You can read the brief here in PDF form or see below. Appedix not included.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ccoqXNkuYtG6GfKiQ_Ca2SJk_5oUpWiy
CASE NO. ___________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
LINDA SCULLY
Plaintiff – AppellantLinda Scully
MARK SCULLY
Plaintiff – AppellantMark Scully
HAROLD SCULLY
Plaintiff – AppellantHarold Scully
v.
NATHAN GOLDENSON, et al., in his individual and official capacity
Defendant – Appellee
ON A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Appeal No. 17-2486
Prepared by:
Linda Scully, pro se
PO Box 481081, Niles, IL
email: linda.scully@gmail.com
phone: 312 549-2112
Harold Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #704
Chicago, IL 60626
email: haroldscully@gmail.com
phone: 773 629 0129
Mark Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #2417
Chicago, IL 60626
email: Markanthonyscully@gmail.com Phone 773 273 5016:
COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS
1. Deft. Nathan Goldenson, upon information and belief is a Cook County Resident
residing at: 5018 N. Mozart Ave, Chicago, IL 60625, and does business in Cook
County for the Office of Public Guardian as an attorney.
2. Deft. James Burton, upon information and belief is a Cook County Resident who
has a place of business at: 69 W. Washington St, 7th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602.
6. Deft. Richard Gasik, upon information and belief, is an independent contractor for the OPG, and does business in Cook County and all of the actions complained of
regarding him occurred in Cook County, Illinois.
7. Deft. Hanny Pei, is an Illinois licensed attorney doing business at Dutton &
Casey, PC, 79 W. Monroe St, #1320, Chicago, IL 60603.
8. Deft. Alexa Raines, is a licensed social worker, doing business at: Presence St.
Francis Hospital, 355 Ridge Ave, Evanston, IL 60202 in Evanston, Illinois.
9. Deft. Robert Harris, upon information and belief is a Cook County Resident, and
doing business at the OPG, 69 W. Washington St, 7th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602.
10. Defendant Richard McGreal is an individual who resides in the County of Cook,
Illinois at 4713 106th Pl, Oak Lawn 60453, and does business in the State of
Illinois.
11. Defendant Presence St. Francis Hospital is an Illinois Not for Profit Corporation
(“NFPC”) located in Evanston, Illinois with an address of 355 Ridge Ave,
Evanston, IL 60202 and does business in Cook County, IL.
12. Defendant Carlton at the Lake, Inc., is an Illinois NFPC doing business in Cook
County, Illinois and its address is: 725 W Montrose Ave, Chicago, IL 60613.
13. Defendant Presence Saint Joseph Hospital is an Illinois NFPC doing business at: 2900 N Lake Shore Dr, Chicago, IL 60657.
14. Defendant Burrows Moving Company, Inc. Is an Illinois corporation doing
Page 3 of 24 – Second Amended Complaint Scully v. Goldensen, Et Al.
business at: 6542 N Clark St, Chicago, IL 60626.
15. Defendant Loving Hands Hospice, Inc., is an Illinois Corporation doing business
in Cook County, IL and its address is: 6535 N Olmsted Ave, Chicago, IL 60631
16. Defendant Globetrotters, Inc. Is an Illinois Corporation doing business in Cook
County, Illiniois doing business at: 300 S. Wacker Dr., #400, Chicago, IL 60606.
17. Defendant John Doe #1 is an individual working as an independent (HVAC)
contractor for the OPG, and does business in Cook County and the acts
complained about regarding him occurred in Cook County, Illinois.
18. Defendants John and Jane Does #2 to #9 are individuals working either directly
for the OPG wrongfully evicting family members, or are the agents of the OPG or
those in privity with them.
19. Defendants John and Jane Does 10 to 17 are the eig ht (8) arresting officers of
the Chicago Police Department
20. Defendant Joseph Monahan is an Illinois attorney doing business within Cook
County and his work address is: 55 West Monroe, # 3700, Chicago, IL 60603.
21. Defendant Amy McCarty is an Illinois attorney doing business at: 55 West
Monroe, #3700, Chicago, IL 60603.
22. Defendant Joseph W. Peiper is an Illinois attorney who does business at 205 W.
Randolph St, #1250, Chicago, IL 60606.
23. Defendant Ashley C. Coppola is an individual who does business at 205 W.
Randolph St, #1250, Chicago, IL 60606.
24. Defendant Julie M. Fontanarosa is an individual who does business at 205 W.
Randolph St, #1250, Chicago, IL 60606.
Page 4 of 24 First Amended Complaint – Scully v. Goldensen, et al.
25. Defendant Tom Leko, is a real estate developer doing business in Cook County,
Illinois and his place of business is: 6849 N. Keeler Ave, Lincolnwood IL 60712.
INTRODUCTION
Appellants are the elderly disabled children of Mary J. Teichert, age 82, who was placed under an abusive guardianship in the Illinois Probate Court system on July 26, 2013 (Cook County Case No.13p 4339). St. Francis Hospital in Evanston, Illinois filed a Petition for Guardianship after an Emergency Room physician determined that Mary Teichert was in good health. Mary was then drugged and kidnaped by St. Francis Hospital and held in 4 point restraints for days on end. She was isolated from 20+ friends and family members. The Office of Public Guardian (“OPG”) immediately sealed the Guardianship case and provided no case information to the Scully Children despite the fact that Linda Scully had filed an appearance in the guardianship case. Linda Scully’s Powers of Attorney for Health Care and Property were summarily terminated without due process, notice or hearing. Linda Scully suffered approximately 8 false arrests trying to protect her Mother Mary Teichert and the Family Residence worth $2 million on Lunt Ave. in Chicago. The false arrests were instigated by the OPG defendants. This Family Residence was eventually sold for pennies on the dollar via a Realtor that laughed about how to “get these great deals” from probate court cronies. In order to sell the Family Residence, the Probate court had to break a vested Land Trust and the OPG did so without due process, no notice, no hearing to Mark Scully and Linda Scully who were beneficiaries of the Land Trust. In the end, Mary Teichert was transferred to a series of hospitals and nursing homes and when the Estate money was depleted by the probate attorneys and the OPG, she was narcotized to death and food and water withheld.
Plaintiffs filed a pro se Complaint in Federal District Court against all the individuals involved in stripping Mary Teichert of all her assets and then murdering her in the end. The Second Amended complaint contains the following causes of action: 42 USC § 1983, Wrongful Eviction, False Arrest, Trespass upon Chattels, Conspiracy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
The Federal District court found that Plaintiffs did not and could not state proper causes of action in Federal Court and dismissed all Federal causes of action with prejudice. They dismissed the State causes of action without prejudice. Plaintiffs believe they have stated proper causes of action under Federal Law and they do not want to be returned to State Court where all of the egregious breaches of their civil rights originally occurred.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Did the trial court err when it dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 USC § 1983 when Plaintiff Linda Scully suffered 8 false arrests?
2. Did the trial court err when it dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against the Office of Public Guardian employees when they illegally sealed the Guardianship case, did not provide copies of pleadings and motions to Linda Scully, broke a vested land trust selling the Family Residence for pennies on the dollar, summarily terminated her Powers of Attorney for Property and Health Care all without due process, notice or hearing, and then in the end they had Mary Teichert narcotized to death with food and water withheld?
3. Did the Trial Court erred when it dismissed the Original, First and Second Amended Complaints for failure to be “clear and concise”?
4. Did the Trial Court Err when it dismissed each and every Petition for a Fee Waiver for failure to answer a question or two when all the Plaintiffs were disabled, elderly, indigent and on Social Security Disability.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents for the Writ of Certiorari
Description Page
COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS ii
INTRODUCTION vi
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
STATEMENT OF CASE – THE 7TH CIRCUIT DECISION 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE–FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4
A. The Abusive Probate Guardianship Proceeding 4
B. The False Arrest and Imprisonment 5
C. ADA Retaliation 6
D. Wrongful Eviction 7
E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8
F. Pattern or Practice – Office of Public Guardian 9
G. Errors in 7th Circuit Decision 10
1) the probate exception 10
2) The Younger Doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman do not apply 11
H. List of Violations of Due Process and Civil Rights 14
1) Emergency Petition for Temporary Guardian was False
And violated the US constitution and due process 14
2) Isolation from Mother violated Constitutional Rights 14
3) Not providing Mary with a Phone violated Plaintiffs’
Constitutional rights 15
4) Retaliation against Linda Scully for filing complaints against the Defendants violated her constitutional rights 16
5) Summary Termination of POAs without Due Process violated Linda Scully’s constitutional rights 16
6) Disabled Plaintiff Mark Scully was limited in his visits, ridiculed, harassed and tormented, thus violating the ADA 17
7) Plaintiff Linda was held in contempt without due process, a Summons, Petition, Discovery and Jury Trial violating her rights 18
9) Nathan Goldenson had items taken from the Subject Premises without Due Process or court order 19
I. Efforts to Obtain an Attorney 20
J. The In Forma Pauperis Application 25
K. Rulings and Decision 28
L. Detailed Legal Argument, including Standard of Review 28
1) Standard of Review for all issues is de novo 28
2) Detailed Legal Argument 28
M. Plaintiffs were never provided with a list of how to correct their deficiencies 33
N. The Defendants are Proper in this Cause of Action 33
O. Well documented evidence that the Plaintiffs are experiencing a phenomena that is no longer rare in the US. 36
P. Conclusion 37
Table of Authorities
Cases Page
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 562 (2009) 29
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir., 1983) 32
Grove Fresh Distribs. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994) 32
Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) 33
Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 801-02 (11th Cir. 1983) 32
Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987 33
Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3rd Cir., 1984) 32
Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988) 32
Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir.
2005) 28 34
Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) 32
Statutes
Illinois Consitution Art. 1 § 12 12
42 CFR § 483 (1-8) and (g)(6) and (10) 15
Scholarly Blogs
http://www.probatesharks.com 24
Www.marygsykes.com 24
Www.aaapg.net 24
stopguardianabuse.org (NASGA) 24
Government Reports
Government Accountability, 5 reports on Guardianship
https://wordpress.com/post/marygsykes.com/15773
33
Industry Surveys
From AAAPG.net http://aaapg.net/guardianship-2017-survey/
22
STATEMENT OF CASE – THE 7TH CIRCUIT DECISION
This Writ of Cert is being filed by Appellants by Order which issued on Oct.1, 2018 by a three judge panel consisting of Justices Rovner, Brennan and St. Eve. In the Order, the Justices basically decided that the severe abuse and murder of Mary Jane Teichert 1) was not a murder; 2) was not of concern to the U.S. Federal Court System; 3) and there was no remedy which could be brought in the N.D. of Illinois Federal Court for the abuse, torture and murder of Mary Jane Teichert because the Scully children “had no standing”, inasmuch as none had been appointed Executor. In addition, it was not a concern or held to be a remedial cause of action that Plaintiff Linda had been arrested numerous times after Deft. Nathan Goldenson and the Office of Public Guardian (“OPG”) all filed false police reports against her, and/or colluded to file false police repots against her resulting in False Arrest and False Imprisonment, all of which were promptly dismissed.
The Scully Children vigorously refute that they have no remedy in Federal District Court for violation of their civil rights, and in addition they have not asked the Federal District Court to act as an appellate court for them. Since the guardianship file still cannot be publicly viewed and printed, and because it was unconstitutionally sealed in the first place, the time has not even ripened for filing an appeal of any of the issues which were before the guardianship court because there are no document publicly available which can be used for an appeal. There is not even any appeal possible unless and until that entire file is made publicly available, which has not yet happened so far, and accordingly there is no way that any Federal District court could possibly sit in the role of an appellate court since the state decisions cannot even be appealed at the present time.
The Scully children are still filing Motions to Vacate in Guardianship court, these motions have not been heard, and once those Motions have been heard, then the Guardianship attorneys fees, jurisdiction, the false contempt order against Plaintiff Linda Scully, etc. will all be appealed. Until the file is publicly available and Plaintiffs can secure the documents they need, no appeal can be filed just yet. The appeal is in the process. Nonetheless, the appeal of the guardianship case will not affect the District Court proceedings on the torts which the Defendants committed, either singly or jointly with others, in a conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their civil rights and property which was stolen and/or confiscated without due process by Deft. Nathan Goldenson and the OPG.
Because the case involves the murder of an elderly woman, her false imprisonment in a string of nursing homes where she never saw the light of day again because she was drugged, tortured and then narcotized to death, and her children had to stand idly by and watch this nightmare unfold and could not do anything about it, being elderly, disabled and indigent themselves, the case is clearly exceptional in nature and demands the strictest of scrutiny by this honorable U.S. Supreme Court. This entire pattern and practice is occurring the U.S. and the U.S. Supreme Court should be dealing with these.
For these reasons, the US Supreme Court should reverse and remand this case to the District Court with instructions regarding their Second Amended Complaint.
Exhibits A and B are attached hereto as letters from important Probate Victims’ Social Justice Websites that support Plaintiff’s Statement their case is very, very exceptional in nature.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE – FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Abusive Probate Guardianship Proceeding
On or about July 22, 2013, Plaintiff Linda and her fiancé John Bisbikas
(“Caretaker John”), caretaker to Mary Jane Teichert (“Mother Mary”), took Mother Mary to Deft. St. Francis Hospital because she had been found walking the neighborhood, but appeared to be overly warm and dehydrated. Plaintiff Linda and Caretaker John desired to have her checked out to ensure that nothing further was wrong, so they called an ambulance to take her to St. Francis Hospital. At St. Francis, the ER doctor had declared Mary to be fine and healthy and she could go home. However, St. Francis admitted Mother Mary Jane and later Plaintiff Linda returned a few hours later, she found that her mother had been admitted to the hospital and had been placed in a room where had she been drugged and was in 4 point restraints and in obvious distress. She was filthy and had a dirty diaper on.
Upon information and belief, Mother Mary remained a prisoner at Deft. Francis for at least 4 months, and never saw the light of day, she was isolated from about 20+ family and friends–everyone was told for 4 months, she could not see her family, friends or coworkers. In addition, she was never given her eye glasses, although they were brought to her to be given to her. Mary Jane was never able to see for the rest of her life.
Four months later, Mother Mary was sent to Deft. Carlton at the Lake (“Deft.
Carlto”), which turned out to be nothing but a prison and slum for the elderly and
disabled. Again, she was isolated and drugged with no phone in her room. No one,
except for Deft. McGreal, and Plaintiff Mark was allowed to see Mother Mary Jane.
Mother Mary’s nails were always dirty, her hair was always dirty, she was smelly, and unknown persons were allowed to steal all her belongings.
Deft. McGreal was part of the aforementioned abusive actions, he allowed the
abuse to continue, he threatened each of Plaintiffs Linda, Harrold and Mark and
Caretaker John that if they made any complaints, there would be retaliation–no
visitation, or worse.
Mother Mary spent approximately 17 months at the Deft. Carlton being abused, isolated, drugged with illegal chemical restraints, she was held against her will and she never saw the light of day again.
After Deft. Carlton, she went to Deft. St. Josephs for an unknown length of time. The Guardianship file was sealed illegally and without notice to anyone. No motion was prepared or finding of fact made, the Order to Seal the File was simply issued by Order of the Court one day unknown to any of the Plaintiffs named herein. None of the Plaintiffs were allowed to see where Mother Mary was or when she was transferred or her state of health.
After Carlton and St. Josephs, Mother Mary was transferred to the care of Deft. Loving Hands Hospice Inc. where she was further abused, drugged and isolated with no visitors until the day she died.
B. The False Arrest and Imprisonment
After the Guardianship case was brought, Plaintiff Linda was arrested at least 8 times, upon direction of Deft. Goldenson, and others at the OPG for attempting to oust dangerous squatters (“Squatters”) from her mother’s apartment building located at 1639 W. Lunt Ave. in Chicago, Illinois (“Subject Premises”). No fewer than eight (8) police officers were told the allegations were false.
Plaintiff Linda had the following items stolen from her during the guardianship by Deft. Burrows Moving and others acting at the direction of the OPG: fine jewelry and art and other items, silverware, china and other valuable items. Plaintiff Harold had many tools stolen from the premises by the squatters because the property was under rehab. Plaintiff Mark had valuable medical equipment, artwork and other valuable items stolen by the Squatters. The Squatters and the OPG attorneys, Defts. Goldenson, Gasik and Burton, and Burrows Moving all conspired together to destroy, vandalize, convert, steal and misappropriate numerous items of personal property belonging to all Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Linda also had 2 precious pit bulls taken by the OPG and carted off in a van.
Upon and belief, Plaintiff Linda was arrested with the assistance of Defendants Nathan Goldenson and James Burton and Richard Harris for false reports of arrest and assault, none of which occurred, and all of which were eventually dismissed at the first court date. Now all 8 arrest records are missing from the criminal court’s files.
C. ADA Retaliation
During the time that Plaintiff Mark Scully was visiting with his mother, he was subjected on a continual basis to a barrage of insults, defamatory comments, and threats. He was told if he filed any complaints about the treatment of his mother, or allowed Plaintiff Linda or Caretaker John to talk to, visit with or in any manner communicate with Mother Mary, his visiting privileges would be terminated permanently.
Plaintiffs Harold and Mark were told this by Defts. Goldenson and Burton, on the direction of Richard Harris, as well as Defts. McGreal. St. Francis and Carlton also told the Plaintiffs that they could not complain about the abuse or they would be retaliated against.
Plaintiff Mark was repeatedly made fun of by Carlton staff. They would talk about Plaintiff Mark as if he was not in the room; they would say that Plaintiff Mark should be put in an institution, away from his mother. Plaintiff Mark was constantly afraid that they would do this to him. Plaintiff Mark was continually subject to rude threats, derogatory and insulting comments, all of which are prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
D. Wrongful Eviction
Sometime in January, 2014, Plaintiffs Linda and Mark received a phone call from the OPG that they were to vacate their own apartment building immediately. Plaintiffs Mark and Linda had lived on the Subject Premises with Mother Mary for decades. The OPG, together with other defendants cause a vendor (John Doe #1) to enter the Subject Property in July of 2013 when he cut a main boiler pipe for heating so the Subject Premises would be without heat. All OPG Defendants knew that at the time Linda and Mark Scully were tenants in the building and both were disabled. Eventually, winter came, and the water pipes in the Subject Property froze and broke and freezing icy freezing water ruined most of the Subject Property, rendering it uninhabitable.
None of the OPG Defendants filed a proper eviction proceeding against Mark and Linda Scully. The Subject Property had been placed into a vested trust at Chicago Title and Trust, (“CT&T Land Trust”) and upon information and belief, Mark and Linda Scully were the beneficiaries of a vested Land Trust and had the right to be on the premises. They were to receive the Subject Property afer their Mother had passed.
This did not happen. The court summarily broke the vested Land Trust and sold the Subject Property, all without Notice to the beneficiaries and a hearing. Plaintiffs Mark and Linda Scully were entitled to Notice, Service by the Sheriff, a Petition to Invade the Trust, Discovery and a Hearing on the Merits.
The OPG conspired with the City of Chicago department of buildings to have
Plaintiffs Mark and Linda summarily evicted upon 4 hours notice. No advance notice was provided. Plaintiffs Mark and Linda were simply told they had to move in 4 hours or their personal property would be put in the trash. If they stayed over 4 hours, they would be arrested for Criminal Trespass.
E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
All plaintiffs were continually subject to a barrage of negative comments, nasty
defamation, false light, slander and libel against all the Plaintiffs. The OPG Defendants and other unknown persons continutally told the Plaintiffs to continually be quiet, they falsely and maliciously told the court that all the Defendants abused Mother Mary, they made and filed false reports to Catholic Charities–all of which were dismissed as unfounded–that Plaintiffs financially, physically and emotionally abused Mother Mary Jane Teichert her entire life. This was completely untrue, all false reports were dismissed as unfounded and no charges were ever brought against any of the Plaintifs.
Each of Defts. Monahan, MacCarty, Pieper and Coppola and Fontarosa told the court that Plaintiffs had abused their Mother and given her cocaine and alcohol Mother Mary never drank alcohol and never took any illegal substances in her life. Deft. Fontarosa secreted away the Guardianship file, thereby denying Plaintiffs their due process rights. Toxicology reports from Deft. St. Francis showed no intoxicating substances in Mother Mary’s blood whatsoever.
The conduct by the OPG Defendants and conspiracy with others, most notably
John Doe #1 and John Does #2 to 9 was extreme and outrageous, intended to cause
severe emotional distress and in fact did cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs Mark and Linda Scully. John Does #2 to 9 directly participated in the wrongful eviction of Linda and Mark Scully from the Subject Premises. They had no court order, they served no papers to evict. Rather, they used the police to threaten arrest in order to evict Mark and Linda Scully.
As a result of the above tortuous actions, all Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from severe acute and chronic adverse psychological effects.
F – Office of Public Guardian
That the OPG was appointed as Plenary Guardian over Mother Mary on or about July of 2013 by falsely claiming that Plaintiff Linda was giving her mother cocaine and alcohol and in other manners abusing her. They made repeated statements to the court that Mother Mary had been subject to abuse by all her children–Mark, Harold and Linda for years and had been financially exploited. All of these claims were false and unfounded. In fact, the Caretaker John had worked for Mother Mary for years and always had good evaluations of her care and comfort by Catholic Charities, the State of Illinois and Assyrian Center that he was employed with.
That the OPG has a long history of making false claims to take over guardianship cases and it then engages in the following wrongful conduct; a) summary wrongful eviction of a loved one; b) wrongful eviction of someone who actually has title to the Subject Property; c) isolation of a Disabled Person; d) issuance of a DNR when the Disabled Person has not provided authorization and there is no court order; e) dispensing psychotropic drugs without the authorization of the Disabled Person or a court order; and e) allowing the theft, conversion and vandalism of the Disabled Person’s Real Estate without filing an insurance claim or police report or absconding with insurance proceeds; and f) drugging or narcotizing the Disabled person to death without a court order and summary orders issued without Due Process
G. Errors in 7th Circuit Decision
In its Oct. 1, 2018 Order and Decision, the 7th circuit found that all of the following doctrines applied which would bar all Causes of Action brought by Plaintiffs against the Defendants:
1) the probate exception – despite the fact that Plaintiffs explained in great detail that the probate exception was a narrow one and only applied to routine probate matters such as deciding who would be executor, will disputes and inheritance disputes, the 7th Circuit routinely declared they would apply it to the instant case. None of those three doctrines apply at all to cases such as these where there were numerous civil rights violations, violations of due process, lack of jurisdiction (Mary Teichert was never served with notice of the Guardianship by the sheriff, nor were the Scully children), the guardianship file was sealed without notice or any findings of fact, conclusions of law, etc. and other egregious violations of due process, the 4th and 5th amendments and the 14th amendment;
2) the Younger doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman doctrines do not apply because the guardianship was never appealed, because it could not be appealed yet. The Complaint makes it clear that the Scully Children are not asking to sit in the role of appellate court for both the guardianship and decedent’s estate proceedings for Mary Jane Teichert. The file was unsealed not once, but twice by Judge Riley in both September of 2016 and July of 2017. The Scully children can and will appeal those decisions, just as soon as the court file pleadings are available for printout and they can file the appropriate motions. As of the date of writing of this pleading, when Plaintiff Linda recently went to the Offices of the Clerk of Court for Probate on the 12th floor, she still could not view and print out 90% of the guardianship file pleadings. The 12th Floor Clerk’s Offices blames the Clerk in the Courtroom, the Courtroom Clerk says this is the fault of the 12th Floor Clerks and the Probate Judge tells his clerk to unseal everything, but nothing seems to get done. In any case, between the two, none of the documents needed by the Scully Children to advance the guardainship case to appeal have been unsealed and provided to the Scully Children despite two court orders authorizing the unsealing of the Guardianship case file.
Moreover, the Scully children have filed the instant lawsuit on two bases: 1) violations of their own civil rights and constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, and in addition, it now appears that Plaintiffs must cite the Illinois Constitution Article 1, § 12 which provides that
SECTION 12. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE
Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for
all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person,
privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by
law, freely, completely, and promptly.
(Source: Illinois Constitution, Art. 1 § 12)
The Scully children, Linda, Mark and Harold, are all heirs to the Estate of Mary Jane Teichert and they not only have their own civil remedies for breach of their rights, but they also have an Expectation of Inheritance and that Inheritance has effectively been stripped away from them by not being able to file suit under 42 USC § 1983 and related torts when the defendants conspired to deprive them of their rights in Probate Court. The Probate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction for probate matters for decedents and disabled adults only and it does not entertain causes of action sounding in tort or civil rights violations for Children of a Disabled Adult or Decedent. Accordingly, none of the probate exceptions, Younger or Rooker Feldman should apply to the instant cause of action brought in the Subject Complaint or 2nd Amended Complaint provided at page A.0162.
The records of the Sheriff’s department show no service whatsoever on either of Mary, Mark or Linda Scully. Accordingly, the due process rights of Mary, Mark and Linda Scully were violated, without their knowledge or consent. (See, Cook County Sheriff’s Office, Civil Process Look up website, A.0222-0225).
As noted above, the Younger Doctrine and the Rooker Feldman Doctrine and the Probate Exception were only meant to be narrowly applied to specific cases. The Scully Children have not alleged a routine failure of the Probate Court to decide a dispute of who will be an Executor, an inheritancy dispute or an asset distribution dispute. Their Original and Amended Complaints were each narrowly tailored to address the issue of violations of their civil rights and due process–rights for which there is no remedy in Probate Court. What the Scully Children have alleged are torts against persons who have harmed Mary Jane Teichert, an elderly disabled and vulnerable woman, and only on behalf themselves in their course of conduct for protecting their mother. It is not possible to even bring these torts on behalf of the Children in a Probate Case involving the guardianship of a disabled adult, or even in Mary Jane Teichert’s decedent’s case. These tortious actions for damages must be brought in a separate civil action against each of the individual persons directly involved.
If the 7th circuit is saying the District Courts cannot entertain such actions, then effectively there is no forum in which these egregious tortious actions may be brought, and effectively the Scully Children have been ousted from both the US and Illinois Court System, all in contravention to the Illinois Constitution Article 1, § 12 which provides for all harm done to an Illinois citizen, the courts must provide an appropriate remedy.
a. List of Violations of Due Process and Civil Right of the Plaintiffs
1) The Emergency Petition for Temporary Guardianship was false and violated Due Process and the US Constitution
A guardianship case was filed against Mary Jane Teichert (“Mother Mary Jane”) on 7/26/13 and she was not served as shown by the records of the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. A.0222. She was 81 years old at the time. The Petition filed by St. Francis hospital alleged an “emergency temporary guardianship” was needed, but this was a blatant falsehood. Mary Jane Teichert at the time was in the hospital and then transferred to a series of nursing homes. No such emergency ever existed. The pleading filed was false and fraudulent by Defts. St. Francis and attorney Robert Harris and the OPG. The hospital’s own medical records show no drugs–legal or illegal whatsoever found in Mary Jane. The entire report was nothing but a lie. In addition, the report said it took “2 days” for the POA Linda Scully to come to the hospital, when in fact she was there within 2 hours and the police were called on that very same day! There was absolutely no basis for the “Emergency Guardianship” and it was based upon a pack of lies from Deft. Nathan Goldenson, the OPG and Robert Harris.
2) Isolation from Mother violated Constitutional Rights.
None of Plaintiffs Mark, Linda or Harold Scully were served with the time, date and place of hearing for Guardianship at least 14 days in advance, as required by the Illinois Probate Act, yet on 9/19/13 Mother Mary Jane was guardianized regardless. This violated all of their civil rights, drained the estate with unnecessary nursing home placements and they were also isolated from their beloved mother when they should have had a constitutional right to see their own mother. Defts. OPG and Nathan Goldenson violated these important constitutional rights.
3) Not providing Mary Jane with a phone violated Scully Children’s rights to call their mother.
Mother Mary Jane spent 17 months against her will in a series of nursing homes, where she was narcotized with psychotropic drugs against her will and consent. (See, In re Tiffany, citation omitted). She was not provided with a telephone in her room so she could contact her beloved children at will. (See Federal Nursing Home Regulations, Patient’s Bill of Rights, 42 CFR § 483, and 42 CFR 483 (e)(1-8); 42 CFR (g)(6)–right to a phone).
§ 483.10 Resident rights.
(a)Residents rights. The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility, including those specified in this section.
(1) A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident’s individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident.
***
(b)Exercise of rights. The resident has the right to exercise his or her rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States.
(1) The facility must ensure that the resident can exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility
(2) The resident has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and reprisal from the facility in exercising his or her rights and to be supported by the facility in the exercise of his or her rights as required under this subpart.
****
(j)Grievances.
5 (e)Respect and dignity. The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including:
(1) The right to be free from any physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience, and not required to treat the resident’s medical symptoms
(1) The resident has the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents; and other concerns regarding their LTC facility stay.
The OPG limited Mother’s visits with her children.
4) ADA Retaliation against Linda Scully for filing Grievances violated her Constitutional Rights.
Linda Scully continually complained about the fact her mother was being abused at S. Francis Hospital, and the OPG in retaliation limited her visits. Retaliation for protecting an elderly, disabled adult is prohibited under the ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act. After the complaints were filed with the authorities and relayed to the nursing home staff, the OPG and Nathan Goldenson retaliated by banning Linda Scully from visiting with her mother at all and she was even banned from waving to her mother and blowing her kisses from the parking lot!
5). Termination of POAs without Due Process violated Linda Scully’s constitutional rights.
On or about an unknown date (7/29/13? Unk, record sealed), without notice and due process, the Guardianship court summarily terminated Plaintiff Linda’s Powers of Attorney for Property and Healthcare. No petition was prepared or served upon her, which violated her due process rights under the 5th amendment and 42 USC § 1983. As a result, Mother Mary Jane was granny napped, kept in a series of nursing homes against her will and consent and never returned home, and never saw the light of day again. She was drugged with psychotropic drugs against her will and consent. These drugs are not FDA approved for use in persons over age 60 or those suffering from dementia, but the OPG allowed this abuse to continue.
6) Disabled Plaintiff Mark Scully, was limited in his visits, ridiculed, harassed and tormented, violating the ADA.
When Plaintiff Mark Scully visited his mother, he was mocked by the staff of Deft. St. Francis where they would make fun of him, tell him he should be put in an institution, and they continually threatened his well being. He uses a walker and has severely unintelligible speech due to a prior brain aneurysm. This is a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) for retaliation against disabled US citizens. The 7th circuit brusquely brushed off this Federal Law Violation and seemingly condoned ridiculing, threatening and belittling the disabled–despite the fact this facility likely receives million annually from the State of Illinois and the US Federal Government. The ADA further protects against the isolation of the elderly from family and friends. Plaintiff Mark Scully was isolated from his mother; Plaintiff Linda Scully was also isolated from her mother, she was even prohibited from waiving to her own mother from the parking lot and blowing kisses to her! That clearly violated their rights under the ADA.
7) Plaintiff Linda was held in contempt without due process, a Summons, Petition, Discovery, Jury Trial, etc. violated her rights.
Sometime during the pendancy of the Guardianship proceeding, 13 P 4339, a series of Orders issued holding Plaintiff Linda in contempt of court for allegedly failing to return to the OPG one bronze statue (which Plaintiff Linda actually owned), and she was held in indirect civil contempt of Court. (Order dated 3/25/14). The only problem was, Pltff Linda was never served with a Summons or Petition to Recover the Bronze Statue, as shown by the records of the Civil Process Look Up service, as shown on the internet at the Cook County Sheriff’s offices. (A.0222) However, that did not stop the OPG and Deft. Goldenson from representing to the court that they had the right, power and authority to obtain an indirect civil contempt order, and on Mar. 25, 2014, such an order did issue.
8) False Arrest and Imprisonment of Linda Scully.
Linda Scully was arrested the following times when the OPG conspired with numerous officers of the Chicago Police Department to have her arrested in an attempt to constructively evict her from the family’s apartment building located on Lunt Avenue in Chicago, Illinois:
Case No. Arresting Agency Charges Date of Arrest Disposition
M 14123156101 CPD Animal Cruelty 8/19/14 Stricken
M 13124936801 CPD Battery 10/29/13 Nolo Prosec.
M 13123119301 CPD Trespass 10/16/13 Stricken
Plaintiff Linda went to the Chicago Police Department to get a complete arrest record and what she found is about 6 arrests were missing from their records.
Nearly all of the missing records appear to relate to the false arrests perpetrated upon her (which were instigated by Deft. Nathan Goldenson–he actually gave keys to squatters he had put in place on the premises, and he gave the squatters his cell phone number), and he conspired to have Plaintiff Linda falsely arrested numerous times via a conspiracy with the squatters. Almost all of those arrest records are missing from the CPD arrest report on Plaintiff Linda. Plaintiff Linda is currently working with the CPD records division and will update the list when it becomes available.
***In addition, she was under a contract with her mother to manage and live at the Lunt Avenue Property. Plaintiff Mark Scully lived in one of the apartments because he was disabled, walks with a walker and his speech is about 90% not understood by the average person.
Certainly it is not within the duties of a Guardian of Mother Mary Jane’s Estate (Nathan Goldenson and the OPT) to constructively evict a beneficiary of a Land Trust by instigating a series of false arrests against lawful residents Mark and Linda Scully.
9) Nathan Goldenson had numerous items taken from all the apartments on Lunt
Plaintiffs Linda and Mark lived in separate apartments on Lunt Aveue. Deft. Goldenson gave the squatters a key and Deft. Burrows a key. Numerous items were removed from both Plaintiff Linda’s apartment and Mark’s apartment. Plaintiff Linda lost: several valuable hand knotted rugs, valuable china, oil paintings and other collectibles) and Mark lost valuable medical equipment essential to his needs and care. This clearly violated Plaintiff Linda and Mark’s constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments since Deft. Goldenson had no right to enter these units and take any valuables therefrom.
In addition, Plaintiff Linda Scully has already petitioned to have Administrator McGreal removed for all of his waste and mismanagement of the decedent’s Estate of Mary Jane Teichert (failure to file a wrongful death claim when Mary Teichert was narcotized to death, wrongfully imprisoned in a nursing home, abused in several nursing homes, etc.), the inventory from the Guardianship does not match the inventory he filed with the Probate court; numerous items are missing from the inventory, including numerous fine oil paintings worth $100k+, oriental hand knotted rugs worth $10k+, several sets of Haviland Limoges French China in the Rose pattern worth $5k+, and two sets of sterling silver in the matching Roses pattern worth $5k each. All of this was on the Guardianship inventory filed by the OPG, where are all these valuables now? McGreal filed a Decedent’s Estate inventory with all of these items missing and has not asked the OPG at all about where the items are. He needs to be removed as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Jane Teichert.
I. Efforts to obtain an attorney
In the 7th Circuit Decision, page 5, second full paragraph, the Court believes that the District Court properly denied the Scully Children’s request for a lawyer because they did not show detailed efforts (it should be noted at this point, the Courts seem to vacillates between the Scullys “providing too many details” and “not enough details) In any case, when a pro se litigant goes to court on the 12th floor of the probate court, they are told to contact one of the numerous organizations for free or low cost legal services. The list is famous. Unfortunately, the list is also famous for telling all litigants that only a few minutes of help can be dispensed, and for sure, no lawyer will file an appearance on any case involving probate issues.
Early on in this case, Plaintiff Linda contacted the following agencies on “The List”: Asian Legal Services, Northwest Univ. Legal Clinic, Austin Circle Law Group, Legal Assistance Foundation for Metro Chicago (the South Side Office and Northwest Offices are closed), Chicago Legal Clinic, CVLS, Legal Aide Bureau of Metro Family Services; Life Span, Inc. (For DV only), Loyola Univ. Community and Elder Law Center, Pro Bono Advocates, and none of them would file an appearance on a Probate matter. None of them would touch a probate case. That was back in 2013 when Plaintiff Linda was told firmly no pro bono legal clinic would file an appearance on a case, let alone a probate case. More recently, in November 2018, Plaintiff Linda undertook the same exercise, contacting all the foregoing agencies, and she was told firmly they would not represent her. That is dozens of phone calls and hours of wasted time with no result.
All of this was explained to the trial court in a fairly detailed Original Complaint (A.010) which was filed on 2/17/17. However, the Trial Court wrote an opinion on 4/18/17 date this Original Complaint was not “clear and concise” and they dismissed it but gave Plaintiffs 30 days to amend. (A.06 on 4/18/17) While the court referred Plaintiffs to the “pro se assistance program”, the Pro Se Assistance Program does not in fact draft complaints for pro se litigants, and even they could not tell Plaintiff Linda Scully exactly what was wrong with the complaint. While the court at page A.082 states that the Plaintiffs told their story, the court asserted that Plaintiff did not state the elements of their claims, when in fact they did.
The trial court did not even discuss the other 7 causes of action or what was wrong with each of them. In an opinion rendered on 6/21/17 (A. 133) again the court dismissed the Amended Complaint without stating exactly what was wrong with any of the claims filed against the defendants. This opinion clearly repeated the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and the court seemed to understand the story of the abusive guardianship, yet the District Court judge again dismissed the Amended Complaint once again, not explaining what exactly was wrong and how it could be corrected. A visit to the Pro Se Program attorneys again did not result in any advice from them either as to what Judge Korcoras exactly wanted to see in the Complaint. Plaintiffs had tried their best to condense over two years of an abusive guardianship proceedings (from 7-26-13 to 9-24-15). In the Guardianship case (13 P 4339, Cook County, Illinois), Mary Teichert had been continually drugged (illegal chemical restraints), had been place in 4 point physical restraints (also illegal), had been found dirty, in her own urine and feces on many occasions, had rarely been bathed, her estate drained and much of it given to lawyers at the OPG, court room vendors, much precious artwork, hand knotted rugs, sterling silver, precious Haviland Limoges China had been taken by Burrows Moving or had just disappeared
On 7/21/17 again Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended complaint (A. 161). In this Complaint, again, Plaintiffs tried to shorten and make their points clearer and more condense. Again, with little explanation (how many pages of facts are acceptable, what elements exactly are missing from each cause of action claimed, etc.), again the District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint. However, this time, Court seemed to include a very good summary of what the Probate Court case was all about–an abusive guardianship of Mother Mary Jane. (A.0156 -159) What is interesting about this analysis is that the District Court argues the Statue of Limitations issue, which of course can be waived by the Defendants if they do not assert it as an Affirmative Defense. No where in its analysis does the District Court present any case law or argument for asserting Affirmative Defenses for OPG and hospital and hospice defendants. Further, the District Court conveniently side steps the concept of “continuing tort” which clearly extends the limitations period until the tortious activity cases, this clearly was the date of death of Mary Jane Teichert–and perhaps even beyond that date. The original complaint was filed exactly 2 years after the date of death of Mary Jane Teichert.
By making statements in its Order of 9/25/17 as to the affirmative defense of statute of limitations and ignoring sealed pleadings, files cleansed, etc., it appears that Judge Korcoras is acting as counsel for numerous defendants, and he is not acting in his limited scope as to wether Plaintiffs have clearly explained what happened to them and then reasserting these allegations as the necessary elements to show their 8 cause of action.
It is explained in the Complaints filed (A.035-036, A.0121, A.0178) that Globetrotters and the City employees were the ones, presumably acting under the orders of the OPG, to cut a heating pipe (which Plaintiff Linda witnessed), so that the heating would not work, the building would freeze in winter, and then water would pour out of the pipes for months ruining the entire building so that it could be sold for pennies on the dollar. This is a well document technique employed in abusive guardianships.
Realtor Chayla Small knows this and when a 3rd party recently called her she just giggled about how she got the listing “from an attorney” and “did good on it.” That is a very suspicious comment that needs additional discovery.
Buyer Tom Lefko likewise refuses to answer questions about the transaction when called.
****The intentional destruction of Estate and Guardianship property is well known on all the probate blogs–NASGA, http://www.probatesharks.com, http://www.marygsykes.com, stopguardianabuse.org. and http://www.aaapg.net. The public has been made well aware of the perfidy of the Illinois probate system, but this court seems to be lacking knowledge in that arena. (Hence the statement on A. 0159 “impossible allegations”, “conspiratorial, implausible an incongruous.”) Yet, the probate blogs, facebook and other reliable sources of information are reporting all the time that the events associated with Mary Jane Teichert, are not only true, but they can continue for years before the courts stop this nefarious and insidious activity.
J. The In Forma Pauperis Applications
On the same date, Plaintiffs each filed an In Forma Pauperis Applications to waive the filing fee with each form indicating that each Plaintiff had no assets, owned no real estate, and lived month to month only on government benefits. They also filed a request to have an attorney represent them. A.044, A.048 and A.052. In its review, the District Court denied each request at page A.065 because the forms were “incomplete”. The Plaintiffs forgot to given beginning and ending dates of employment (each had not worked for many years, and did not recall much of that information). And they forgot to fully answer questions 4, 10 and 11. Clearly the Plaintiffs needed help and need an attorney. Plaintiff Linda did visit the Pro Bono Program, but the attorneys there did not offer help on the In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) forms.
Again on 3/10/17, the Plaintiffs filled out more forms to proceed IFP. A068, A.072, A.076. In the court’s order on 4/18/17 at A.080 they stated Linda Scully failed to answer question 4G, Harold Scully failed to answer questions 2B and 4A. Nothing was said about Mark Scully’s application. In this Order, the Plaintiffs were advised to seek help from the Pro Se Program but again the Pro Se Program attorney did not help with the forms.
Then, on 5/17/17, the Plaintiffs again submitted corrected IFP’s at A.084, A.088 and A.092 together with a written motion for a court appointed attorney and a litigation representative for Mary Jane Teichert. A.0129. On 6/21/17 the court issued an order at A.133. However, this time, the Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the IFP’s were deemed moot. In its opinion on 5/17/17, the District Court basically stated all of Plaintiffs assertions (the drugging of Mother Mary Teichert–illegal chemical restraints, the false arrests of Linda Scully, the breaking of a Land Trust and sale of the Family Residence, (an apartment building worth $2 million), the isolation of Mother from her three children–Mark, Linda and Harold Scully were conclusory in nature and therefore the District Court Judge had the right to dismiss their Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Again at A.0138, A.0143 and A.147 on 7/21/17, the Plaintiffs filed three more IFP’s and a Second Amended Complaint together with Motion to Reconsider dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. A.151. A brief was submitted at A.212. Again, on 9/25/17 at A.154 the District Court Judge dismissed the complaint and in its Order noted that while the Plaintiffs reduced their complaint to 22 pages (a near impossibility, given the 2 year history of an abusive guardianship), they added their details of the torts committed against them and their Mother in a 35 page Affidavit which explained details of the abusive guardianship. It was in this Opinion that the District Court judge took to arguing the affirmative defenses of the Defendants–tasks that they should have been doing themselves, had they been served. Basically, the District Court Judge said that what happened to the Plaintiff was impossible. However, the probate blogs and other blogs about Corruption in the courts of Chicago back up the Plaintiffs’ assertions with story after story after story. (See above websites). What happened to Mary Jane Teichert and this family should have never happened.
In any case, a story being implausible or impossible should not prevent these Plaintiffs from filing their Complaints. And, not filling out a question or two on long complicated forms that elderly disabled person might have difficulty with, should not be a reason not to grant them relieve. It should be noted that the Illinois Supreme Court has recently revamped their Fee Wavier form down to one basic question: are you receiving any type of government benefits for the poor. It is now just one check box. Very simple, very easy. Each of the Scully Plaintiffs indicated they were on Social Security Disability as well as food stamps and had no assets. Harold and Mark Scully were and are living in a senior citizens housing project. Clearly all three Scully Plaintiffs are desperately poor. The court knows they are elderly and disabled. It is well known that the elderly re not as adept at filling out long complicated forms. It is submitted that the US District Courts should make their forms much simpler, in accordance with the ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act so that the Elderly can more easily fill them out by simply stating name and address and checking off a box or two that they are receiving benefits from the US and/or State government for the indigent. Presumably these agencies have already done the proper investigative work.
K. Rulings and Decisions.
The District Court dismissed the Original Complaint on 3/3/17 at A.064, it dismissed the First Amended Complaint on 6/21/17 at A.0133, and then it dismissed a Second Amended Complaint on 9/25/17. In none of its decisions did the District Court provide a list or statement of how the deficiencies might be cured. It did not set a page limit or count limit. However, in the 9/25/17 dismissal order, it began to discuss an affirmative defense, the limitations period for certain counts, which should be impermissible. If the defendants do not assert this affirmative defense, then it is waived. The decision appears to be providing sua sponte legal advice to defendants that have not even been served or have filed their appearance.
L. Detailed Legal Argument, including Standard of Review
1) Standard of Review for all issues is de novo.
With regard to motions to dismiss a Complaint for failure to state a claim, the stand or review is de novo.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A. Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
2) Detailed Legal Argument
i. The Dismissal of the Complaint and Amended Complaints was improper
On 7/21/17, A. 212, Plaintiffs argued the following:
While the Court cited the Iqbal case for the proposition that a complaint must provide more than unadorned the-defendants-unlawfully-harmed-me acusations” the Iqbal case was never about the actual actors creating harm to the Iqbal Plaintiffs. The Iqbal case was about the fact that the court did not want Iqbal and others similarly situated to sue very high, powerful, important government entities such as the like of Dick Cheny and George Bush Jr. In the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 562 (2009) the U.S. Supreme Court held that top government officials were not liable for the toritious actions of their subordinates absent evidence that they ordered or directed the allegedly discriminatory activity themselves (“Bivens Action”). At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including the FBI Director Robert Mueller and former US Attorney General John Ashroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained after the Sept. 11 attacks. The decision “transformed civil litigation in the federal courts” by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals’ suits.
However, the present Causes of Action do not sue top government officials that took no direct action in causing lower level officials and staff to harm and discriminate against individuals. It is clear from the allegations, which the court has noted, that the Defendants named herein each actively and directly participated in the Causes of Action brought against them. They are directly responsible for the harms caused to the Scully Plaintiffs.
The District Court noted that Deft. St. Francis Hospital is accused of having Mother Mary “drugged,” “filthy” and placed in “4 point restraints.” (Which are clearly illegal for an elderly frail woman such as Mary Teichert). The District noted that it was certain that Defendants that actively an knowingly kept Mother Mary Jane Teihert “a prisoner” at St. Francis Hospital for 4 months. She was clearly being held against her will, and none of the defendants seemed to care, except they were very good at fling fee petitions. The OPG defendant Nathan Goldenson was directly involved. There were not remote disinterested third parties creating policies and procedures from remote offices thousands of miles away (Iqbal was held in a Brooklyn Detention Center, hundred of miles away from Mueller’s and Ashroft’s offices). These were the attorneys and vendors directly hired by the OPG that were actively engaged in the harm to Mother Mary Jane and the Plaintiffs.
In Iqbal, Ashcroft and Mueller were sued by Iqbal because “the complaint alleges that they adopted an unconstitutional policy that subjected respondent to harsh conditions of confinement on account of his race, religion, or national origin.” Id at 666. However, Iqbal provides the following guidance in determining whether or not a Plaintiff has adequately stated a Cause of Action:
(b) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not required, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), but the Rule does call for sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” id., at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556. Two working principles underlie Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements. Id., at 555. Second, determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense. Id., at 556. A court considering a motion to dismiss may begin by identifying allegations that, because they are mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Pp. 13–16, pp. 1948-1951. Id at 663,664. Emphasis added.
In the present cause of action, the Scully Plaintiffs not only gave the details of who, when and how their mother was granny napped, drugged, isolated, her estate drained, how the inventory of the guardianship differed markedly from the inventory of the decedent’s estate with tens of thousands of dollars of personal property missing, but she also submitted records showing she was never served when the probate court broke a land trust (this is required under the Illinois Probate Act to break a Land Trust) and how she was summarily held in contempt for taking a statue that was not found in her mother’s apartment, did not belong to the Mother, and she also submitted documents to the Court of Appeals that the case, while ostensibly unsealed (why was it sealed in the first place, is the better question, without due process–notice, hearing, discovery, etc.), it was unsealed not once but twice and to date it still does not appear on the computers in the 12th floor clerk of court’s offices. These are very profound details of the conspiracy that evolved in guardianship case no. 13 P 4339, the court can easily check them out, yet it says all Plaintiffs produced were conclusions. It is not known how the Plaintiffs can produce more proof or evidence of the glaring problems in Cook County guardianship cases. This is especially in light of the fact that the court has consistently held the complaint provides too many details, while at the same time, it claims the complaint is not “clear and concise”; it is bloviated and too long.
In the Opinion of (9/25/17 at A.0154),it would appear that the District Court fully understood,
****The Guardianship case was unconstitutionally sealed without Notice or Hearing, Motion or Petition. No court order was ever made public containing findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to remove an ordinary Guardianship case from public view and scrutiny. (See, Docket Sheet, A.0226) (All the federal courts of appeals to have decided the question have held that the First Amendment protects access to civil filings. See Grove Fresh Distribs. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994); Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988); Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984);Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3rd Cir., 1984); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir., 1983); Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 801-02 (11th Cir. 1983). As of the writing of this Brief, Judge Malone in the Circuit Court of Cook County has now issued two orders directing the Clerk of Court to unseal the file. Plaintiff Linda still has not seen the entire file and while the Clerk was also directed to provide her with a free copy of the file, she still does not have it, even though the first Order to Unseal issued Sept. 2016. The second issued July 2017. As of the writing of this Brief, most documents are not in the file, it has been cleansed and the computer in the file room shows “view unavailable” for most images. Any complaints about this fall on deaf ears.
The “Court must accept as true well-pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint.” Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. Of Am., 714 F.3d 1017, 1019-20 (7th Cir. 2013).
M. Plaintiffs were never provided with a list of how to correct their Deficiencies
Plaintiffs attempted to amend their Original Complaint not once, but twice. (A.097 and A.0161). The Court dismissed both of these complaints without pointing out deficiencies and specifically how they might be corrected. However, when a District Court “ dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)).
But in each of its rulings shown at A.080. A0133 and A.0154, the court never provided such a listing, gave the Plaintiffs any statement of what facts are missing and should be pled, and hence, apparently the errors were repeated with each Amended Complaint. The court could have just provided Plaintiffs with a page limit or some sort of guidelines on what exactly they considered to be “clear and cncise.”
N. The Defendants are Proper in this cause of Action
From the US DOJ website:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. Emphasis added.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law.
Each of the Defendants engaged in the tortious and illegal behaviors complained of which directly led to the wrongful death of Mary Jane Teichert.
In addition, this is a pro se complaint, filed by three (3) disabled adults who do not have the monetary resources to hire an attorney.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A. Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Pursuant to § 1915A, a district court shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Allegations in a complaint are to be liberally construed, and a court should not dismiss an action for failure to state a claim “‘unless after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.'” De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002)). Courts are instructed that pro se filings “however unskillfully pleaded, must be liberally construed.” Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir. 1994).
In addition the 7th Circuit has stated:
a motion for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), should not be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief.” Gustafson v. Jones, 117 F.3d 1015, 1017 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Frey v. Bank One, 91 F.3d 45, 46 (7th Cir.1996)). In evaluating the motion, we view the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Id.
The present Second Amended Complaint is far from frivolous. The Plaintiffs were clearly harmed by a number of state actors–from the police to the judge to the OPG. Their Family Residence was destroyed by the OPG, their dear beloved Mother was abused, isolated and eventually narcotized to death in an abusive guardianship proceeding which was so outrageous that early in the case, the Probate Court summarily, and without Due Process, or the 7th Circuit guidelines, sealed the case.
Plaintiffs apologize for not having further facts regarding the abusive Guardianship, but the file still has most of the pertinent facts unviewable to the public as of the writing of this Brief, so they had no idea when the OPG was appointed guardian, what Orders issue without their knowledge, when the case was opened or when it was closed. Despite the Illinois Probate Act that requires all next of kin, defined as parents, siblings and children, must receive notice of the filing of a Petition for Letters of Office 14 days in advance of the hearing date, none of the Plaintiffs – all Mother Mary Jane Teichert’s children, never received any notice of anything in the Guardianship case. 755 ILCS 5/11a-10(f). Until Plaintiff Linda receives a copy of that file, it is obvious that much information is missing from the Complaint. She has called and requested a copy of the file for free, but it is not ready yet for her. All she has is the docket sheet which appeared a couple of days ago, by magic or a miracle on Dorothy Brown’s website.
In addition, Plaintiffs are still attempting to get much needed information for their complaint via the discovery process in the Decedent’s Estate for Mary Jane Teichert, including all of Mother Mary Jane’s medical records, the names of the arresting officers, a statement from Catholic Charities that none of the Plaintiffs ever had a founded indication of abuse against their mother, as well as other facts and information.
All the Plaintiffs are asking of this Honorable Court is the chance to take their case to a jury. They only want justice for their Mother and for other guardianship victims similarly situated, to encourage them to come forward to clean up the court system. To do so, the Court must accept some form of a Complaint. The Plaintiffs apologize that they know cases like these are very hard to file and prosecute. No one wants to criticize attorneys, judges and court actions. However, even those state actors must be held accountable for their actions as they are not above the law and Justice must be done.
O. Well documented evidence that the Plaintiffs are experiencing a phenomena that is no longer rare in the US.
There is no doubt that justice was eventually done in the Ciavarella case (“Kids for Cash”), 3rd circuit 2013, and no less than five GAO reports have documented the exact same problems as these in US guardianship courts across the nation.
In addition, the website AAAPG has conducted a survey and amassed data on hundreds of abusive probate guardianships. See http://www.AAAPG.com. In 2017, Dr. Sam Sugar, a well know elder rights activist took a guardianship survey of 200 respondents over 4 months and determined the following: http://aaapg.net/guardianship-2017-survey/
● 66% said their visits with their loved ones were restricted
● 78% said they had to pay to visit their loved one
● 76% said the judge violated their civil rights
● 71% said advance directives were ignored
● 77% were threatened with legal action
● 50% said their were exparte ocmmunications with the court
● 97% said their civil rights were violated in court
● 45% of the judges prevented visitation with loved ones
● 41% said their right to freely associate with a loved one was violated.
Based upon this survey, it appears that there are indeed serious problems in many, many guardianship cases. The case of Mary Jane Teichert is not alone, it is not the only one, and Plaintiffs are telling the truth about what happened to them over the course of a 2 years abusive guardianship.
In addition, Plaintiffs are in possession of a detailed spreadsheet that provides information on over 200 recent cases involving guardianship court abuses, violations of civil and human rights and even Federal Statutes, Rules and Regulations pertaining to the care of the Elderly. The database was provided in confidence and will only be provided to this Honorable Appellate Court pursuant to an in camera Order and protected as containing Confidential information on abuse of the elderly and their family members.
P. Conclusion and Relief Sought
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court reverse and remand her case with appropriate instructions to the District Court regarding;
1) the Dismissal of a pro se complaint must be provided with a listing of exact deficiencies and how they may be overcome;
2) that the Plaintiffs have in fact stated proper Causes of Action in their Second Amended Complaint and service on all defendants should commence;
3) that the Paupers Petition forms were in fact properly filled out and showed that all defendants were on disability and qualified for fees. The Illinois Supreme Court has recently streamlined its own forms, which may be found at: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Forms/approved/procedures/fee_waiver.asp,
and the Federal Court should do the same. Many people are elderly and disabled and need very simple forms to fill out.
4) the District Court should have appointed a lawyer for the Scully children if it did not like the way they drafted their Original, First and Second Amended Complaint. Further, the District Courts should be ordered to keep a website with a list of attorneys willing to work pro bono on civil and human rights cases, where litigants can send prospective pro bono attorneys their complaints to see if they are interested in taking on these cases. Currently, there is no such system, but one should be put in place. Handing indigent pro se clients lists of 20 or so pro bono agencies that are swamped and overloaded with work and who do not file appearances regardless, is not a workable system for the poor and disabled..
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_/s/LindaScully/____ __/s/MarkScully/____ ___/s/HaroldScully/_______
Linda Scully, pro se Mark Scully, pro se Harold Scully, pro se
Prepared by:
Linda Scully, pro se
PO Box 481081, Niles, IL
email: linda.scully@gmail.com
phone: 312 549-2112
Harold Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #704
Chicago, IL 60626
email: haroldscully@gmail.com
phone: 773 629 0129
Mark Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #2417
Chicago, IL 60626
email: Markanthonyscully@gmail.com Phone 773 273 5016:
Verification
The undersigned herewith certifies that this brief is true and accurate to the best of her knowledge and belief, and where statements are based upon information and belief, were believed to be true at the time the statements were made.
/s/lindascully/
Linda Scully, Plaintiff-Appellant pro se
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the following entity via email, although no parties have be served, nor have they filed appearances in this case on December 5, 2018
Nathan Goldenson, via email at:
Nathan Goldenson, OPG
via email nathan.goldenson@cookcountyil.gov
/s/lindascully/
Plaintiff Appellant pro se
Notice of Filing
You are herewith notified that I have caused to be filed the foregoing Writ of Cert to the US Supreme Court on May 6, 2019 by place the orignal and 10 copies in the USPS, first class mail, postage prepaid to:
Clerk of the US Supreme Courtm 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543
/s/lindascully/
Plaintiff Appellant pro se
EXHIBIT A
Advisory Board
Gregory Marsella, MD
Laura DeLuca, MD
Rana Goodman, Journalist
Eileen Leslie, CPA, CFE, MTx
Frederick J. Bailey, City Trustee
Michael A. Hackard, Esq.
Consultants
Kelley Smoot Garrett, CIO
December 2, 2018
Re: Scully v. Goldenson, et al. 17, 2486, 7th Cir. C.A. Fed.
Dear Honorable Justices Rovner, Brennan and St Eve;
I have reviewed the complaint and Brief in the above captioned case.
It is my understanding that Mary Jane Teichert was an elderly woman who allegedly suffered from some degree of memory loss. She was hospitalized at St. Francis for a routine check up and subsequently was held hostage there, surreptitiously transferred to a series of nursing homes against her will, forced into hospice against her will and eventually murdered by means egregious overmedication and withholding food and water. Her long time residence in an apartment building was neglected and ruined by the OPG (Office of Public Guardian) and their coconspirators and then sold for pennies on the dollar by a controversial realtor to a crooked crony purchaser.
I have a file containing many hundreds of cases nationally where this is a common tactic to gain control of an elderly person’s assets and basically hand it off to attorneys and by underhanded fraudulent means to judges via campaign contributions. There is also a growing body evidence to show that money laundering and mortgage fraud occur in this courts.
I founded a 501 c3 and maintain http://www.aaapg.net. I am the author of the Best Selling New Release on Amazon.com of “Guardianships and the Elderly—The Perfect Crime”. I am a Board Certified Specialist in Internal Medicine and considered a lay expert in Probate court matters across the nation.
I believe our nation must urgently correct a horrendous situation where the elderly are targeted, drugged with illegal psychotropic medications and then placed in a string of nursing homes against their will and when the money runs out, they are quickly dispatched with powerful, inappropriate psychoactive atypical antipsychotics drugs and denied food and water. This is nothing but professional slow assisted suicide and elder cleansing for profit. It should never happen in the US.
I understand that Mary Jane had 3 children who loved her and who were caring for her at home. She did not want to leave her home, she wanted to live in her home until her natural demise with her three children Linda, Mark and Harold caring for her there.
I believe that this is an exceptional case and that you should review it carefully and allow the Plaintiffs to proceed with their case to a jury trial.
This is not about the money, it is about bringing these cases before juries—so routinely denied in Equity Probate courts– so that this horrendous situation can swiftly come to an end.
The State Judicial systems must stop treating the elderly and disabled in such a horrendous manner. These are precious human beings who should be treated with the utmost of dignity, care and respect at the end of their lives. It is crime against humanity to treat them with such indifference and callousness in the pursuit of their assets and rights.
I respectfully ask that you return this case to the N.D.Illinois district court for a trial by jury.
Sincerely,
Electronic signature
Sam J Sugar MD, FACP
Founder AAAPG
EXHIBIT B
JUSTICE 4 EVERY1, NFP
5330 W. Devon Ave. #6 JoAnne Denison, Executive Director*
Chicago, IL 60646 Cell Phone 773-255-7608
ph 312-553-1300 http://www.justice4every1.com
December 5, 2018
Re: Scully v. Goldenson, et al. 17, 2486, 7th Cir. C.A. Fed.
Dear Honorable Justices Rovner, Brennan and St Eve;
I have reviewed the Complaints and Brief in the above captioned case.
It is my understanding that Mary Jane Teichert was an elderly woman who suffered from slight memory loss. She was hospitalized at St. Francis for a routine check up and subsequently was held hostage there, surreptitiously transferred to a series of nursing homes against her will, forced into hospice against her will and eventually murdered by means egregious overmedication and withholding food and water. Her long time residence in an apartment building was neglected and ruined by the OPG (Office of Public Guardian) and their coconspirators and then sold for pennies on the dollar by a controversial realtor to a crooked crony purchaser.
I have details on over 50+ cases nationally where this is a common tactic to gain control of an elderly person’s assets and basically hand it off to attorneys and by underhanded fraudulent means to judges via campaign contributions. There is also a growing body evidence to show that money laundering and mortgage fraud occur in this courts.
I currently run a Social Justice organization that assists the public with problems in the court system with cases such as these where our nation’s elderly are targeted, isolated, dugged into a stupor, the assets are destroyed or stolen, POAs are quashed without any notice or due process, the victim is never served with a Summons or Complaint, the family members are never provided with 14 days advance notice of the time, date and place of hearing, and then assets are quickly depleted by the lawyers with a rubber stamp from the court.
I believe our nation must urgently correct a horrendous situation where the elderly are targeted, drugged with illegal psychotropic medications and then placed in a string of nursing homes against their will and when the money runs out, they are quickly dispatched with powerful, inappropriate psychoactive atypical antipsychotics drugs and denied food and water. This is nothing but professional slow assisted suicide and elder cleansing for profit. It should never happen in the US.
I understand that Mary Jane had 3 children who loved her and who were caring for her at home. She did not want to leave her home, she wanted to live in her home until her natural demise with her three children Linda, Mark and Harold caring for her there.
I believe that this is an exceptional case and that you should review it carefully and allow the Plaintiffs to proceed with their case to a jury trial.
This is not about the money, it is about bringing these cases before juries—so routinely denied in Equity Probate courts– so that this horrendous situation can swiftly come to an end.
The State Judicial systems must stop treating the elderly and disabled in such a horrendous manner. These are precious human beings who should be treated with the utmost of dignity, care and respect at the end of their lives. It is crime against humanity to treat them with such indifference and callousness in the pursuit of their assets and rights.
I respectfully ask that you return this case to the N.D.Illinois district court for a trial by jury.
Very Truly Yours,
Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFPTable of Contents for Appendix
Date Filer Description Page
Docket Sheet 5
2/21/17 Complaint 10
2/21/17 Cover Sheet 43
2/21/17 MS IFP Petn 44
2/21/17 LS IFP Petn 48
2/21/17 HS IFP Petn 52
2/21/17 LS Mot 2 appt atty 58
2/21/17 MS Mot 2 appt atty 60
2/21/17 HS Mot 2 appt atty 62
3/3/17 CO Motions 2 file IFP and appoint atty denied w/o prejudice; Pltffs need to answer all questions for IFP 64
3/10/17 LS IFP Petn 68
3/10/17 MS IFP Petn 72
3/10/17 HS IFP Petn 76
4/18/17 CO Motns 2 file IFP denied w/o prejudice and dismisses Complaint w/o prejudice. Pltffs allowed 30 days to file Amended Complaint. Pltffs to seek assistance from Pro Se program 80
5/17/17 HS IFP Petn 84
5/17/17 MS IFPPetn 88
5/17/17 LS IFP Petn 92
5/17/17 Pltffs Amended Complaint 97
5/17/17 Pltffs Motn 4 court to appoint atty as lit rep for Mary Jane Teichert 129
6/21/17 CO Dismiss Amnded Complaint; IFP’s deemed moot and motion to appt rep for Mary Jane Teichert. Case Terminated. 133
7/21/17 LS IFP Petn 138
7/21/17 MS IFP Petn 143
7/21/17 HS IFP Petn 147
7/21/17 Pltffs 2nd Amended Complaint 161
7/21/17 Pltffs Mot 2 Reconsider 151
7/21/17 Pltffs Brief in support of MTR 212
9/25/17 CO Mot 2 Recon denied.; Complaint dismissed, IFP denied 154
Sherrif No service civil process records for Linda, Harold and Mark and Mary 222
10/1/18 CO 7th Cir. App. Decision and Order 254
Abbreviations: LS-Linda Scully; MS- Mark Scully; HS – Harold Scully; CO – Court Order; IFP – In Forma Pauperis Petition
Share
Tweet
(0)
MaryGSykes.com 