‘Eccentric Multimillionaires Living in Poverty’

It’s a Santa Barbara story out of a Charles Dickens novel: an eccentric brother and sister living a life of poverty for decades while turning their backs on an English estate worth millions.

It’s been one of the most novel, complicated, long-running cases in Santa Barbara Superior Court conservatorship history, piling up thousands of pages of documents — and thousands of dollars of legal fees on both sides of the Atlantic.

Before John died last June at 85, his Cornwall property was locked in the centuries-old “entail” system, whereby the eldest male heir inherited everything. It was one of the last of England’s entailed estates.

That meant that upon his death, it would have gone to a California cousin, John Westropp Figg-Hoblyn, leaving his sisters, Margaret and Anne Auld, out in the cold.

And that is where Margaret, now 78, has been living off and on in recent years. Attorneys and courts here and in England made legal history by managing to end the entail by creating a will before John Paget’s death. As a result, the estate, now estimated at $4,760,310 and under court administration in England, will go to Margaret and Anne. John Westropp, who unsuccessfully contested the action, gets $200,000.

Margaret (like John Paget, a Stanford University graduate) “has a long history of homelessness and tent-living,” and a few months ago, she “was discovered in a starved and disheveled state,” according to a county conservator’s report.

She was being evicted from her latest place, and the next stop was out on the street, conservators said. So they stepped in. Now, she’s a multimillionaire, on paper at least.

Although part of the property, considered prime farm land, has been sold to benefit the estate, much of it is still tied up, awaiting sales, according to a conservator report.

Full Article and Source:
Eccentric Multimillionaires Living in Poverty

See Also:
John Figg Hoblyn, California Victim

Attorney Ken Ditkowsky Answers ARDC Complaint

“I just finished up an edit of the Reply. I am forwarding this response to the various blogs with the hope that they will post it. I want to demonstrate that now all attorneys shake in their boots when confronted by a wrongful disciplinary action reasonably intended to inhibit our free speech. The ARDC case that was filed against me is ‘bogus’ and intended to shut me up.

It is not going to happen as I was called a liar, even though every word I communicated was absolutely objectively true and based upon the information of people who I respect and believe to be credible.

I sent our requests to admit to the ARDC as I wanted to give them an opportunity to admit or deny the facts that I allegedly lied concerning. The choice was very simple. Admit that certain facts are true and dismiss the case, or on the hand deny that the facts were true and prove them. Instead, the ARDC admitted that they never investigated the facts and did not have sufficient information. Illinois law requires a degree of due diligence before filing a lawsuit. It appears that the attorney for the ARDC ignored that requirement in total and just filed a complaint that accused me of being a liar and posted it on the internet.

That scenario suggests something very sinister and wrong! I do not intend to allow such a scenario to remain in secret or to be covered up. I also do not intend to allow the Human and Civil Rights of either Mary or Gloria or any of the other aggreived individuals similarly situated to be just forfeited. My latest missile is:”

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY,

Commission No. 2012 PR 00014
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 642754

Reply
To Response to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and renews his Motion to dismiss this ARDC complaint by this reply and in support of the motion states:
Prefatory Statement
Objection is made to the lack of candor that the Administrator’s response to this Motion to Dismiss. For instance in paragraph 1 the Administrator after fortuitously denigrating the Motion with editorial comment states a fact that is untrue. The Administrator claims that there are no affidavits in support of the Motion. In fact there are several. The affidavit of Gloria Sykes and the affidavit of Scott Evans are both provided in support of the motion. Had whoever drafted the Response read the Motion, that person would have noted these affidavits.

Of a more serious nature is the fact that the alleged Administrator’s Response to the Request to Admit is an admission that either no investigation was done prior to the filing of the complaint herein, or the Administrator has not been candid. If the Administrator in fact, prior to bringing his complaint, had done the investigation required by Supreme Court Rule 137 the administrator would have been able to admit or deny all the facts requested to be admitted or denied by the Request to Admit. (The Supplemental Motion to Dismiss addresses this issue.)

Reply
An Attorney and his/her clients are afforded Constitutional Rights and the protections of 735 ILCS 110/et seq. The protections of the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Illinois are applicable to even the disciplinary proceedings of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Cavalier responses to serious issues may be the current vogue in some legal circles, but the issues involved in this proceeding and its related proceedings are indeed serious. The fact is that the Administrator in his response to the First Wave Requests to Admit reveals that he “does not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny ***” the very facts that he must allege in his complaint. Yet, the Administrator concludes that the respondent lied and then wrongfully published the defamation on the ‘web!’ Such perfidy is not only chilling, but an admission that this instant complaint is grossly improper and intentionally violative of intent and spirit of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137[1] and 735 ILCS 110 et seq. The aforesaid Response to the First Wave Request to Admit is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit A as if set out in detail and incorporated by reference.

The granting of authority to the Administrator was not a grant to run rough shod over the rights of citizens, including attorneys. Even a cursory examination of the complaint raises the question of the First Amendment applicability. Count 1 misinterprets words and phrases of an inquiry letter in the most procrustean manner so as to distort the letter’s meaning and seek discipline against respondent for words and phrases that were never communicated. Such a request coupled with the pejorative averments that the non-uttered statement was a lie raises ‘red flags’ and suggests an improper motive in bringing the complaint.

The conclusions of the 2nd count are equally troubling as once again the derogatory ‘name calling’ substitutes for the pleading of facts. In particular, as the Sodini criterion according to our view of the record in In re: Sykes was never met there are no judicial officials and in particular Guardian Ad Litem Stern and Farenga, approximately two years after their appointment, have no standing in the probate proceedings. The plenary guardian and her attorney are similarly acting sans jurisdiction. As the response to the Request to Admit indicates that the Administrator does not have knowledge of such a basic fact, how does the Administrator get the authority to publish a ‘naked statement’ to the public that the respondent is a ‘liar!’

More significantly, all the statements that are alleged to have been made by the respondent are clearly protected statements under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. The 2-619 Motion is thus appropriate to redress the chilling prospect of a citizen being denied Equal Protection of the Law and his right to the First Amendment protections of protest, speech, and assembly. It is significant that the Administrator chooses to ignore these basic Constitutional Rights and at the very same time respond to Requests to Admit with:
“The Administrator does not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny***”
Supreme Court Rule 137 admonishes exactly this type of conduct on the part of the attorney for the Administrator (i.e. bringing a complaint without doing any due diligence or investigation of the facts so as to be able to certify that the facts alleged are true) and 42 USCA 1983 counsels that color of Statute ought not be employed to deny a citizen of his/her Constitutional laws.

735 ILCS 110 et seq. makes it very clear that a legal proceeding cannot be used to silence a citizen. It may be very inconvenient that Ms. Sykes, Mr. Evans and others have verified by their affidavits the very facts that the Administrator will have to prove false to prove me a ‘liar!’ The Sykes/Evans’ affidavits stand in stark contradiction to the statement of the Administrator in paragraph 1 of his response. The said affidavits also stand as strong contradiction to the conclusions pleaded by the Administrator.

It is respectfully submitted that if the attorney for the Administrator had read the Motion before it was responded to, the complaint would have been non-suited. It is further respectfully submitted had the files of the ARDC and the complaints filed by various friends, relatives, and neighbors of Mary Sykes been reviewed prior to the filing of the complaint filed herein the complaint would never have been filed. Even in 21st Century America the objective truth is not a lie, and the publication of the truth – no matter when or where – is not a prevarication. Similarly, to protect the rights of citizens and to prevent exactly what appears to have happened to Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes in the Sykes case the legal profession has been very jealous of protecting the First Amendment Rights of the brethren. As a profession lawyers cannot tolerate the deprivation of human rights and/or civil rights of anyone – including them.

When an attorney demands the investigation of the conduct of such ‘august’ persons as a guardian ad litem and an attorney for a plenary guardian, in a case in which a senior citizen is deprived of her liberty, property, and human rights under extremely suspicious circumstances, such effort should be aided and abetted in the interest of justice – not punished. This instant reply draws attention to the Affidavits of Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans. This panel is requested to examine the Court file in the Sykes case and is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of the same. In the Court file, unless I have misread the docket and the transcripts of Mr. Schmiedel’s statements, the Jurisdictional Sodini notices and affidavits of service are missing. As they were never sent by the attorney for the plenary guardian *****. As the Appellate Court of Illinois has noted (in Sodini) these notices are jurisdictional Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga and the plenary guardian are engaging in their alleged pernicious activities ultra vires. Right or wrong, I have not waived my First Amendment Rights and any attempt to silence me or diminish my said rights is not only wrongful, but clearly a violation of the policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5.

Moreover, the Response to the First Wave Request to Admit is a clear admission that Rule 137 was ignored by the attorney for the Administrator in drafting the complaint. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in being charged with regulating Attorney conduct should be a ‘Cesar’s wife!’ The commission is charged with not only being an example of legal ethics and propriety, but being an example to the profession. It is respectfully suggested that the complaint, and the two responses are examples of the nadir of the profession rather than the best and, therefore, the complaint filed herein should be dismissed with prejudice.

Wherefore pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 this complaint be dismissed, and a complete and through investigation be commenced as to the Sykes case and pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 the motivations for bringing this instant complaint in the manner it was filed.[2]

Respectfully Submitted

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

Attorney number 0642754
Pro se
5940 W. Touhy Ave
Niles, Illinois 60714
847 600 3421

________________________________________
[1] Had a private attorney acted with such careless disregard the attorney would be subject to sanctions and possible discipline. Rule 137 even in its most liberal interpretation requires enough due diligence on the part of the attorney drafting a complaint that the attorney (and his client) has knowledge of the basic facts upon which the complaint is founded. It is respectfully submitted that this is not true in the instant complaint against me.
[2] CALLING A PRACTICING ATTORNEY A ‘LIAR’ AND PUBISHING THE SAME ON THE INTERNET IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TAKEN LIGHTLY OR IGNORED. As the affidavits of Sykes and Evans clearly refute any suggestion that I lied as to anything this is a serious matter and a clear violation of 735 ILCS 110/ and 42 USCA 1983. On day one the attorney for the Administrator had a duty based upon the ‘traditions of the bar’ (if not an ethical responsibility) to do a full investigate of the charges that were brought and to have a clear knowledge of the facts upon which the charges were being brought. In the instant scenario the ARDC has received numerous citizen complaints totally consistent with the statements allegedly made by me. The Court record is also consistent with the charges that have been made by Gloria Sykes et al. No one can deny that Mary Sykes was helped by Court employed people to prepare a Petition For A Protective Order. No one can deny that this Petition was duly filed and never heard. No one can deny that neither Guardian ad Litem petitioned the Court to voice any complaint as to a possible conflict of interest on the part of the plenary guardian.

No one can deny the videos posted by various citizens on the internet, and no one can deny that Mary Sykes in the early videos appears to be perfectly competent. Indeed, no one can deny that not a scintilla of medical evidence was heard by the Probate Court prior to declaring Mary Sykes incompetent. Nor can anyone deny the transcripts of August 2009 and August 2010. Similarly, no one can deny that the 14 day Sodini notices are claimed by the close relatives of Mary Sykes to have not been served and more importantly Mr. Schmiedel has not made a clear statement stating that these vital notices were indeed properly served as required by Statute. These notices are jurisdictional as they are the protection against vulnerable people being ‘railroaded’ into the loss of liberty and property by dishonest practitioners.

Similarly no one can deny that family members of Mary Sykes have disclosed that the safety deposit box contained valuables and these valuables were never inventoried. The record is clear that Mr. Stern, and Ms. Farenga failed to alert the Court to this oversight. Of course, the record indicates that Mary Sykes had many emergency room visits. The probate record does not reveal any report of these visits by the GAL. It is respectfully submitted that the record in the probate division upon which the Administrator must rely upon to aver that I am liar suggests that some very unusual events have taken place that are disingenuous and possibly criminal. THE PROBLEM THAT THE RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST TO ADMIT DISCLOSES is that the Attorney drafting the complaint apparently was ignorant of these serious factual scenarios.

See Also:
Mary Sykes, Illinois Victim

NASGA Press Release: NASGA Releases its Fourth Open Letter to Congress and the White House

Press Release
For Immediate Release
March 26, 2012

NASGA Releases its Fourth Open Letter to Congress and the White House

NASGA has addressed guardianship/conservatorship abuse by fiduciaries in three previous white papers to Congress and the White House; yet, when any legislator has come forward to champion the cause of guardianship reform and propose legislation, the focus of said reform continues to concentrate on family members as guardians and is limited to suggestions of grants for certification, training, background checks – none of which addresses the growing threat of professional for-profit and “not-for-profit” fiduciaries freely bleeding their victims into indigence and onto Medicaid, at the expense of the currently unsuspecting taxpayers.

In this, our fourth white paper, we continue to ask: How are thieves “trained” not to steal other than by enforcing existing law and sending them to jail?

The GAO’s 2010 report: “Guardianship: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect and Abuse of Seniors” sounded a resounding alarm calling for Congress to step up and address the subject of court-sanctioned plunder of estates by court-appointed fiduciaries and professionals and compel them to MAKE GOOD THE FORGOTTEN PROMISE of 42 U.S.C. 3001 of The Public Health and Welfare Law: “(6) Retirement in health, honor, dignity – after years of contribution to the economy; ” and “(10) Freedom, independence, and the free exercise of individual initiative in planning and managing their own lives, full participation in the planning and operation of community-based services and programs provided for their benefit, and protection against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.”

See:
AnOpenLetterToCongress-4.info

YouTube: Jonell Grace Exposes Predator Attorneys

Jonell seeks legal assistance to restore what has been taken from her and to stop these atrocities from happening to others.

Source:
Jonell Grace Exposes Predatory Attorneys, Part 1 of 2

Source:
Jonell Grace Exposes Predator Attorneys, Part 2 of 2

A Picture Says 1,000 Words!

Jared E. Shafer billed nearly $7,500 for Email! For a period of just 20 days!

See Also:
L.O. California/Nevada Victim

MEMORANDUM

To: All friends and victims of Senior citizen abuse, and Financial

March 14, 2012

By now, you should be aware that after a large number of complaints were filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission complaining about the antics of the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian, the commission determined that they should prosecute me and call me a ‘liar.’ The ARDC elected to prosecute me for complaining that the Civil rights and the Human Rights of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes were violated by attorneys appointed by the Court to protect the rights of Mary Sykes.

The complaint that was filed against me should be available on the ARDC website. I have prepared a Motion to Dismiss the complaint as the complaint while replete with distortions and ‘Alice in Wonderland’ conclusions fails to state a claim. Indeed, had the author of the complaint done any due diligence – such as reading the numerous communicates from ordinary citizens the complaint would never have been filed. That said, Mr. Chambers has forwarded to various active groups copies of the Motion and the exhibits. It is hoped that they post the Motion and the exhibits so as to energize everyone who is concerned with ‘substance’ and not ‘form’ to join in the effort to ‘save’ both Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes. (see Gloria’s affidavit attached to the Motion) Gloria Sykes made the error of attempting to ‘fight’ for her mother’s liberty, right to own and enjoy her property, and to fraternize with her friends, and family. The consequences are a series of Court orders that have rendered her homeless and unable to access her property. Mary is just deprived of all her liberty, property and human rights. While all this is going on Mary’s substantial estate (estimated at a million dollars) has been reported to have been dissipated.

I have filed a ‘human rights’ complaint with the United Nations. I expect absolutely nothing from the effort, however, it has had one consequence. I have been called a liar pursuant to the new definition. A lie is any combination of words and phrases that does not advance the agenda of the political elite. The word and the concept of accuracy and/or truth are irrelevant to the new definition.

As I am in the middle of my seventh decade of life, I am a word conservative. I find it very difficult to refer to a chattel mortgage as a ‘hard loan,’ or a guarantee as a ‘credit swap.’ The concept of a liar being a person who tells the truth about of quasi or de jure public official is just too much for me. I am hoping that some of the blogs will post this appeal to all ‘word conservatives’ to join arms and protest such radical changes in the English language. In the meantime, I would like to urge everyone to raise their voice and join the hue and cry to reject ‘form’ and demand substance, i. e . ‘free Mary Sykes while she still has time to enjoy some her life!

I had a terrible thought just now – can you imagine the guardian ad litem in the Sykes case being judges! This type of travesty is entirely possible if you take democracy for granted. It is not a spectator sport. The political elite feed us ‘form’ and are vague as to substance. The recent harassments of Gloria Sykes will limited and directed to harass and deprive her of her civil rights are a stark reminder that it was not too long ago men in ‘brown shirts’ took over a country and plunged the world into a nightmare. Elder Abuse is doing the same one senior at the time – that senior could be me! Ergo ****.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

See Also:
Mary Sykes, Illinois Victim

In the Matter of Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky

Janet Parker: Expanding Network of Abusive Guardianships

In the U.S.A. there has been a growing problem of abuse of the elderly and disabled due to a covert system of guardianship or conservatorship. This covert system of power and control is enforced through the judicial system. It is manipulated for use by fraudsters, abusers and persons wielding undue influence for financial advantage. The wards have lost the right to complain, because they have been stripped legally of all their rights, left defenseless and subject to exploitation by the very people chosen to protect them; they are now invisible and voiceless. There is a growing trend for the courts to appoint total strangers who do guardianship duties as a business for profit. The for-profit guardian is appointed to take over the decision making process and often times given total and absolute control over the life, liberty and property of their wards.

In the U.S.A. the guardianship system offers few procedural protections, and has spawned a profit-driven professional guardianship industry that often enriches itself at the expense of society’s most vulnerable members–the mentally ill. Yet despite numerous calls for reform, most states have done little to monitor professional guardians and prevent abuse and neglect. The U.S.A. federal government should play an increased role in the protection of incapacitated persons.

Full Article and Source:
Expanding Network of Abusive Guardianships

See Also:
Medical Whistleblower

NASGA’s “An Open Letter to Congress and the White House”

In Good Hands?

Source:
YouTube: “Inside E Street” – In Good Hands?

See Also:
Impeach Randy Kennedy

Danny Tate, Tennessee Victim

TN: Proposed Legislation for Reform in Conservatorship Adjudication

[On 1/26/12], I hand delivered a copy of this proposed legislation to Senator Mae Beavers, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and to Senator Joe Haynes. At a luncheon that was addressing an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution pertaining to the Tennessee Plan, a plan that is utterly unconstitutional, now there is proposed legislation to amend the Constitution to fit the law they’ve been breaking pertaining to judicial selection. Senator Beavers has championed judicial reform and is for judicial election, not selection, which is consistent with the Tennessee Constitution.

A miracle occurred when Senator Beavers addressed the issue of Conservatorships and the complaints that have come across her desk addressing the abuse of this Conservatorship Code.

The fundamental problem lies in the venue where this law is adjudicated, the Probate Court. A law of preservation adjudicated in a court of liquidation. The Probate Court is the venue where the deceased’s estate is liquidated and divided amongst the heirs, yet this same court has been vested with the authority to adjudicate a law protecting the assets of the incompetent. It’s an utter contradiction in jurisprudence.

Please read and consider this legislation. It’s a reasonable and logical proposal. The probate court is the wrong venue and there are inherent conflicts of interest with this law being adjudicated in the probate court.

I’m calling on each and every one of you to do your part to effect change. Not often does a legislation like this require from a moral imperative. We don’t all have the responsibility to stand up and choose sides over every issue that comes down the pike, but we all have a moral responsibility to stand up for those that cannot stand up for themselves, and there are countless legions of elderly victims, locked away and silenced while there estates are looted before they are in the grave. This is the moral imperative and I challenge you all to make the calls, write the letters, send the emails and let your voices be heard.

“All power is inherent with the people…” (TN Constitution)

Now is the time to remind our public servants who possesses the power. ”We, the people…”, that’s who. And in this important moral issue, we must all take a stand to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The adjudication of this law must be removed from the probate court and put in a venue where its intent can be faithfully effected.

Full Article and Source:
Pauper v. Probate: Proposed Legislation for Reform in Conservatorship Adjudication

No Right to Life: The Fight for Gary Harvey to be Reunited With His Wife, Sara

Where do you turn when you become disabled, vulnerable, or old and become unlawfully a victim of the system?

There are no kind words for the injustice that Chemung County New York has visited upon Gary Harvey and his wife Sara.

Gary Harvey a veteran who served his country and fought for our freedom is being denied his. Until January 2006, Gary was leading a normal life.

Although Gary Harvey is still a living person, he has not been treated as such since 2006 when he fell down a flight of stairs and sustained traumatic brain injury. Sometime later, his prognosis worsened into a vegetative condition, but this would only be the beginning of his nightmare.

St. Joseph Hospital billed Sara’s private insurance nine hundred and thirty two thousand ($932,000) last year, out of those submitted claims eight hundred ($800.00) were for therapy.

Sar reported the 15 episodes of sepsis in a 2 year time frame to NYSDOH. Neither St. Joseph hospital, nor Chemung County nursing facility has reported this per public health law 2819. Bed sores, and a dislocated hip that Sara recently learned about but was never informed of.

Sara has no say in the matter; the county uses HIPAA as their shield for protection.

She reports it to Gary’s court appointed attorney Kevin Moshier from MHLS and unbelievable his trail goes back to Chemung County Law Department via. Davidson & O’Mara he wrote to her “Some of your concerns might well merit your advocacy, but not necessarily mine”.

Gary Harvey has been institutionalized for more than 5 years and isolated from the love and compassion of his wife.

Gary deserves the love and companionship of his wife, the comfort of his home and friends. Not only is it inhumane to continually deny him quality care, treatment and testing but cruel to continue restricting his wife’s visits.

The crime against disabled, vulnerable and elders is growing.

Gary Harvey remains today in the hands of his abusers, the very same people who tried to end his life.

Sara is now representing herself in Federal court, if you know of someone that can assist her in the Federal Court Judicial Office please contacte therighttolife@activist.com
Full Article and Source:
No Right to Life; The Fight for Gary Harvey to be Reunited With His Wife, Sara

See Also:
HelpBringGaryHome

BoomersBewareOfGuardianshipAbuse