guardians.
Every professional guardian employs at least one attorney to traverse the landscape of social services, nursing homes and liquidating assets. These lawyers come at a steep price, charging hundreds of dollars an hour in addition to the guardians’ fees.
Martinez-Smith has spent a good part of her life savings — $200,000 and counting — in legal fees fighting guardian John Cramer and orders by judges on his behalf. She got three rulings reversed on appeal and the annulment to her marriage is pending.
Smith’s assets paid Cramer $16,500 a month, said Martinez-Smith, who has not seen an accounting of how the money is spent. Cramer liquidated two of Smith’s life insurance policies for $145,000 recently, she said.
“According to anyone’s observation, this is a legal form of grand theft and robbery. It’s exploitation of the elderly,” Martinez said. “These guardians have to be stopped.”
The Florida Bar president, West Palm Beach attorney Greg Coleman, supports the legislation, saying there is a need to address the “bad actors,” whether they be guardians or their attorneys.
“The population is aging and this is something that is going to be more and more of an issue. The more protection the better,” he said.
In the meantime, the retired Army colonel’s health deteriorated without the necessary physical therapy at the nursing home. Today, the 83-year-old is nearly completely paralyzed and cannot speak.
Before the guardian put him in the nursing home, he was walking and talking, Martinez-Smith said. “How could they do this to him?”
Cramer, the guardian, did not return a calls for comment and his attorney Ellen Morris of Boca Raton declined to comment.
Jack Halpern, CEO of Elder Care in New York City, runs a company that offers an alternative to professional guardians by helping seniors navigate health care and the legal system. He says the problems are larger than just reining in the professional guardians, calling the proposed Florida legislation “a Band-Aid on an elephant.”
“The problem involves judges, guardianship attorneys, adult protective services employees, and not-for-profit religious and secular agencies, who are profiting from these guardianship cases,” he said.
Martinez-Smith doesn’t want to talk about the judges in her case. But the appellate court has supported her three times so far by reversing Palm Beach County Circuit Judges Martin Colin and David French, who sit in the Delray Beach courthouse.
Smith had ended up in the clutches of a guardianship when the couple were still engaged. After the car accident in 2010, one of Smith’s children petitioned a judge to find him incapacitated. Colin appointed Cramer as a temporary guardian and Martinez-Smith initially retained control of her husband’s medical care.
But Cramer asked Colin to cut out Martinez-Smith altogether. At a hearing on the matter, Colin kicked Martinez-Smith out of the courtroom “on the basis of a perceived insult to him,” according to a 4th District Court of Appeal opinion.
Colin told Martinez-Smith that her entire demeanor, including “her face, her voice, her sound, may be unpleasant to everyone else” but her husband. The appellate court told Colin to recuse himself, saying “that would lead any reasonably prudent person to fear that she would not receive a fair hearing before the judge.”
But Martinez-Smith found little solace when the case was transferred to French.
Judge threatens arrest
Cramer had complained that Martinez-Smith was abusive to the staff over the lack of her husband’s care at the nursing home. French removed her as a health-surrogate and banned her from seeing her husband. In the courtroom, French pointed his finger at Martinez-Smith and said he would have her arrested if she even went near her husband at the nursing home.
At a subsequent hearing, French also granted the guardian’s request to annul the marriage. “I was crying in his courtroom,” Martinez-Smith said.
Again, the appellate court reversed, ousting Cramer as guardian on March 18. It said French abused his discretion in not following Smith’s wishes that his wife be in control of his medical care and assets.
“It’s not surprising that someone strongly advocating for excellent care for their loved one would be at odds with staff which may be less than diligent in delivering such care,” the opinion written by appellate court Judge Martha Warner stated.
Martinez-Smith’s attorney, Jennifer Carroll of Palm Beach Gardens, said the recent opinion is precedent-setting because the court said the wishes of the ward are paramount.
“The most important thing about this is that each individual has a fundamental right to choose their guardian or medical caregiver,” Carroll said.
Now that Cramer is out, Martinez-Smith is again her husband’s health-care surrogate. On Wednesday, she had him transported to Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale to be examined. He arrived in a wheelchair, alert but also unresponsive, dehydrated and with sores all over his body.
She comforted him, rubbing his chest in the wheelchair. “We are going to do everything we can to make you better,” she told him.  
 
I understand that the criminals did not stop their assaults !    Florida's law enforcement people are still doing nothing.   The Helen Stone case ***** all start as tributes to the fact that it is UNSAFE to get old in Florida!

Ken Ditkowsky