To: Nancy Vallone <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Glenda Martinez <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Cc: Tim NASGA <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Probate Sharks <email@example.com>, Nasga Us <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “J. Ditkowsky” <email@example.com>, Eric Holder <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matt Senator Kirk <email@example.com>, “FBI- ( (” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chicago FBI <email@example.com>, BILL DITKOWSKY <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chicago Tribune <email@example.com>, SUNTIMES <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Janet Phelan <email@example.com>, Ginny Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” <email@example.com>, Barbara Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bev Cooper <email@example.com>, Cook County States Attorney <firstname.lastname@example.org>, FOX News Network LLC <email@example.com>, Diane Nash <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Scott Evans <email@example.com>, Illinois ARDC <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Fiduciary Watch <email@example.com>, “Y. ACLU” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ISBA Main Discussion Group <email@example.com>, Edward Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cook Sheriff <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sam Sugar <email@example.com>, The Wall Street Journal <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik <email@example.com>, Eric Blair <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <email@example.com>, RosANNa Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Jim (” <email@example.com>, Alyece Russell <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Martin Kozak <email@example.com>, Len Holland <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Elaine Renoire <email@example.com>, Candice Schwager <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tom Fields <email@example.com>, Martha Jantho <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rudy Bush <email@example.com>, Kathie Bakken <firstname.lastname@example.org>, GLORIA Jean SYKES <email@example.com>, Wsj Lts <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Robert Sarhan <email@example.com>, John Howard Wyman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Truthbetoldradio (” <email@example.com>, Jay Goldman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Janet Phelan <email@example.com>, Mary Richards <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Doug Franks <email@example.com>, ACLU of Illinois <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Greg Coleman <email@example.com>, “ABAJournal.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Marty Prehn <email@example.com>
Subject: Miscreant guardians and those who aid and abet them are liable for U S Income taxes – why are these taxes not being collected?
Date: Dec 26, 2014 12:27 PM
Tax consequences of Elder Cleansing
Al Capone was brought down not by convictions for the crimes that he committed as an ‘outfit boss’ but for not paying the taxes due on his criminal enterprises. As the history of Operation Greylord revealed the forces of law and order meet extreme resistance from the political establishment and codes of silence imposed by corrupt judicial entities who correctly pointed out that if you punished the jurists and their associates for their crimes you would undermine the justice system. Fortunately, courage prevailed and over a score of judges became guests of the Department of Justice.
One again Illinois is faced with corrupt judicial officials and once again the self-policing system has failed. The Illinois attorney registration and disciplinary commission has become venal in its ‘cover up’ of corruption and has actually assaulted the core values of American democracy. Jerome Larkin has actually been noted to have acted in concert with criminal elements amongst the 2nd oldest profession in direct defiance of 18 USCA 371. The miscreant elements have openly and notoriously railroaded one or more disabled persons into guardianships wherein the aforesaid senior citizens could be isolated from their prior lives, be stripped of their humanity, and liberty, and have their estates looted. For illustration purposes the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Circuit Court of Cook County) is addressed  as an illustration. Most if not all of the ‘elder cleansing’ guardianship cases bear the same deficiencies including those cases originating in States other than Illinois.
The following jury instruction explains that the act of one conspirator is the act of all, to wit:
If these defendants, or any two or more of them, conspired together, with or not with any other person or persons, to excite the people or classes of the people of this city to sedition, tumult and riot, to use deadly weapons against and take the lives of other persons, as a means to carry their designs and purposes into effect, and in pursuance of such conspiracy, and in furtherance of its objects, any of the persons so conspiring, publicly, by print or speech, advised or encouraged the commission of murder, without designating time, place or occasion at which it should be done, and in pursuance of, and induced by such advice or encouragement, murder was committed, then all of such conspirators are guilty of such murder, whether the person who perpetrated such murder can be identified or not. If such murder was committed in pursuance of such advice or encouragement, and was induced thereby, it does not matter what change, if any, in the order or condition of society, or what, if any, advantage to themselves or others, the conspirators proposed as the result of their conspiracy; nor does it matter whether such advice and encouragement had been frequent and long-continued or not, except in determining whether the perpetrator was or was not acting in pursuance of such advice or encouragement, and was or was not induced thereby to commit the murder. If there was such conspiracy as in this instruction is recited, such advice or encouragement was given, and murder committed in pursuance of and induced thereby, then all such conspirators are guilty of murder. Nor does it matter, if there was such a conspiracy, how impracticable or impossible of success its end and aims were, nor how foolish nor ill-arranged were the plans for its execution, except as bearing upon the question whether there was or was not such conspiracy.
SPIES v. PEOPLE, 122 Ill. 1, 100, 12 N.E. 865, 914, 1887 Ill. LEXIS 969, 115-116 (Ill. 1887)
On the Civil Side the Illinois courts have ruled that:
the theory of jurisdiction based on the acts of a co conspirator must be that co conspirators are each other’s agents; thus[,] the argument would be that when a conspirator commits a tortious act within Illinois[,] he does so as agent for his co- conspirators , who thereby also become subject to this [s]tate’s jurisdiction.” Green, 86 Ill. 2d at 440-41, 427 N.E.2d at 1208.
Herein in the Sykes case, therefor the actions Farenga are the acts of Larkin and the other conspirators. 18 USCA 371 is just one of the statutes that affirms this matter.
As fiduciaries even the corrupt judicial officials in guardianship cases and their appointees owe the ward the highest degree of responsibility. It is an axiom that a fiduciary cannot profit from his relationship with the ward except for legitimate compensation for work done was intended to reasonably benefit the ward’s estate and then only to the extent that the charges for the work are reasonable and the work was indeed necessary to the estate.
The court held that embezzled money constituted gross income of the embezzler in the year in which the funds were misappropriated under 26 U.S.C.S. § 22(a) and § 61(a). Both lawful and unlawful gains were comprehended within the term “gross income .” Congress intended to tax income both from both legal and illegal sources to remove the incongruity of having gains of the honest laborer taxed and the gains of dishonest immune. Further, the language of 26 U.S.C.S. § 22(a) and of § 61(a) encompassed all accession to wealth clearly realized and over which a taxpayer had complete dominion.
James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 213, 81 S. Ct. 1052, 1052, 6 L. Ed. 2d 246, 250, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2014, 1, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9449, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1361, 1961-2 C.B. 9 (U.S. 1961)
Thus, the breaches of fiduciary relationship by the corrupt judicial officials, the corrupt appointees and all who act in concert with them create taxable income and United States Income taxes must be paid in the year in which the particular breach of the fiduciary relationship occurs.
Thus, when a guardian enters the safety deposit box of his /her ward, removes approximately a million dollars in gold coins the guardian creates a taxable event for herself and all who have acted in concert with her. This includes the guardian ad litem who without knowledge as to what if anything was in the safety deposit box denies that the gold coins were in the safety deposit box. This includes the attorneys who join arms to prevent public disclosure of the theft including the public official (Jerome Larkin) who attempts to intimidate whistleblowers and retaliates 42 USCA 12203 because of the disclosure of ADA violations.
The foregoing is pretty basic. If you aid and abet or steal money from a ward if you are a fiduciary you have Federal Income taxes to pay on the proceeds of the theft. (When you return the money you may get a deduction for the return – however, the statute of limitations is three years.) We do not have to discuss compensation awarded by the Court – it is clearly taxable when paid .
The question that presents itself arises from the unique nature of the Fiduciary relationship. No one ever put a gun to the fiduciaries head and required the guardian and those who act in concert with the guardian to serve. The position of guardian was sought quite aggressively by the individual who was appointed. This individual knew or should have known that he/she was undertaking a serious position in which substantial expertise is required and absolute honesty and honor demanded. The guardian and the corrupt judicial officials were well aware that:
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 35 L. Ed. 734, 737, 11 S. Ct. 1000, 1001 (1891) V.H. v. K.E.J. (In re Estate of K.E.J.), 382 Ill. App. 3d 401, 412, 887 N.E.2d 704, 715-716, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 357, 22-23, 320 Ill. Dec. 560, 571-572 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2008)
guardians are to apply a substituted judgment standard, where they attempt to discern what the ward would have wished if she were competent, and then substitute that judgment for their own. See, e.g., In re Estate of Greenspan, 137 Ill. 2d 1, 558 N.E.2d 1194, 146 Ill. Dec. 860 (1990)
V.H. v. K.E.J. (In re Estate of K.E.J.), 382 Ill. App. 3d 401, 418, 887 N.E.2d 704, 720, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 357, 35, 320 Ill. Dec. 560, 576 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2008)
The fiduciary (all three guardians in the Sykes case) were aware that the statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 mandated that the guardianship could only address the infirmities, if any, that the disabled person had. Thus, to know the extent and nature of the guardian’s authority the Court and the guardians each had to know what, if any, infirmity existed at the time of the appointment. Thus, to have a guardian appointed the Court had to hold a hearing and make specific findings as to 1) that a disability exists, 2) what the disability was, 3) the extent and nature of the disability and 4) what, if any, reasonable accommodation was required to address the disability so that the ward could enjoy the fruits of American civilization. Without such a finding based upon competent evidence that met the standard of clear and convincing the appointment of a guardian for the ward was and is an invitation to disaster! In point of fact having no direction that guardian could not make appropriate decisions and ip so facto could not serve.
As a protection for the ward from being railroaded into a guardianship the Court was required to obtain jurisdiction over the person of the ward by the full and complete compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 (in Illinois). Anything short of full compliance did not vest the Court with jurisdiction. Half price methods of obtaining jurisdiction were and are assaults on the Civil Rights and Human Rights of the alleged disabled person. As the record in Sykes demonstrates virtually no compliance with the statutory requirements a serious problem exists. Ex post facto vesting of jurisdiction is a per se fraud. Jurisdiction is not a technicality! Without jurisdiction the guardian and the court cannot make any decisions and every dollar of the ward’s estate that is removed is removed without authority and is a theft!!!! In America strangers cannot access a senior citizen’s bank account and remove the senior’s funds to pay for items that the stranger believes must be spent. If one wants to be Good Samaritan he/she has to do it on their own expense.
However, jurisdiction aside the grant of authority is limited by the Constitution of the United States and the State to only those areas of life in which it is necessary to invade to provide the disabled person with the reasonable accommodation of the disability. In other words – as Mary Sykes had been successfully and appropriate managing her money no guardian was necessary to address those issues. The fact that Mary recognized the theft of $4000 from her checking account and the fact that a 90 year old woman was no eligible for an IRA account is clear proof that the guardianship was inappropriate as ordered. The applicant for guardian must prove the extent and nature of the incompetency by clear and convincing evidence.
When coupled with the fact that Mary Sykes today knows the objects her bounty, it is submitted that the guardianship imposed was illegal and a ‘taking’ in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Examining the facts of the Mary Sykes case further there was never any hearing to determine the extent of Mary Sykes’ disability, if any. Thus to reiterate, as the proof of incompetency and the extent thereof has to be proven in Illinois by clear and convincing evidence prior to an adjudication the guardianship was illegal and the expenditure of funds of any kind and nature un=necessary and wrongful.
Theft is a taxable event . It therefore follows that when the guardian transfers the ward out of her home and isolates her so as to separate her from her human rights and civil rights any dime that is used from the ward’s estate is taxable income to the fiduciary de facto guardian. Similarly every dime of the ward’s funds use is taxable and must be reported on the 1040 tax return of the de facto guardian and his/her co-conspirators.
The doctrine of Constructive receipt is also applicable. By this I mean, Mary Sykes had over a million dollars of assets that were taken from her by this guardianship. Is 100% of those assets taxable in the year in which the illegal guardianship is established? There is an argument for such an approach; however, it fall down when dealing with tangible property. For instance, Mary owned some real estate. By false pleadings a judge whose honesty has been questioned entered inappropriate orders allowing for the real estate to be sold at a fraction of its value. (This property had been previously appraised at $700,000 and the sale price was pegged at less than $250,000). There is no question that the entire $700,000 is ordinary income at the point of sale in a legitimate guardianship as the guardian is well aware that his nominee sales fool everyone but the Department of the Treasury. The question however is whether upon receipt of the property the taxable event occurs.
It is my analysis that constructive receipt would apply only to fungible property such as cash, collectibles etc. The tangible property that is titled in the name of the ward are still owned by the ward until removed from his/her name.
In Summary it is my opinion that the illegal guardianship when initiated is per se a breach of fiduciary relationship and results in immediate ordinary income tax liability for not only the miscreant guardian, but all his/her co-conspirators including the attorneys who are presumed to know that the guardianship for profit (or guardianship for elder cleansing) are illegal and the public officials such as Mr. Jerome Larkin who aid and abet the criminal conduct and who act in concert with the criminals. This liability encompasses not only the items purloined but all the fungible property that can be converted to cash including but not limited to the funds used solely and specifically for the ward. (Volunteers who take it upon themselves to impose their will on senior citizens cannot require the aforesaid senior citizens to dissipate their estates at the will and caprice of the aforesaid volunteers who may or may not have a corrupt jurist on retainer).
Like Al Capone’s situation the War on the elderly and the disabled senior citizens may be won by application of the tax code rather than directly prosecuting the corrupt judicial and other officials under the criminal code. The tax is due when the property is or could have been removed by the fiduciary who has violated his/her duty. In the Sykes case this is 2009. There is a fraud penalty of 50% to be applied in every one of these cases, plus interest and general penalties.
Merry Christmas! It is suggested to the guardians for profit and those who have conspired with them (such as Jerome Larkin) that interest is running as 1040 forms have not been filed disclosing the theft there is no relief from this fraud upon the United States of America. The time for filing the appropriate tax reports is now and the time for ending the elder cleansing is now. The Constitution and the state statutes are designed to protect seniors and the disabled. The tax laws are designed to tax legal and illegal profits!
 Mary Sykes was a 90 year old widow who did her own banking and was active in her garden club, etc. She discovered that her older daughter removed $4000 from her accounts without permission. When the daughter was confronted she claimed that she took the money to open an IRA account for Mary. Mary informed her that she (Mary) was not eligible for an IRA account. Mary sought an order of protection against the daughter. The daughter countered with an incompetency petition pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. (Guardianship statute).
Question is raised as to whether Mary was served with process. Certainly the jurisdictional statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 was not complied with as neither of Mary’s two siblings or her younger daughter were notified 14 days in advance of any hearing as to competency was held. It does not appear that any such hearing was ever held and certainly the required standard of proof was never achieved or the required findings (755 ILCS 5/11 a – 3b) determined.
 Compensation to a fiduciary is limited to payment for services that will reasonably benefit the estate of the ward, and can only be awarded to the extent that the said charges represent reasonable and necessary compensation. For instance. In the Sykes case Adam Stern made application and received money from the estate to defend an appeal of an order entered by Judge Connors that he and Judge Connors knew was entered without jurisdiction. That compensation to Stern was wrongful and by law must be returned to the estate. The appointment of two guardian ad litem in the Sykes case similarly represents wrongful charges against the estate of Mary Sykes. More seriously it appears that jurisdictional events were ignored by a corrupt judicial official and her appointees and that Mary Sykes may not have been incompetent on day one etc. Thus, all the money paid by the Estate to the three guardians and their respective attorneys is wrongful dissipation of the estate. N.B. Just this month it was learned that Mary Sykes knew the objects of her bounty in spite of years of isolation and drugging. As Mary was doing her own banking when she was wrongfully abducted into the guardianship so that she could be isolated from her prior life – the entire guardianship is bogus and a sham and every dollar removed by the fiduciaries must be restored to the Estate. It is suggested therefore that each dollar removed is by definition taxable income jointly and severally to each of the co-conspirators whether the subject of a court order or not. A court order entered by a corrupt jurist cannot sanitize a fiduciary theft!
 Even though the guardian has not been appropriately appointed, the guardian is estopped from claiming that he/she was not appointed property and/or had not assumed a fiduciary role.
posted with permission of the author