A judge who supervises guardians, and or mortgage foreclosures should sua sponde supervise the parties appearing before him to protect the public and in particular people who are protected by remedial statutes.

A serious problem exists in Illinois – it is the human trafficking in the elderly.        As noted in the blogs AAAPG, NASGA, MaryGSykes, Probate Sharks *****problem is national and acute.        As is abundantly clear the ‘intimidation’ and ‘coercion’ exhibited by the miscreants and the corrupt judges who make the ‘elder cleansing’/human trafficking viable and effective has made a mockery out of the 14^th Amendment and in particular the first paragraph.

755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 sets the limits as to for whom a guardian can be appointed.     These limits are not only strict and very limited, but access is limited.      NB Such is true if you read the statute as it is written and intended.      The jurisdictional criteria are also procrustean and failure to comply with 755 ILSCS 5/11a – 10 deprives the Court of jurisdiction.        Unfortunately, with the corruption in the Illinois Courts it is the rare instance when the RULE OF LAW and the statute is complied with.    Indeed, in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585, there was no summons of summons as required by statute, no prior notice to next of kin (jurisdictional) and no hearing.       All that existed was miscreants appeared before a corrupt judge who signed whatever orders the Guardian ad Litem put before her.      Mary was thus, isolated, segregated and stripped of her dignity, assets, civil rights, human rights and ultimately her life.     Anyone who complained was ‘addressed!’        Lawyers who complained were given the short shift by the Illinois Disciplinary Commission, and individuals rare intimidation.

The Sallas case 07 P         is another wonderful example of Illinois corruption, with a twist.       Dean Sallas, who is quite competent, and an old-time realtor is resisting the corruption, but, he too has run into a wall.      Not only was Dean stripped of his attorney, but, the guardian in concert with the Byline Bank is engaged in a quite inventive fraud.

The Illinois legislature is fantastic in providing legislation designed to protect the public.    755 ILCS 5/11a ==1 et seq.   is well designed to protect the citizen from abuse not only from the system, but from outsiders who prey on the elderly.      Under Illinois law reports by the guardian appointed are regular and mandatory supervised by the appointing judge who is supposed to be aided by a Guardian ad Litem.    Illinois’ law as to fiduciaries of strict and direct.      A guardian is held to an objective standard.      A guardian who is not diligent or does not meet the standard of fidelity and integrity demanded by the Court and the Statute pays the penalty from his own pocket.      The standard is not only objective but measured by the clear light of hindsight.    EXCEPT when corruption raises its ugly head.

The Byline Bank vs. Sallas 19 CH 13960 (related to 07 P 6360 Amelia Sallas) is example.         Under quite suspicious circumstances Amelia Sallas was adjudicated an incompetent.      Under suspicious circumstances, Dean Sallas was provided the short end of the stick, deprived of his legal counsel and systematically deprived of his marriage rights (including property and consortium rights).     In essence, Dean Sallas’ marriage to Amelia interfered with the agenda of the ‘human traffickers’ and he received a DE FACTO divorce (without his consent, his wife’s attornment, or the Rule of law).

He foregoing extra judicial events however provided little progress toward enriching the miscreants thus more inventive objectives had to be employed.       To eliminate the marital equity in the marital homestead (including homestead rights, etc.) the guardian had to be more inventive that most.     The half a century marriage had to be VOIDED!         (As there is no legal method for involuntary dissolution of marriage – the judge reins over a de facto divorce segregating not only the person but the finances of the couple and preventing any right of consortium to exist)

Thus, the guardian used his position to induce the refinancing of the marital home.      Homestead rights and marital rights being recognized in Illinois meant that either the Court approve a refinancing agreement, or a little trickery be employed.   (We usually refer to this conduct as fraud).      Both the incompetent and her husband had to sign mortgage documents.         Apparently this feat was accomplished.      The guardian assured the ‘couple’ that the current payment method would be continued and all that would happen would be a refinancing of the existing loan.      The guardian DID NOT (it is believed and therefore alleged) inform either Mr. or Mrs. Salas of a statute that prohibited the transaction to wit:

    (755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22)
    Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
    (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.
    (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

The foreclosure is based upon the ‘contract’ signed in direct violation of section a, and foreclosure proceeding ignores section b.       It should be noted that under law (and especially Chancery procedure and Law) the foreclosure has two serious defects, to wit:

a)     Unclean hands

b)     Mrs. Sallas pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a -22b cannot be sued – ergo, as she is a NECESSARY PARTY it is clear that the foreclosure suit must be dismissed – a complete adjudication is impossible.       The Byline Bank knew or should have known that it was entering into a prohibited transaction.    The guardian of Ms. Sallas similarly knows or should know that a Class A misdemeanor has been committed and his not raising the same is a serious breach of his fiduciary relationship.   It is also evidence of his culpability and collusion.

The guardian has exposed himself.        He has attempted to coerce Dean Sallas into accepting a settlement – A reverse mortgage that Dean reports will have a maximum cash flow of $20,000.    This plan was presented in the probate court.   Law Center LLC 79 W. Monroe has estimated the market value of the wrongfully foreclosed dwelling at $425,000.00.     The balance due on the wrongful mortgage is approximately $150,000.00

The foregoing is redundant.      I’ve mentioned it before; however, what I’ve not stated before is the fact that the CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES in both the Foreclosure and the Probate Court are not appointed to the bench because of their good looks.      Each judge took an oath to uphold the law.

Whether the lawyers represent their clients properly or not – or are competent or not the JUDGES’ oath is to uphold the law.    The words:

    (755 ILCS 5/11a-22) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22)
    Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability.
    (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor.
    (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

Are in no need of interpretation – they are clear.       Once Mrs. Sallas was adjudicated an incompetent she could not directly or indirectly enter a CONTRACT.      Renewal, extension etc. are all contracts and all are prohibited.      This is not to say that the guardian = with application and approval of the Court – could not enter into a contract affecting the same subject matter – BUT Mrs. Sallas’ participation was prohibited for two reasons, to wit:

c)      It is a crime, and

d)     If she has the capacity to enter into the contract then the guardianship is highly suspect!       Indeed, it is an acknowledgment that the guardianship proceeding is  ultra vires and probably wrongful nunc pro tunc.

are clear and concise – and very understandable.

ERGO -THERE IS NO EXCUSE for the words not being honored and the foreclosure judge not sua sponte dismissing with prejudice the mortgage foreclosure lawsuit 19 CH 13960.        There  is further no just cause for the Judge in the guardianship  cause sua sponte determining if the guardian has violated his oath of office and committed a criminal contempt.

The Judge in not recognizing the possible criminal activity of the guardian and the bank is in breach of his/her fiduciary duty.       Such is a serious corruption – IF IN FACT SUCH IS THE FACT.

Pursuant to my ABA Rule 8.3 and my statutory duty pursuant to 18 USCA 4.    This information is forwarded to Law Enforcement and appropriate authorities’

Ken Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com