CONFIRMED BY ILL. SUPREME COURT– YOU ARE VIEWING THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOG IN ILLINOIS. This blog warranted a 3 year suspension by the ARDC/Jerome Larkin! Mottos: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Justice Louis Brandeis ; "If the truth can destroy something, then it deserves to be destroyed" Carl Sagan; "Justice is Truth in Action" Benjamin Disraeli. Illinois uses the ARDC to quash dissenting attorney activist blogs ; "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments" — (1776-First Amendment preamble adopted by 8 US colonies)
Fierle ruined the lives of so many, yet the media is silent on her coverage. She had over 450 wards, and many, many complaints–complaints that were generally left untouched and uninvestigated by the Florida authorities.
It wasn’t until she directly caused the death of one man, by insisting his feeding tube be capped, that the authorities finally stepped in.
So where is the media coverage of this trial and the outrage by the families?
For those of you following the Sallas case, the judge has issed some sort of special invitation to have Dean Sallas appear before her, together with all attorneys at 9 am.
No, I don’t think it will be to congratulate him or give him sympathy.
An investigative reporter has been following this case and publishing about it, because it is soooo egregious all over the internet. Maybe the Suntimes, Tribune or Crain’s Chicago Business will pick it up for further local investigation.
As you will recall, Mr. Sallas is married to Amelia. Amelia suffered a stroke about 12 years ago while a work. She was a teacher of the highest caliber teaching in an affluent school district. Her retirement income is a tasty $7k+ for the hungry probate court crowd of vultures, liars and thieves. With proper treatment and medicines, which Dean saw to, Mrs. Sallas became fully functional again about 14 months later. She resumed fully her household duties of shopping, cleaning, cooking and grocery shopping. No matter to the probate court, like the hungry snakes in the grass they were, they struck at the couple hard and would not let go. The coils around them continued to tighten and squeeze every penny out of them, like a boa constrictor.
Mr. Sallas amassed a sizeable rental income property collection of $9 million. The probate court ruined that. All of that is gone now. Then they went after Mrs. Sallas and put her in a lock down facility. I believe they removed all her teeth and implanted a feeding tube and they also keep her wheelchair bound. All she does is cry out for her husband, whom she loves and adores.
Next they went after the condo and filed a fake eviction proceeding against the tenant and obtained an exparte judgment for eviction without notice to Dean or his attorney. Opposing counsel claimed Dean’s attorney “often did not show up” (because of course they were not serving her” and would tell the judge “Diana never filed an appearance (although she did and opposing counsel knew it and it was in the court records” and the court had the records sealed so we still don’t know anything about the docket sheet or what really happened or what the documents were or the court dates that were held secretly. Secret hearings and secret orders then issued from the condo case.
Finally, the OPG or office of public guardian renewed the mortgage on the Sallas’ marital residence and 1) made it a commercial loan with none of the safeguards of a residential mortgage; 2) had Amelia sign the renewal documents despite the fact she was adjudicated a disabled adult; 3) the OPG attorney Cassanova appeared at that proceeding and did nothing except bill the estate while Dean valiently fought the proceedings on his own; 4) likely violated the elder finanacial abuse law which would make all of this a class D felony because in essence, it is a conspiracy to defraud the couple of a highly valuable $500k+ home in Skokie, Illinois.
Now they have the Village of Skokie going after Dean by giving him grass cutting tickets for the grass being too long or too short, parking 1″ over the sidewalk, etc. In fact, last Friday while there was an important status call on the condo case, he had been called to the VOS for some paltry ticket that was dismissed in the end.
Judge Mescall apparently has “something important” to talk to Dean about on Monday. Most likely it is the internet attention that the case has garndered.
The case should be dismissed. Dean has tendered 8 checks to the HOA marked “payment in full” and under the law of waiver, if those checks were cashed, then the case must be tossed.
Now from Kenneth Ditkowsky and his take on the case:
There are few cases that stand out as being examples of *******. This Sallas
proceeding is amazing and appears to parallel the cases that you and your group are fighting nationwide.
In this case, a senior citizen and his wife (own a condominium) in a Chicago downtown building. For reasons unknown, the association engaged in unsolicited harassment of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and in particular Mr. Sallas. Mr. and Mrs. Sallas have a tenant in the condominium who has been living in the unit as a tenant for about 34 years. Suddenly, the association started a campaign of harassment. They complained that they did not have a copy of the tenant’s lease and started to fine Sallas. The fact that after 34 years and the upheaval of the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE rendered him unable to file his papers did apparently bother whomever was promulgating the harassment.
Suddenly, the association filed a totally inappropriate Forcible Entry and Detainer action. (Let me be clear – I am biased as I dealt with obnoxious condominium associations who act in a discriminatory manner – This association apparently had a change of heart part way through and accepted settlement.)
Dean filed a Jury Demand, AND ran into the usual problem of finding a lawyer to represent his interests. Dean continued to pay the monthly assessment and the same was accepted by the association.
From time to time Dean talked with the management company and 8 checks were negotiated by the Condominium Association that bear and endorsement acknowledging the acceptance of those check in FULL SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE. Dean continues as he had for 34years, collected his rent and paid the assessment.
The Condominium accepted 8 checks acknowledging a settlement in full and the same have been filed with the Circuit Court. That should end this summary FED case and dismiss it — HOWEVER, WE ARE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS!
It now appears from the information given to me that the attorneys for the CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION countered the filed of the 8 negotiated checks acknowledging that this matter has been settled and the case should be dismissed — THE APPEARED EX=PARTE without notice to either Dean or his attorney and obtained a judgement, a judgment for possession, and attorney fees.
Exactly how this was done with notification and with a jury demand on record is interesting but we are in the CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS! It has been alleged that as to particular law firms certain judges are on retainer and ******. I have no personal knowledge as to any relationship between the plaintiff’s law firm and any judge. I also rely upon Mr. Sallas for the factual information. I do give Sallas particular credibility as I dealt with him, his father and their business for more than 1/2 a century and they have always been square with me.
When Dean learned of this travesty he filed a Motion to vacate the ex=parte orders and dismiss the proceedings. Apparently the attorneys worked out an order continuing the Motion to Vacate to Oct 27, 2022; however, Judge Mescall apparently has scheduled something for MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 AT 9:00 AM. The judge has indicated that she wants to speak to Mr. Sallas. As all Court proceedings are supposed to be open, I think it is important for all citizens to see Justice first hand in Cook County, Illinois.
I further understand that Journalist Janet Phelan is particularly invited to attend the Zoom hearing.
If anyone has any information on what this is going on, please contact me, firstname.lastname@example.org or 773.255.7608. I would love to hear about it.
I just don’t understand how the Catholic Church can sue 2 elderly Christian ladies to take farmland from them. Who does this? Why is this happening?
Here is one such case going on now in Abingdon, Illinois, Knox County Courthouse, Judge Curtis Lane, who threatened the defendants, two elderly women with jail THREE TIMES, and was not recused, and the transcripts do not show any good reason why.
Here is the Motion to Recuse the Judge for Cause because he threatened two elderly women with jail in the courtroom:
Here is the Motion to Substitute Judge Curtis Lane for Cause for yelling at the elderly Williamson sisters he will send them to jail. Can anyone read the transcript and tell me for what? It is not at all clear from the transcript. I understand Judge Curtis Lane in Knox county is appointed, not elected, so that might explain it.
Now if anyone can tell me why 1) Judge Lane keeps on yelling at the Williamsons and he’s always harsh and demanding on them, but he treats attorneys Robertson and Mangeri like landed princely gentry and 2) why is the Catholic Church suing the Williamsons over a farm and timeberland dispute. The Williamsons want to keep the land as it is. If the Catholic Church gets ahold of it, they will likely log it and remove thousands of beautiful old trees. I do not understand this case, but people are complaining to me about it.
Today’s hearing is significant in allowing Law enforcement to know the alignment of the players.
The hearing transcripts and petition filed by the Guardian on February 15, 2018 were not only intentional attempts to mislead Judge Boliker, but it appears that she was part and parcel of it. THUS, WE HAVE THE FOLOWING events which cannot be tolerated.1) We have a Bank engaged in a criminal enterprise – i.e. the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE OF A SENIOR CITIZEN in direct violation of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56.2) That Bank in pursuance of its criminal conduct on January 25 has Mrs. Sallas sign a document -i.e. a commercial loan document that is predatory and abusive. Documents that would be beneficial to the elders were avoided. The Bank does not comport with any of the requirement of Federal and State Disclosure Law.3) On Feb 15, 2018, to ‘cover up the criminal activity in violation of 18 USCA 1341 the Guardian appears before Judge Boliker and makes statements that are misleading, untrue and deceptive. Judge Boliker accepts the statements and gives the Guardian the permission to attempt to cover-up the criminal act of January 25,2018. They do!4) That from 2018 to 2019 the Guardian raids the assets of his ward and her husband to pay to the Byline Bank some $40,000.00. In addition it appears that the Guardian conducts some sniping — he reports a vehicle owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sallas titled in the name of Mrs. Sallas stolen and collects 4000.00 dollars for it. The5) The Byline Bank then files a foreclosure. That foreclosure is rubber stamped by Judge Robles who ignores not only 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56, and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 but the equitable principles of fairless, honesty integrity and grants SUMMARY JUDGE OF FORECLOSURE IN AN AMOUNT of approximately 375,000.00. The original balance due when the illegal note was signed was $175,000.00. Thus penalty interest of approx $240,000 was allowed – well in excess of the criminal interest rate of 36%.
The integrity of the Rule of Law of the State of Illinois is at stake in these proceedings. It appears that the State of Illinois has given out a franchise to certain judges to appoint guardians and delegate them UNPRECEDENTED AUTHORITY to violate the 14th Amendment and all the elder protection statutes. Not only are they delegated the right to do this openly and overtly, but the RULE OF LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. Judge Boliker today ruled that any crime against an elderly person is acceptable conduct!! THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY!!!THE QUESTION TO GOVERNOR PRITZKER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE STATES ATTORNEY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS — IS THAT ALSO YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND ARE YOU ATTORNING TO IT?The question to the Federal authorities is also quite simple – is it the policy of the United States of America to allow Illinois to be a haven for crimes against the elderly?
And here is additional argument Dean put together that he did not have time to make:
Argument for hearing July 12, 2022
In re Amelia Sallas
Mrs. Sallas has been in a guardianship in Cook County. While at one time she might have needed a guardianship, the guardianship was establish on a fraudulent basis which I will go into in much detail later.
In summary, the couple, Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas have been forced into a de facto divorce, without their authorization or consent. They cannot freely see one another. This is a marriage of over 4 decades, with a couple very much in love and very dependent upon one another. Together they raised 2 children, Paulette and Thomas.
Their lives, prior to the guardianship, had been completely intertwined. They lived together happily for decades. Maybe their marriage was not perfect, but they never separated, legally or otherwise–until the guardianship.
During this guardianship there have been very serious gross violations of the US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution on a continuing basis, including the 1st, 4th,5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
Several Guardians have been appointed in this case, most from the OPG or Office of Public Guardian. None it appears has taken his or her duty seriously as a fiduciary to Amelia Sallas, and by proxy to her cherished husband Dean Sallas. The conduct has been serious, continuing and the motion by Dean Sallas to dismiss the Guardianship should be granted immediately by this honorable court.
Most serious is the continued separation of the couple. After that is the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE 720 ILCS 5/17-56 which has been perpretrated upon Mrs. Sallas by Charles P Golbert, his attorneys and a “Greek chorus” of lawyers, the GAL and a myriad of guardians.
Factual statement made previously by Dean Sallas have not been denied. The over reach by these actors has been serious and continuing.
The question is, has this guardianship been 1) at all beneficial to Amy Sallas who only wants to go home and live with her husband in peace; 2) has the conduct of the court and the lawyers involved been reasonable; and 3) has it been necessary.
The answer to all these questions is no.
Prior to the guardianship, the couple lived together and took care of one another. It is admitted that the couple own both a nice home in Skokie and a nice condo (which is leased on a month to month basis) at 1555 N. Dearborn Pkwy in Chicago.
Either residence would be suited for the couple to use as a marital home.
But instead, and without the consent of either husband and wife, Amelia Sallas has been forced to live in an ALF to the tune of $7,000 per month, as admitted in the pleadings of the OPG.
The Sallas’ could be living at home. They could be caring for each other there. Instead the court and the OPG has forced the couple apart and into an unnecessary and undesired living situation at $7,000 per month. A situation which is unnecessary and expensive when they could be living in one of their own homes.
A Guardian is not an alter ego of the ward. He should at all times follow the direction of the Ward and her desires–not the desires of the court and the lawyers and the GAL and the OPG. This couple wants to live together in one of their own homes. The fact that this has never been accomplished or even considered is a serious breach of rights under the Illinois Probate Act. It is further a breach of Amy’s Constitutional rights.
The Illinois Probate Act spells this out nicely for all Disabled Persons living in the State of Illinois:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. (Source: P.A. 93-435, eff. 1-1-04.)
It it patently obvious that Charles Golbert, as guardian, has consistently overstepped his statutory authority and does so in defiance of his attorney oath.
The guardianship was initiated without actual finding of facts and conclusions of law by this honorable court as to Amy’s disabilities Amy Sallas was rubber stamped as “fully disabled” by conclusion and continues to be conclusorily rubber stamped as such, without any proper statutory analysis of exactly what her disabilities are and how a guardian may actually alleviate those disabilities.
Dumping a ward into an ALF without her consent is not a “necessary solution”. Amy wants to live at home and the Guardian, for about 1.5 years has not lifted a single finger to get Amy back home with her husband. The action is so egregious that it warrants immediate dismissal of the guardianship for such a gross and continuing violation of Amy’s needs, wants and desires and under the US and Illinois constitutions
The Illinois legislature in enacting section (b) clearly intended to limit the actions of Guardians and provide Disabled Persons with as many rights and abilities as is possible. The words “as is necessary to promote the well being…of the disabled person” are clearly the operative words.
In addition, the OPG does not seriously contend any where in their Response that there were actual findings of fact and conclusions of law for exactly how to limit the rights of Amy. In ¶ 19 in rubber stamp fashion they declare Amy to fully disabled and unable to care for her person and finances. And yet, from 2008 to approximately 2019, Amy was in fact caring for the couple’s home, cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and even grocery shopping. These actual facts are in direct opposition to ¶ 19 of the OPG Response that Amy was fully disabled and that a limited guardian would not suffice.
In addition, it would appear that during those years, prior to forcing Amy into an ALF, a place where she does not want to be, she was also signing forms at the doctor’s offices and signing herself in and out of the hospital when she required some minor procedures.
Again, the facts fly in the face of the OPG’s ¶ 22 which states “this court carefully considers and weighs Amelia’sneed for a guardian during each appointment hearing” This statement is so far from the truth, it’s as if the two had never even met.
Again, the operative words in the Illinois Probate Act are “actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations”. Amy apparently was doing well on her own with her husband for 10 years and yet no one from that OPG dismissed the guardianship.
A guardian is not the “slave owner” of the elderly person targeted and human trafficked into a Cook County Guardianship. The Guardian does not have the right to vote for the ward, nor can he terminate family relationships at will. Every single action of a guardian must yield the ward a benefit and be necessary and reasonable.
The record in this case reveal that the OPG’s overreach and custodial confinement of Amelia are not beneficial, necessary or reasonable. Amelia wants to go home and live with her husband of 50 some years.
The Byline Bank transactions appear to be text book examples of wrongful foreclosures, financial elder abuse,mail fraud, wire fraud and a violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a-22 (trade and contracts with a person with a disability).
The transactions appear to be nothing but an exercise in self enrichment and self dealing with a known predatory lender. A lender that arranged with the OPG to contract for a commercial loan so the couple’s marital home would have none of the consumer safe guards afforded to consumer mortgage loans such as lower interest rates, MAFA and TILA and even Covid relief. The Sallas’ were trapped into a commercial loan by the OPG so that the home could later be sold at a discount and to nefarious miscreants at a later date.
If Amy Sallas had been deemed a disabled person, what did it matter to the OPG to have her sign the loan renewal documents?
The court is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of it own proceedings orders and petitions in the case of 07 P 5360, 2019 CH 13960 (Byline Bank v. Sallas, et al.) And Constellation Condo v. Sallas where representatives of the OPG sat by and watched a wrongful foreclosure, a grossly inflated Judgment and a wrongful Eviction order issue without comment or objection from the OPG lawyers. And yet they bill for being a fly on the wall. They bill to watch predatory lenders and HOAs steal from their Wards and take advantage of them. In the Byline wrongful foreclosure the judgment was inflated by hundreds of thousands of dollars and the OPG said and did nothing. In the Constellation Condo case, Dean and his attorney were never served, yet the OPG attorneys watched the court enter an inflated judgment for $20,000+ and never said a word, and made no objections.
With respect to the Byline loan documents, the contract was so procrustean that upon signing the contract the ward appears to be in instant default.
In addition, it must be noted that:
1) the loan was a commercial loan, not subject to consumer mortgage loan safeguards. 2) other financial institutions at the time were offering much lower interest rates 3) that the Guardian could have considered a reverse mortgage, but those generally do not involve the added benefit of a finder’s fee.
To recap, the OPG sent in an attorney on all of the cases, who did nothing and said nothing, but billed the estate. They pointed out no obvious errors in the drafting and execution of these documents. In fact, they pretty much said to the predatory plaintiffs, go ahead and take it all, and then some. The defendant is a a ward which is not human and a subspecies.
The losses incurred during the Byline wrongful foreclosure are estimated at a half million.
The loses incurred during the wrongful Constellation Condo HOA eviction are approximtely $22,000 while OPG attorneys said nothing and did nothing.
Obviously the system of OPG attorneys seriously is not working. They bill and bill and bill and make no objections, file no motions to dismiss and grossly underrepresent wards on a regular basis.
All of this is a serious breach of their fiduciary duties to the wards and by proxy to their loved ones. Not all the wards are vegetables. Many are keenly aware that he OPG has deftly and swiftly eliminated entire family fortunes in the blink of an eye, such as in the Sallas case.
There is simply no doubt that in the Byline Bank case the OPG via Mr. Goldbert, obtained a predatory commercial loan from a predatory lender.
In the case of the HOA, a predatory HOA hired a predatory law firm to wrongfully, and without notice or service, obtain a wrongful court ordered eviction of the Sallas’ tenants.
It really must be noted for the record, that the reason why the OPG and the court has not sold the Dearborn Parkway unit is because Dean smartly 1) granted the tenants a never ending option to renew their lease at below market prices; 2) the rent does not cover the HOA fees and taxes which means the OPG makes no profit; and 3) the assets is preserved free from the grips of the predatory OPG. They can’t sell it, they can’t kick the tenants out, and they make no profit. Perhaps the OPG went behind the backs of the Sallas’ to provoke a wrongful eviction from a predatory law firm, but that is a question for another day and time.
In summary, the Sallas case is the quintessential case of how the OPG system does not work and has never worked. Attorneys are hired at a flat rate to engage in nefarious dealings with sleezy lenders, HOAs and law firms. This HOA and Bank have shown themselves to be openly sleezy. The law firms associated with HOAs and foreclosures are well known to be sleezy and no further discussion is necessary. This court can readily take judicial notice of all the online articles from the AP and UPI news sources regarding HOA law firms and predatory lender law firms. They are in fact notorious and operate freely without impunity in the Cook County Court system.
However the real question is why is the OPG charging estates $250 to $300 per hour when the salaries of all attorneys are paid by the taxpayers of Illinois and the over head and expenses of the OPG are paid by the taxpayers of Illinois while private attorney can only fee petition for the same rates, but they have to pay their own overhead and expenses, typically 1/3 of that rate. OPG attorneys get free office space courtesy of the taxpayers of Illinois.
In summary, the over reaching, the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law as to what, if any disability Amelia actually had for years, while she was doing all the household cooking, cleaning and laundry for herself and her husband daily readily comes into question. The OPG’s ¶ 19 is preposterous, especially in light of the fact that she was signing herself in and out of hospitals really reaches deeply into the very core of the desperately flawed Illinois Probate guardianship system. And in the end, this only amounts to serious violations of Amy’s 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights.
This clearly necessitates the dismissal of this guardianship case on an immediate basis.
And if the court does not dismiss the guardianship case, then Dean is respectfully requesting in person visits for as long as he desires for each day Amy is wrongfully incarcerated in an ALF against her will, authorization and consent. He wants cameras install in the ALF facility to ensure his wife is not being abused.
He also wants a plan in place to bring her home. Even if the court (wrongfully) requires 24/7 care, it still will be cheaper than a $7,000 per month ALF
log in on zoom at 10 am tomorrow and watch Judge Boliker and the OPG put on a real show, better than any reality show. How to kidnap an elderly woman, give her a de facto divorce, steal all the marital assets from her approx. 85 year old husband.
You could not hope for more drama and squirming.
Why the OPG has not been indicated en masse as a criminal organization under RICO is beyond me.
Judge Boliker and her henchmen and women pretend this is not going on. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil–a tried and true motto of gship.
Amelia Sallas wants to see and live with and hold her husband and cherish him, as Dean Sallas wants for her. They want to be together. And since the probate court and their criminal organization have stolen $9 million in real estate and about $100k in marital assets per year with impunity, the crimes against the elderly and humanity continue.
See the show tomorrow 10 am EST.
If you liked the movie I care a lot, now you can see it in action, full color zoom action. Don’t miss it.
Here is the response of the OPG–complete fiction on their part.
FILED 6/7/2022 1:39 PM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY, IL 2007P005360 Calendar, 15 18192744 FILED DATE: 6/7/2022 1:39 PM 2007P005360 Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled Location: <> Judge: Calendar, 15 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION File No: 2007 P 5360 Estate of Amelia Sallas A Person with a Disabili PUBLIC GUARDIAN’S RESPONSE TO DEAN SALLAS’ APRIL 30, 2022 PLEADING AND MOTION TO STRIKE Charles P. Golbert, Cook County Public Guardian, as successor plenary guardian of the Estate and Person of Amelia Sallas, by and through one of his attorneys, Lisa Casanova, presents this Response to Dean Sallas’ April 30, 2022, pleading, stating in support thereof as follows: Introduction
Charles P. Golbert, Cook County Public Guardian, serves as successor plenary guardian of Amelia’s estate and successor plenary guardian of Amelia’s person.
Amelia Sallas is 80 years old and resides at Belmont Village assisted living in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Amelia moved to her residence at Belmont Village in April2019 after living with her daughter and daughter’s family for several months. Prior to that, she lived in her single-family home in Skokie, Illinois.
Amelia is doing well at Belmont Village. She participates in daily activities and socializes with friends of her choosing, clergy members and daughter, Paulette.
Amelia’s current diagnoses include dementia, arteriosclerotic heart disease, hyperlipidemia, dysphagia and congestive heart failure.
Amelia’s monthly income is approximately $7,400, which covers the cost of her care at Belmont Village, medical expenses and personal items.
Amelia and her husband, Dean Sallas, hold the beneficial interest in two pieces of real property, 4110 Suffield Court, in Skokie, Illinois, and 1555 N. Dearborn Parkway, Unit 19E in Chicago, Illinois, both of which are held in land trusts. FILED DATE: 6/7/2022 1:39 PM 2007P005360
On April 7, 2022, the Public Guardian filed his Twelfth Current Account for Amelia Sallas’ Estate.
On April 30, 2022, Dean Sallas filed a document titled “Dean Sallas’ objection [sic] to all accountings of the Guardian’s appointed herein and in particular the 12th annual account of the Guardian Charles P. Golbert”, hereinafter to be called “Objections”. I. The appointment of plenary guardians, of the estate and person, for Amelia Sallas was proper
In August 2006, Amelia Sallas suffered a debilitating brain aneurysm causing cognitive and memory deficits.
On August 7, 2007, Thomas Sallas, Amelia’s son, filed the original petition for guardianship of Amelia.
Subsequently, Dean Sallas and Paulette Andrews (Amelia’s daughter) filed separate cross-petitions seeking to become Amelia’s guardian.
On October 5, 2009, after more than two years of protracted litigation and over 30 court hearings and status dates, including mediation, the Court adjudicated Amelia Sallas a disabled person in need of a plenary guardian.
On October 7, 2009, Advocacy Guardianship Services was appointed the plenary guardian of Amelia Sallas’ person and American Bank and Trust was appointed plenary guardian of her estate.
Approximately three months later, American Bank and Trust petitioned the court to resign and nominated the Cook County Public Guardian.
On February 3, 2010, the Cook County Public Guardian was appointed the successor plenary guardian of the Estate of Amelia Sallas.
On July 29,2020, Advocacy Guardianship Services resigned, and the Cook County Public Guardian was appointed the temporary guardian of Amelia Sallas’ person.
On December 1, 2020, the Cook County Public Guardian was appointed the successor plenary guardian of the person of Amelia Sallas. 2 FILED DATE: 6/7/2022 1:39 PM 2007P005360
The Court’s appointment orders dated October 7, 2009, February 3, 2010, and December 1, 2020, are based solely on the facts and documents presented and the findings made pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a- 3 and 5/11a-12.
The Court made findings in its appointment orders including: (a) that Amelia is a disabled person and is totally without understanding to communicate decisions regarding her person; (b) that Amelia is totally unable to manage her estate or financial affairs; ( c) that a limited guardian would not provide sufficient protection for Amelia and her estate; (d) that the factual basis for the guardian was “the reports of Dr. Shaw dated 11107 and 1119 and 1123/09 and the Reports of the Guardian ad litem, Sherry Fox and Petition of Respondent and testimony of all trial witnesses.”
In his “Objections” Dean Sallas provides no basis to support his assertion that this Court “at no time made any findings of fact and conclusions of law that disclosed any mental, physical or adaptive limitations of Amy Sallas.” Objections, p.2
This Court made specific findings that Amelia Sallas was a person with a disability and needed a plenary guardian.
Not only did this Court carefully consider and weigh Amelia’s need for a guardian during each appointment hearing, but also it continuously reviews the appropriateness of guardianship when considering the guardian’s annual report on Amelia Sallas, and on an ongoing basis.
Furthermore, the Court conducted a thorough review of the appropriateness of guardianship for Amelia Sallas when it held a several day trial on October 3, 2018, October 26,2018 and November 29, 2019 on Dean Sallas’ Petition for Restoration of Amelia Sallas. This Court denied Dean’s petition for restoration on December 18,2018.
Based on the foregoing, Dean’s “Objections” should be dismissed. 3 FILED DATE: 6/7/2022 1:39 PM 2007P005360 II. The Public Guardian’s Twelfth Current Account is proper and should be approved.
Dean Sallas’ objections to the Public Guardian’s 12th current account are not properly pled, are legally insufficient in law and fact, and must be stricken.
Dean Sallas requests that the Public Guardian’s annual account be “denied” and requests that the Public Guardian pay any sums “wrongfully taken” from Dean and Amelia,Sallas. Objections, p. 6-7.
Dean fails to reference any specific expenditure from the Public Guardian’s Account that he finds objectionable.
The Public Guardian’s Twelfth Current details each expenditure made on behalf of Amelia and reflects that her income and assets were used solely for her care and benefit.
The Court approved the Public Guardian’s last eleven accounts and those accounts are on file with the Cook County Clerk and are publicly available for anyone to reVIew.
Dean Sallas was noticed on, and received, the prior annual accountings. The Court granted him the authority to file his objections and Dean has, at times, done so.
Dean fails to object to any specific expense, and also fails to provide any basis, in law or in fact, to demonstrate how the guardian purportedly violated his or Amelia’s “constitutional rights.”
For all the reasons set forth above, the Public Guardian requests that this Court find that Dean Sallas’ Objections are legally and factually insufficient, lack specificity and are replete with mischaracterizations. Accordingly, Dean’s objections to the 12th Current Account must be dismissed. III. Dean’s objections contain gross mischaracterizations, are not supported by law or in fact and must be stricken.
Dean’s “Objections” are replete with unsubstantiated claims that must be stricken. 4 FILED DATE: 6/7/2022 1:39 PM 2007P005360
. Dean offers unsupported claims about the guardian engaging in “financial elder abuse” and “felony theft”. Objections p.2, 8, 11. These statements are merely used to inflame and harass and have no basis, whatsoever, in fact and must be stricken with prejudice.
On page 9, Dean references the signing of mortgage documents with Byline Bank but does not provide details as to the supposed serious criminal conduct or the relevance to the proceedings at hand.
As the record in this case demonstrates, the guardian petitioned the eourt for the authority to execute mortgage documents and this court properly approved the petition. Dean’s statements.about criminal conduct have no basis in fact and the Public Guardian requests they be stricken . . 37. Dean makes further baseless claims about the “wrongful imprisonment” of Amelia Sallas. Objections, p. 7.
He makes unsupported, undocumented and disrespectful claims about the guardian “trafficking the elderly” and engaging in a criminal cover up, and thus, these must be stricken. Objections p. 7-10.
Similarly, no evidence has been produced or even referenced to support Dean’s baseless and appalling claims ofthat the Public Guardian’s staff has threatened him and Amelia Sallas and thus these must also be stricken. Objections p. 8. AO. Dean provides no evidence or documentation to support any of his offensive claims and the Public Guardian requests they be stricken. WHEREFORE, Charles P. Golbert, Cook County Public Guardian and successor plenary guardian of the Estate and Person of Amelia Sallas respectfully requests this Court enter an order:
Dismiss, in its entirety, “Dean Sallas’ Obj ection to all accountings of the Guardian’s appointed herein and in particular the 12th annual account ofthe Guardian Charles P. Golbert” as it is improperly pled and legally insufficient; and 5 FILED DATE: 6/7/2022 1:39 PM 2007P005360
Approving the Public Guardian’s Twelfth Current Account; and
Striking Dean Sallas’ unsubstantiated claims of: a. Financial elder abuse, felony theft, serious criminal conduct and claims the guardian is engaged in a criminal cover up as having no basis in fact; b. Wrongful imprisonment and trafficking the elderly as having no basis in fact; c. Alleged threats made by the Public Guardian’s staff to Dean and Amelia Sallas as having no basis in fact;
Granting any such further relief as this Court deems to be in the best interest of Amelia Sallas. Respectfully submitted, Lisac~or Charles P. Golbert, Cook County Public Guardian and Successor Plenary Guardian of the Estate and Person of Amelia Sallas VERIFICATION BY CERTIFICATON Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned, an attorney, certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct,except as matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verify believes the same to be true, f)fi” ~ Listanova,~ Charles P. Golbert, Cook County Public Guardian Lisa Casanova, Attorney Office of the Public Guardian 69 W. Washington St. #700 Chicago IL 60602 312-603 -0800 Attorney No 70500 Elizabeth. Casanova(qlcoo kcountvil. gOY 6
Kathy Cooper has been fighting for some time to release her husband from an abusive guardianship and get her husband back. The couple has been split up and a de facto divorce was imposed upon this couple by the State of Minnesota Court System.
Husband Irvin Cooper wants to see his wife and she wants to see him and live with him again.
Irvin has escaped his ALF and allegedly gone to another state or country so he is free of his abusive guardianship he does not want and does not need.
The couple was married last October 2021 and the gship court continues to split this couple up and threaten Wife Kathy with jail if she has any contact with her husband, even though he has told the court repeatedly that Kathy has done nothing wrong and he does not want a Protective Order issued against her.
Why is the court doing this? $7,000 per month in income and a substantial inventory and a paid up home and vehicles, that the court wants to sell and use for their crony nursing home fees and attorneys’ fees, of course.
Be sure to link to zoom as a court watcher. Kathy needs court watchers right now and if can help her with her transcript fees, that would be great. Her case is now up on appeal.
Irvin Cooper’s 6/21/22 at 1:30 pm Zoom Hearing Login Instructions
And if you have heard or seen from Irvin, please leave updates on his condition. Please do not reveal to anyone where he is, but you can leave anonymous messages on this blog, facebook probate pages and on other probate victim pages for Wife Kathy to read publicly.
Wife Kathy has been posting public messages for Irvin to read and the Probate court cannot shut that down. Free Speech. See my other posts on probate gag orders which are illegal under Citizens United and other US Supreme Court cases. The standard for gage orders and sealing of cases is “strict scrutiny” which means 1) there must be a compelling reason to regulate speech; 2) there must be no other way to prevent the alleged harm and the harm is compelling; and 3) the means must be effective to prevent any alleged harm.
In this case, there is no harm invovled. Irvin wants to see his wife Kathy and she wants to see him and live with him. Both profess publicly they are deeply in love and want to be together. But if you are taking lots of money from estates, that might interfere with your crony plans.
Wonderful video on why you should never talk to the police without your attorney present.
When the police inform you of your right to an attorney, accept it and stop talking. Call your attorney as soon as you are able. Object to anything for the record and do it politely. The police cannot make you do anything and I mean anything. Make you walk a line, touch your toes, dance or whatever. Be polite but firm. Take out your cell phone and record everything. Keep your car on and your dash cam running at all times. Anyone nearby or in your car, ask them to record on their cell phones
Kathleen is 69 years old and does not do drugs or alcohol. She has 2 adult children that live out of state who are not interested in caring for her for whatever reason. She says they have their own lives and are very busy. I spent an hour with her and she seemed very intelligent (was a teacher for years), very kind, quiet, but talkative and she seems to be a good Christian and she is very introspective. She is from Ireland originally and still has a cute little accent. For some reason she is homeless. She does have social security, but a very small amount because she worked many jobs that did not pay into social security. She also has well care for insurance. She does not currently have food stamps because she moved back to California to be with her son for awhile. Let me know if you have a room for her or if you know a place where she can stay while she signs up for senior/disabled housing in the Chicago area. Sometimes she in pain due to fibromyalgia. She would lie to make some money by tutoring. Bless all of you for looking for housing for this kind lady. If you have something call me at 773.255.7608
As you know, for over a decade, the OPG and Probate court and various probate guardianship judges have terrorized Amelia and Dean Sallas. Dean Sallas is 84 years old and physically disabled. The OPG/Probate court have split up this couple and Amy Sallas has been isolated from her beloved husband of over a half century through various nefarious court orders. Amy has long recovered from her stroke of over a decade ago. She soon returned home from the hospital and after a few months of rest, resumed her household duties of caring for her husband and doing the household cooking, cleaning and laundry, yet her guardianship continued on even though her husband repeatedly protested she did not need a guardianship. A few years ago, Amy was put in a locked down ALF.
The story has been made public on social media and see how the OPG/judges/lawyers complain that, heaven forbid, the public has become aware of the case and is protesting this case, much the same as the “free Brittney” case but on a much lesser scale.
The lawyers and judges in this case have repeatedly stolen from Dean Sallas and deprived him of the loss of care and comfort of his wife for years now.
Please continue to write Judge Boliker at Cook County Court, 50 W. Washington St, Chicago, IL 60601 and the Office of Public Guardian, 69 W. Washington St, Chicago IL 60602 and continue to object to the handling of this couple.
They know the public is watching their criminal activity. The Sallas’ deserve to live their life in peace without the guardianship court making repeated statements that Dean “has no rights” and he cannot interfere with their dasterdly schemes.
Dean Sallas has recently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and this is all the fault of the OPG, the guardianship court and a foreclosure judge that would rubber stamp the foreclosure of a banana.
RECENT COURT TRANSCRIPT
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: 2 COUNTY OF COO K ) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION IN THE ESTATE OF: AMEL IA SALLAS, a disabled person.) ) No. 07 P 5360 REPORT OF RECORDED VIDEO CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS had at the matter of the above-entitled cause, before the HONORABLE SHAUNA BOLIKER, Judge of said Court, on the 8th day of February, A.D., 2022. APPEARANCES: MS DAWN LAWKOWSKI-KELLER and MS. LISA CASANOVA, appeared on behalf of Cook County Public Guardian’s Office, guardian of the Estate and Person; MS. AMY GESDAHL, appeared on behalf of Advocate Guardianship Services; MS EVE EPSTEIN, appeared as Court-appointed Guardian ad Litem; MR. DEAN SALLAS appeared pro se. 23 Sharon M. Rodrigo, CSR # 084-002233 Official Court Reporter 24 Circuit Court of Cook County County Department, Probate Division this is going to be 1 , r 1 THE COURT: This is Amelia Sallas, 07 P 5360. 2 MS CASANOVA: Good morning, Judge. Lisa Casanova 3 from 4 the Public Guardian’s Office. The public guardian is 5 successor plenary guardian of the estate and person. 6 MS LAWKOWSKI-KELLER: Dawn Lawkowsi-Keller, also 7 from the Cook Counby Public Defender’s Office. 8 MS EPSTEIN: Eve Epstein, E-p-s-t-e-i-n. I’m the 9 court-appointed guardian ad litem. 10 MS GJESDAHL: Good morning, Amy Gjesdale, 11 G-j-e-s-d-a-l-e. I formerly represented Josh Mitzen as 12 guardian of the person. I have a petition for 13 memorandum of judgment pending this morning. 14 15 MR SALLAS: THE COURT: Dean Sallas, husband to Amy Sallas. Is there somebody there also with you, 16 Mr Sallas? 17 MR SALLAS: I don’t see anybody, no. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. 19 MS CASANOVA: Judge, we also have a petition 20 regarding disbursement. Maybe we should take 21 Ms Gjesdale’s matter first. 22 THE COURT: Okay. I have both petitions before me 23 if you want to go ahead, Ms Gjesdale. 24 MS GJESDAHL: Yes, your Honor. I filed this 2 I • ,f 1 petition for memorandum of judgment regarding two 2 outstanding fee orders that were entered granting fees 3 from the estate of Amelia Sallas to Dutton Casey & 4 Mesoloras. 5 The Public Guardian’s Office did make two 6 payments totalling $2,000 towards those fee orders, but 7 there’s an outstanding balance of $8,810.50. We are 8 asking that a memorandum of judgment be entered against 9 the estate related to the Skokie, Illinois property of 10 4110 Suffield Court, Skokie, Illinois. 11 12 THE COURT: MS CASANOVA: Counsel? I don’t have an objection. That 13 property, it’s in foreclosure. But sure, that’s fine. 14 THE COURT: 15 judgment will be 16 17 18 MR SALLAS: THE COURT: MR SALLAS: 19 And they can’t All right. So the memorandum of I object, your Honor. Go ahead, Mr Sallas. I don’t owe these people any money. I’m not under the jurisdiction of 20 this Court. And you cannot order them to pay funds to 21 them that I don’t owe. 22 23 MS GJESDAHL: MR SALLAS: 24 tear-down title. Your Honor, if I may — To put a lien on my house would be a That’s a fact. You might as well be 3 • ,I 1 asking the local gardener to pay Josh Mitzen’s legal 2 fees. 3 Why is the guardian not paying it? And why is 4 Mr Mitzen What are you looking to embellish me and 5 harm me? That’s illegal. 6 You have no rights under the statute, 7 especially 755 ILCS 5/11 (a) (iii) (b) This Court has no authority to grant such a motion. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr Sallas. Ms Gjesdale. MS GJESDAHL: Thank you. 8 9 10 11 This property is held in a land trust. The 12 Albany Bank and Trust Company is trustee under a trust 13 agreement dated 9/15/73. Amelia Sallas has a 14 beneficial interest, a one-half beneficial interest in 15 this land trust. 16 Therefore, we are not trying to attach any of 17 these fees to Mr Sallas’ interest; only Amelia Sallas’ 18 interest. And the order reflects as such. It’s only 19 against the estate of Amelia Sallas. 20 MR SALLAS: Excuse me, your Honor. 21 just speaking is not aware of the law. Whoever was Illinois is a 22 marital state, and that’s a joint tenancy. 23 There is no 50/50 division. If you touch a 24 penny of her money, you touch my money. If you touch 4 1 my money, you are touching her money. 2 Obviously, whoever just spoke is not aware of 3 the laws in Illinois. Are they even an attorney or a 4 lawyer or have a law license? 5 THE COURT: They do. 6 MS GJESDAHL: Your Honor, I also don’t believe 7 Mr Sallas has any standing to object to my memorandum 8 of judgment. His standing is only related to very 9 limited issues in this matter. 10 THE COURT: We discussed that on many occasions 11 here in regards to Mr Sallas’ standing. I do believe
that the memorandum of judgment is appropriate. So the 13 memorandum of judgment will be entered at this point. 14 MS GJESDAHL: Thank you. 15 MR SALLAS: It seems, your Honor, that you have 16 just become a co-conspirator to a theft. 17 18 19 THE COURT: MR SALLAS: THE COURT: 20 your petition? 21 MS CASANOVA: Thank you, Mr- Sallas. You’re welcome. Ms Casanova, did you want to present Yes, Judge. And before I do so, I 22 did want to make you aware, just verbally give you a 23 report about something that occurred last week. 24 THE COURT: Sure. 5 1 MS CASANOVA: I did speak to an inspector from the 2 Illinois Department of Public Health. There was a 3 report made by Ms Phalen who has appeared in this court 4 as an observer before and I guess a Mr Kitkowski about 5 the care that Amelia was receiving was or is 6 receiving at Belmont Village. 7 The allegations concerned confinement, her 8 mobility, some dental issues, issues with COVID at the 9 facility. I did speak to the inspector. She did go 10 see Amelia. She thought she was quite comfortable •• 11 there. She seemed to be well adjusted. She was 12 confused, but pleasant, interact’ing with her peers. 13 So she did not note any concerns on that ./ 14 visit. But I just wanted you to be aware of that 15 report. 16 THE COURT: Thank you. 17 I know that that was always — that has 18 always been an issue, the dental issue and things like 19 that, you know. But I thought that that has at 20 least I know that she has been taken to a dentist 21 often and that has been followed up on. So in terms of 22 that, though, there were no issues with that either, 23 correct? 24 MS CASANOVA: There were no issues. I believe it 6 • 1 related to whether she was using the dentures she had 2 or not 3 lower. or actually, was using both the upper and I don’t think she likes the lower ones. 4 I honestly would need to check on the exact 5 specifics. But that’s what she was investigating, one 6 of the issues. 7 8 THE COURT: MR SALLAS: 9 appropriate? 10 11 THE COURT: MR SALLAS: Thank you. Can I ask a question when it’s You can ask a question, Mr Sallas. I questioned whether Amy was alive. 12 And who is this inspector who supposedly inspected? I 13 would like that person identified. 14 MS CASANOVA: She is alive, yes. I’m not sure if I 15 brought this up that one of the allegations was abou~ 16 confinement. 17 They didn’t find her confined at all. The 18 inspector was assigned through the Illinois Department 19 of Public Health. Ybu know, when they receive a 20 report, I’m not sure how specifically they assign an 21 inspector, but it’s part of their process, you know, to 22 ensure that residents are safe. 23 24 MR SALLAS: I would like — MS LAWKOWSKI-KELLER: And Judge, we would certainly 7 t oro 1 take issue with any accusation by Mr Sallas that we 2 would not inform him immediately of the passing of his 3 wife. 4 It is ridiculous that we are getting phone 5 calls and emails from people from other states; 6 conspiracy theorists, bloggers, whatever, leaving us 7 messages ,and emails saying, you know, “Is Amelia Sallas 8 indeed alive?” 9 I think that’s insulting. I think it’s a 10 horrible thing to say. She is very much alive. The 11 inspector, based on Mr Sallas’ and the blogger’s call 12 to the Illinois Department, went out there. And she’s 13 fine and doing well. 14 So I think, Mr Sallas, we are just going to 15 admonish you that of course you would be notified if 16 anything happened to Mrs Sallas. So I just wanted to 17 put that to rest on the record. 18 MR SALLAS: Who is speaking? 19 MS LAWKOWSKI-KELLER: It’s Dawn. 20 THE COURT: It’s Ms Lawkowski-Keller. 21 And Mr Sallas, this was initiated, sir, by the 22 individuals that come on line that speak about all of 23 us that are here, that are here in the best interest of 24 Ms Sallas that, from what I’m understanding from
, ,J 1 Ms Casanova, was initiated by the individuals that have 2 been supporting you. And that’s why the Illinois 3 Department of Public Health would have gone out, 4 because they heard of the allegations. 5 6 7 8 MR SALLAS: I would like a copy of that THE COURT: Because the public guardian does, of course, check monthly on Amy and how she is doing. And I also — There’s no way that the individuals on this 9 call, sir, if anything had ever happened to Amy, 10 something occurred with Amy, would not make this Court 11 aware of it and we would not also make people aware of 12 it, sir. 13 MR SALLAS: Well, no one has been able to confirm 14 her condition, including the Buffalo Grove Police. 15 They were not able to confirm a wellness check on her. 16 And what you reported is not what I found. 17 MS LAWKOWSKI-KELLER: Judge, I will just say, you 18 know, we’~l put this to rest and move on. 19 an investigator. But there is 20 What Mr Sallas is saying is patently false. 21 She’s fine. She’s doing well. And the investigator 22 was able to meet with her and see her. We are able to 23 meet with her. The police certainly are well aware 24 that Ms Sallas is fine. So these false outcries are 9 … 1 certainly problematic. 2 And you know, if people continue to make false 3 outcries to the police. That could also be a problem. 4 So people really need to consider what they are saying 5 to the police in this case. 6 MR SALLAS: I have personally visited with my wife, 7 and I have observed the conditions different from what 8 you are observing. 9 And you have not visited her. I have. 10 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr Sallas. 11 MS CASANOVA: Judge, the other matter is a petition 12 for disbursement in regards to beginning to make a 13 pre-need funeral plan for Ms Sallas. 14 She does not have anything underway in that 15 regard. So to the extent that we can — We would like 16 to take care of that issue as we can. 17 MR SALLAS: I object, your Honor, right here and 18 now. You do not have the right to make funeral 19 arrangements for me or my wife. 20 MS CASANOVA: This would not have anything to do — 21 THE COURT: With the actual arrangements. 22 MS CASANOVA: It would be the actual arrangements. 23 It’s pretty commonplace for the guardian to make 24 arrangements. .10 .’ .. 1 MR SALLAS: You do not have that right. 2 THE COURT: Mr Sallas– 3 MR SALLAS: You do not have the right. 4 THE COURT: As the guardian of Ms Sallas, yes, they 5 do have that right, sir. And I am going to allow — 6 MR SALLAS: No, they don’t. According to the law, 7 they do not. 8 She is my wife, and you are violating my 9 consortium rights with her. 10 MS CASANOVA: Thank you, Judge. That’s all. We 11 have a date next month for accounting and related 12 matters . 13 THE COURT: Okay. So I’ll see you all next month. 14 Thank you all very much. 15 MS CASANOVA: Thank you, your Honor. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Which were all the proceedings had in the above-entitled cause on said date. ) 11 “ • , 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 2 COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION 3 4 5 I, Sharon Rodrigo, an Official Court Reporter for 6 the Circuit Court of Cook County, County 7 Department/Prob~te Division, do h~reby certify that I 8 reported in shorthand the RECORDED proceedings had at 9 the hearing .in the above-enti·tled cause; that I 10 thereafter caused the foregoing to be transcribed into 11 typewriting, which I hereby certify to be a true and 12 accurate transcript of the proceedings had before the 13 HONORABLE SHAUNA BOLIKER, Judge of said court. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Dated this 14th day 24 of February, 2022. Official Court Reporter C.S.R. No. 84-2233 12
As I stated, it is time for the ‘good guys’ to rise up and address the clear and present danger that corrupt predators present. It is time for the Court appointed guardians who have ravaged the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas account.
On the streets of the major cities the frontier approach is becoming more and more evident, and victims more and more diverse. Respect for the rule of law is virtually identical to that exhibited a week ago Tuesday in Judge Boliker’s courtroom and in Judge Robles courtroom as he issued a secret order (holding it in secret from Dean Sallas for about 11 days). The distinction was that the elderly victims of the breach of the public trust did not and could not physically react in a violent manner. Indeed, while the miscreant guardian and his co-conspirators were physically safe, the elderly couple had to deal with impending official violence directed to them.
At all time relevant every Judge, every lawyer, every social worker, every claimed worker for social justice and everyone associated with the political system knew that the guardian’s authority was limited and the statute made it very clear that in Illinois the Rule of Law was consistent with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to wit:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations. (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
How does isolating, medicating, and otherwise abusing an 80 year old widow promote her well-being. How does isolating her from her spouse of more than 50 years not exploit or abuse her? How does pulling all her teeth and render her immobile encourage development of her maximum self-reliance and independence? How does making her and her husband’s marital property interests disappear comport with the statute? It should be noted that in spite of the clear words of section 22 the Guardian did not even raise a defense to the Byline Bank’s wrongfully trading, bartering with the 80 year old widow to gain control over her home. The statute is absolutely clear, i.e.
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22)(from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22) Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability. (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby. (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
Indeed, Illinois and many other states have enacted legislation to address the actions of the guardian, the judges, the lawyers, and all others who are vested with the public trust, to wit:
· Criminal Elder Abuse 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/17-56
· (a) A person commits financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability when he or she stands in a position of trust or confidence with the elderly person or a person with a disability and he or she knowingly and by deception or intimidation obtains control over the property of an elderly person or a person with a disability or illegally uses the assets or resources of an elderly person or a person with a disability. (b) Sentence. Financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability is: (1) a Class 4 felony if the value of the property is $300 or less, (2) a Class 3 felony if the value of the property is more than $300 but less than $5,000, (3) a Class 2 felony if the value of the property is $5,000 or more but less than $50,000, and (4) a Class 1 felony if the value of the property is $50,000 or more or if the elderly person is over 70 years of age and the value of the property is $15,000 or more or if the elderly person is 80 years of age or older and the value of the property is $5,000 or more. (c) For purposes of this Section: (1) “Elderly person” means a person 60 years of age
or older. (2) “Person with a disability” means a person who
suffers from a physical or mental impairment resulting from disease, injury, functional disorder or congenital condition that impairs the individual’s mental or physical ability to independently manage his or her property or financial resources, or both. (3) “Intimidation” means the communication to an
elderly person or a person with a disability that he or she shall be deprived of food and nutrition, shelter, prescribed medication or medical care and treatment or conduct as provided in Section 12-6 of this Code. (4) “Deception” means, in addition to its meaning as
defined in Section 15-4 of this Code, a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact relating to the terms of a contract or agreement entered into with the elderly person or person with a disability or to the existing or pre-existing condition of any of the property involved in such contract or agreement; or the use or employment of any misrepresentation, false pretense or false promise in order to induce, encourage or solicit the elderly person or person with a disability to enter into a contract or agreement. The illegal use of the assets or resources of an elderly person or a person with a disability includes, but is not limited to, the misappropriation of those assets or resources by undue influence, breach of a fiduciary relationship, fraud, deception, extortion, or use of the assets or resources contrary to law. A person stands in a position of trust and confidence with an elderly person or person with a disability when he (i) is a parent, spouse, adult child or other relative by blood or marriage of the elderly person or person with a disability, (ii) is a joint tenant or tenant in common with the elderly person or person with a disability, (iii) has a legal or fiduciary relationship with the elderly person or person with a disability, (iv) is a financial planning or investment professional, or (v) is a paid or unpaid caregiver for the elderly person or person with a disability. (d) Limitations. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the remedies available to the victim under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986. (e) Good faith efforts. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to impose criminal liability on a person who has made a good faith effort to assist the elderly person or person with a disability in the management of his or her property, but through no fault of his or her own has been unable to provide such assistance. (f) Not a defense. It shall not be a defense to financial exploitation of an elderly person or person with a disability that the accused reasonably believed that the victim was not an elderly person or person with a disability. (g) Civil Liability. A civil cause of action exists for financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability as described in subsection (a) of this Section. A person against whom a civil judgment has been entered for financial exploitation of an elderly person or person with a disability shall be liable to the victim or to the estate of the victim in damages of treble the amount of the value of the property obtained, plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs. In a civil action under this subsection, the burden of proof that the defendant committed financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability as described in subsection (a) of this Section shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. This subsection shall be operative whether or not the defendant has been charged or convicted of the criminal offense as described in subsection (a) of this Section. This subsection (g) shall not limit or affect the right of any person to bring any cause of action or seek any remedy available under the common law, or other applicable law, arising out of the financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability. (h) If a person is charged with financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability that involves the taking or loss of property valued at more than $5,000, a prosecuting attorney may file a petition with the circuit court of the county in which the defendant has been charged to freeze the assets of the defendant in an amount equal to but not greater than the alleged value of lost or stolen property in the defendant’s pending criminal proceeding for purposes of restitution to the victim. The burden of proof required to freeze the defendant’s assets shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. (Source: P.A. 99-272, eff. 1-1-16.)
Dean Sallas’ Bankruptcy is not a casual affair to gain time or to prevent the Byline Bank from completing it illegal sale of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas. It is not a counter to the expected approval of just about anything that Byline or its nominee do by Judge Robles.
Congress enacted the Bankruptcy law and gave wide powers to the Bankruptcy Court to address exactly the type of predation that has occurred in case 07 P 5360 and 2019 CH 13960. An Adversary proceeding should be filed to recover from the miscreants the marital property interests stolen from this elderly couple and to recover damages for the serious breach of trust demonstrated by the judges who abandoned their public trust and became co-conspirators with the guardian and the Financial institution that did the dirty work.
By the Bankruptcy filing, the UNITED STATES TRUSTEE now owns the multi=million dollar claim for Dean Sallas’ marital property interests stolen from he and his wife by the ultra vires actions of persons guilty of financial elder abuse. The fact that the crimes were committed in the Courthouse, but acts acting in direct derogation of the 14th Amendment and the limitations of their authority does not give immunity or exculpation.
Dean Sallas is not going out and car jacking Mr. Golbert’s vehicle, nor is he going out and purchasing a gun. The Bankruptcy code and the Trustee in Bankruptcy give him a nuclear option. In fact it provides all the helpless elderly victims of America’s modern Holocaust a remedy. The Bankruptcy Judge is not running mortgage foreclosure mill weighed heavily toward ethically challenged creditors, nor is he providing jobs and income to his special friends – appointing them guardians, GAL’s, attorney for ****. The United States Trustee’s office is interested in providing a level playing field for all who it services and in particular protecting the rights of the less affluent litigant cannot claim that the Byline Bank’s attorney fees for a case still in the pleading stage generated $41,000 dollars of attorney fees. (Even Judge Robles could not purchase that averment – he reduced the fee to $25,000)
To those who are possessed with the public trust, the elderly are not a considered to be very important. The Felonies of elder cleansing, financial elder abuse, human trafficking in the elderly etc are not high priority – just a pain.
Unfortunately it is not long and we all look in the mirror and an image looks back at us that we do not recognize – in my case it was an old man with white hair dressed in a sweat shirt that looked like a handmedown and a a pair of basketball shorts that obviously was a handmedown. The face is what was scary – that old man looked like me!!!! As I was contemplating the image a middle aged woman obviously in her late 50’s or early 60’s accosted me and started her utterance with the word “DAD!”
To my shock – I was being told that it was too cold for me to take my bicycle out!
It happens to everyone! It happened to Mr. and Mrs. Dean Sallas. In their situation they were ambushed by the propaganda that America is a democracy, the home of the free and the brave, etc, etc. Indeed, it is IF YOU KEEP YOUR GUARD UP! Amy Sallas had some problems, and retired from her employment. Dean who was a bit older also was retired and together that put together a nest egg of investments that had a net value of more than 8 million dollars.
Mr. and Mrs. Sallas were seduced and infected by the bug – IT CANNOT HAPPEN TO ME. They like so many vulnerable elderly actually believed the political people who sold snake oil, to wit: America has a caring government and we respect the elderly. They had not met Judge Stuart, Judge Boliker, the Cook County Public Guardian or that cast of characters. Sallas actually believed that the Rule of Law meant something and 755 ILCS 5/11a -10 and its due process provision was more than words. The old man and woman thought that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 providing for CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE of disability meant that at least a scintilla of evidence was equated to the words Clear and Convincing! As I said, they did not know Judge Stuart or the her appointed guardian. They saw the dollar signs and Mr. and Mrs. Sallas were off on the fast track to isolation, medication, and deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities. The protection and limitations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b were ignored.
Seize the money was the credo and even before a hearing could be held the victims were sized, seized and diced! Everyone who co-operated with the miscreants got a piece of the pie. Lawyers who thought that the oath of an attorney meant something soon learned that there was a penalty of suspension of your license if you protested. To Hell with decisions such as Himmel
the object of Guardianship was not to protect – it was to pillage and destroy – AND most importantly get those savings accumulated by Mr. and Mrs. Sallas into ‘hands’ that would appreciate them! All Sallas would do with those funds would be to spoil his/her grandchildren.
Today, with Mr. Sallas’ Bankruptcy the miscreants are able to pat themselves on the back and cry out!
Indeed, the Corrupt judges, the guardians, and the various hangeron lawyers have over the past approximately 15 years undone well over 50 years of blood sweat and tears. Amy Sallas has lost her teeth, her mobility, but she has a Grave! Dean Sallas has filed for Bankruptcy – or the goal of making him homeless and penniless would have been accomplished! Good people across America have protested this American holocaust, but rest assured [ no one cares and the poor bastards are satisfied by pols who enact more and more legislation that it ignored, or better yet write GAO reports to Congress that are never read. As I said at word one – those old folks are a pain -0- until I become one of them. The Sallas case is particularly obnoxious as it embodies for all to observe the full extent of the perfidy and avarice of our judicial system and too many of the people tied to it. It embodies the ‘don’t see, don’t hear, don’t tell, and do not make waves attitude of our those members of our political system who characterize themselves as the ‘best and the brightest.’ It embodies the thin blue line of our law enforcement and it impotence. And finally it informs all of us, rich, poor, old, young, et al that never trust a politician or a guy (or gal) in a suit who promises you something. Indeed, it tells everyone why our streets are a war zone and why so many of us are purchasing guns! Let me be candid – when Dean Sallas told me that his wife was at a nursing home, had been exposed to covid and the ‘guardian’ told him that he could not give him a report on his wife’s condition because of HIPPA, had someone said that to me instead of Judge Boliker approving the Guardian’s death and burial plan for Amy Sallas, the actual event targeting the guardian might be taking place. I am not known for being so docile! (My wife and my children also are not so *****) The Sallas case is replete with the Court, the guardian and all their co-conspirators running rampant over the human and civil rights of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas. Today is the first day of the rest of the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and I’m assured that that *****. Talk is cheap!
To: JoAnne M Denison <email@example.com>, Brian Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sharon E Corse <email@example.com>
Sent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:From: “Brown, Amy” <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: February 15, 2022 at 5:27:17 PM CST To: Michael Rivas <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: “Lowery, Mary” <email@example.com> Subject:RE: Joanne Denison – ARDC LIEN – Closing: 2/16Good evening: I was not at my computer today. I will be in the office all day tomorrow. We are in the process of calculating the interest on the $17,554.58 judgment. I should have an answer to you by tomorrow (Wednesday). Sorry for the delay. Amy Amy G. BrownSenior Litigation ParalegalAttorney Registration & Disciplinary Commissionof the Supreme Court of Illinois130 East Randolph, St. 1500Chicago, Illinois 60601312-565-2600 (main)312-565-2320 (fax)312-540-5248 (direct)ABrown@IARDC.orgFrom: Michael Rivas <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:44 AM To:email@example.com Cc: Brown, Amy <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Joanne Denison – ARDC LIEN – Closing: 2/16 Brian: I have still have not received an invoice from the ARDC concerning the above. If nothing is received by the end of business day, I would suggest setting aside $30K in escrow – Mike Rivas
JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@denisonlaw.com>
Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:30 AM
To: MICHAEL RIVAS <email@example.com>
I am objecting to paying off that lien. It’s a false judgment in the court reporter was unlicensed and it should have been taken care of months ago[Quoted text hidden]
JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@denisonlaw.com>
Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:45 AM
To: MICHAEL RIVAS <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Kenneth Ditkowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>Cc: Brian Thompson <email@example.com>, Sharon E Corse <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Amy;I am objecting to any payout on the ARDC loan. It fully is false and fraudulent lien. If there is a payout instead of a full release, I will sue everyone involved at the ARDC, including you, personally and I will drag the ARDC through the mud again for their perfidy and mendacity.The amount is based upon transcripts prepared for an unlicensed court reporter. You can look that up, you can call the IDPFR and get the documents. She was unlicensed for 10 years and had to voluntarily surrender her license. If the court reporter is unlicensed, there is no judgment in the case.I have warned Sharon Opryszek that the lien is false and fraudulent and she said nothing. She did nothing about it. I have no intention of ever becoming licensed again through the IARDC, because it is a criminal organization.I am herewith demanding the IARDC send my attorney, Michael Rivas, a full release of this loan instead.Thank you for your cooperation.The pleadings for my case are published on my blog and are in the IARDC files.You have been forewarned. Govern yourself accordingly, Do the right thing.Joanne Denisoncc: www.marygsykes.com[Quoted text hidden]– JoAnne Denison, Justice 4 Every1, NFP, 5534 N. Milwaukee Ave, Chicago, IL 60634. work phone 312;553-1300 efax 773-423-4455; cell phone 773-255-7608. NOTE: Joanne Denison is not a licensed attorney and does not provide any legal opinions or advice. She is an expert consultant in political/court corruption only.website www.denisonlaw.com; follow my blog at www.marygsykes.com to promote judicial integrity and accountability. make an appointment at https://joanne-denison.youcanbook.me/ and bring a donationour work can only continue via your generous donations. we are a 501 c 3 not for profit corp and donations may be tax deductible with a receipt.donate at www.paypal.me/joannedenison or on patreon at www.patreon.com/joannedenison
I will be filing a police report on this attempted fraud and theft
1 IN THE United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana IN THE MATTER OF ) Case No.: 1:17-mc-00005 ANDREW STRAW, ) An Attorney. ) PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
I, plaintiff, Andrew U. D. Straw, PETITION for reinstatement under the Local Rule 83.6-11(c):
I paid in full the discipline fees of the Indiana Supreme Court in March 2021 with my Biden Stimulus Payment.
I have been suspended both by the Indiana Supreme Court and this Court, though this Court’s reciprocal suspension at Dkt. 4 (3/21/2017) was entered on the record with two federal lawsuits pending to stop the Indiana suspension.
I include a copy of the Indiana suspension and the VSB ORDER exonerating me and finding that I had violated no ethical rule by “clear and convincing” evidence. Exhibits 1 & 2.
This Court has never given me the right to a proper hearing so I could explain why the Indiana Supreme Court discipline is wholly without substance and void. 2
The same question of whether to impose a suspension was before the Virginia State Bar and after due process before a 3-judge panel, I was 100% exonerated, found not to have violated any ethical rule, and that the Indiana Supreme Court’s attack using its ADA coordinator, “had all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting.”
The problem for Indiana is that my suspension was still being appealed two different ways when Virginia’s ORDER became final and was not appealed because the Bar Counsel in Virginia actually agreed with me that I did nothing unethical in filing 4 federal lawsuits for disability rights as a disabled person.
Thus, the Virginia State Bar ORDER finding by clear and convincing evidence is first in time final on June 20, 2017. The summary dismissal ORDER was entered on May 24, 2017.
The 16-1346 direct appeal of my suspension to the U.S. Supreme Court via petition for writ of cert. was not decided until June 26,
This was too late to create first in time final effect.
Note that this is 6 days after the VSB ORDER was entered. 3
I also had another federal lawsuit to stop the discipline under the ADA Title II, which does apply to state courts. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 525, 531 (2004).
That lawsuit was not decided on appeal at the 7th Circuit until July 6, 2017, meaning the case to stop what Indiana did was not final at the 7th Circuit until 16 days after the VSB ORDER was first in time final.
Straw v. Indiana Supreme Court, et. al., 17-1338, 692 F. App’x 291 (7th Cir. 7/6/2017).
I appealed this 7th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and the denial of certiorari did not take place in that 17-6812 docket until January 8, 2018, 202 days after the VSB ORDER was first in time final.
Please never forget that this is between me and my former employer when I became disabled driving there to work, a reckless driver breaking my legs, pelvis, and skull as I drove to serve the Chief Justice of Indiana and every court in the State of Indiana, over 400 of them I served. 4
I made a complaint about the ADA violations of my former employer and it ended up on the desk of the Indiana Supreme Court ADA coordinator, who was eager to cause me injury and discredit me. She attacked 4 federal lawsuits I had filed in 2014 that were not final when she attacked them. She also attacked my mental disability and blamed it for my filing these cases.
In every one of the cases she attacked that ended up in the suspension ORDER, I was not accused of anything unethical, did not receive any FRCP Rule 11(c) due process, and was not issued any sanction, and this is obvious because the due process was wholly lacking to justify any sanction.
Judges don’t just get to point at people, grunt angrily, and end their careers. While that is apparently how it works at the Indiana Supreme Court, federal courts are bound by due process under the 5th Amendment. 5
Thus, while Indiana says it was enforcing Rule 3.1, it was not. There was no evidence of a Rule 3.1 violation given no due process was provided to reach that conclusion.
This Court in particular in the Rutherford and Dixon cases did not give me due process under Rule 11(c) for any sanction, and did not impose a sanction under Rule 11.
The Northern District of Illinois was even more dubious. The ABA case was dismissed, but the word frivolous did not even appear in any order of the Court, but Indiana just stepped in and interfered.
Even the Kloecker case dismissal only mentioned the word frivolous one time, and it was done not in the ethical sense, but to say my legal interpretation of evidence was wrong. Wrong is not an ethical violation. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 320 (1989).
Moreover, even the 7th Circuit that has been so hostile to me has said there is a First Amendment right to file lawsuits and petition courts with viewpoints. Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 847 F.3d 469, 483 (7th Cir. 2017). 6
The 7th Circuit has punished me and restricted my ability to file across its area in all courts because I expressed the viewpoint that the 7th Circuit hiring my appellee to be a federal judge and favoring him in my appeal was illegitimate and wrong. Straw v. Indiana Supreme Court, et. al., 692 F. App’x 291 (7th Cir. 2017) (Dkts. 79 & 80). It is a due process violation for the 7th Circuit to continue violating my rights to use the courts while making my opponents into federal judges. There is no shame, but this Court does not have to collude and violate the 5th Amendment.
The Indiana Supreme Court was simply out to get me after I made a legitimate and true ADA complaint about it. It cannot then turn around and do a DARVO against me, claiming its victim is really at fault.
The Indiana Supreme Court has taken 2 cases from this District Court and imposed a reciprocal suspension based on them when this Court, the Northern District of Indiana, imposed no discipline at all, and I was and still am an attorney of this Court.
I am a federal attorney, associated with the bar of this Court, and I have been abused by a lower state court without any good 7 reason, only discrimination and retaliation. It should shock the conscience that a state court would abuse me that way.
Indiana imposed a reciprocal suspension when there was no suspension (either in Indiana or Illinois) against me, and then this District Court imposed a reciprocal suspension based on that meritless and baseless Indiana reciprocal suspension.
Bootstrapping retaliation based on NOTHING by a state supreme court UNDER this Court should not be allowed.
I committed no crime, felony or misdemeanor.
I committed no dishonest act.
I had a clean disciplinary history as a lawyer from 1999 (my first bar exam passage in Virginia) to 2017, when this fake reciprocal suspension was imposed to get revenge and ruin my reputation.
Not one of my 10+ mitigating facts, brimming over in my selfdefense in that fake Indiana process, was considered or made part of the final Indiana suspension ORDER. I may as well have been gagged and thrown in the basement while they did this to me.
It is below the dignity of this Court to continue this fake reciprocal discipline that the Virginia State Bar found in its ORDER to be wholly without merit.
That Virginia State Bar ORDER must be obeyed and its findings of fact and law are FIRST IN TIME FINAL.
Thus there is res judicata impact and collateral preclusion of any contrary finding. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (cl. 3).
Reinstatement here should happen under N.D. Ind. L.R. 83- 6.11(c).
I petition here under (c)(1) and provide the Indiana and Virginia ORDERs as attached Exhibits 1 & 2.
(c)(2)(A) provides that the Chief Judge must promptly decide whether I am fit to practice law again. In this case, it was never established that I was not fit and that is why the FIRST IN TIME FINAL ORDER in Virginia should determine this decision. I was exonerated by clear and convincing evidence. (Ex. 2)
Under (c)(2)(B) the Chief Judge, finding absolutely no sanctions justifying Indiana’s reciprocal attack, should recommend reinstatement without fees, given this was never my fault. I 9 presented over 1500 pages of evidence to show VSB that I did not deserve this, ever.
I ask the Court’s District Judges (not any bankruptcy judge) to find under (c)(3)(A) that given the VSB ORDER, its first in time final findings of fact and law, there is no reason to keep me from being the fully admitted federal attorney here that started when I passed the Indiana Bar Exam in 2002 while working for the Chief Justice of Indiana and serving every court in the state.
Help me celebrate my 20 years of bar membership here by removing this 5 years of bogus and unfair discipline that violates my constitutional and statutory rights.
My efiling privileges should be reinstated.
Given I have not filed an explicit N.D. Ind. L.R. 83-6.11(c) petition up to this point, this petition should be allowed now.
Out of respect for the Court’s recent COVID ORDERs (e.g., General Order No. 2021-33), I ask that the admonition to file by US Mail be set aside and this document and the exhibits be allowed by email. 10 WHEREFORE, I petition the Court to reinstate me as an active in good standing attorney of this Court, and make this nunc pro tunc due to the circumstances of the fake reciprocal suspension. I, plaintiff Andrew U. D. Straw, verify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that the above statements and factual representations are true and correct under penalty of perjury. February 13, 2022 Respectfully submitted, s/ ANDREW U. D. STRAW 700 12th ST NW STE 700 PMB 92403 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (847) 807-5237 email@example.com
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew U. D. Straw, certify that I filed the above PETITION and EXHIBITS and ORDER proposed below with the Clerk of Court via email on February 13, 2022. Respectfully submitted, s/ ANDREW U. D. STRAW 700 12th ST NW STE 700 PMB 92403 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (847) 807-5237 firstname.lastname@example.org Pro Se 12 IN THE United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana IN THE MATTER OF ) Case No.: 1:17-mc-00005 ANDREW STRAW, ) An Attorney. ) ORDER
The Court, having considered the matter in the facts and law and premises, hereby find that Andrew U. D. Straw did not merit any reciprocal suspension here and his sanctions are hereby obliterated as though never imposed. His efiling privileges are hereby reinstated. Given Attorney Straw did not merit these sanctions at all, no fees will be imposed on him. The Court wishes Attorney Straw well on his 20th Anniversary of being admitted to the Bar of this Court. It is so ORDERED.
89 year old woman lives in a nursing home for a short time, falls twice, says “she never wants to come back here”
Why do we have so many elderly in nursing homes? Why do the courts, GALs and attorneys routinely place them there without any study of the falls, diseases, injuries, wrong medications?
In this documentary, the patient gets fed 120 mg of morphine in apple sauce! She got the wrong medications.
There was 40 patients to one nurse.
In many nursing homes, if the family isn’t there to feed the patient, and the patient needs feeding assistant, they do not eat (Jay Brochmesch, report by Joyce Ketelhut, the daughter, nursing home in Chicago).
They routinely fail to check vitals on a regular basis, and no one is monitoring this.
In a lawsuit, filed by the woman in the video, the suit accuses the nursing home of intentionally decreasing staff in order to increase profits (Life Care of America) which operates over 200 facilities across the US.
On third of all medicare beneficiaries suffer some sort of harm within the first two weeks of arrival at a nursing facility (8:33)
Over 90,000 patients experience bed sores each year (8:39) Bed sores are per se negligence. 380,000 patients die from infections in care facilities. (8:43)
The industry gets almost all of its money from taxpayers at $80 billion per year.
They always tell lawmakers they need more.
The books shown to the public always show little, if no profits.
But is this true? The report claims nursing home owners game the system
(9:56) Forest Preston is the owner of Life Care and is one of the richest persons in the US. Most people do not know who this guy is.
Next to nothing is known about Preston or Life Care. (11:20)
Nursing homes in the past have laundered their profits via friends and family, while neglecting patients.
Nursing homes use shell corporations to move around money (15:34). A shell corporation holds no assets, conducts no real business other than holding and hiding money and moving it around. A shell corporation is typically used by dark (criminal) corporations to hide dark money or criminal profits.
(21:00) Elderly man delivered from nursing home to hospital found dehydrated and malnourished and with 28 bed sores. All toes had to be amputated. His should was scraped out the size of a nursing home.
Nursing Home Care Act mandates state inspections and regulations for patient care. (23:47) however, patients continue to receive grossly inadequate and even harmful care. Nursing home inspectors have been found to consistently overlook dangerous conditions and wrongfully labeling them as “not harmful to patients” even after involving actual harm to patients.
(24:28) It is noted that if this happens to child care facilities there is always immediate shut down and immediate arrest. This never happens in the nursing home business. When children are injured, there is outcry and arrests. When it involves elderly patients, injuries are hidden and nothing is ever done. Facilities are not shut down and no arrests are made.
(28.41) Over 50% of staff at Life Care who filed complaints with the state were later fired by Life Care.
When I and another probate victim asked the state inspectors why they hadn’t moved on the Carol Wyman injury/rape report for over 9 months, we were told, they only had a few inspectors in Chicago, about 3.
In Illinois they do have a state law that family can set up cameras to watch over their loved ones in nursing homes.
Remember this as your loved ones languish on in a nursing home that claims it is nearly bankrupt, needs more federal $$$$, but is closely associated with a fleet of shell corporations to transfer money to.
Washington, D.C. – In a continuation of their efforts to protect seniors and people with disabilities from abusive guardians, U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Bob Casey (D-PA), the former and current Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, introduced the Guardianship Accountability Act. The legislation addresses many of the recommendations in the Aging Committee’s report, “Ensuring Trust: Strengthening State Efforts to Overhaul the Guardianship Process and Protect Older Americans,” that was released at a November 2018 hearing they led following their year-long investigation.
“Guardians are entrusted to take care of those who are unable to make important decisions about their finances and well-being. In some heartbreaking cases, however, Americans have been ruthlessly exploited by caretakers who have taken advantage of the guardianship system,” said Senator Collins. “Preventing guardianship abuse requires law enforcement and social service agencies at all levels of government to work together, and the Guardianship Accountability Act promotes this kind of collaboration. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to help hold criminals accountable and protect seniors and others who receive care under guardianships.”
“The high profile case of Britney Spears shined a spotlight on an issue impacting millions of older adults and people with disabilities living under guardianships or conservatorships. While many people under guardianships may need help managing certain aspects of their lives, lacking oversight and support make it hard for those experiencing abuse to speak out and seek help. Unfortunately, we don’t know much about how many guardianships are occurring, how they’re managed or how much fraud or abuse is happening. This bill would help provide accountability and oversight into guardianships, promote best practices and provide funding and training to spot abuse,” said Senator Casey.
Guardians are supposed to provide support for individuals, ensuring a full life directed, wherever possible, by the person’s own choices and preferences. Without proper oversight, however, unscrupulous guardians can abuse these legal relationships and exploit the individuals they are supposed to protect. State courts are tasked with monitoring guardianships in order to protect individuals subject to guardianship from abuse, neglect and exploitation. Despite this responsibility, few states are able to provide courts with adequate resources to monitor guardianships effectively and hold guardians accountable.
Numerous reported instances of fraud and abuse underscore the vulnerabilities created by guardianships and the need for diligent oversight. Recent examples of exploitation include a professional guardian and her colleagues in Nevada who were indicted on more than 200 felony counts after they allegedly used the guardianship process to take advantage of and financially exploit over 150 individuals. In another case, two individuals from North Carolina lost hundreds of thousands of dollars through exploitation by a family member who served as their guardians. Pop star Britney Spears’ high-profile fight to end her years-long, court-ordered conservatorship has heightened the attention on guardianships.
The Guardianship Accountability Act would help ensure individuals under the care of guardians are not at risk of abuse or neglect by expanding the availability of federal demonstration grants to be used for developing state guardianship databases to assist with the collection of information on guardians, training of court visitors, and sharing of background check and other information with appropriate entities. It would also establish a National Resource Center on Guardianship, which would be tasked with:
· Collecting and publishing information relevant to guardianship for use by guardians, individuals subject to guardianship, as well as courts, states, local governments, and community organizations;
· Publishing model legislation and best practices developed pursuant to the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act;
· Compiling and publishing training materials for guardians;
· Promoting the use of less restrictive alternatives such as supported decision-making
· Sharing research related to guardianship; and
· Maintaining a database on state laws regarding guardianship, the use of less restrictive alternatives, and the restoration of rights.
You would not believe. Dean has over the past year or so revealed to the public and to law enforcement that Judge Boliker and Byline Bank and Eve Epstein and OPG attorney Lisa Casanova have been participating in a criminal scheme to deprive Dean Sallas of all of his marital estate. They have been pretending that Amelia Sallas’ funds are not marital property and that Dean does not have the right to manage, control and spend those funds–even for his own necessities.
Prior to the guardianship, Dean had amassed some $9 million in real estate. But the Guardianship court stopped paying the mortgages (of course), threw them into foreclosure, presumably so banks and favored 3rd party entities could get a deal on them. This is common in probate and guardianship. If you complain, judges like Boliker will quickly turn a deaf ear.
So what’s the guardianship court’s excuse for stealing all this money, committing a string of serious felonies and perhaps even criminal RICO? Not sure. It seems to vacillate between it’s not his money (yes, it is) and or the probate court doesn’t know his assets? Really? Why would Dean Sallas, who is not incapacitated have to provide an accounting to the guardianship court when he is clearly not incapacited, is under no guardianship and owes the Cook County Probate court no duty. And based upon the past history of this evil cabal and group of criminals, every dime he revealed to them, they would concoct some dasterdly scheme to part him with those funds and assets regardless.
These nefarious individuals–Boliker, Casanova, the OPG and Epstein, have been caught red handed stealing every thing they can from Dean Sallas, and what do they do about it? Come to Jesus and return it and make Dean whole? Heck nope, they double and triple down on nefarious criminal activities.
So here is yet another blog post of mine, telling the truth, revealing the truth, and you know the ARDC will side with the judges and dishonest attorneys and come after me for only posting this–but only IF I were licensed and no, I am not licensed. I have no intention of applying for a license with a patent criminal organization, the ARDC. They need to come clean too and come to Jesus. I have told Sharon Opryszek, senior litigation counsel, I refuse to buy into the perfidy and mendacity of the ARDC and I will not under any circumstances attorn to their dishonesty.
I am not abandoning all the probate court victims and my readers. You are the ones who suffer because the ARDC is dishonest. You are the ones who have ruined lives, financial disasters because the ARDC attorns to criminality and dishonesty.
The lives of both Dean and Amelia Sallas have been ruined. a 50 year plus married couple very much in love has been utterly destroyed by the Guardianship court. Dean cannot see his beloved wife and she cannot see him. This is the absolute nadir of the legal profession and the judicial profession.
And even worse, they all admit to it and the cover up. Theft of assets, mismanagement and waste, loss of consortium between husband and wife. Could it be worse?
Below is the transcript as certified proof of the crimes and their admissions of guilt.
This is exactly the point – it is also the point that Dr. Sugar, Rick Black, yours truly et al have been trying in vain to make. The problem is that the elderly have so much money that is available to be stolen that the crooked guardians and judges cannot resist the temptation. Unfortunately when we live in a society wherein political parties sell polltical and judicial systems the most qualified and honest candidates for public and judicial office are not always placed in that office. Looking a Cook County, Illinois is it a wonder that we have corruption. How many of our public officials are under Federal indictment? How many should be? It is an open secret that a Judgeship is sold by the individuals within the Cook County Democratic organization for somewhere either at $150,000 or North thereof. (see John Kass (Chicago Tribune)) What can we expect from a lawyer who pays a bribe for his job? Do we expect that he will be the pillar of integrity. Unfortunately, cash on the barrelhead is not the only way to obtain a judicial or political job – should this make the ‘great unwashed’ warm and comfortable? with machinery in place to protect the criminals within the system is it any wonder that even in cases that totally offend everyone – such as Sallas/Spears etc – it is a given that the Human trafficking victims are going to get the short end of the stick. The eight million in savings that Mr. and Mrs. Sallas had accummulated was just too much temptation for a dishonest judge and her Court appointed Guardian. Indeed, they acted overtly and then discovered that maybe they ought to have paid attention in law school. NO MATTER – with 8 million plus to divy up it was clear that protection from prosecution was on the agenda. They were also assurred that Dean’s lawyers would be benign – and they were. Unfortunately, someone told Dean Sallas that the savings he and his wife accummulated was MARITAL PROPERTY. Indeed, there was no sheltered a dime from this designation as everything Amy had was co-mingled with marital property and ditto for Dean. Dean inquired of his attorney! She recognized the jig was up! She ambushed Dean and with the ethically challenged Judge’s attornment she withdrew. Dean was now left without counsel and at the mercy of the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSERS. Such is the status – Yes, what happened is wrong, unconstitutional, criminal etc. BUT IT IS THE REAL LIFE STATUS QUO. I realize that to solve a problem first you have to know what the problem is. Unfortunately we know what the problem is and absent Law enforcement doing its job we are helpless. law enforcement is aware that a guardian or a conservator is a fiduciary. Ergo, the bar by which the guardian is measured is loftly ! He has to be of the highest integrity. Theft by a fiduciary is a serious felony. Without law enforcement that is interested in enforcing the laws and in particular protecting the helpless and the infirm elderly – the law is academic and irrelevant. Like Sallas myoptic lawyers and others watched as Spears was exploited. They and the miscreants even claimed that they were duty bound to help her because she could not help herself. Of course with the help of the media and apologists for the criminal human traffickers one simple fact was omitted from the public knowledge. Spears not only knew the objects of her bounty, but was very successful from a financial basis – she earned millions of dollars. Her conservatorship was a totally a violation of the the 14th Amendment! If she knew the objects of her bounty, the extent and nature of her estate and could do a simple financial arrangment proof of the need for a conservator or guardian was not possible. In Sallas – it was reported that the Judge told Sallas that HE HAD NOT PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS WIFE WAS NOT INCOMPETENT!It was reported to me his attorney was indifferent to the Judge’s statement! If the Judge made such a statement 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3a was not met. Of course this corrupt judge did not make or file FINDINGS OF FACT or CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. As I read 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary – if they are not filed by the judge the judge cannot comply with the requirements of section 3b. If the Rule of Law means nothing – then so does the requirement.No one need be surprised that HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY/ELDER CLEANSING ET AL is a very lucrative criminal cottage industry that is protected by the elite of the judicial profession!The protection also protects the miscreants from having to pay their INCOME TAXES! Judge Boliker’s hearing of yesterday November 18, 2021 should provide along the coffin nail on the Sallas case! Yesterday, Judge Boliker again had the opportunity to address the serious deficiencies that I outlined in today’s Memor to the Judicial Inquiry Board and others. Dean was specific in pointing out that the Guardian had taken wrongful dominion over his (Dean’s) vested property interests. While this is a fact that the judge should have known as a lawyer and a judge and is charged with knowing – criminal law requires intent! The words and phrases allegedly uttered by Judge Boliker clearly establish intent!
At the very least – Judge Boliker owes as joint and several co-conspirator a great deal of FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES, PLNALTIES AND INTEREST!
Ending Spears’s case has illuminated the impossible bind that conservatees can sometimes find themselves in: once a person has been formally deemed incapacitated, she might well lose the opportunity to ever prove her capacity. Few people who wish to fight their conservatorship have the chance to show that they are able to do more than what their conservators imagine. “There are hundreds of thousands of other Britneys across the United States, people who aren’t famous, but who deserve the same rights we all take for granted—until they get taken away,” Jonathan Martinis, the senior director for law and policy at a Syracuse University center for disability rights, said. “#FreeBritney can’t end with Britney being free.”
In case we never forget Greylord in Chicago where 45 judges, police and attorneys were indicted for corruption (in just one area, traffic court, other areas were not invovled) Ken Ditkowsky reminds us of the following Tribune article:
Three years after Operation Greylord investigators went public with stunning charges of judicial corruption, a federal indictment released Wednesday charges, Cook County Judge Adam N. Stillo Sr. conspired to fix a criminal case secretly filed by the FBI.
Stillo, 74, is the second Cook County judge to be indicted on bribery charges in the last week and the 20th indicted in federal court since Operation Greylord. Fifteen judges were convicted and two acquitted in Greylord cases.
On Friday, retired Criminal Court Judge Thomas J. Maloney, in a case stemming from the Operation Gambat probe of 1st Ward corruption, was charged with taking bribes to fix three murder cases. Earlier that week, David J. Shields, former presiding judge of Chancery Court, was convicted by a federal jury of taking $6,000 in bribes in 1988 to rule favorably in a civil suit concocted by the FBI in connection with Gambat.
Asked if recent events meant Operation Greylord did not substantially deter judicial corruption, U.S. Atty. Fred Foreman said: ”Unfortunately, I think the results of the past week speak for themselves, and probably speak louder than anything I could say.”
Stillo, now retired after 24 years on the bench, also was charged with racketeering for allegedly accepting bribes to fix a series of cases for three corrupt lawyers from about 1976 until 1987, Foreman disclosed.
The indictment also charged Stillo`s nephew, attorney Joseph T. Stillo, 45, with conspiring to commit extortion by acting as a ”bagman” for the judge in 1986 in the bogus FBI case, Foreman said at a news conference in the Dirksen Federal Building. Both Stillos live in River Forest.
The indictment charged Judge Stillo with taking bribes from about 1976 until 1983 to fix cases for three lawyers: Robert Cooley, who began cooperating with the government in 1986 after nearly two decades as a corrupt Chicago lawyer; William Swano, who pleaded guilty last July to allegedly bribing Maloney in two murder cases; and James Costello, who was sentenced to 8 years in prison in 1986 for paying bribes to Judge Wayne Olson.
Reading further, the indictment alleged than in one case, Judge Stillo himself acted as a bagman, agreeing to pass a bribe from one lawyer to an unnamed assistant state`s attorney ”to influence that individual in the performance of his offical duties.”
The most damaging charge against Stillo appears to be the phony FBI case, in which a fictitious James D. Hess was accused of possession of marijuana, improper lane usage, speeding, failure to signal and illegal transportation of an alcoholic beverage.
Cooley acted as Hess` lawyer and apparently captured incriminating remarks from both Stillos on a tape recorder he secretly wore.
State police drafted a phony report saying Hess was stopped by a state trooper on Aug. 20, 1986, for the traffic offenses on the Eisenhower Expressway near Hillside.
When the trooper searched the car, the phony report said, more than 10 grams of marijuana was discovered.
In a meeting with Cooley in the Maywood branch of Circuit Court on Oct. 6, 1988, Stillo, who had been assigned the Hess case, agreed to rule in Cooley`s favor in return for an undisclosed amount of money, the indictment charged.
At that meeting, Stillo allegedly told Cooley to contact the judge`s nephew to arrange details of the bribe, the government said.
But on Nov. 5, 1986, Judge Stillo convicted Hess on narcotics charges.
The government contends Stillo correctly figured out that Hess was an undercover FBI agent and that the case was a ”plant” by the FBI to uncover court corruption, the indictment said.
Yet Joseph Stillo apparently still trusted Cooley, according to the charges, because that same day he confided to Cooley that his uncle did not fix the case because he thought Hess looked ”like an FBI agent.”
Two days later, Judge Stillo confirmed his reasons for failing to deliver the fix in a personal meeting with Cooley, the indictment alleged.
At the same time, the judge acted to conceal the conspiracy by telling Cooley of the need for secrecy in handling bribes and questioning Cooley about whether he had discussed the fix with anyone, the charges said.
In November, Stillo sentenced Hess to a $50 fine and supervision, though he could have been fined $1,000 and sentenced to a year in jail.
The indictment disclosed that in August 1986, before Cooley approached Judge Stillo about the Hess case, the judge had told Cooley not to seek a fix on gambling cases because he had heard rumors of an investigation.
During the decade covered in the charges, Stillo was assigned to the southwest suburban criminal courts and misdemeanor court at 13th Street and Michigan Avenue in addition to the Maywood branch. He retired from the criminal division in Maywood in 1988.
”Judge Stillo has served for 24 years with distinction as a judge, during which time he engaged in no wrongdoing whatsoever,” said William Hedrick, a lawyer representing the former judge. ”The judge intends to vigorously contest the charges, and he expects to be vindicated.”
Attorney George Collins, representing Joseph Stillo, said he had not seen the indictment and could not comment beyond indicating Stillo will plead not guilty.
Foreman said the charges against former Judge Stillo are one of the first cases to involve charges from both Greylord and Gambat.
Foreman referred to the two undercover investigations as ”brothers Gambat and Greylord.”
”I suggest there`s been a lot of inroads made (against judicial corruption),” Foreman said, ”but I suggest there`s a lot of work
to do, particularly in Cook County.”
SCANDAL IN THE COURTS
Defendant Position Case status
John J. Devine Associate judge Convicted; 15 years
Daniel Glecier Associate judge Convicted; 6 years, $50,000 fine
Martin F. Hogan Associate judge Convicted; 10 years
Reginald Holzer Circuit judge Convicted; 13 years
Richard LeFevour Presiding judge+ Convicted; 12 years
Thomas J. Maloney Circuit judge Indicted on racketeering charges
John H. McCollom Circuit judge Convicted; 11 years
John J. McDonnell Circuit judge Convicted; 6 years
Michael E. McNulty Associate judge Pleaded guilty; 3 years, $15,000 fine
John M. Murphy Associate judge Convicted; 10 years
James L. Oakey Associate judge Convicted; 6 years
Wayne W. Olson Circuit judge Pleaded guilty; 12 yrs., $35,000 fine
John F. Reynolds Circuit judge Convicted; 10 years, $33,000 fine
Frank Salerno Circuit judge Pleaded guilty; 9 years, $10,000 fine
Roger E. Seaman Circuit judge Pleaded guilty; 4 years
David J. Shields Presiding judge++ Convicted; faces sentencing
Adam N. Stillo Sr. Circuit judge Indicted on racketeering charges
Raymond Sodini Circuit judge Pleaded guilty; 8 years
+Of 1st Municipal District; formerly supervising judge of Traffic Court
Racine County, Wisconsin law enforcement blew the 2020 election integrity question wide open on Thursday after an investigation into one nursing home. It revealed not only that state election officials flagrantly broke the law and ordered health-care employees to help them, but that the problem likely runs much deeper throughout the swing state’s other 71 counties.
An “election statute was in fact not just broken, but shattered by members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission,” Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said during a Thursday press conference in which he and Sgt. Michael Luell detailed the findings of an investigation into Ridgewood Care Facility.
What Happened in Racine County?
The investigation came about when a woman named Judy signed a sworn affidavit with the Wisconsin Elections Commission after she discovered that her mother, who had died on Oct. 9, 2020 after a period of severe cognitive decline, had voted in the 2020 presidential election. The affidavit was later passed along as a complaint to the county district attorney.
Judy alleged that her mother Shirley’s mental state had deteriorated so far that she was having hallucinations and wasn’t able to recall what she had eaten during a day or even what day it was. According to Judy, her mother couldn’t see — her glasses were broken, and she couldn’t even recognize her own daughter — so even if she were of a sound mind, she wouldn’t have known whether someone assisting her with a ballot had voted according to her wishes.
Luell, who led the investigation at the request of the district attorney, found an unusual spike in voting at this care facility: 42 people had voted in the 2020 presidential election. That number is usually 10. Furthermore, in 2020, 38 people had requested absentee ballots, up from the usual 0-3 in normal years.
When Luell attempted to contact the families of these voters to check whether their loved ones had the cognitive capacity to cast a vote, seven replied no, and almost all of them hadn’t voted since 2012. One of the family members said his mother would ask him who he was, meaning she didn’t recognize her own son. She hadn’t voted since 2012 — yet MyVote Wisconsin revealed she voted twice in 2020.
Wisconsin Election Commission Broke the Law
This surge in voting was the result of Wisconsin Elections Commission officials breaking state law. The commission — which is made up of six commissioners, including three Democrats and three Republicans, who are appointed by legislative leaders or the governor and serve as an agency in the executive branch under the governor — authorized nursing home employees to help residents vote, which Luell noted “is a direct violation of law.”
According to Luell, employees would ask residents how they voted in the past and then vote according to that party. In other words, if Judy’s mother “could only recall JFK,” staff would vote Democrat for her.
According to state law, however, nursing home staff can’t assist residents with voting. In fact, nobody can help the voter other than a relative or “special voting deputies,” which are people appointed by municipal clerks or elections boards to conduct absentee voting at care facilities.
In March, however, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent out a letter mandating that municipalities should not use the “special voting deputy process.”
“Ladies and gentleman, it’s not a process. It’s the law,” Luell said, citing state Statute 6.875.
The original letter was issued under the guise of COVID guidelines. Nevertheless, in September, after the governors’ lockdown orders had expired and the initial shock of the pandemic had passed, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent a letter to all residential care facilities telling the workers how to help residents vote, including even marking the ballot for them, in direct violation of state law.
Racine law enforcement looked at 2020 visitor logs and found that other visitors were let into the nursing home throughout the pandemic, about 900 times between the decision in March not to use special voting deputies and November 2020. Those visitors included someone to clean the fish tanks and birdcages and even DoorDash delivery people.
Under Wisconsin state statute 12.13, breaking these laws about special voting deputies constitutes “election fraud,” which is a felony.
“We’re just one of 72 counties, Racine County,” Schmaling noted. “Ridgeland is one of 11 facilities within our county. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these facilities throughout the entire state of Wisconsin. We would be foolish, we would be foolish to think for a moment that this integrity issue, this violation of the statute, occurred to just this small group of people at one care facility in one county in the entire state. I would submit to you that this needs the attorney general’s investigation,” the sheriff said, calling for the AG to launch an immediate probe into the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Add It to the List
This bombshell investigation is only the latest in the long list of malfeasant actions by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, especially regarding the 2020 election. As Wisconsin radio host and lawyer Dan O’Donnell put it, the commission “was downright derelict in its duty to fairly and impartially oversee an election.”
As O’Donnell documented, the commission unlawfully allowed clerks to “cure” ballots, illegally permitted clerks to go home on election night and return to finish counting in the morning, and illegally told clerks they could relocate polling locations in the weeks before the election.
Furthermore, the commission failed to issue relevant laws and rules for training municipal election workers, special voting deputies, and election inspections. Worse, it failed to investigate voter rolls for the hundreds of thousands there incorrectly, including more than 45,000 first-time voters whose names didn’t match Department of Transportation records, among other issues.
As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway outlines in her new book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” the Wisconsin Elections Commission also wrongly kept third-party candidates off the ballot, including Kanye West and the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins. Third parties can significantly affect elections in the Dairy State.
“Following the [Legislative Audit Bureau] report, what Sheriff Schmaling has uncovered + disclosed might only be tip of the iceberg of fraud in the 2020 election. The Legislature must be given the time, resources, and cooperation of election officials to conduct a complete investigation of allegations,” tweeted Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin following the Racine press conference. “Using elderly residents with cognitive decline to commit election fraud is reprehensible, and should concern every Wisconsinite and American.”
Johnson continued: “If Democrats will stoop this low to impact elections, one can only imagine what else they’re willing to do.”Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.Photo Spc. Miguel Pena/U.S. Army
From what I have heard, this type of fraud from the nursing homes is not party specific. Generally operatives at the nursing homes call both parties, as for a bid on all their ballots and the party that pays the most, gets a straight party vote from that party.
This has to end.
Online voting would end this fraud in that a computer program can easily capture signature, voice and face recognition to automatically check for voter fraud.
If we can bank online, we can vote online and the votes don’t need to end up as those from the highest bidder paying to nursing home operatives.
And remember, statistically election fraud does not favor one party over the other. When fraud is committed, both parties seem to benefit about equally.
Finally, someone came to their senses. Hospitals are so used to enforcing senseless and inhumane rules, charges against and elderly grandmother have become the rule of the day. That has to end. Kudos to this grandmother
A 70-year old great grandmother was hauled off to jail last month after refusing to leave her critically ill daughter’s side at UF Health in Jacksonville.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – It’s a story that gained national attention.
A 70-year old great grandmother was hauled off to jail last month after refusing to leave her critically ill daughter’s side at UF Health in Jacksonville.
On Thursday, News4Jax learned the misdemeanor charge of trespassing have been dropped.
“I was not looking at spending any time in jail,” Lynn Savage said.
Savage said she is happy the charges were dropped but she says the UF Health nurse who called security on her should have recognized her as her daughter’s advocate.
The last time News4Jax spoke with Savage she had just been released from jail after being arrested on a charge of trespassing.
Savage was arrested after she refused to leave her daughter’s bedside at UF Health after her daughter had just undergone brain surgery.
“It makes sense to me that they would drop the charges. It didn’t make sense that they would arrest me at all,” she said.
Savage said she’s her daughter’s caregiver, advocate and interpreter since her daughter is mostly non-verbal after suffering a brain injury. She says her daughter’s doctor had asked her to be at the hospital to calm her down following the surgery.
“I was being instrumental in helping them communicate with her, then all of a sudden they wanted me to leave,” Savage said.
Savage was asked to leave after visiting hours ended. According to UF Health, those hours end at 7 p.m. due to COVID-19 restrictions. According to the arrest report, security and police pleaded with Savage for two hours to leave after visitation ended. Savage says she asked the supervising nurse to call the doctor that asked her to be there but says the nurse refused so she refused to leave.
“We’re not asking for anybody to bend the rules. We’re asking people to provide the same service to her that are provided to people without a handicap. The ADA ruled on that,” Savage said.
In other words, because her daughter can’t effectively communicate, she feels the nurse should have recognized that she is her daughter’s communicator. Amber Miller was only able to explain in one word what it was like when her mom was taken away in handcuffs.
“Stressful,” she told News4Jax.
Although the charges have been dropped, it’s still unclear if Savage is still banned from the hospital. Her daughter has to undergo another surgery.
News4Jax reached out to UF Health for a statement but we haven’t heard back yet.
Copyright 2021 by WJXT News4Jax – All rights reserved.
Rarely do prosecutors charge anyone with a crime, but they seize large amounts of cash all the time, no trial no judicial review. Just some low life TSA agent takes the cash and threatens the traveler.
95% of the time the cash is grabbed and no charges are ever filed.
Cash grab investigation Part 2, is this the US? Robbed without out a gun, just a pen and a TSA badge and a pat down.
Like we all didn’t know this already. We know that all the time in Illinois nursing homes residents are not fed, not cared for, the nursing homes smell of urine and feces and the smell hits you right when you walk in. Friends and family reveal trays are plunked down in front of a frail, elderly patient promptly at 9 am, noon and 5 pm. If they don’t eat? so freaking what. The trays are taken away. The resident loses weight, they do a fake “swallow test” and put in a feeding tube laced with drugs at one end and a diaper at the other. A major nursing home operator in Chicago, Phillip Esformes is indicted in one county only in Miami Dade Florida for $2 billion in nursing home fraud and sent to prison for 20+ years. IQ 45 gets the requisite bribe of $2 million (chump change for the perp) and PE gets a pardon. His system continues of tie ins to the courts, the police and the courts.
PE has nursing homes in Illinois for over 20 years.
For years, including the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois officials failed to properly oversee nursing homes, including not enforcing staffing requirements and not imposing penalties sufficient to deter inferior operations, a consultant’s investigation concluded.
As a result, nursing home residents lodged an increasing number of complaints and faced ongoing dangers. Some facilities were cited repeatedly for the same violations, including abuse and neglect of residents, the report found.
Illinois had the second highest number of substantiated complaints per facility compared with similar states, with 1 out of 5 long-term facilities in the state having the lowest federal rating — one star. And ratings were disproportionately worse in Black areas with higher percentages of Medicaid patients.
A crucial contributing factor was that the state didn’t follow the law to maintain minimum staffing of its own inspectors, the investigation found.
To correct the situation, the state was advised to increase enforcement of staffing and other regulations, require public reporting of facility performance, use data to improve equity, and target consistently poor performing facilities for technical support, according to the review by Manatt Health Strategies, which was commissioned by the state.
The widespread shortcomings and sweeping recommendations were reported by Manatt in November 2020, but the Illinois Department of Public Health only recently revealed the findings after a Freedom of Information request by the Tribune.Watch now: Illinois honors fallen state trooperPlay Video
In response to Tribune questions, the department did not address all the recommendations individually, but reported that it had taken numerous actions to improve its oversight of nursing homes. The agency “fully agreed with the report’s recommendations and took immediate actions to reorganize the office, increase staffing levels that had been decimated under prior administrations, and completely eliminate the backlog of complaints,” spokeswoman Melaney Arnold wrote to the Tribune.
The department has hired a new management team, a project manager to implement the recommendations and 40 new nurse surveyors since September 2020.
Perhaps most importantly, the state has also proposed revamping its funding formula to tie it to staffing and quality improvements. But that may take until next year for lawmakers to address.
Meanwhile, advocates for nursing home residents said that based on residents’ experiences not enough has been done. Nursing homes report that staffing shortages remain widespread, statistics show that many staff members remain unvaccinated and some residents worry they are still vulnerable to substandard care and death from COVID-19 and other health risks.
The consultant’s review follows years of complaints by senior care advocates about lackluster government oversight of a mostly for-profit industry that houses some of the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Besides being the main state agency that oversees efforts to fight a pandemic, one of IDPH’s steady jobs over the years has been to oversee nursing homes. And in March 2020, with the then-new virus particularly targeting the older and more frail, advocates warned IDPH that the agency needed to aggressively monitor facilities because of their poor track record on fighting infections.
Yet the agency’s initial response was broadly criticized as too timid and uncoordinated as the virus swept through facilities that were often understaffed and short on protective gear. A Tribune investigation later found that during COVID-19′s first wave — even as most COVID-19 deaths were tied to long-term care facilities — IDPH had largely stopped inspecting facilities. Even when inspectors went, they often went well after major outbreaks had occurred, with the agency at times struggling to have accurate counts of cases and deaths at facilities.
At the time, the agency said it was doing all it could in unprecedented times, and that it limited inspections to lessen the chance its inspectors could catch and spread the virus. But, with family visits disallowed too, that meant far fewer outsiders could keep tabs on what was going on inside facilities, worrying advocates and family members about poor care that could more easily be hidden.
Advocate Bruce Carmona noticed that the number of workers at the nursing facility where he lived in Elk Grove Village was steadily dwindling, but state officials didn’t seem to be enforcing staffing requirements.
As an advocate for nursing home residents statewide through Illinois Caregivers for Compromise, Carmona, 64, asked Illinois officials for more oversight, but hasn’t seen much of a response.
“During COVID, everybody laid in their beds, got bedsores, got sick and got lonely,” Carmona said. “From 2019 to 2020, there was a drastic change in staffing and the care you received. Staff was afraid of catching COVID, when they were actually bringing COVID into the nursing homes.”
The nursing home review by Manatt was launched in response to the state’s discovery that its Bureau of Long-Term Care was not properly investigating complaints of abuse and neglect from March 15 to June 2020 — even though complaints spiked in that time. Due to COVID-19, federal regulators had temporarily suspended deadlines to investigate certain complaints, but state requirements remained in place.
The health department reported that it subsequently investigated all of the 272 complaints from that time, and found 17 substantiated.
In the aftermath, the lack of state inspectors was of particular concern. At the time of the report, 90% of non-nurse surveyor positions were vacant.
The Bellwood region in the western suburbs had the largest gap, with almost two-thirdsof surveyor positions vacant, and one inspector per 588 beds, as of September 2020. The Bellwood region also had more facilities, more poorly performing facilities and far more complaints than other regions.
Statewide, Blacks made up 19% of nursing home residents, but 32% of those in one-star facilities. To counter that, the Manatt report recommended using data to assess and correct inequities.
AARP also called for reducing racial and ethnic disparities, in part by ending the practice of overcrowded nursing home rooms with three or four people per room, which disproportionately affects Black and Latino residents.
Commenting on the findings, Lori Hendren, AARP Illinois’ lead on nursing home issues, said, “What’s happened in Illinois nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) through the pandemic is an unacceptable tragedy. Illinois must have stronger oversight of LTCF’s across the state.”
Specifically, AARP called for requiring nursing homes to put most of their taxpayer funding toward direct care for residents through adequate and vaccinated staff. The staffing shortage, made worse by overworked employees who fear getting sick, could be improved by requiring paid sick leave for workers.
The consultant’s report covered a wide range of time, going back to 2014 for some nursing home metrics, through late 2020. In that time, residents of long-term-care facilities were particularly hard hit by COVID-19 in Illinois, where they made up 51% of all pandemic-related deaths, compared with 40% nationwide.
The Health Care Council of Illinois, which represents more than 300 nursing homes in the state, welcomed the recommendation for the state to offer assistance to violators to ensure compliance, as opposed to repeated fines.
“We cannot ticket our way out of the long-standing structural issues that afflict the industry,” HCCI spokesman Kevin Heffernan said. “We have to look at the root cause, which is that for decades the state of Illinois has reimbursed care for low-income patients at among the lowest rates in the country.”
To help operators recover from the pandemic, Heffernan said, Illinois must increase Medicaid reimbursement, which would help to hire more staff and improve the quality of care.
As everyone is aware, ccportal (currently available only to Illinois licensed attorney) has all of the Cook County cases AND documents live. If you do not have an attorney who can access for you and you are poor and indigent or in need, let me know and I will try to find someone for you to do this (not sure why it is not available to Illinois NPOs and NGOs but that’s a whole other story for Iris Martinez, for sure)
so here is the email I received today when asking about a case. It’s total good news!
Elena S. Demos (Circuit Court) email@example.com via cookcounty.onmicrosoft.com
As soon as the Law Division goes live with the new Odyssey Case Management System later this month, all Law Division dockets and images will be available on CCC Portal (the existing 1970s-era case management system does not have the capability to interact with CCC Portal). Once the whole Office is live on Odyssey CMS, dockets and images from throughout the State will be available on RESearch IL, the PACER-type system selected by the Illinois Supreme Court. For now, we can email you requested copies of documents.
Elena Shea Demos, J.D.
Chief Deputy Clerk, Law Division
Iris Y. Martinez, Clerk of the Circuit Court
First Judicial District, State of Illinois
50 W. Washington Street
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 801
Chicago, IL 60602
So this is good news and good progress. Thanks to Elea Demos and Iris Martinez
I hope you are on the latest list I sent out. I’m forwarding the latest copy of Dean’s Motion to the ‘world!’ It has been a long time since I read anything like Dean’s Motion. reading it gave me regrets – I’d like to present it, but I’m retired and it is against the house rules here to even think about getting back in the game. The rules do not prohibit me from standing on the sidelines with the ‘big kids!’ Dean wrote a truism – no matter how you slice it or call it, on January 25, 2018 the Byline Bank made a HOME LOAN. As a home loan by Federal Law certain disclosures had to be made. THE BYLINE BANK did not do so, ergo ********* Couple the lack of disclosures with the mickey mouse antics contained in the Foster affidavit, the Guardian, Mr. Charles P. Golbert, ***** and Byline is toast. There is another hidden reef that Byline walked into when it decided NOT TO PLAY the game straight the true. Mr. Foster’s affidavit creates an unsatisfied deficiency judgment that Byline seeks to lie (and has tied in) to the judicial sale. This judgment may or may not exist. If it did it was included in the original principal balance of the home loan. If it did not ******. Either way Foster got the Byline in serious trouble. If such an item existed independently or not so independently IT WAS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE A NON-CONFORMING LOAN and had to be reported as such. Obviously it was not written off and no collections were instituted. Filing inaccurate reports to the USA is not good banking practice. Mr. Goster’s affidavit reports the filing of false financai reports to the FDIC etc. The Petition is now being proofed and may be edited a bit – and then it will be filed. I suspect that the Judge is honest and the Prayer will be granted. As most of the necessary parties are named in the foreclosure suit I assume that the miscreants will want the foreclosure dismissed – however – the Byline Bank may enjoy pain. (yes I suspect the can of worms from the 18th Floor of the Daley Center will have leaked over here and *******.) The Motion is again reproduced:
In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois –County Department, Chancery Division
BY LINE BANK Plaintiff
Case number 2019 CH 13960 Cal 59
Amy Sallas, et al
MOTION BY DEFENDANT DEAN SALLAS TO RECONSIDER ALL ORDERS ENTERED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 AND OR LATER IN REFERENCE TO MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO DENY DISMISSAL OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO REFER THIS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, MOTION TO HOLD A JUDICIAL SALE AND MOTION BY DEAN SALLAS FROM COURT ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT THE DEFENDANT DEAN SALLAS IN UNDERSTANDING THE RATIONALE FOR THE COURT’S ORDERS OF SEPTEM BER 23, 2021 AND FOLLOWING, A REQUEST TO THIS COURT TO RENDER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Now comes Dean Sallas, an 84-year-old senior citizen, who has had the Court appointed Guardian for his wife take dominion and control over his and his wife’s life savings and marital property and render him without funds and the ability to engage counsel pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act pro se and states:Prefatory statementOn January 25, 2018, the plaintiff Byline Bank induced the Petitioner Dean Sallas and his judicially determined to be disabled wife to come into the Bank and sign loan documents that the Bank represented to be necessary to be executed to defray an alleged balance due of approximately $172,000 on their home mortgage. The defendant and his judicially determined disabled wife signed at the request of the Byline Bank officers the documents that are attached to the plaintiff’s complaint as the first three pages of exhibit H. It appears the none of the required by law disclosure statements were furnished by the Byline Bank nor were Mr. and Mrs. Sallas provided copies of the documents that they signed. That on February 15, 2018, the documents furnished by the Byline Bank in response to defendants Motion to Dismiss reveal that the Guardian (Mr. Charles P. Golbert ) appeared in the Circuit Court of Cook County in the case of IN RE; AMY SALLAS 07 P 5360 and sought permission to negotiate the renewal of the prior loan of April 25, 2017, which became due and payable on January 24, 2018. At the time the total loan balance was $173, 366.00. What Mr. Golbert, the then Court appointed Guardian for defendant Amy Sallas, did not inform the Circuit Court of was that1) The then total loan balance of $ 173, 366.00 had been renegotiated on January 25, 2018, by Amy Salles, a judicially determined disabled person and the Byline Bank. 2) Mr. Golbert further appears to have not disclosed to the court in case 07 P 5360 that in re-executing the loan the disabled person and her husband had obtained concessions in interest and amortization from the Byline Bank and/or that the Byline Bank had violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, and Financial elder abuse laws enacted by the State of Illinois and the United States of America. In particular, there appeared to be a history of the Byline Bank and the Guardian ignoring loan arrangements that were beneficial to the elderly couple and instead enhancing the pecuniary benefits of the Byline Bank. (The financial disclosure law violations were also not communicated to Judge Boliker) 3) That in the default section under Death or insolvency section of the April 25, 2017, loan agreement signed by Dean Sallas and the Guardian it is noted that a Default occurs by“ The death of borrower or the dissolution or termination of the Borrower’s as going business *****”N.B. The very same clause appears on page 1 of the January 25, 2018, contract (exhibit H). Golbert is believed to have kept secret that the Byline Bank was discriminating and openly taking advantage of this elderly couple saddling them with a Commercial loan rather than the usual consumer loan arrangements used in common practice.The Byline Bank was fully aware on January 25, 2018, that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Sallas now in their 80’s was NOT engaged in any going business. So was Mr. Golbert, the Guardian. Inquiry as to what, if any documents were used to memorialize this transaction in addition to the four pages disclosed as exhibit H attached to the complaint has never been disclosed. The Mortgage complaint indicates that on January 25, 2018, only the first three pages of exhibit H were executed.It is uncontested by Byline Bank that the documents signed by Mrs. Sallas on January 25, 2018, clearly violated a remedial statute designed to protect senior citizens, to wit:(755 ILCS 5/11a-22)(from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22) Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability. (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby. (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)This Court in Granting Summary Judge to the Byline Bank and appears to have ignored this remedial statute and without further inquiry other than a self-serving affidavit accepted the outrageous charges claimed by the Byline Bank for penalty interest, late fee penalties, interest, deficiency judgments not mentioned in the loan contracts, costs and attorney fees that appear to increase the Balance due at the time of the claimed default to a claimed balance due almost 100% greater in Amount of the principal sum that but for the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 would have been due had the Byline Bank and its alleged co-conspirator acted properly. . It appears that this Courted ignored Consumer laws enacted to protect debtors from over-reaching by creditors and the fact that during this period to time the United States of America suffered the Covid 19 pandemic. Good conscience should not singularly punish Dean Sallas for the chaos that closed the Courts and prevented and prevents his enjoying his 14th Amendment Constitutional Rights.It is respectfully suggested that the Byline Bank apparently with the inappropriate attornment of this Court used the medical emergency and pandemic for its own unjust enrichment and to take pecuniary advantage of a disabled person and her elderly husband. A Court of Chancery historically does Equity and requires the same from the litigants that appear before it. The orders entered by this Court on September 23, 2021, obviate the proud tradition of the Chancery Court. In its foreclosure complaint 2019 CH 13960 entitled BYLINE BANK vs. AMY SALLAS the Byline Bank unilaterally admits its history of predation of the elderly. The foreclosure pleading and the exhibits attached disclosures a pattern of financial exploitation of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas by it attorned and/or participated in by the Court appointed guardian for years. The plaintiff Byline Bank was fully aware that Mr. and Mrs. Sallas had no business enterprise viable, yet their loan was couched as a COMMERCIAL LOAN. This fact alone should have alerted the Court to some impropriety on the part of the Byline Bank. The statutory prohibition on contractors dealing with disabled people is proudly disclosed by Byline to have been arrogantly ignored. Byline attaches to the complaint as exhibit h it attaches the 3-page contract signed in derogation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and a page 4 = being a second signature page signed only by the Guardian but having a signature line for Dean Sallas. This contract as security claimed the home of Dean and Amy Sallas ignoring the words:(b) Every note, bill, bond, or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
. It should be observed that under Illinois Law, this security (i.e., the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas) is marital property even if held under some other title arrangement. This property is part of the estate of Amy Sallas as it was acquired during the marriage. As the security is clearly the “ESTATE OF AMY SALLAS” as a matter of law this complaint for foreclosure has to be dismissed. Amy Sallas is a necessary party to this litigation and her estate is used as collateral. As this fact is uncontested the Foreclosure lawsuit cannot proceed and must be dismissed.As the words of the statute (755 ILCS 5/11a – 22) are precise and the statute is remedial this Court as a matter of law must honor the Statutory words. As this court has ignored the mandate of this remedial statute the litigants are entitled to be informed on what basis this Court ignores the plain words of the Statute. The litigants are entitled to know the basis of this Chancery Court ignoring the legislative mandate. For instance, does this Court find 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 sua sponde unconstitutional or find some words and phrases in the statute not disclosed in the statute book exempting the Byline Bank? It is common fairness that requires disclosure.The Statute (section 22) does not release Dean Sallas from the alleged loan obligation; however, the extraordinary circumstances i.e. the failure of the Byline Bank to hold Mr. Golbert accountable for the loan obligation and the criminal action of the Byline Bank in addition to the release of the liability of Amy Sallas provide a very strong argument (not decided by the Court) that Dean Sallas’ contract of liability has been so compromised by the actions of the Byline Bank that he too has been released. That question at this time is not before this Court but would be raised in the normal course of litigation BUT FOR the erroneous grant of Summary Judgment.The question is exasperated by the fact Byline Bank is exposed to have engineered this transaction as Commercial when it clearly it is not and appears to have failed to comply or comport with all the required Consumer Protection disclosures. The unilateral characterization of a home loan transaction as a commercial loan by a lender does not abrogate the Consumer protections that all consumers are entitled. It is respectfully suggested that casting this garden variety home loan transaction as commercial raises a red flag suggesting wrongful conduct. It is respectfully suggested that by itself the unusual characterization demands an investigation as to whether or not Byline Bank openly and notorious engaged in Financial elder abuse and a form of Consumer fraud. This red flag is buttressed by the exaggeration by Byline’s Bank ‘s counsel as to the attorney fees he sought, and the outrageous calculation of interest and the loan balance. (NB The loan transaction revealed is designed as a COMMERCIAL LOAN, not the usual fixed low interest home loan that was garden variety in the industry, but the legal and functional equivalent of a ‘outfit’ elevated risk juice loan ) Clearly this ½ million-dollar luxury home in Skokie with a large equity was not a high-risk commercial venture requiring a procrustean loan arrangement. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are required so as to disclose to all how the deceptive action and its accompanying discriminatory interest (usury ) does not raise an issue of FINANCIAL elder abuse or a violation of elderly and consumer protection laws that would require sanctions to imposed upon the Byline Bank appropriate to its perfidy.The usual fixed rate home loan charging interest over a long-term amortization period or the generous REVERSE MORTGAGE loan was not offered (or claimed by the Byline Bank to be offered). Instead, it is revealed that a frighted adjudicated disabled person was induced to sign documents by the Byline Bank in direct violation of a remedial protective Statute. It cannot be emphasized enough that this Bank knew by its own admission that Amy Sallas was a protected person. Yet on January 25, 2018, it sought and obtained Amy Sallas’ signature on a document that was replete with procrustean Commercial clauses. Significantly these clauses were part of the loan package previously negotiated by the Guardian and were retained in the January 25, 2018, contract offered by the Byline Bank to Mr. and Mrs. Sallas.  (The prior loan agreement of April 25, 2017, had a disclosed principal balance of $183,499,83 and required the period payment of $2,154.80 with a first payment on May 25, 2017, and a final payment on January 25, 2018. See exhibit G). Another suspicious matter is disclosed in the judgment based upon the no personal knowledge affidavit of Robert Wilson. Suddenly there appears a decade late a deficiency judgement allegedly unsatisfied against Dean Sallas. Ten years late this Judgment is recorded however, clandestinely it appears in this litigation. Indeed, no mention is made of any deficiency judgment being carried forward in said contract (exhibit H) or the prior contract exhibit G. Of course, there are no disclosure statements in the record. In fact, it is respectfully suggested that if such a judgment in fact existed it was merged into the claim represented by the void contract (exhibit H) and discharged. Consumers are entitled to disclosure statements to prevent exactly the conduct exhibited by Mr. Wilson’s no personal knowledge affidavit. A finding of fact and conclusion of law is necessary to disclose how a previously unmentioned claim got included in the foreclosure proceeding and how Byline Bank is exempt from Consumer Protection disclosure laws. On January 25, 2018, it is uncontested that both Dean Sallas and Amy Sallas signed exhibit H. On February 15, 2018 (according to the revelations of the Byline Bank in the discussion of Sallas’ Motion to Dismiss ) the Guardian, Mr. Charles P. Golbert, represented to the Circuit Court in case 07 P 5360 that the averred debt represented by page 1-3 of exhibit H , required negotiation by he, as guardian. Thus, it appears that page 4 of exhibit H had to be executed after January 25, 2018. The Guardian’s lack of candor – disclosed and attorned to by the Byline Bank – needs explanation. Certainly, the Guardian’s and the Byline’s Bank’s apparent misconduct should not benefit the Byline Bank to the detriment of both the ward of the Guardian and her husband. This Court cannot as a matter of law be party to the orchestrated deception evidence by the February 15, 2018, proceedings. If there was NO VIOLATION of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 there was no rationale for page 4 to Exhibit H and the signature line for Dean Sallas’ signature. If 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 says what the remedial statute appears to say, the conduct of both Byline Bank and the Guardian is explained as clearly wrongful and in the case of the Byline Bank – criminal. This Court of equity has a duty to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to clarify its refusal to address what appears to be a serious Fraud occurring in its presence. It should also supply findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain how its attorns to the obvious financial elder abuse occasioned by a high interest predatory commercial loan.The Guardian appointed by the Court in case 07 P 5360 co—operated with and participated in the wrongful financial elder abuse by unilaterally forcing the defendant and his ward’s estate – that he managed as a fiduciary – to tolerate such financial elder abuse as is disclosed in these proceedings. Exhibit H suggests some heretofore undisclosed wrongful alliance between the Byline Bank and the Guardian. Page 4 of exhibit H is attached to the complaint. This document (page 4) was signed by the Guardian for some unexplained reason even though it was totally un-necessary if 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is ruled to be inapplicable, unconstitutional, etc. However, it is also apparent that if Dean Sallas could be induced to sign page 4, page 3 could disappear and any violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 would similarly disappear. While it is improper to assume that the Guardian, the Bank, or anyone else will commit a FRAUD, the specter is clearly raised by the failure of the Guardian to inform the Court in case 07 P5360 accurately and with integrity the true state of affairs as it related to his ward. Since the Guardian was so lacking in candor and integrity it is not outrageous to believe that the current page 3 of exhibit H would disappear from the written record if Dean Sallas could have been induced to sign page 4 of exhibit H. – all that had to be done was substitute page 4 for the current page 3. Interestingly enough Dean Sallas was NOT provided with copies of the document he and his wife signed as required by law. (The Byline Bank does not appear to claim that it ever provided copies of the documents it required signed to its loan customers .)The Guardian for a period of months, knowing that the execution of any contract by a disabled person was a crime and knowing that the statute made the criminal act’s occurrence void the contract as to the disabled person and her property made payments on the void loan to the Byline Bank. When it became clear that Dean Sallas was not going to be intimidated into signing page 4 of exhibit H, the Guardian stopped making payment on the void loan and the Byline Bank foreclosed. As a matter of law, if 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 has meaning the Byline Bank and the Guardian, Mr. Golbert must account for said payment.Candidly, the Foreclosure action herein is in character with the predatory loan arrangement and the growing scandal of Guardianship fraud and the Felonies of Elder Cleansing. The Byline Bank claimed attorney fees of $40,000.00 and interest and other expenses in the aggregate over $150,000.00 (see page of the judgment of foreclosure) The balance claimed to be due on the date of default was $ $152, 457 (see page 6 of the foreclosure judgment) and at the drop of a questionable set of material representations of fact authored by the Byline Bank increased to $ 370, 763.52 (page 7) This admission of a predatory loan to a senior citizen apparently has been ignored by this Court, but it is the very definition of Abusive loan practices and felony Financial Elder Abuse. Interestingly enough, even though on page 4 of exhibit H attached to the complaint the Byline Bank had the signature of Mr. Golbert, no judgment was sought against the Guardian, Mr. Golbert. The total onus of the foreclosure was directed at Dean Sallas. Mr. Sallas, the husband of Amy Sallas for more than 50 years is the sole obstacle to her ‘elder cleansing!’Dean Sallas, after finally being served with summons filed a MOTION TO DISMISS and refer this matter to LAW ENFORCMENT. The Byline Bank in response filed a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. This court heard the Motions on September 23, 2021, denied the defendant’s motions, and granted Summary Judgment.DiscussionThe granting of a Motion for Summary Judge is a serious matter. It states that examining all the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party that there are no triable fact issues. All the fact issues must therefore be determined by this Court prior to granting SUMMARY JUDGMENT to be in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant with such complete certainty so as allow the Court to determine that indeed any objection to the claim, the amount of the claim, setoffs, counterclaims, cross complaints etc. would all be frivolous. It is absolutely clear that the burden has not been met and the grant of Summary Judgment herein cannot be sustained.The effect of the grant of Summary Judgment in addition to depriving Dean Sallas of his day in Court, but to deprive him of discovery and the ability to ascertain just how inappropriate the non-personal knowledge ad hoc affidavit of Mr. Wilson might be. It is clear that By-Line Bank is careful not to disclose the fact that it failed to provide the disclosures required by remedial Federal and State mortgage disclosure legislation or allow him to investigate the highly suspect relationships that have been disclosed from his sundry inquires. Indeed, the record is replete with serious suggestions of bad behavior by the Byline Bank; however, the Grant of Summary Judgment forecloses discovery and suggests that Byline Bank’s position is so meritorious and conclusive that Sallas’ further discovery and claims are frivolous. Such a proposition cannot be sustained. Demand is made for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law demonstrating the validity of the proposition. Without such findings of fact and conclusions of law it is suggested that Dean Sallas’ 14th Amendment Rights have been violated. It is respectfully submitted and advanced by this motion that the Motion for Summary Judge fails not only because the Byline Bank cannot explain it violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and or its apparent violations of disclosure requirements applicable to all consumer loans, but because its documents, its claims, and calculations do not make sense when examined.1. Exhibit G as an example discloses the loan balance as $ $184, 000 . There is no mention in the documents of any other specific loans or specific obligations that Mr. and Mrs. Sallas might directly or indirectly be indebted to the Byline Bank. Indeed, there is no mention of any deficiency from prior loans relating to Dean Sallas or any other person until in his no personal knowledge affidavit Mr. Wilson invents as ten years plus deficiency judgment that no apparent effort was made to address by either the plaintiff or Dean Sallas. This is the same Byline Bank wherein the attorneys submitted a claim for $40,000 in attorney fees expenditures. In 2017 the Byline Bank was squeezing out the last dollar from Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and could manage a balance to be paid of $184,000. No mention was made of any other claims. Thus, Dean Sallas and the Guardian for Mrs. Sallas signed exhibit G. It should be noted that Amy Sallas did not sign the loan documents. 2. In particular, Exhibit H discloses the loan balance as $173,000.00 (Again there is no mention in the documents of any loans, deficiencies etc. from alleged prior loans) as of January 25, 2018. The very same form loan document is used. Amy Sallas had Mr. Golbert as her plenary guardian, and nothing had changed from the execution of exhibit G. Of course, it appears that the Byline Bank did not make the required Consumer Protection disclosures and ignored 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.In granting its SUMMARY JUDGMENT this Court accepts the Byline Bank the prior undisclosed claimed deficiency judgment as gospel . It does not even require Mr. Wilson in his affidavit to aver facts that would support the factual conclusion or the explanation as to why for a about a decade of loan transactions Byline Bank failed to disclose the claimed deficiency judgment and had not in instance one consolidated into this loan all claimed obligations. (NB. There is a logical reason that would indicate why the loan was characterized as a commercial loan. The loan may have in fact been commercial when promulgated. It may have been the liquidation of the claimed deficiency judgment. The Guardian had taken unauthorized control over all the marital assets of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and Dean was left financially embarrassed. In an effort to gain control and refinance that obligations of Mr. Sallas’ savings, Sallas filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceeding and tried to reduce his non-conforming assets – refinancing the deficiency judgments etc. into manageable loan payments. The plan failed ***** leaving Sallas with the residual to address – the particular loan may be such a residual. Mr. Wilson in his declaration of facts does not claim to have any knowledge – but this Court accepted his speculation without a scintilla of proof.) The lack of disclosure and the lack of inclusion of other claims due from a prior decade suggests that there was no prior balance existed that had not been resolved No explanation is given for the highly unusual carry forward of a deficiency judgment against a non-commercial customer who had lived for more years than the average life expectancy for men his ethnicity and profession. I reiterate, the affidavit of Mr. Wilson is supporting the Motion for Summary Judgment is silent as to the history of this transaction and it is questionable if the deposition of the affiant would disclose any relevant information to cure the deficiency. As the burden of proof is on the Byline Bank, no evidence does not equate to the granting of Summary Judgment in this matter and the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest charges. Such action by this Court is unfair and an abuse. It must be reversed.The contract dated January 25, 2018, signed by Amelia Sallas and Dean Sallas is titled CHANGE OF TERMS AGREEMENT and makes no mention of any prior deficiency judgment but discloses a $173,000 balance due as of the date of signing. The Payoff Statement of the Byline Bank dated Feb 12. 2-21 discloses a principal balance of $152, 457. It then claims interest, default interest, late charges, legal fees, negative escrow, and even a file closing fee. No mention is made of the additional claim invented in Mr. Wilson’s non-personal knowledge affidavit.The Best-case scenario ignoring the CRIMINAL ACTION OF THE BYLINE BANK in reference to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 would suggest that the real balance that was owed the Byline Bank is something less than $152, 457. The payments made by the Guardian are in breach of his fiduciary responsibility and wrongful. The Byline Bank – if in good faith (which it is clearly not) – is not entitled to be paid for the criminal act of violating 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and possibly the Mail and Wire Fraud Federal Statutes.Adding to the argument that Summary Judgement is not appropriate in this case, Dean Sallas wishes to point out that the Summary Judgment affidavits provided by the Byline Bank are silent as to why for years this now claimed loan balance was NOT included in the loan arrangement. The failure of the Byline Bank along with its augmentation of interest charges, attorney fees and other costs suggests a serious Fraud is being perpetrated by the Byline Bank in these very proceedings. The declaration of facts of Mr. Wilson does not suggest that the Byline Bank made any of the mandatory disclosures required by law, nor does the Bank in its presentation. The Byline Bank expects this Court to rubber stamp any proposition that it puts forth and the said Byline Bank is not shy in making such a demand. Sallas asserts that this Court in honoring such a request would dishonor itself and defeat his and his wife’s rights pursuant to the ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION and the 14th Amendment to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.There is a valid reason that the RULE OF LAW imposes requirement so complete disclosure on Consumer lending and on Banks doing residential lending. IT IS TO PREVENT EXACTLY WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THIS INSTANT MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CASE. The Congress and the Illinois legislature recognized that the Byline Bank could make loans to the spouse of the Judge who appointed the Guardian, having covert transactions with the Guardian, obtain affidavits couched to provide information that may or may not be accurate and spend thousands of dollars on Attorney Fees to unbalance the field of Justice. Congress and the Illinois Legislature made prior disclosures the Law in attempt to give the citizen borrower a level playing field. It is respectfully submitted that the grant of Summary Judgment herein defeats decades of the Rule of Law. In fact, the fraud suggested in light of the strict requirements for disclosure imposed on consumer lenders mandates a comprehensive investigation of the Byline Bank and a referral to Banking authorities of the Bank so as to protect the public.To reiterate – Disclosure is the keystone of the modern consumer transaction – such may be inconvenient to Byline Bank, but neither the Rule of Law nor regulation excepts them from CONSUMER PROTECTION. Indeed, secret loan obligations are interesting but frowned upon. IF Dean Sallas in fact owed any old mortgage obligation to the Byline Bank it should have been/would have been disclosed and mentioned in exhibit G and/or in exhibit H. Criminal Conduct by Banking institutions cannot be tolerated. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is as straightforward a remedial statute as can be drafted. The words are clearly intended to lay out a blanket protection for disabled people and prevent exactly the type of misconduct that is the subject of this mortgage foreclosure. The Grant of Summary Judgement does not specify any basis for the Court to ignore the terms of the statute, to wit:(755 ILCS 5/11a-22)(from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22) Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability. (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is voidas against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby. (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)This Court states no reason for not applying this remedial statute. There is no doubt that the Byline Bank had Amy Sallas signed exhibit h. There is no doubt that Amy Sallas did not sign exhibit g, but her guardian did. There is no doubt that Amy Sallas is a necessary party to this foreclosure action and her and Dean Sallas’ marital home is part of Amy’s estate (Marital Property) and no subject to any collection effort. It therefore follows logically that the court must dismiss the foreclosure action whether or not Amy’s Guardian approves or not. In fact, it is suggested his lack of approval and a MOTION to dismiss this Mortgage foreclosure action is a clear BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP that is so obnoxious as to require a referral to law enforcement.Most troubling in lay terms the granting of the Motion says that the willful violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, the Guardian’s clear failure to inform the Court of the criminal act of the Byline Bank (as well as the possible violations of Federal law, and elder protection acts) were not only meaningless but irrelevant. Mr. Golbert (the Guardian) is a lawyer and pursuant to Himmel he has an ethical duty to report the over -reach and wrongful conduct occurring herein by the attempted profiteering ******. It is respectfully submitted that onerous and highly suspect charges for interest and attorney fees doubling the amount claimed by the Byline Bank to be due are clearly wrongful conduct that cannot be tolerated or condoned. Indeed, the grant of Summary Judgment says that Financial Elder Abuse is perfectly acceptable even though laws barring the same are being enacted across America on a daily manner. In particular, overcharging a preying on the elderly are par for the course and A Guardian who overtly and openly violates his fiduciary relationship to his client is so commonplace that a Court of Equity lauds such conduct. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary to explain just how this situation could be attorned to in Illinois in light of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and in particular Article 1 section 12.The foregoing notwithstanding, the terms of this loan should not be lost on this Court. They are abusive and the cost of this loan far exceeds any offered by the lending competition. This situation is not mitigated by Mr. Golbert, (Amy Sallas’ guardian) being complicit in predatory and financially abusive loans that were made herein. This Court also does not cover itself with glory when it denies the Defendant’s Motions in this Court and suggests that Mr. Salles raise the issue in the Probate Division. Indeed, the Court had to note that Mr. Golbert filed no defense to the mortgage foreclosure and did not raise a word of protest to the fact that:1) the Byline Bank was dealing directly with a judicially determined disabled person and having her sign documents that lost her home.2) That the Bank by definition was committing illegal financial elder abuse against both Mr. Golbert’s ward but her 84-year-old husband3) The violation of Federal and State Statutes. Including but not limited to 755 ILL 5/11a – 22, the Care Act, the ElderJustice Act, Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud etc. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY Summary Judgement is rarely granted, not because it is not requested, but because it forecloses the defendant having his day in Court and says that taking all the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant has no defense. The finding foreclosures the defendant from enjoying discovery of facts that might address the amount of the alleged debt and even its validity. The defendant is thus denied discovery, investigation, and the right to contest tens of thousands of dollars of charges claimed by the Byline Bank for interest and attorney fees. Herein that actions of the Byline Bank were so obnoxious and ethically challenged that sua sponde this Court reduced that Byline Bank’s attorney fees by about 30%. It is respectfully submitted that the court in recognizing a gross overcharge in the Byline Bank’s attorney fees and the outrageous sums of interest charged during the pandemic to this elderly couple – only findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court can explain just how these over-charges (and or discriminatory charges) do not obviate any claim for Summary Judgment. This case is not the usual run of the mill foreclosure case. It is a graphic illustration of corruption and contempt for the Rule of law exhibited by a Court appointed Guardian and a predatory lending institution. It is an acknowledgment of contempt by the Court appointed Guardian and the Byline Bank for the Rule of Law. It is no secret that the Byline Bank is not going to pay their attorneys $40,000.00 in this foreclosure case and it is almost certain that it will not pay its attorneys $26,000.00 for a routine foreclosure in which no testimony was taken and most of the expertise claimed either would qualify for a Nobel Prize in fiction or at best were routine office expenses that were included in the dollars charged per hour. It does not appear from the docket that the Byline Bank’s attorneys have filed with the clerk of the Court their retainer contract. Such information is necessary to ascertain how much, if any sum would be paid to the said attorneys. As the contract has not been filed, it would not be unreasonable as part of discovery by plaintiff to request the attorney contract actually signed by the Byline Bank and their attorney and ascertain just how much of the claimed fee the law firm will receive. The statute allows the creditor to obtain reimbursement of its legitimate costs – not obtain a windfall from the unfortunate victimized elder alleged debtor.This instant case is a quagmire. The corruption disclosed in lay terms ‘covers the waterfront!’ and cannot be ignored. For instance, it was reported by journalist Janet Phelan that Judge Boliker’s husband had a financial relationship with the Byline Bank. Did this relationship have any relevance as to the actions of the Guardian in not contesting the abusive and predatory loan arrangement revealed in the exhibits attached to the complaint herein? Only ‘discovery’ would reveal whether this previously undisclosed conflict of interest clarifies the Guardian’s abandonment of Amy Sallas’ ½ million-dollar home in Skokie, Illinois. Only findings of fact and conclusions of law can clarify why suspected Judicial corruption exhibited by the Guardian is not relevant to the rights of Dean Sallas. A cross complaint or counterclaim might be disclosed that obviates or substantially reduces the damages to which the Byline Bank might be entitled. Why Dean Sallas is denied said opportunity to obtain Justice can only be explained by this Court making findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is respectfully suggested that this situation is a clear violation of Mr. Sallas’ FIRST, FIFTH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS protected by the Constitution. Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law are necessary to explain how during the Covid 19 pandemic such seemingly obscene interest charges are reasonable and how such charges do not signal prohibited FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE. If I am reading the judgment order correctly the claimed amount has grown to $370, 763.52 from a little over $152,000 on February 12, 2021. (See payoff letter from the Byline Bank). I am told that it is not uncommon for Attorneys for a defendant in any suit to evaluate the complaint with a Motion to Dismiss. I am entitled to know why I was not so allowed but subject to a premature Motion for Summary Judgment that virtually ignores the protections that Congress, and the Legislature have enacted to protect people like me – Dean Sallas. Why is the clear 30% overcharge in attorney fees not an abuse lending practice that bars collection under the FAIR DEBT COLELCTION ACT in force in IllinoisWhy is the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 held invalid when the clear words and phrases of the act not only void as to Amy Sallas the loan agreement contact, but is deemed a crime and void against Amy and her estate? As the Estate is the security for the loan how can it be foreclosed?Why are the Federal and State ELDER PROTECTION ACTS not honored by this Court? I am certainly entitled to know why this Court approves of the Guardian and the Byline Bank imposing on Amy and me a predatory commercial loan with its procrustean clauses, confiscatory interest charges? Findings of fact will elucidate how I, aged eighty-four and my wife aged eighty can be discriminated against by being forced into loan arrangements that have terms that are onerous and clearly are FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE.PRAYER FOR RELIEFWherefore I, Dean Sallas pray that this Court reverse it finding granting Summary Judgment to Byline Bank and the mandatory finding that taking the facts of this case in the light most favorable to me, Dean Sallas, that I have no possible remedy to contest the admitted action of the BYLINE BANK, Indeed I, Dean Sallas, seeking reversal of the implied finding that I have no recognized claim for Justice even though the acts of the Byline Bank clearly admits to violating 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and possibly other Federal and State Civil and Criminal Statutes that are designed to protect the elderly from predators and Financial Elder Abuse. I seek by this motion relief from the ruling that I have no right to or basis of seeking judicial discovery or complaining of interest charges and attorney fees charges claimed by the Byline Bank that approximately double the claimed balance due on a Commercial loan granted to an 80-year-old couple. I seek my 14th Amendment Rights and the right to require the Standard of decency, and integrity be required of the Byline Bank and I and my wife be afforded protection from the obviously predatory actions of the Byline Bank. As a citizen/DEFENDANT I am entitled to a full disclosure of the unexplained clear breach of fiduciary relationship promulgated by the Guardian Charles P. Golbert in not raising the remedial statute enacted by Illinois to protect his ward and her property (which is the security for this foreclosure action), the Byline Bank’s reported dealings with the husband of the Judge in the Disabled person’s Guardianship proceedings, the (hopefully) unusual proceedings of February 15, 2018 disclosed by the Byline Bank,Most importantly, I seek this Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law disclosing to me and the public the Court basis for finding that I am to be foreclosed from discovery, the right to file a counterclaim and/or cross complaint herein, and the Consumer and elder citizen protections afforded to all Citizens of the United States of America pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.Respectfully submitted,  I must apologize. As a lay person these documents are unfamiliar to me and I have a problem with designation. Sometimes I refer to me as DEAN SALLAS and from time to time I revert to personal pronouns. I do not have an attorney to represent me in these proceedings because the Guardian has taken control over my money and has impoverished me. I literally have no money and no cash flow other then my social security. I’ve filed a petition in the Guardianship Court to free myself of the Guardian’s dominion over me and to gain control of my vested property. I live under unacceptable terms. My wife of more than 50 years has been separated from me so effectively that communication between us – even on the telephone = is barred and I am so impotent in presenting my grievances that I have no remedy as well as no financial means to obtain an an attorney or relief.  Mr. Golbert did not inform the Court of the re-execution of the loan documents by Dean Sallas, or the signing of the new loan contract by Amy Sallas, the disabled person. In addition, while the Court and counsel are presumed to know the law, Mr. Golbert had a duty to inform the Court of the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 – but he did not. The Byline Bank attempting to use this FRAUD ON THE COURT as a defense to the section 22 sanction and criminal designation is a clear message of its perfidy and unclean hands. The Court and counsel in designing the orders herein to make it appear that the onus of this foreclosure is solely on Dean Sallas, the protected assets of Amy Sallas and Dean Sallas are all under Illinois Law ‘marital property’ and her interest in the life savings of the couple are also forfeit if the Byline Bank is able to obviate the penalty of section 22.. The Motion for Summary Judgment – even in pro se cases – does not require the Court to live in a bubble or to be ignorant of the ‘facts of life!’ Home mortgage rates in 2018 were exceptionally low and loans such as this loan premium especially when the security was a luxury home in a upscale section of a Chicago suburb. Dean Sallas’ independence from the Guardian was severely compromised by the Guardian and his control of his marital property interests under attack.  In 2018 interest rates tanked. It was reported that negative interest rates were in the offing and home mortgage rates charged by legitimate Banking institutions were as low on home loans as 2, 3, and 4 percent. The interest was not enhanced by additional ‘loan charges.’ The Commercial loan of the type Dean and Amy were forced to address had a short amortization schedule and was designed to enhance the interest charge for the high risk commercial borrower. The United States of America to prevent exactly the travesty that is revealed in this case 2019 CH 13960 further authorized its lenders to sell a REVERSE MORTGAGE. An elderly couple could access the equity in their home without the drain of monthly payments. Of course such a financial windfall was not offered to Mr. and Mrs. Sallas. The vehicle disclosed as exhibit H instead provided the Bank with the full pecuniary benefits of the Covid 19 pandemic. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court can explain why such discrimination is appropriate. Assuming that there was some legitimate reason for the Guardian to sign a 2nd signature page in blank in connection with this loan arrangement, and for the Byline Bank to apparently seek a remedy only against Dean Sallas, it is basic that Dean Sallas should have a right to after he tested the Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss would have a right to seek contribution in this proceeding from the Guardian and damages from the Byline Bank for the failure to provide copies of the documents signed, notices required by law, and credits, if any, that Dean Sallas might be entitled. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law are necessary to disclose why such a rights would be denied. It should be noted that if the Guardian indeed did not commit a breach of his fiduciary relationship in connection with the execution of this loan arrangement and the payment of loan payments on this void loan the security interest that collateralizes this loan arrangement was protected by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary to clarify this situation. Amy signing exhibit H was a violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 ipso facto. Such signing was a criminal act on the part of the Byline Bank, and by statute her signature voided the obligation and prevented enforcement of the loan and attempts to access the security for the loan. Amy Sallas is a necessary party to this foreclosure action and the remedial penalty of section 22 not only bars collection against her but her property. As the property is security for the loan this foreclosure cannot proceed. Amy is a necessary party for this foreclosure to be successful. As she cannot be a party to this foreclosure suit, the foreclosure must be dismissed. The court by its findings of fact and conclusions of law must explain how it can grant Summary Judgment to the Byline Bank and dismiss as required by statute Amy Sallas. (The Court did not dismiss Amy Sallas!) The signature on page 4 does not bear the usual exculpation clause that representatives usually attach.§ 618.8325 Disclosure of loan documents.(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:(1)Borrower means any signatory to a loan contract who is either primarily or secondarily liable on such contract, including guarantors, endorsers, cosigners or the like.(2)Execution of the loan means the time at which the borrower and the qualified lender have entered into a legal, binding, and enforceable loan contract and any subsequent amendment or modification of such contract.(3)Loan means a loan made to a farmer, rancher, or producer or harvester of aquatic products, for any agricultural or aquatic purpose and other credit needs of the borrower, including financing for basic processing and marketing directly related to the borrower’s operations and those of other eligible farmers, ranchers, and producers or harvesters of aquatic products.(4)Loan contract means any written agreement under which a qualified lender lends or agrees to lend funds to a borrower in consideration for, among other things, the borrower’s promise to repay the loaned funds at an agreed-upon rate of interest.(5)Loan document means any form, application, agreement, contract, instrument, or other writing to which a borrower affixes his signature or seal and which the qualified lender intends to retain in its files as evidence relating to the loan contract entered into between it and the borrower, but shall not include any document related to a loan which the borrower has not signed.(6)Qualified lender means:(i) A System institution that makes loans (as defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section) except a bank for cooperatives; and(ii) Each bank, institution, corporation, company, union, and association described in section 1.7(b)(1)(B) of the Act, but only with respect to loans discounted or pledged under section 1.7(b)(1) of the Act.(b)Each qualified lender shall provide a copy of all loan documents to the borrower or the borrower’s legal representative at the execution of the loan. Subsequently, upon written request of a borrower or a borrower’s legal representative, a qualified lender shall provide, as soon as practicable, a copy of any loan documents signed by the borrower, a copy of other documents delivered by such borrower to that qualified lender, and a copy of each collateral evaluation of the borrower’s assets made or used by the qualified lender. To the extent that a collateral evaluation may contain confidential third party information, the lender may protect such confidential third party information by withholding any information that would disclose identifying characteristics of the third party or his property. One copy shall be furnished free of charge. The lender may assess reasonable copying charges for any additional copies requested by the borrower.(c) Each System bank and association shall have available in its offices copies of the institution’s articles of incorporation or charter and bylaws for inspection and shall furnish a copy of such documents to any owner of stock or participation certificates upon request.[51 FR 39504, Oct. 28, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 35458, Sept. 14, 1988; 56 FR 2675, Jan. 24, 1991; 59 FR 46734, Sept. 12, 1994; 61 FR 67188, Dec. 20, 1996]  To its credit, even the Chancery judge could not abide by the fiction of $40,000 in attorney fees being charged in a routine mortgage foreclosure case. He reduced the attorney fee award to approximately 26,000.00 by 30%. The failure of the Guardian, who is a fiduciary, to even mention 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 speaks volumes. The history of predatory loans attorned to by the Guardian needs explanation. Elder couples in their late 70’s early 80s do not make Commercial loans. The Guardian as a fiduciary had a duty to obtain for his ward the best deal – not the most expensive and inappropriate. As a fiduciary the Guardian had a duty to protect his ward’s property. The fact that this Guardian does not needs explanation. Exhibit H page 4 also needs explanation. As on January 25, 2018 all the documents need to meet the loan requirements were met – why did the Guardian appear before Judge Boliker and why did he not disclose vital facts. Why did in the discussions as to the Motion to Dismiss did the Byline Bank bring up the Guardian’s questionable conduct? Why did the Byline Bank have the Guardian sign a signature page. Why was there a place of Dean Sallas’ signature on that page? Why did the Byline Bank seek personal judgments and seek to collect charges only against Dean Sallas? The rule – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, smells like a duck, it is probably a duck! The wrongful conspiracy between Byline Bank and the Guardian certainly are facts that have to be explored. Does the release of Charles P. Golbert by the Byline Bank trigger the release of Dean Sallas?  Dean Salles is 84 years old and his wife 80. They have been married over 50 years. The Government and legitimate Banking institutions have provided REVERSE MORTGAGES for elderly citizens. The home being foreclosed is reputed to be worth approximately ½ a million dollars. An honest guardian working for his ward would have not negotiated COMMERCIAL LOANS paying the highest rates of interest, but a reverse mortgage that in 2018 would have yield approximately $300,000 net net. With interest rates approaching zero = a non-commercial rate would have been approximately 2% without hundreds of thousands of penalty interest charges in the event of a default. It may be presumptuous to inform a Chancellor of the history of the Court he presides, but, Mortgage foreclosures are equity proceedings. Equity proceedings are unique in that the Court originates as the conscience of the sovereign. I guiding principle is ‘he who seeks equitable relief’ must do equity. The sordid history of the Byline Bank transactions revealed in the case 2019 CH 13960 are indicative of the worst of Financial Elder Abuse. Such is totally inconsistent with the principles of a Court of Equity. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is a remedial statute designed to protect people like Dean and Amy Sallas from financial elder abuse. Why this statute is ignored must be explained by this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is suggested that the acts of the Byline Bank on January 25, 2018 may also have violated a number of Federal Laws. IT IS NOT DENIED by the Byline Bank that they dealt with an adjudicated disabled person and by this foreclosure seek to foreclosure on the ‘estate’ of the disabled person in direct contravention of a statute barring such conduct and making it a crime. Even the Court’s sua sponde recognition of a substantial overcharge in attorney fees and disallowance of 30% does not give rise to rights in me to discovery, investigation and the usual discovery afforded all litigants – except the targeted elderly. Illinois subscribes to the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT and similar remedial legislation. Using a foreclosure action and loading the same up with attorney fees, outrageous interest charges etc. as a penalty is prohibited under the act, except in this instant case. My wife and I are in our 80’s we are retired. The huge charges for attorney interest, penalty interest, late charges etc. are clearly abusive loan collection activities that violate all consumer legislation and laws. I am entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why I am singled out not to be subject to the protection of the Consumer laws in force in Illinois and the United States of America. 15 USC 1692f§ 808. Unfair practicesA debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Ken Ditkowsky
CARE homes have been accused of using strong sedatives to kill coronavirus victims more quickly.
Prescriptions for midazolam exploded at the height of the pandemic, with some claiming that it “transformed end-of-life care into euthanasia”.
⚠️ Read our live coronavirus blog for the latest news and updates2Nursing Homes Charged With Using Strong Sedatives To Quickly Kill Covid-19 Victims In Nursing HomesCredit: Getty – Contributor
Official figures indicate that 38,352 hospital discharge orders for midazolam were issued in April, more than double the figure for February.
The monthly average for the past five years in England has been around 15,000.
An anti-euthanasia activist said the spike is proof that nursing homes have put their residents on “end-of-life” pathways, reports MailOnline.
Whistleblowers also claimed to have witnessed the abuse of sedatives – staff instructed to give them to dementia patients to prevent them from wandering the hallways.
Sun Online could not verify these claims.
Retired neurologist Professor Patrick Pullicino, who has exposed the wrongful administration of powerful pain relief to patients suspected of dying on the Liverpool Care Pathway, is concerned that the same thing will happen again.
He told MailOnline, “Midazolam depresses breathing and accelerates death. It turns end-of-life care into euthanasia. ”
He also claimed that some Covid-19 patients were wrongfully kept out of the hospital, despite the fact that their admission could have saved their lives.
Professor Pullicino accuses an official organization chart designed to help health workers decide which patients should be admitted to intensive care.
“To me, this flow chart encouraged the use of end-of-life sedation with midazolam – effectively leading to euthanasia routes,” he said.
Eileen Chubb of the Compassion in Care charity said that nursing home workers told her they thought the sedatives were used too freely during the pandemic.
She said some staff had the “final impression” that residents of very sick care homes should not be sent to the hospital.
The Association for Palliative Medicine responded and said there were good reasons for the increase in prescriptions for midazolam.
Dr. Amy Proffitt of the Association for Palliative Medicine told MailOnline, “I absolutely don’t believe there have been cases of euthanasia in nursing homes linked to Covid-19. ”
She said the drug was an obvious choice for patients with breathing difficulties – one of the main symptoms of coronavirus.
She added, “I can understand why people raise concerns, but when prescribed and used appropriately, midazolam will not accelerate or prolong someone’s death – it will only comfort. “
This is a story about an out of control judge. I do not have transcripts or a case file yet, so names will be omitted for the time being
Apparently an elderly woman, age 72, had a judgment issued against her a few years back. The judgment was substantial and it was based upon a failed business transaction. The Plaintiff wanted to be paid, so they pursued the elderly woman with a series of Citations to Discover Assets, which is their legal right to do. If you owe someone money they can drag you into court every month and question you about your assets.
In this particular case, for some reason, the court issued a court order that she had to pay $25 per month. This is despite the fact she had filed an affidavit of exemption with the court and told the judge that she only had some $1000…
This is a story about an out of control judge. I do not have transcripts or a case file yet, so names will be omitted for the time being
Apparently an elderly woman, age 72, had a judgment issued against her a few years back. The judgment was substantial and it was based upon a failed business transaction. The Plaintiff wanted to be paid, so they pursued the elderly woman with a series of Citations to Discover Assets, which is their legal right to do. If you owe someone money they can drag you into court every month and question you about your assets.
In this particular case, for some reason, the court issued a court order that she had to pay $25 per month. This is despite the fact she had filed an affidavit of exemption with the court and told the judge that she only had some $1000 per month in income from social security and had nothing else.
The judge never should have issued an order that she pay $25 per month, that is illegal. She was entitled to her exemption because she is indigent and owns no property real or otherwise. She lives in a modest apartment on her social security. Creditors are not allowed to attack social security under both state and federal law.
But for some reason at the last court date, after the woman had filed a motion to terminate the payments on the basis of exemption, the judge got mad. He asked her 4 times why she would not pay $25 per month and she responded she didn’t have it and her social security income was exempt. That was the truth so she said it and repeated it politely. I guess on the 5th statement, he held her in contempt and ordered she be jailed.
Now normally, most courts have a small lock up someplace at the courthouse for litigants and the public who are disrepectful to the judge and don’t follow orders. But this woman was polite and merely repeated that she simply didn’t have the $25 per month and the law doesn’t permit creditors to get her social security money.
Not only did the judge transfer her to the main jail, but somehow she also got a strip search and body cavity search as her punishment for challenging the judge’s order to pay $25 per month. Body cavity searches are not to be performed for minor offenses, traffic offenses, and for certain civil litigation defendants who are poor after a contempt of court hearing.
She is currently seeking a lawyer to sue the judges and the deputies involved for false arrest, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In addition, she has had problems getting her transcripts. Apparently she has paid for the last 3 or 4 months of transcripts but she still doesn’t have them. She is going to file a complaint with the state agency that regulates court reporters. A court reporter should have a short transcript done in 2 weeks, 3 weeks at the latest. Apparently the judge has been harassing her about her pro se motions to terminate the $25 per month payment which she has been filing every month and the judge has been entering and continuing them.
And this is actually extremely unusual shameful conduct for a civil judge. Civil judges are not supposed to be in the business of jailing litigants. They have lots of tools at their disposal, and generally they should fine first or order a litigant to X numbers of community service if they are indigent. This judge didn’t have to jail this woman, and for sure she should not have had a body cavity search. That was soooo freaking out of control.
Apparently this judge and court really love the defendants for this to happen to an elderly woman.
The judge should be removed from the bench, the deputies who arrested her should be disciplined and all the lawyers involved in this should be disciplined severely.
I mean, what does this judge want from her, to go to the nearest blood bank and sell her blood or plasma and have the money transferred to the defendants by court order? He seems like he would be voted judge most likely to do it!
It appears to me from the reports of today’s hearings that Judge Boliker has an extreme conflict of interest and in addition has a lack of understanding what her role is in these proceedings. She is not a cheerleader, nor is she a party in the usual sense. I quote from the Struck vs. Cook County Public Guardian 387 IllApp 3d 867
To the extent that James argues that the guardian’s decisions are causing harm to Janie, we note that the circuit court has a duty to protect a ward from such alleged harm. In In re Mark W., 228 Ill.2d 365, 374-75, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15 (2008), our supreme court explained that an individual who has been adjudicated disabled under the Probate Act is viewed as “ ‘a favored person in the eyes of the law’ ” and is entitled to vigilant protection. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 374-75, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15, quoting In re Estate of Wellman, 174 Ill.2d 335, 348, 220 Ill.Dec. 360, 673 N.E.2d 272 (1996). Our supreme court stated that once a person is adjudicated disabled, that person remains under the jurisdiction of the court, even when a plenary guardian of the person has been appointed. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d. at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15. The court therefore has “a duty to judicially interfere and protect the ward if the guardian is about to do anything that would cause harm.” Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15. To fulfill this duty, the court’s authority is not limited to express statutory terms. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15, citing In re Estate of Nelson, 250 Ill.App.3d 282, 287-88, 190 Ill.Dec. 212, 621 N.E.2d 81 (1993) (recognizing the authority of the circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem to investigate an allegation that a ward was neglected). Our supreme court concluded that, in accordance with these principles, a circuit court has the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of a disabled individual even though that individual already had a plenary guardian of the person. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15.
Throughout the Guardianship proceedings Judge Boliker has ignored the overwhelming evidence of misbehavior on the part of Guardian – and in particular Charles P. Golbert. The most recent evidence is today’s fiasco in which Dean Sallas petitioned the Court for funds – belonging to him – to be returned to him so that he can have food on the table, facility to participate in the hearings, money to provide for hazard insurance, taxes, closing and other necessities.
In the usual situation it is possible to ‘dream up’ a rationalization for the Judge’s conduct, but, Judge Boliker’s handling of her judicial duties is so below even the lowest standard for a judge every citizen has to speak out.
The nadir of judicial competence was exposed in the Zoom hearing of July 28, 2020, as well as in today’s proceeding. That hearing discloses that the Byline Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit against Amy Sallas, who was found to be a disabled adult in the case before Judge Boliker. 2007 P 5360. The Byline Bank was not shy or secretive. Indeed, in their pleadings in the case Byline Bank vs. Amy Sallas 2019 CH 13960 the Bank makes it very clear that on January 25, 2018 they solicited and obtain the signature of Amy Sallas on loan documents which were the subject of the foreclosure lawsuit. The security for the loan was the marital home of Dean and Amy Sallas.
Under Illinois law it was event to the attorneys for the Byline Bank, the Attorneys for the Guardian, the Guardian, the Guardian ad litem, and the Judge (Judge Boliker) that Illinois while not a community property State was a MARITAL PROPERTY STATE. What this meant was that any property brought into the marriage – no matter how titled – was Marital property and each party to the marriage had an undivided interest therein. All the attorneys and the judge were also aware of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and its remedial prohibition on persons – such as the Byline Bank – dealing with an adjudicated disabled person with a guardian appointed.
On this January 25, 2018, officers and agents of the Byline Bank intentionally violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and requested and obtained the signature of Amy Sallas on a loan contract. In addition, they obtained as security for the loan contract the marital home of Amy and Dean Sallas. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is not complex, it states in one syllable words:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22)(from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22) Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability. (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby. (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
It is incomprehensible that the Guardian, Charles P. Golbert, his attorney, the Guardian ad litem, the attorneys for the Byline Bank, and/or Judge Boliker did not know that the case of BYLINE BANK vs AMY SALLAS 2019 CH 13960 was a lawsuit that not only was wrongfully filed, but was strong evidence of criminal activity. Yet, on July 28, 2020, and thereafter Judge Boliker has ignored her responsibility to the disabled person (Amy Sallas). Not only has she ignored her responsibility but knowing from the pleadings of the Byline Bank that her appointed Guardian was engaged in a pattern of fiduciary abuse of his ward and questionable candor in the Court appointed him as the Guardian of the person of Amy Sallas and did absolutely nothing to protect her interests, except patently deny Dean Sallas (Amy’s husband of more than half a century) his Constitutional Rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment. Indeed, Judge Boliker was prepared to allow the Byline Bank to get away with prior FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE and now the criminal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.
Dean Sallas tried desperately to free his wife from the ‘elder cleansing/human trafficking in the elderly that befell her. The record demonstrates a pattern of conduct on the part of the Court and the Guardians more akin to a Soviet or 3rd Reich courtroom than an American. Dean and Amy were subjected to what amounted to unwanted, ultra vires, unintentional de facto DISSOLUTION of MARRIAGE. Amy was abducted from her home, and ultimately placed in a nursing home. Naturally Amy became infected with Covid. Dean’s efforts to come to his wife’s aid were repulsed – HIPPA according to the Guardian prohibited him having any information as to his wife’s life-threatening illness, her treatment, her chance of recovery etc. He could not even talk to her on the telephone!
The Judge’s statement on June 28, 2021, as to Dean’s alleged mistreatment of his wife was classic. Without a hearing and without taking evidence how would the Judge know all she recited. The fact was the diatribe was untrue. By in Judge Boliker’s courtroom such an assertion is irrelevant. Evidence in the sense that the Rules require is not required therein – the Judge made up her mind and does not wish to be bothered with the facts. The foregoing statement normally would be considered harsh, but after Amy Sallas had demonstrated overtly that she was wrongfully incarcerated in the Guardianship an anonymous call was received by the Skokie Police Department. The caller demanded a wellness check on Amy and reported that Amy was wandering aimlessly out in the snow in a less than appropriate dress.
The police responded, knocked on the front door of the Sallas residence and was greeted by none other than Amy Sallas (age 80) not only not walking in the snow but properly attired! No matter! The Guardian, and the Court would rather publish the fictional story as evidence of the need for Amy to be sequestered against her will in a nursing and being barred from communication with her husband of half a century.
Of course, the Guardian has without warrant of authority and in derogation of the 14th Amendment has taken complete dominion over the assets of both Dean and Amelia Sallas. So brazen is the Guardian that one of his attorneys was overheard bragging that it would not be long before they would leave Dean penniless and homeless. On July 28, 2020, the transcript of proceedings reveals that not only is the Guardian is not contesting the wrongfully obtained loan contract and the foreclosure. Judge Boliker disregarding her obligation to Amy Sallas is attorning. Neither are concerned that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 makes the loan contract V O I D and bars enforcement against her E S T A T E! As Amy’s estate is the security for the loan the foreclosure must be dismissed!
The loss of a half million-dollar asset does not bother either the Judge or the Guardian – Of course – why should it! Nine million dollars in savings has disappeared due to the domination of the Guardian!
Yes, a complaint has been filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Attorney General, the States Attorney and anyone who can be reached. The response has been disappointing!
Today, Dean Sallas made a simple motion – without funds he cannot prosecute his appeal. He wants his funds released ordered released by the Court! As there is no authority for the Guardian to touch a dime of his funds – he is asking simple relief. “JUDGE – ORDER THE GUARDIAN TO GIVE ME BACK MY MONEY!”
Dean has been advised (not by me) that his social security payment disqualifies him from an outright waiver of the cost of the appeal. However, without funds for food, clothing, transportation, communication, and the litigation he is checkmated. Hazard insurance for the home and car are luxuries, upkeep and maintance is out of the question and utilities are beyond the pale according to Judge Boliker and the Guardian! As things stand today DEAN SALLAS IS BEING DENIED HIS 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW and has petitioned to the Court to exercise her authority over the Guardian and require the Guardian to comport with the prohibition of Section 16-1 of the Criminal code and the 5th and 14th amendment.
You all witnessed the facade of today. First, the access telephone number was unilaterally changed. A new number was given out and then there was an attempt cull the number of witnesses. The delay was outrageous. Finally, when it was observed that some of the witnesses intended to wait till HELL froze over to observe what excuse Judge Boliker and/or her co-conspirators would take in an effort to deny basic CIVIL LIBERTIES to Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas – the ‘trump card’ was played – The Guardian did not receive a copy of the motion!
Playing Solomon, Judge Boliker leaped to the Guardian’s side – she wanted the Guardian to have the opportunity to be heard and thus the case was continued to September 8, 2021, at 10:00 A.M. As Dean actually served the Guardian and after the Guardian complained to the IARDC that Dean was not properly isolated from society, from time to time anticipating such a ploy when Dean sent me a copy of what he intended to file, I forwarded a copy to everyone in sight including the Guardian. Dean’s motion was served on the Guardian about July 4. I know – I was blind copied on the service – and as I was impressed by Dean’s efforts, I sent out a copy to everyone in sight – on the list was Lisa Casanova! She is an attorney for the Guardian who controls who, if anyone can communicate with Amy!
I write this memo to place of record the fact that Amy Sallas’ life is in real danger! We’ve all noted that sudden illnesses appear to elderly people who buck the system or have relatives who do so. Dean Sallas at 84 is also at risk! The guardian and the judge are well aware that the limitation of the 14th amendment codified in 755 ILCS 5/11 a – 3b has been wrongfully exceeded by Mr. Golbert. The applicable provision of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b states:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14. (Source: P.A. 102-72, eff. 1-1-22.)
There is no authority given to the Guardian to: 1) isolate the victim from her prior life, 2) impoverish her, 3) provide her with an unauthorized ultra vires de facto dissolution of marriage, 4) compromise her rights etc. There are certain no rights given in the statute for the Guardian to terrorize 3rd persons including the victim’s husband.
At stake here is America’s core values! This Sallas case is a touchdown proceeding placing before our society the simple question, to wit:
Are we a legitimate CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY dedicated to the principles of honor, integrity and justice or are we a Banana republic or worse? What happened in Judge Boliker’s courtroom today suggests we are on a path to being worse! Shame on us – this malady and criminal behavior placed in the light of day have to be addressed. It is up to LAW ENFORCEMENT to seize the moment and bring the miscreants to the Bar of Justice.
Time is of the essence!
 It appears that exercising a FIRST AMENDMENT right and talking to old friends who happened to be targeted by the HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY (ELDER CLEANINGS) felonies is ethically challenged. I understand that JoAnne Denison was contacted by the IARDC for practicing law while suspended because she helped Dean Sallas attend the Zoom hearing of July 28, 2020. The Attorneys for Byline Bank appear to be very upset by Dean’s learning about 755 ILCS 5/11a -22. An IARDC attorney contacted me and wished me to respond to her. I did and found that she apparently did not wish to talk to me – I got back an e-mail rejection telling me I was blocked.
No one seems to be interested in the felony money laundering, wire fraud, mail fraud, financial elder abuse *****. The concern appears to be the fact that Dean Sallas cannot be isolated and in light of his demonstration of being more knowledgeable in the Rule of Law than the Guardian and some of his attorneys – Dean cannot be elder cleansed!
 This portion of the Statute, i.e. the order shall conform with Sections 11a – 12 **** are interesting as without the Court in compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3a actually making findings of fact and law literally sends the Guardian out pursuant to Section 3b without adequate instructions – and virtually flirting with ultra vires behavior. Golbert as the Public Guardian of Cook County is well aware his actions toward Dean Sallas are not only wrongful but criminal. His petition of February 15, 2018 heard by Judge Boliker was classic criminal contempt of Court. Golbert neglected to advise the Court that there was no loan contract to negotiate or sign – Amy had signed the contract and 755 ILCs 5/11a – 22 has voided it. Golbert had a duty to disclose this fact to the Judge – of course he did not. He further did not disclose the fact that Amy had negotiated a better contract that he (the big expert) had. His petition read literally suggested that everything was up in the air. THEN there is the 4th page of the 3 page contract. Why was this signature sheet signed by the Guardian? Why did he sign with the usual exculpation?
Golbert was also silent concerning the fact that prior the Byline Bank was engaging in FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE. Why would a 80 year old couple sign or qualify for a COMMERCIAL LOAN? Why was the ordinary fixed term not applicable or the Reverse mortgage? The only rationale was exploitation! The Bank could garner more interest and pay higher commission.