'A Crack in the Mantra of the Professional Court-Appointed Guardian Crowd' and Merry Christmas

Effect of the Barry case

The Sykes case has become for the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian a professional nightmare, assuming that the professional standards in Illinois apply to them to the same extent that they apply to other lawyers. In August 2009 the now plenary guardian, who at that time was an accused abuser of the alleged disabled person admitted that Sykes’ treating doctor refused to sign a certificate of incompetency. Judge Connors is reported in the transcript of proceedings to have suggested that a more co-operative doctor be found. Thus, it is of record that like the situation in Barry the ‘red flags’ indicating that a person who had civil rights was on the verge of being deprived of at least some of her civil rights in less than an appropriate manner.

Three attorneys lead the way. The record reveals that the Sodini notices (jurisdictional) were ignored, and many steps were taken to prevent inquiry and transparency. JoAnn Denison was disqualified without a proper legal basis, and under color of statute, but lacking in jurisdiction an overt attempt was made to intimidate me and stop my inquiry into just how Mary Sykes was declared incompetent and what happened to her very valuable estate.

All of the foregoing is water under the dam and will be addressed in subsequent litigation. The Barry case however brings up the issue of professionalism. Mr. Barry, an attorney, in a glib maneuver to advance the interests of a client over other family members orchestrated an individual’s declaration of incompetency. The facts of Barry are amazingly similar to that of Sykes. The ARDC found that Mr. Barry’s tactic was unprofessional and requested a year suspension of his license.

As was discussed previously the guardian ad litem, and the attorney for the plenary guardian have been overt in their efforts to first have Sykes ‘railroaded’ into a guardianship, and pornographic in their efforts to prevent inquiry. No reiteration is necessary – the ball is in the Court of the legal profession. If there is a double standard it will be quite evident. The lack of remediation by the plenary guardians and the attorney for the plenary guardian suggest that they believe that the Barry standard does not apply to them. The protestors are still under attack and the attempts to create transparency, terminate the elder abuse and financial exploitation of Mary Sykes is all still being thwarted. The younger daughter of Mary Sykes who has led the fight to free her mother is being wrongfully evicted from her home, her bank accounts have been wrongfully frozen, and law enforcement and society have been sitting on the sidelines watching what amounts to a ‘rape’ of our culture.

The ARDC in the Barry case pointed out that the miscreant attorney not only had a duty to make certain before he acted to deprive the victim of his civil rights that he had sound basis for action (Rule 137), but if he found he was wrong to attempt to correct his error. As he did not a harsh penalty was requested of be imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court. In making the offer of settlement that was rejected by the two guardian ad litem, it was my intention to call attention to the Barry case and to make a mechanism available to the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian to save face and at the same time renew Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes civil rights. While it would not be a no harm no foul situation, I was hoping that this Christmas a few lawyers could demonstrate good will. I was wrong and Gloria Sykes is facing a wrongful eviction, Mary Sykes continued isolation, segregation, abuse, and financial exploitation, and sans a double standard the attorneys professional ruin.

It is very sad that we never learn and the legal professional has to be perceived as predator rather than the ‘learned profession’ that it desires to portray itself. The Barry case is a crack in the mantra of the professional court appointed guardian crowd who are the subject of the ire of the victims of Court protected guardianship abuse and financial exploitation. The Sykes case demonstrates the extent of the infection and the arrogance of the disease. I’ve copied Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga, and Mr. Schmiedel in this note making one more Christmas Appeal to use their offices to provide Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes, and their friends, family and neighbors a Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all -

~Ken Ditkowsky
www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Source:
Effect of the Barry Case

See Also:
NASGA Victims - Mary Sykes

Note:
Gloria Sykes is a NASGA Member