The Rape of the Ward
The assault on the First Amendment that has been promulgated in these guardianship cases by the Courts, the attorney regulators, the media, and others is particularly reprehensible. It not only aids and abets the railroading of many seniors and disabled people into guardianships wherein they are segregated from their families, stripped of their liberty rights and their prior rights as they savings are redistributed to court appointed favorites. These are the elements of elder cleansing when coupled with the assisted involuntary suicide of the ward. The Code of Silence has allowed thousands of disabled and senior citizens to be ‘elder cleansed’ and their estates ravaged. Billions of dollars have found their way from these incompetency estates to the miscreants and the other beneficiaries of this patronage.
What is most surprising is the fact that the tax man (Department of the Treasury/Illinois Department of Revenue) has not made this situation unprofitable. As victims have pointed out, the guardians must file annually Internal Revenue form 1041. That form discloses all the income (i.e. benefits from all sources) that the estate has earned and is entitled to, and all distributions. As a fiduciary owes the highest level of loyalty to his/he ward this form must be filled out honestly and candidly. Thus, even though the Judge who meted out the patronage of a guardianship is willing to overlook an incidental remuneration of a referral fee that the guardian obtained when he recommended that the ward be placed in a particular extended care facility, that fee is a rebate to the estate and must be reported on the 1041. If the guardian pocketed the referral fee it is also income that has to be reported on the 1040 tax form.
Similarly, the State tax people are entitled to the tax on the referral fee that fraudulently found its way into the pocket of the guardian or other fiduciary. A non- fiduciary can earn a referral fee, but, a fiduciary is required to pay the fee over to the ward. (This theft apparently has been sanitized by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission administered to be Jerome Larkin. Larkin was aware or should have been aware of the referral fees paid in the Alice Gore case, but, for the attorneys who receive guardianship patronage it is the policy of the IARDC to ignore their felonies and prosecute any attorney who complains to law enforcement concerning the theft)
Recent events in the Mary Sykes case are illustrative of the principle that I wish to illustrate. Mary Sykes owned a very valuable parcel of real estate in Norwood Park. Developers have been seeking the property for years and prior to Mary being railroaded into the guardianship (in the height of the downturn in real estate values a valuation of $700,000 was obtained. Recently it was learned that the guardians sold the real estate for a price of less than $300,000.00. For the purpose of illustration let me set the price at $300,000.00 and the value at $700,000.00. Let us also assume that appropriate notice, hearing, etc. appear in the record.
In our hypothetical the fact that the Court approved the sale does not obviate the breach of fiduciary relationship. The Judge acting either in concert or in violation of his oath does not bind the taxman nor does it obviate the rights of the estate to address the fraud that has occurred. The future profit on the sale of the house is still the absolute property of the ward. The amounts allegedly stolen from the estate by the guardian are income to him/her when the wrongdoing occurs and the taxes are immediately due. The 1041 to be filled in correctly must report the transaction as it is, not as it is fictionalized. To do less is tax fraud and a felony. If the guardian has a change of heart and decides to honor his/her fiduciary duties, the gain still must be reported, but the timely reimbursement is a deduction.
A pre-Operation Greylord scandal was the appointment of receivers. They like the disabled person and other guardians had their accounting rubber-stamped so that millions of dollars in real estate disappeared. The fraud of these receivers went unpunished for years. Hopefully the guardianship frauds will receive their due attention sooner rather than later.
The Mary Sykes hypothetical is not finished until by a series of mesne sales the full value is obtained in an ultimate sale to a developer or ultimate purchaser. In the receiver cases the first sale was (like Sykes) for an amount that sounds good but is a real bargain. The purchaser is a ‘controlled buyer’ who I refer to as a nominee. To establish in the public mind that the sale is legitimate and to ‘cover up’ the fraud (and protect the rubber stamp judge) a second sale is promulgated. In that case the price would be an amount in the neighborhood of $250,000.00. This sale is conducted with fanfare! The property is even adorned with ‘sold’ signs.
Clandestinely a sale is conducted in which the full price is obtained (hypothetically $700k,) When the drawings are completed, condo declarations prepared, financing obtained etc. – about a year or so later, this sale is consummated and the miscreants pocket their profits and report them as capital gains. Not one dime goes to the ward! This is the rape of the ward. (In Sykes we have other irregularities but personal property does not track in the same manner as real estate).
With political clout flying high over-head the miscreants have not only cheated their ward, but the taxman. The proceeds of the theft from the ward’s estate is not a capital gain. It is ordinary income! That income was due on the individuals 1040’s in the year of the theft. The 1040 also should have disclosed the theft on that year and subsequent years any conscience payments.
If the taxman is blind to the political clout and the ‘cover up’ by the judicial officials as the taxman is supposed to be, a 50% tax penalty should be assessed as well as interest at the statutory rate against the miscreants collectively and severally based upon the 18 USCA 371 conspiracy. Pursuant to ADA and other laws the Justice Department should demand the return of gain to the Estate. (NB – a similar result should occur as to the referral fees that are routinely paid by the nursing homes, hospice entities, etc to the fiduciary who refers to the health care provider his ward as a consumer)
Exactly why elder cleansing gains are not taxed and law enforcement (and the media) are so resistant to protecting the elderly and the disabled is a mystery that will have to wait for a while to obtain the answer. I wrote Mr. Larkin the IARDC a safe harbor letter so as to ascertain if Larkin and his merry crew were interested in protecting the public – Larkin by his silence indicated that he conceived his duty to protect the people carrying on the War against the Elderly and the Disabled from the public. It is understandable in Cook County, Illinois – John Q. Public has no funds to wire anything!