From MG: Sole Custody for Sex;ARDC take 3 years to charge attorny

But if you reveal corruption like this on a blog, the ARDC will come right after you and suspend you for years.

Ken Ditkowsky, Lanre Amu and I all revealed corruption in the courts in Cook County, all of which turned out to be true.  In my case, the judge lied on the stand, and the court reporter was unlicensed.  I caught the judge in her lies.  The judge is long gone.  But the ARDC will not apologize for their horrid behavior and automatically reinstate me.  This is something they should do if they are ever able to regain the trust of the public.

Seth Gillman bilked the US govt millions in health care fraud for years and stole employee health care funds leaving employees without health care insurance.  Did the ARDC care?  Nope.  It took them years to even begin the process to discipline Gillman.

But if you tell the truth on an attorney blog and it make some corrupt lawyer (Farenga, Waller or Schmeidel cry) or a corrupt Judge cry (Stuart), they will come after you lock stock and barrel with a fixed court system and claim you are a “danger to the public” and your blog is like “shouting fire in a crowded theater.”  what utter nonsense.

But an attorney that does his job for sex, is again, not disciplined for years.

Chicago Attorney and Guardian Ad Litem Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Woman Whose Children He Represented

CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago family attorney who represented children in the midst of custody battles is accused of offering to recommend a parent get full custody of her children in exchange for sex, in addition to sexually assaulting several employees.

In 2016, David Pasulka offered to recommend that a judge give a woman sole custody of her two children, for whom he was appointed guardian ad litem — an attorney who represents children in a custody dispute — as long as she had sex with him, according to a complaint filed on July 13 by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).

Pasulka also sexually abused three female employees of his law firm, David P. Pasulka and Associates, between 2012 and 2018, the complaint said.

In Cook County, a guardian ad litem serves as an attorney for the children of parents in divorce or other domestic issues. Guardians ad litem investigate cases and interview the children before ultimately presenting their findings to a judge, who determines the custody arrangement for the children.

The complaint details allegations of sexual abuse beginning in 2012, and documents obtained by CBS 2 indicate the ARDC received its first allegation in March 2017. When asked why the ARDC took over three years from the date of the first allegation to release the formal complaint, an ARDC spokesperson declined to comment citing Illinois Supreme Court rules that prevent the ARDC from discussing disciplinary action.

Pasulka has been suspended from serving as guardian ad litem in Cook County; Judge Grace Dickler, who presides over domestic relations cases, prevented him from doing so on Monday when she found out about the complaint, according to a spokesperson for Office of the Chief Judge of Cook County.

Dickler also suspended Pasulka from “any other Court Committee to which he has been appointed” in the domestic relations division due to the “serious allegations” in the complaint, the spokesperson said.

When asked why Judge Dickler found out about the complaint over a week after it was filed, the ARDC spokesperson replied “I do not know.”


The complaint says Pasulka was explicit about the arrangement: sex in exchange for a favorable recommendation regarding the custody of her two children.

According to the complaint, “[Pasulka] stated to [the woman] that, in order to receive his support in recommending that she receive sole custody, she only had to ‘do a little extra something’ and that she was a ‘smart girl’ and that if she really wanted her children, he could ‘do that’ for her if she would have sex with him.”

The complaint said this wasn’t the first time Pasulka had engaged in sexual misconduct in a professional setting.

According to the complaint, Pasulka repeatedly asked three female employees to engage in sexual acts with him, and often forcibly kissed and inappropriately touched them. The complaint also says that, on several occasions, Pasulka forcibly penetrated the employees.

According to the complaint, Pasulka used his position of power over the employees.

“As [the woman’s] employer, [Pasulka] maintained a position of power over her, in that she was financially dependent upon her job at the firm as her only source of income,” the complaint said of one of the women. “In addition, during the duration of her employment, [Pasulka] routinely told [the woman] about his connections in the family law field, including connections with judges, attorneys, and bar associations and implied his  ability to affect her professional success.”

The complaint says Pasulka pressured the women, telling one “he was looking for a ‘team player’ and that she should be a ‘team player’ and that ‘you’re saying no when you should be saying yes,’” the complaint said, adding that Pasulka even told one woman “Your friend, [one of the women in the complaint], does not say no.”

The complaint also alleges “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentations related to manipulation of an alcohol testing device” in a 2017 DUI arrest.

The complaint said that, in 2017, Pasulka consumed as much as a pint of vodka before driving to his home in north suburban Glenview. While driving on the Kennedy Expressway, he rear-ended another car and drove away without stopping, the complaint alleged.  Pasulka exited the Kennedy Expressway and drove to a Starbucks in Niles and hit the Starbucks building with his car before driving away, according to the complaint.

Pasulka was eventually stopped by officers with the Niles Police Department, and refused to submit to a portable breath test, according to the complaint. He was charged with a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, and sentenced to 12 months of court supervision, the complaint said.

Pasulka agreed to abstain from drugs and alcohol and participate in Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as use a “Soberlink” device, which measures alcohol content, three times a day, the complaint alleged.

The complaint alleges, Pasulka later violated that agreement by relapsing and drinking alcohol on several occasions, as well as tampering with the device.

Pasulka hasn’t been charged criminally in connection with any of the incidents in the ARDC complaint. Both the Chief Judge’s spokesperson and the ARDC spokesperson declined to comment on potential charges citing Illinois Supreme Court rules. A spokesperson for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office said “we have not been asked to review these matters by law enforcement who would conduct the initial investigation.”

Pasulka told CBS 2’s Charlie De Mar he denies all the allegations against him. Pasulka said he is a leader in his field and has represented thousands of children, and feels he is being “dragged through the mud,” adding that “this is the worst thing that’s ever been laid on me.”



From KD: Continuing Corruption in the Sallas case and why is Mike Madigan still a licensed attorney?

Court Corruption in Cook County is like mom and apple pie!
This is the County in which certain nursing homes actually advertised in writing that they would pay a bounty for every ‘patient’ that you brought into their facilities.   This is the county in which a doctor had the temerity to refer to the elderly as a “commodity”  The nursing home advertised that they would pay $2000.00 for grandma!
 I did not check and see what the future’s contract set the bid and ask price for grandma today.   Corruption is ingrained into our daily lives.   In Cook County elder lives are big money.   One of the Chicago nursing home operators went to Florida and got indicted and convicted for stealing 1.3 billon dollars from Medicare.  That was Philip Esformes.   He is small potatoes.   His colleagues are much more proficient and better connected – thus, they are NOT prosecuted.   In the Brewer case FRCP 11 pretrial investigation I discovered that the 50th ward nursing homes delivered 100% of their votes for the incumbent Alderman.   Such was more than enough to swing the election!     It appears that every election has the same result – the 2020 election will be slightly different – more of the dead will vote than in previous years!
The Sallas case which will be heard next Tuesday again has become obscene!   The corruption has reached a new nadir!      The miscreants no longer are hesitant in openly violating the Law – they do openly and notoriously.     A Guardian ad Litem, knowing that there is such a thing as MARITAL PROPERTY  and the works both ways actually in open court tried to intimidate Mr Sallas – she TOLD HIM HE HAD NO STATUS.
Of Course GAL Epstein knew that as an owner of MARITAL PROPERTY not only did Sallas have status, but the Court in denying him the same was OPENLY and NOTOROUSLY Denying Sallas his 5th and 14th Amendment Rights.  This intimidation is about as ethically challenged as it can get!    Epstein is a smart lawyer with great experience – such attempted intimidation is obscene.
Sallas’ petition will be presented on July 28 (Tuesday)   It summarizes the misconduct being directed right from the bench,     It you have not seen a copy – a copy is set out.   For the record, IF YOU DESIRE TO SEE THE CORRUPTION IN ACTION = call the Court and ask to be included on the list of people invited to watch.   The Justice system of Cook County, Illinois will be on full display.   Watch how a citizen will be castigated – hell they will make a new religion out of him!  (They will not allow Sallas to have a competent attorney!   He had one who was actually fighting for him – she got cold feet and was scared that she actually withdrew without prior notice to him.  The Judge was only too happy to get rid of her and have Sallas unrepresented.)
Incidentally – at my age I am actually retired and have no desire to ever practice law again – ergo I am free to exercise freely my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS without fear of further intimidation.   The words and phrases I speak concern public figures and are my opinion – In addition, judges are elected officials in our State.

Pro -se Petition of Dean Sallas



 County Department Probate Division

 In re:

The Estate of Amelia Sallas         2007 P 5360





 Dean Sallas,  a citizen of the State of Illinois,  appearing pro se in support of his Petition states as follows:

1.      Background.     He (age 83) and Amelia Sallas (aged middle 70’s)  have been married for more than ½ a Century.     That at all times relevant prior to the filing of the proceedings herein he and Amelia Sallas resided together in their marital home in Skokie, Illinois as husband and wife.      (NB. After the appointment of a guardian herein, he and Amelia continued to live together for about a decade).      Even though from time to time Amelia experienced medical problems she was mentally alert and when she experienced difficulty, she (with the aid of Dean) checked herself in to Swedish Covenant Hospital.    It is believed that Amelia’s independence and the overt demonstration of the impropriety of the appointment of the guardian precipitated and/or was a proximate cause of the Guardian removing Amy from the marital home)    During the coverture of the marriage, including the period of time immediately prior to the filing of these proceedings Amelia Sallas drove her own car, shopped for herself and Dean, contracted and engaged tradesman to do maintenance jobs at the family residence[1].     Indeed, she was very capable of managing her affairs.      The marital estate at all time prior to the commencement of these proceedings had in the opinion of the pro se petitioner a net net value of Nine million dollars.    Petitioner was a successful in Real Estate.   (Some of this evidence was presented to the Court in a recent hearing when petitioner was represented by an attorney.    Petitioner verily believes that the allowance of his attorney to withdraw without prior notice fiasco was a thinly veiled attempt to prevent his being able to proceed with the Petition to terminate the guardianship.


2.     This Court unlawfully and wrongfully intervened in the half century marriage of the parties and in derogation of the mandate of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 appointed strangers as guardians for Amelia and entered orders that prevented the pro se petitioner (or Amelia) from accessing the marital funds to address financial crisis of 2008.     As a proximate cause of this Court’s wrongful interference in the lives of Dean and Amelia Sallas the privacy of Dean and Amelia was invaded and their ability to access and manage their life savings severely restricted.    It is estimated that approximately 8 million dollars in assets belonging to the marital estate  were dissipated and lost[2]  due to the aforesaid interference by the Court appointed guardians in their lives and the economic crisis of 2008 and the recission that followed.    .


3.     That on or about 2008 the plenary guardian Jos Mitzen was appointed.   He conducts business under the name and style of WHITEHEADFINK ELDER LAW.     What function Mitzen performed (except to deny Amelia and Dean their 4th Amendment Right to privacy).     Amelia for almost a decade continued to live in the marital home with Dean.     Mitzen’s guardianship was in the opinion of petitioner un-necessary, wasteful and an in direct conflict with the provisions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.     The Public Guardian’s office was similarly in direct conflict with the limitations of 755 ILCS 5/lla – 3b which states in words and phrases:


(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations.  (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)


4.      That on or about February 2, 2019 Amy Sallas was removed from the marital home by Mitzen[3].     (actually, she had signed herself into Swedish Covenant Hospital and was removed from there where she was receiving treatment for the “hip” that Mitzen refers to in his report allegedly filed in March 2020.    At all times relevant prior to forced involuntary termination of their marriage  the petitioner and Amelia Sallas continued to reside as husband and wife and perform their joint marital duties.    Both objected to the interference by the Court appointed guardians and the overt alienation of affections promulgated by the two appointed guardians.[4]


5.     That this Court and the guardians have unilaterally  terminated the marriage of Dean and Amelia Sallas.    Dean’s rights to consortium have been terminated, his access to marital funds obviated, he is denied by Josh Mitzen and this Court the companionship, love and any relationship with his wife, Amelia Sallas.[5]   Contrary to Mitzen’s averment in his report,     Dean had to beg, and plead for information concerning the infection of his wife with Covid19 virus.      The ‘love of his life’


6.        That the Guardians in their Petitions for Fees represent to this Court that the marital estate has approximately $92,144.90.    These funds are marital property.[6]


7.      That upon reliable information and belief, the pro se plaintiff verily believes and alleges that from day one the Guardians acted for their own parochial interests and NOT the interests of either Dean or Amelia Sallas.     In particular, the parties were NOT informed of Amelia’s rights and privileges in relation to a guardianship that are set out in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 and in point of the fact the guardianship was a sham and should never have occurred.    The medical reports that the petitioner previously sought to place in evidence (and support with testimony) are incorporated by reference, attached hereto, and made part hereof  as group exhibit[7].   In particular:

a.     We were not informed that Amelia had a right to her own lawyer to look out after her own interests and have a  jury trial,

b.     We not informed that we had the right to contest the absurd psychiatric opinion as to Amy’s competency and had the right to present our own experts.

c.     Other and different deficiencies.


8.     Statement of the Law in my lay terms.     A guardian is a fiduciary.    As a fiduciary owes to his ward the highest standard of conduct and integrity – in addition to his/its exact  compliance with the statutory mandates.    A fiduciary cannot directly or indirectly obtain any profit or pecuniary benefit from his/its position as guardian.     A guardian/fiduciary is not paid upon rote hourly charges, but is paid  only for the work that he/it does that is reasonably calculated to benefit the Estate.[8]     It is further my understanding that for services rendered that benefit the estate (judged for fiduciaries by the clear light of hindsight) are compensated on the basis of the necessary services be paid a reasonable sum.    This sum is calculated not just on an hourly rate, but on a rate that takes into account what was accomplished by the services.[9]  If no benefit no payment.   Disloyalty or bad conduct also creates a situation wherein the fiduciary forfeits compensation and can be surcharged and required to reimburse the fiduciary estate for its losses.


9.       The foregoing  statements supra are applicable to all other Dean’s grievances made herein. 




10.                         Violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.       Possible wrongdoing by Byline Bank (not a party to this lawsuit) and the Public Guardian’s office.     That on or about  July 8, 2020 the law firm of Kulek served on the pro se Petitioner a lawsuit entitled Byline Bank vs. Dean Sallas, Amelia Sallas case number 2019 CH 13960.    This Mortgage foreclosure was filed in the Chancery Division of Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.    This lawsuit was filed in December 2019 while the respondent Guardian (believed to be the Public Guardian) was secretly  holding in its possession more than $92,000.00 of marital funds.   This Court is respectfully requested to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of its own records and in particular case 2019 CH 13960.[10]


11.                         That at all times relevant because this Court allowed pro-se Petitioner’s attorney to withdraw without prior notice the Petitioner was unrepresented in this Court.     It is respectfully averred that the Public Guardian’s office as Guardian of property for Amelia Sallas not only failed to protect her property, but apparently aided and abetted the dissipation of her and Dean’s marital property.


12.                         That amongst the laws of the State of Illinois there exists a statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.   This statute states:

(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.)


13.                            That attached to the foreclosure complaint in case 2019 CH `13960 are documents.   This Court is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of these loan documents.      Exhibit g is one of the documents attached.   It is called a change in terms agreement and is dated. April 25, 2017.    Therein in a paragraph stating “promise to pay” the paragraph states in part:


“Dean A Sallas and Amelia Sallas  (borrower) jointly and severally promise to pay to the Byline Bank formerly known as North Community Bank ***the principal sum of One hundred eighty three thousand four hundred and Ninety three and 83/100 dollars  ($183, 493.84) together with interest on the unpaid principal balance from April 25, 2017 *****.


14.                         At all times relevant this Court had adjudicated Amelia Sallas a disabled person and such fact was known to each of the guardians assigned to this guardianship and of record.   The Byline Bank is charged with knowledge thereof and both the Guardian and the Byline Bank are deemed to know the criminal prohibitions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.


15.                         That it is believed and therefore alleged upon information and belief that Robert Harris an attorney employed with the Public Guardian’s office officiated at the signing of exhibit G and in violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 he agreed to bind Mrs. Sallas to the promise to pay aforesaid in direct violation of the aforesaid statute.   (the documents attached to the complaint as exhibit G does not bear Mrs. Sallas’ signature)


16.                        That attached to the foreclosure complaint in case 2019 CH 13960 is exhibit H.   This Court is respectfully requested to take Judicial Notice of this document that is part of its own records.     This is a change in terms agreement and is dated January 25, 2018.    This agreement in a paragraph commencing with the words promise to pay states.


“Dean A Sallas and Amelia Sallas  (borrower) jointly and severally promise to pay to the Byline Bank formerly known as North Community Bank ***the principal sum of One hundred seventy three thousand three hundred and sixty six and 99/100 dollars  ($173, 366.99) together with interest on the unpaid principal balance from January 25, 2018 *****.


17.                         The signature page on exhibit H bears the signature of Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas.  [11]     In the 3 pages of Exhibit H there is no mention of the guardianship, however on an unlabeled page immediately following page 3 of this exhibit H there is another signature page.    This unlabeled and undated document does bear a signature of the guardian.     The connivance and possible criminal conduct of the Public guardian (the guardian of the property) is thus revealed.


18.                         That as per the agreement of the parties and the marital custom of Dean and Amelia Sallas part of the pension received by Amelia was to be used to pay this loan.   This loan was secured by a lien on the marital home in which both Dean and Amelia resided.


19.                        That the guardian honored the marital agreement of the parties and his subject agreement and attornment to pay this illegal loan, until Dean was drained of the savings that he controlled and was most vulnerable.    The guardian then and there unilaterally it is believed and therefore alleged as no notice was ever given to the pro se petitioner to the contrary stopped paying the aforesaid loan.    (It is believed that no prior Court order was requested – the action was unilateral by the guardian.)[12]


20.                         That it is averred upon information and belief that such action was taken by the guardian intentionally  to cause  a foreclosure of the home of Dean and Amelia Sallas and render Dean Sallas homeless and penniless.


21.                         That Dean Sallas is 83 years old.     Amelia is 70 plus years of age.

Wherefore the pro se petitioner prays for the following relief, to wit:

1.         That this Court refer this matter and the mortgage foreclosure to the STATES ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and Attorney General of the State of Illinois  for prosecution of the crime specified in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.

2.         That this Court refer this matter and the mortgage foreclosure aforesaid  to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois for a possible CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION as the actions of the guardians (all of them including the GAL)   are abusive and predatory and are reasonably calculated to cause pain and suffering to an elderly couple who have been unlawfully separated and deprived of their valuable marriage rights.[13]

3.      That the Public Guardian be surcharged all costs of investigation by the State of Illinois and the United States of America and petitioner be given leave to FILE a damage claim against the guardians appointed herein for such injuries and damages as are proximate to the breach of fiduciary relationship by the guardian.

4.     That the Public guardian be dismissed from his position of guardian for Amelia Sallas and a new hearing following the criteria of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 (and appropriate notice) be had to determine if Amelia is in fact a disabled person entitled to a guardian.    If a guardian is found to be necessary, that Dean Sallas be appointed without bond.

5.     That the Public guardian’s petition for fees be stricken until a investigation be had into the possible criminal charges mandated by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and an accounting can be had as to how much of a surcharge should be assessed against the public guardian.

6.     Such other and different relief as might be equitable and proper.


Count 2

Deny all guardian fees and surcharge their Bonds


For Count 2 the pro se plaintiff states:


22.                             That the averments of paragraph 1 thru 22 are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.


23.                              That the Mitzen was appointed on October 7, 2009.     During the next decade Amelia lived as a married woman with her husband virtually without serious complaint as husband and wife.   During such period Amelia continued to be unsupervised by Mitzen  as to her living arrangements and intercourse with the public and until almost a decade after his appointment Medical care.     Then and there he allegedly placed her in a nursing home wherein she became infected with the Covid 19 virus.        Petitioner, who has been wrongfully prohibited from having contact with his wife of ½ of Century understands that in addition the guardian care has resulted in a great lessening of Amelia’s mobility and other functions.      The apparent function of Mitzen was to invade the privacy of husband and wife in direct violation of the Civil and Human Rights of the marriage.    In Summary,   exactly what, if anything, for this decade did any guardian do except wrongfully interfere with the Civil Rights and equal protection of the parties, to wit: Amelia and Dean Sallas.    There was no positive benefit to the ESTATE!        The guardianship of the property had a gross negative effect on the Estate, and it is averred cost the marital estate of Dean and Amelia approximately 8 million dollars.


24.                             That it is apparent from the Report of Mitzen that Dean and Amelia, except for some pecuniary interference that cost the couple 8 million dollars, were essentially left alone – UNTIL Amelia’s signing herself into Swedish Covenant Hospital  in 2019 demonstrating that in the opinion of Dean Sallas that the guardianship was in fact un-necessary and violated the mandate of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.      Wrongfully in derogation of his obligations to his ward Mitzen participated in a scheme to deny Amelia of her independence, mobility, and her marriage.   Unilaterally he with the attornment of this Court created involuntarily a wrongful de facto divorce.     This divorce denied both parties of their long-term marriage relationship, their marital savings, and assets/   This action violates the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.     Pursuant to Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution it is respectfully suggested that this Court is obligated to rectify this “human trafficking in the elderly.”


25.                          No hearing was ever held by this Court  (that [Petitioner is aware of addressing the creation and promulgation of the party’s ultra vires  de facto divorce.   No hearing was held before stripping Sallas of their assets and secreting $92,000.00 in secret funds.   (secret from Sallas)[14]    Indeed, it is respectfully averred by the Petitioner that the guardians appointed herein have largely usurped the powers of this Court for their own benefit and when the Petitioner attempted to resist the overt violation of his Federal and State Constitutional Rights he was intimidated by statements such as: “you have no standing!.”      Indeed, how can any elderly person stand up to an array of lawyers consisting of a 1) Guardian ad Litem who is reputed to be one of they experts in Probate and in particular Guardian law who consistently is referring to his NOT HAVING STANDING to protest the ex-parte abrogation of his marriage, the confiscation of his property rights etc; 2) The PUBLIC GUARDIAN who while undermining the marriages life savings now informs this court that it has secretly accumulated $92,000.    This is the same Guardian who openly aided and abetted a clear violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. And 3) a guardian of the person who refuses to communicate with the petitioner and who promulgates a de facto, ex-parte dissolution of a 50-year marriage.


26.                          That the Guardian ad litem, it is believed and therefore alleged knew or should have known of the breaches of fiduciary relationship that were occurring in this Estate, but instead of disclosing the same consistently attempted to intimidate Dean Sallas with statements such as “you have no status.”     The guardians collectively knew that the 9 million dollars net, net were marital funds and that Dean Sallas had equal rights in those funds and the fact that a guardian was appointed by this Court did not obviate Dean Sallas’ Fifth and Fourteen Amendment Rights.     No right to impoverish Dean Sallas or render him homeless was granted by any Statute.     The rights granted to a guardian are limited by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.


27.                          That guardianship is not an exception to the 13th Amendment – it is consistent with it and is limited.   755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b states:

(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations.
(Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

It is respectfully suggested that herein Abuse has been the goal of this guardianship and no compensation for such abuse of law is available under the law of fiduciaries – who are held to the highest standard of conduct – not the nadir.

Wherefore because of the obvious ultra vires actions of all three guardians the pro se petitioner prays for the following relief, to wit:

1)     That this Court refer this matter and in particular this matter to LAW ENFORCEMENT for a complete INVESTIGATION of the actions of all three guardians appointed herein, their accumulation of $90,000 referred to in their petition for fees and other issues.    The Americans with Disabilities Act states the position of America as to disabled persons – NOT THE ACTIONS of the guardians herein disclosed.

2)     That this Court refer this matter, because of the questionable financial situation herein disclosed by the Guardians in their position for fees (i.e. the accumulation of $92,000 of marital funds and the promulgation of a mortgage foreclosure of the marital home, that this matter be referred to the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU for investigation as to any financial irregularities.

3)     That this Court order the Bonds filed by the guardians to be forfeited and paid into the Estate of Amelia Sallas

4)     That this Court require the guardians to honestly account for all monies derived directly or indirectly by them or by any nominee for them directly or indirect from this Estate.

5)     That this put an end to the abuse herein disclosed promulgated by the guardians.

6)      That this Court award such other and different relief as may be appropriate.



Respectfully Submitted,


Under penalties as provide d by law pursuant to Section 1-19 of the Code of Civil Procedure  the undersigned certifies that the fact  statements made herein are true and correct, except as to matters and statements stated to be pursuant to information and belief.


[1] Amelia suffered a stroke shortly before the filing of the incompetency petition, but she shortly recovered most, if not substantially all her functions.   Any disability that she suffered was relatively minor.  It certainly did not meet the criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3.

[2] Dean and Amelia objected to the invasion of their rights, however,  as in most of the guardianship cases reported in the Blogs AAAPG, Probate Sharks, NASGA, and MaryGSykes the objections were met with a deaf ear.    The usual retort to a beleaguered family member attempting to protect the Estate is “you do not have standing!”   The net is the property is lost to the alleged disabled person.    It has been averred in articles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker magazine, Huffington Post and in a recent Netflix series referred to as “dirty money” documentary on guardianship that the guardian profits from such arrangements.    An investigation is necessary to ascertain if such has occurred herein – why else would the outrageous interference with the pecuniary affairs of Sallas occurred?   However, at this time no allegation is made.

[3] Mitzen’s current report to the Court is significant.    The report, while vague and a bit deceptive suggests that there was something wrong with the sleeping arrangements etc.    However, such were the arrangements for about a decade and the guardian found nothing amiss.    Suddenly – he intervened after more than nine years.   The right of privacy of the parties and their right to be non-conventional is protected by the Illinois and Federal Constitution and the words and phrases of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.      No guardian is appointed ‘lord and master’ of a disabled person!     Each individual is entitled to be non-conformist if he or she so desires without the approval of Mr. Mitzen et al.

[4] Dean Sallas attempted to obtain competent legal counsel – but most counsel were intimidated by the reputation of guardianship in Cook County, Illinois.   Dean did obtain counsel, but, during the pendency of a hearing as to the removal of the guardians based upon Amelia’s not meeting the criteria, without notice and without warning (but admitting the Dean was not at fault) Dean’s then attorney was given leave of Court to withdraw.   Dean was left without counsel.   Dean did attempt to obtain new counsel, but the prior attorney refused new prospective counsel access to Dean’s file.    Dean is still attempting to obtain counsel but is unsuccessful.    The action of the guardians herein further contributes to the impossibility of Dean obtaining competent representation in this matter.

[5] This Court has effectively granted to Amelia and Dean Sallas a defacto divorce complete with a hostile settlement arrangement effectively designed to impoverish Sallas and render him homeless.

[6] It is no wonder, having secreted by their own admission over $90,000 of marital funds, the guardians were so reluctant to provide the Petitioner with copies of the current account of the guardians and their petition for fees.  Indeed, it is respectfully suggested that the Guardian ad litem’s assertion that petitioner has no standing to address the financial affairs of this estate in light of the secret cache of marital funds is disingenuous and ethically challenged.  It also suggests a callous disregard for the 5th and 14th Amendments.   Dean and Amelia Sallas are still legally married  – outside this Courtroom – and the funds of Dean and the funds of Amelia are still MARITAL FUNDS.      The public guardian et al might be especially important people, but their authority does not obviate the limitations of the Illinois and Federal Constitutions.

[7] As a lay person, I apologize to the Court if I get some of the lawyer phrases wrong.

[8] For instance, secreting $92,000.00 of marital funds is not a benefit to the Ward.   Creating an  ex-parte de facto dissolution of marriage and separating a couple who have dedicated their lives to each other is not a benefit to the Estate.    Spending large sums of money each month for a nursing home residency so that husband and wife can be forcibly separated rather than allow the couple to continue to live at home is wrongful and not a benefit to the Estate.

[9] The service of rendering the spouse of the ward insolvent and homeless is respectfully suggested as warranting a surcharge to be charged to the Guardian = not a charge against the secret $92,000 cache to pay unnecessary and overblown fees.     It is strongly suggested by Dean Sallas that during these proceedings the focus appears to be on intimidating and denigrating him, rather that providing NECESSARY services to his wife.     The constant harangue of the GAL claiming that Dean Sallas (the petitioner) herein has NO STANDING to protect his own property is more than obnoxious  – it is rank abuse and intimidation.     Such activity cannot be condoned unless this Court refuses to recognize petitioner’s right to EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW and the right to protect his property.

[10] Dean’s funds are severely limited for reasons that he herein complains.    The lack of funds severely hampers his ability to protect his and his wife’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that have herein been infringed.     Dean respectfully requests that an accommodation be made for him and that this Court protect his interests and in particular his right to protest the wrongful actions that he has attempted to enumerate and bring to this Court’s attention.   In particular he requests that this Court appoint an independent attorney to represent he and his wife of 50 years from the ravages of this guardianship, the wrongful de facto dissolution of marriage and the dissipation of the marital estate – and to seek appropriate relief.

[11] Attached to the complaint following exhibit H is an unlabeled document not signed by Dean Sallas but signed by a Charles Golbert acting Cook County Public Guardian.     Nothing in this document indicates that it relates to any other document attached to the complaint.   The document is also undated but there  is a place for Dean Sallas to sign but no such signature appears.    There also is no exculpation for Amelia Sallas    This document is  interesting as it can be interpreted as having no relevance; however, it was attached for some reason.   Was the reason to be candid with the Court and point out that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 was violated and the lender and the guardian were aware of the violation of a criminal statute?     It should be noted that my reading of the exhibits, the aforesaid exhibits connote NO exculpation for Mrs. Sallas but the exhibits/documents acknowledge that Mrs. Sallas read and understood the agreement to engage in a debit/credit situation.        In a prior but extraneous document signed by Mr. Golbert the same legend appears recognizing that Mrs. Sallas is a joint and several debtor.    Thus it must be assumed , Golbert understood by his signature that he was a party to the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a -22.    It is suggested that this act by Mr. Golbert is subject being a co-conspirator with the Byline Bank and subject to a substantial surcharge for the breach of his fiduciary responsibility.     Section 22 is a remedial statute and thus subject to liberal construction.   The Byline Bank as the author of the loan documents is presumed to not only know the law, but to intend the words and phrases that they used.   Ergo, from my half century in the Real Estate business it would seem to me that the documents are to be strictly construed against the Byline Bank and its coconspirators.       Because of the threat to leave me (Dean Sallas) homeless and penniless I have been in contact with several Federal agencies, i.e  FDIC, CFPB, and FBI.      I disclose the same as pursuant to the First Amendment, whether I have standing or not to defend my marital assets, I still have First Amendment Rights.

[12] It is believed that the Illinois law provides that the release of one debtor (or the release as in this case of one guardian) releases all debtors privy to the transaction.    Thus, neither Dean nor Amelia by Statute is indebted to the Byline Bank.    However, the actions of the Public guardian need clarification and explanation as this Court cannot be a party to any questionable conduct.    Case 2019 CH 13960 clearly presents a serious question ethical and legal question.

[13] The continued statement of the Guardian ad Litem that the petition Dean SAllas has no standing in these proceedings (and any Court attornment) is in derogation of the express protections of the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.    The Guardian ad Litem (and this Court) are well aware that for half a century the ‘partnership’ ‘Marriage’ of Amelia and Dean Sallas accumulated substantial funds and savings.   As such the Courts of the United States of America recognized that such funds are MARITAL FUNDS (including the now disclosed $92,000 secreted by the guardians) and both Dean and Amelia have vested rights in those funds.   To deny Dean Sallas ‘status’ and the right to protest is a blatant and wrongful denial of his citizenship and his EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.    As seasoned lawyers the Judge, and each of the Guardians are well aware of such fact.    THUS, THE STATEMENT that Dean has no standing  – and any attornment thereto – is wrongful and cannot be tolerated directly or indirectly.   It is also per se ELDER ABUSE.

[14] The guardians in this case were essentially ‘on their own’ to abuse and terrorize Dean and Amelia Sallas.    Dean is unaware of any attornment by this Court to the mortgage under foreclosure or the secret accumulation of $92,000 in marital funds by the guardian.

On Friday, July 24, 2020, 02:06:38 AM CDT, Joanne Denison <> wrote:
if you are interested in the corruption  at the ARDC and in the court system, check out my blog and feel free to call me 773.255.7608 and/or also contact  both of us were suspended for 3 to 4 years for blogging about corruption in the courts.

note that Mike Madigan is now under fire for doing “deals” with Comm Ed.  The ARDC will not discipline him until he is indicted and his plea deal is signed.  Until then, the ARDC will refuse to discipline him or disbar him.  But if you are an Illinois attorney and blog about the corrupt judges and attorneys, they will come after you right away and even do a pre suspension because your blog  is a “danger to the public” like “yelling fire in a crowded theater.”
obviously the Illinois Supreme court is in on it.  Eddie Burke’s office was raided twice for TIFF fund fraud and income tax fraud, but his wife sits on the Illinois Supreme Court so he will likely be sitting in prison and never disbarred.
Ken, I would stongly urge Mr. Sallas to file a judicial inquiry complaint against the judges involved and an ARDC complaint against all the attorneys involved and this should be cc’d to the FBI and Illinois states attorneys offices.  All the lawyers and judges involved should be prosecuted for this fraud on the court

Opinion: U.S. District Court in Greensboro and Winston-Salem, NC is acting outside of it’s Constitutional authority; lack of jurisdiction

good discussion on how there is no limitations period for fraud on the court

Justice for Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News

by Laurie Azgard

Is the U.S. district court in Greensboro and Winston-Salem in North Carolina acting outside of it’s original authority delegated by the Constitution of the United States of America?

Is the federal court system throughout the “Middle District of North Carolina” even acting as a legitimate judicial tribunal authority or has it over-exceeded that legal authority?

It all goes back to the principal of Magna Carta Libertatum, and as of why Courts in the first place have the authority to interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress as well as executive orders passed by Presidents. We have three branches of government. One of the branches is the executive branch also known as the President of the United States. Second branch is the legislative branch which is that of Congress. The third branch of government is the judicial branch which is what of the courts. Originally the…

View original post 1,252 more words

From CT: Mike Madigan at the center of millions in bribes and favors, but the Illinois ARDC has no discipline pending or implemented against him

Its absolutely amazing how the wealthy and powerful get right in the middle of bribes and schemes that hurt consumers to the tune of millions per year, but the Illinois ARDC does nothing against the lawyer, as if lawyers were given a license to make underhanded and illegal deals that hurt consumers and taxpayers.

Read on about the FBI investigation of Michael Madigan, speaker of the house.  Pritzker has already said that if the allegations are true MM must resign as speaker (and I hope representative too)

Federal investigation draws closer to Madigan as ComEd will pay $200 million fine in alleged bribery scheme; Pritzker says speaker ‘must resign’ if allegations true

U.S. Attorney John Lausch, right, announces a major fine against ComEd for bribery involving Illinois politicians during a news conference in the courtyard of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse July 17, 2020.
U.S. Attorney John Lausch, right, announces a major fine against ComEd for bribery involving Illinois politicians during a news conference in the courtyard of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse July 17, 2020. (Abel Uribe / Chicago Tribune)

A federal investigation orbiting the political operation of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan drew much closer to the powerful politician Friday, as prosecutors unveiled a criminal complaint charging ComEd in a “years-long bribery scheme” involving jobs, contracts and payments to Madigan allies.

Prosecutors said the utility attempted to “influence and reward” Madigan by providing financial benefits to some close to him, often through a key confidant and adviser at the center of the probe. Madigan, the nation’s longest-serving speaker and Illinois Democratic Party chairman, has not been charged with any wrongdoing.


In announcing the case against ComEd, U.S. Attorney John Lausch called public corruption a continuing problem in Illinois and said his office was not finished, while not addressing Madigan specifically.


“Our investigation is ongoing” Lausch said. “It’s vibrant, and it will continue.”



A ComEd headquarters building, July 17, 2020, in Chicago.
A ComEd headquarters building, July 17, 2020, in Chicago. (Brian Cassella / Chicago Tribune)

Madigan, described in the new court filing as Public Official A, the speaker of the House, previously has said he was “not a target of anything” when asked about the federal probe.

On Friday, a spokeswoman acknowledged Madigan had been subpoenaed for information including “possible job recommendations,” and said he would cooperate with those requests.


“He has never made a legislative decision with improper motives and has engaged in no wrongdoing here. Any claim to the contrary is unfounded,” spokeswoman Maura Possley said in an email.

“The speaker has never helped someone find a job with the expectation that the person would not be asked to perform work by their employer, nor did he ever expect to provide anything to a prospective employer if it should choose to hire a person he recommended,” Possley’s statement read.

The investigation appears to go well beyond ComEd. In Friday’s federal subpoena, authorities sought records related to AT&T, Walgreens and Rush University Medical Center, as well as the utility, according to a copy of the subpoena obtained by the Tribune. The subpoena also sought records related to Madigan’s political organization and law firm, as well as former state lawmakers and current or former Chicago aldermen.

The subpoena has not been made publicly available and a spokesman for Madigan told the Tribune to file an open records request, which had not been fulfilled Friday evening.

ComEd’s parent company, Exelon, said in a statement that it had cleaned up its lobbying practices and noted it had pledged to fully cooperate with the investigation.

Prosecutors said the scheme began around 2011 — when key regulatory matters were before the Illinois House that Madigan controls — and continued through last year. They agreed to defer their prosecution of ComEd for three years as it cooperates in the investigation, and announced the company had agreed to pay a record $200 million fine.

Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan speaks after a House Democratic caucus meeting at the Capitol in Springfield on Nov. 12, 2019.
Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan speaks after a House Democratic caucus meeting at the Capitol in Springfield on Nov. 12, 2019. (Zbigniew Bzdak / Chicago Tribune)

The new filing made clear that the nexus of the federal investigation into ComEd and Madigan’s operation is Michael McClain. He’s a close friend and adviser to the speaker, as well as a former lawmaker and Quincy attorney who retired as a high-profile lobbyist for the utility in 2016 but continued collecting six-figure payments from the company.

Federal agents raided McClain’s home in Quincy in May 2019, which turned out to be the same month ComEd said it had stopped paying him. The Tribune exclusively reported in November that authorities secretly recorded McClain’s phone calls.

Friday’s federal filing appeared to include quotes from those recordings. The Tribune reported in January that authorities had asked McClain to cooperate with the investigation. At the time, WBEZ 91.5-FM asked McClain if he was cooperating. “I’ll just say they asked,” he replied.

McClain’s attorney did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

The federal filing did not outline any conversations had by Madigan. Referring to the speaker as Public Official A and McClain as Individual A, prosecutors did allege the two “sought to obtain from ComEd jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts for various associates of Public Official A.”

Those included precinct workers and other associates, the filing states, and prosecutors alleged the total they received was $1.32 million.

Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who worked with Madigan to approve a wide-ranging legislative agenda in 2019, said he was “deeply troubled and frankly I’m furious” about the reports of the case.

“The speaker has a lot that he needs to answer for — to authorities, to investigators and most importantly to the people of Illinois,” Pritzker said at an unrelated event in Waukegan. “If these allegations of wrongdoing by the speaker are true, there is no question that he will have betrayed the public trust and he must resign.”

In all, prosecutors put a value of at least $150 million on the legislative benefits ComEd received. The federal documents in particular noted the 2011 passage of the Energy Infrastructure and Modernization Act, which “helped improve ComEd’s financial stability” by establishing rate guidelines and a smart grid overhaul.

That year, the filing states, the individual known to be McClain, and a lobbyist the Tribune has identified as John T. Hooker, made a plan to direct money to two Madigan associates who would be paid by ComEd as subcontractors to a consultant. Those payments went on for years despite the associates doing little or no work, prosecutors said.

The payments were recorded as being paid to a company by the consultant for advice on “legislative issues,” according to the paperwork. Some “senior executives and agents” of ComEd were aware of the payments, the paperwork states. Hooker could not be reached for comment Friday.

Prosecutors did not allege or specify any of the payments were diverted to Madigan himself.

But prosecutors did allege that in May 2018, Madigan, through McClain, asked the utility’s CEO to hire an associate of the speaker who was leaving the Chicago City Council. The Tribune has identified the now-former CEO as Anne Pramaggiore, and the council member as former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski, who could not immediately be reached Friday.

Coordinating with another executive and a consultant, Pramaggiore agreed the associate, Zalewski, would be paid $5,000 a month as a subcontractor, through a company in the scheme that already had a relationship with ComEd, according to a federal filing.

The former Exelon CEO abruptly retired in October amid the probe. Pramaggiore’s exit came less than a week after the company acknowledged receiving a second subpoena linked to the investigation.

Pramaggiore was key to ComEd’s success over the years in Springfield. Exelon and ComEd have one of the largest lobbying contingents at the Capitol and historically have been among the biggest campaign contributors to state lawmakers.

Pramaggiore spokesman Bryan Locke declined to comment on whether she is cooperating with federal authorities. “Ms. Pramaggiore has done nothing wrong and any inference to the contrary is misguided and false,” Locke said in a statement.

“During her tenure, she and other current and former ComEd and Exelon executives received, evaluated and granted many requests to provide appropriate and valuable services to the companies, none of which constitute unlawful activity,” Locke wrote.

Then ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore speaks during a news conference on July 25, 2017, in Chicago.
Then ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore speaks during a news conference on July 25, 2017, in Chicago. (Alyssa Pointer / Chicago Tribune)

The prosecutors’ filing states that certain other ComEd leaders were aware of the payments meant to influence Madigan, at least in part because McClain spelled them out. One of the payrollers of the unnamed company involved in the scheme was in the Madigan political operation, McClain allegedly explained in a conversation federal officials quoted in the document.

The person being paid was “one of the top three precinct captains,” who “trains people how to go door to door … so just to give you an idea how important the guy is,” McClain said, according to prosecutors.

Another example cited by authorities involved a man identified in the federal material as “Consultant 1,” who allegedly was speaking to a ComEd executive identified by the Tribune as Fidel Marquez. The consultant said he believed McClain had spoken to Madigan about the payments, saying the money was “to keep (Public Official A) happy (and) I think it’s worth it, because you’d hear otherwise,” prosecutors alleged.

The federal filing also alleged ComEd hired an unnamed law firm because the utility’s executives knew it was important to Madigan, and that ComEd would accept students from the speaker’s 13th Ward into an internship program as a way to “influence and reward” Madigan.

In addition, prosecutors said that in 2017, the speaker sought the appointment of an associate to ComEd’s board of directors. ComEd and Exelon did due diligence on the associate and found him qualified, though no one had recruited him for the board and ComEd did not seek other candidates, prosecutors wrote. The Tribune has identified that person as Juan Ochoa, a former McPier CEO who was appointed to the utility’s board but is no longer listed as being on it.

McClain again communicated the alleged Madigan desire to Pramaggiore, the complaint states, not using their names. “You take good care of me and so does our friend (Public Official A) and I will do the best that I can to, to take care of you,” Pramaggiore allegedly said, before later informing McClain the appointment had taken place.

Ochoa could not be reached for comment.

In an interview with the Tribune, Exelon CEO Christopher M. Crane said: “We take this seriously and we corrected it. It should never happen and it won’t happen again.” He said that he believed that everyone who “orchestrated any of that behavior” had left ComEd.

The agreement with federal prosecutors says ComEd can’t seek a tax deduction in relation to the fine and can’t recoup it through “surcharges, fees or any other charges to customers.” Crane said Exelon would give ComEd the money to pay the fine, and then ComEd would pay Exelon back from its profits.

The federal filing says authorities could have fined ComEd between $240 million and $480 million, but the utility got a “discount” off the bottom of that range for “substantial remediation and cooperation.” Half the money is due in a month and the other half in three months.

Now take a look at Michael Madigan’s status with the Illinois ARDC:

Full Licensed Name:Michael Joseph Madigan

Full Former name(s):None

Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court:
November 9, 1967

Registered Business Address:Madigan & Getzendanner
30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3906
Chicago, IL 60602-3330

Registered Business Phone:(312) 346-4321

Illinois Registration Status:Active and authorized to practice law  – Last Registered Year: 2020

Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information)
In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she has malpractice coverage.

Btw, Getzendanner was a Chicago federal court judge from 1980 to 1987.

Why is he still practicing law?

You will recall Seth Gillman bilked the government (state and federal) for $20 million over years and stole his employees health insurance funds, leaving them without health insurance and the ARDC did not pull his license or even begin the process until he entered into a plea agreement with the feds.

But if I, Ken Ditkowsky or Lanre Amu reveal corruption in the courts and corrupt proceedings, the ARDC comes right after us falsely claiming my blog made false statements regarding the reputation of corrupt judges–when in fact it did not and the family still stands behind those statements, and the judge is no where to be found.  The judge lied during her testimony and I caught her in the lie (lied about chaining Gloria to a bench or table in her ante room until she would reveal personal bank account information so the lawyers could steal $260,000 for their legal fees after they looted an estate)

The court reporter in my case was not licensed for 10 years, rendering my judgment legally invalid, but the ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court does not care, they wanted to make sure attorneys know they cannot blog about corruption in the court system.

Lanre Amu truthfully revealed a corrupt judge, Lynn Egan, and she was never removed from the bench for her corruption (fixing cases for her brother’s law firm).  Lanre Amu is still suspended even though his suspension period is over.

When is this going to end?

from YT: Wells Fargo Mortgage Fraud Alert–Payments not credited

Just when things could not get worse–Wells Fargo is not crediting mortgage payments and is not responding and some have found they lied on their credit reports!

story at 21:14

I also have credible reports that Comcast promised ccustomers who lost jobs or could not pay they would transition them to $15 per month indigent programs, like AT&T provides to those on govt aide.

Instead, Comcrap has continued to bill these customers up to $100 per month and refuses to correct the bills.

This is nothing by corporate virus fraud and profiteering. Report this theft to the authorities (states attorney, DOJ and FBI)

From Ken Ditkowsky on Elder Abuse–The Sallas case and Monsters in Black Robes in Illinois Probate

The human trafficking in the ELDERLY (Elder Cleansing) meets the definition that most States and the United States have for CRIMINAL ELDER ABUSE.    Why then is there no Criminal Prosecutions?

Elder Abuse generally falls in 7 categories, to wit:

·         Physical abuse is defined as any act of violence that causes pain, injury, impairment, or disease, including striking, pushing, force-feeding, and improper use of physical restraints or medication.

·         Psychological or emotional abuse is conduct that causes mental anguish. Examples include threats, verbal or nonverbal insults, isolation, and humiliation. Some legal definitions require identification of at least 10 episodes of this type of behavior within a single year to constitute abuse.

·         Financial abuse is misuse of an elderly person’s money or assets for personal gain. Acts such as stealing (e.g., money, social security checks, possessions) or coercion (e.g., changing a will, assuming power of attorney) constitute financial abuse.

·         Neglect is the failure of a caretaker to provide for the patient’s basic needs. As in the previous examples of abuse, neglect can be physical, emotional, or financial. Physical neglect is failure to provide eyeglasses or dentures, preventive health care, safety precautions, or hygiene. Emotional neglect includes failure to provide social stimulation (e.g., leaving an older person alone for extended periods). Financial neglect involves failure to use the resources available to restore or maintain the well-being of the aging adult.

·         Sexual abuse is defined as nonconsensual intimate contact or exposure or any similar activity when the patient is incapable of giving consent. Family members, friends, institutional employees, and fellow patients can commit sexual abuse.

·         Self-neglect is behavior in which seniors compromise their own health and safety, as when an aging adult refuses needed help with various daily activities. When the patient is deemed competent, many ethical questions arise regarding the patient’s right of autonomy and the physician’s oath of beneficence.

·         The miscellaneous category includes all other types of abuse, including violation of personal rights (e.g., failing to respect the aging person’s dignity and autonomy), medical abuse, and abandonment.


One or more of the categories of Elder Abuse is present in just about every guardianship case that has been mentioned in the blogs AAAPG, NASGA, MARYGSYKES, Probate Sharks *****.      As the cases referred to in the blogs are guardianship cases, we have a pandemic of ELDER ABUSE that is being openly and notoriously ignored.      Like the Americans with Disabilities Act we all talk about the Older Americans Act and it is a big mystery to us.    From Find Law I dug out the following:


created by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and editors | Last updated June 20, 2016

The Older Americans Act (OAA) is a federal law that promotes the well-being of Americans 60 years old and above through services and programs designed to meet the specific needs of older citizens. Services provided under the Older Americans Act include:

·         Home-delivered and communal meals

·         Family caregiver support

·         Health services home assistance for the elderly

·         Job training and volunteer opportunities

·         Protections from elder abuse

About 11 million people received services such as meals, home care, and transportation through OAA programs in 2010.

Objectives of the Older Americans Act

Congressional concern about the lack of community-based support services for older people helped spur the passage of the Older Americans Act. Like Medicare and Medicaid, the Older Americans Act was passed in 1965 as part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reforms. The Act seeks to ensure retirement income, physical and mental health, suitable housing, employment, protection from age-based discrimination and efficient community services for older individuals. The OAA works to accomplish these goals through direct funding to states and state services and the creation of federal agencies designed to implement the Act.

The Administration on Aging

The Older Americans Act created the Administration on Aging, the main federal agency tasked with carrying out the objectives of the Act. The Administration on Aging provides services and programs designed to help aging individuals live independent lives in their homes and communities. Perhaps the most well-known of these programs is the communal and home delivered meals program, sometimes referred to as “Meals on Wheels.” In addition to meals, this program focuses on health and nutrition education.

The Administration’s Office of Elder Rights Protection focuses on protecting older individuals from elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation through strategic planning and research. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program provides full-time ombudsmen, or public advocates, to help represent the interests of people in long-term care environments, such as assisted living facilities. Finally, the OAA funds employment and training programs for low-income, unemployed people 55 years old and above, which has helped more than 1 million participants enter or re-enter the workforce.

State and Area Agencies on Aging

The Older Americans Act funds many programs for the elderly through direct grants to states. Each state receives OAA funds based on the percentage of people 60 or above in the state. OAA funding, while small compared to programs such as Medicaid, provides an important safety-net for older individuals who might be at risk of hunger, food insecurity or loss of independent living.

As part of the Older Americans Act, each state must create a State Agency on Aging. State Agencies in turn manage Area Agencies on Aging, which plan, develop, and coordinate community services for older people. There are over 620 Area Agencies. These agencies connect older individuals to the important services provided through the Older Americans Act. You can check online to find the area agency nearest to you.

Who Is Eligible for Services Under the Older Americans Act?

Each state establishes its own eligibility criteria for receiving services under OAA programs. Generally, no one age 60 or above can be denied services from Older American Act programs unless the state establishes. States are prohibited from denying anyone services because of their income. That means that someone who might earn too much to qualify for services directed at low income individuals would still be able to receive services provided under OAA state programs. Contacting a State Agency on Aging will help you determine which services are available to you.

If you’re wondering about your rights as you age or if you’re caring for an aging parent or family member, consider contacting a qualified elder law attorney to discuss the unique issues you may face.

Many aggrieved elderly and their children have examined the laws protecting their parents and found the laws to be amazing protective, but the enforcement impotent and/or non-existent.      It is absolutely amazing to look into some of the Probate guardianship cases and see that no only are the most basic laws openly violated by Guardians but a sitting CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE stands ready willing and able to aid and protect the interests of a COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN from compliance with the law.

·         A pending case in COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS is the Amelia Sallas case 07 P 5360.    The facts are straight forward.     Mrs. Sallas had a ‘stroke’ that apparently did not disable her as she continued to perform her chores in her home, drive a car, engage landscapers to address the exterior of her home as well as cook and clean.    Mr. and Mrs. Sallas were married for 50 plus years.     Sallas became vulnerable and reputed to have a net worth of 9 plus million dollars and an estranged family.       Thus, it was not long before Amelia was provided with a guardian of the person and a plenary guardian.    A Guardian ad Litem was appointed to provide ‘cover’ for the Court in obviating the objections that Mr. Sallas was certain to have when his wife was sequestered and placed under artificial control of the Court appointed guardians.      What followed was obscene.     The miscreants determined it was in their best interests (not the Sallas’) that husband and wife be separated from each other.     The presiding judge at the direction of the Guardian ad Litem used her authority to facilitate what amounts to a de facto involuntary dissolution of marriage coupled with a predatory property settlement.      As Dean Sallas (the husband objected) the Court facilitated his being deprived of an attorney[1].

·          The Helen Stone case out of Dade County, Florida is a classic breach of Trust by the supervising Judge complete with the placement of an un=necessary feeding tube and overt harassment and intimidation of Mrs. Stone’s Lawyer daughter who objected to the official violation of State and Federal Law.

·         The Alice Gore case and Mary Sykes cases out of Cook County, Illinois are examples of Court attornment to outright theft of a senior’s assets.     Mary’s husbands million-dollar gold coin collection just disappeared along with another 2 million dollars in assets (see Gloria Sykes affidavit).     Alice Gore not only had 1.5 million dollars disappear, but the ultimate insult was the GAL allegedly directed 29 of her teeth be removed so that the gold fillings could be retrieved.

·         The New Yorker Magazine guardian report of October 2018 reveals a serial guardian

·          The Orland Sentinel newspaper directs us to a Florida serial guardian, to wit:

TALLAHASSEE – Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law Thursday a series of reforms to the state’s guardianship program, spurred by the case of Rebecca Fierle, who authorities said approved a “do not resuscitate” order against a client’s wishes and double-billed hospitals while overseeing hundreds of wards.

The bill requires guardians of elderly patients unable to look after themselves to get approval from a judge to sign DNR orders and places greater restrictions on how guardians are appointed to prevent conflicts of interest.

Prospective guardians will not be able to petition for their own appointment to a ward unless they are related to the patient.

The law takes effect July 1.

Lawmakers reacted after the revelations in the Fierle case, which came to light in May 2019 after her ward, Steven Stryker died in a Tampa hospital. Medical staffers said they could not intervene to save him because of the “do not resuscitate” order signed by Fierle on his behalf but over the objections of his daughter.

Fierle’s attorneys have argued that as a court-appointed guardian, the law did not require her to seek permission before signing a DNR order.

An investigation by Orange County Comptroller Phil Diamond’s officer later found Fierle had double-billed AdventHealth for services for 682 patients worth nearly $4 million over the course of a decade. She was removed from the guardianship program in September by an Orange County judge, who cited the comptroller’s report.

“This law will go a long way in protecting Florida’s seniors and most vulnerable citizens from fraudsters and predators,” Diamond said in a released statement. “Thank you to the Florida Legislature for its good work in helping to protect Florida’s seniors and most vulnerable from those who would harm them.”

Fierle was arrested in February on charges of abuse and neglect of an elderly patient.

A series of Orlando Sentinel special reports last fall found that lax enforcement of guidelines for appointing guardians allowed them to petition for their own appointments, as well as cases of potential conflict of interest on panels judging whether a person needs a guardian.

The new law is designed to address those loopholes.

SB 994 was one of 21 bills with a Thursday deadline awaiting action by DeSantis. He still has 117 more pending before his desk, including one requiring business use E-Verify or a similar system to check the immigration status of potential hires and the $93.2 billion budget. He must act on them by July 1.

Another 26 bills have not been formally sent to him by the Legislature.

The Fierle case exposes another serial guardian who the Court not only allowed to run roughshod over ELDERLY people and their families but participated in the criminal activity.       So common is this scenario that Netflix had a documentary on guardianship in its series on DIRTY MONEY and the Government Accounting Office has sent 4 plus reports to Congress so that they could ignore them.

The arrogance and the Fascist tendencies of these Court ordered criminal ventures is highlighted in the Fierle fiasco.       Fierle determined which of the guardianship victims should live or die .     The GAL in the Gore case had the attornment of a sitting judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to ravage the mouth of an elderly woman so that a few grains of gold could be obtained.     In Nuremberg, the World War 2 War Crimes Court convicted doctors who did similar atrocities!     In Cook County, Illinois, and the United States of America we sit on our hands and pass more legislation rather than punish the pernicious fiduciaries who abuse their wards.    We even pay them hundreds of dollars an hour for their infamy.

I apologize for not alerting you to the Older American’s Act sooner.      This Act may be a vehicle that can get the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to join in our fight against City Hall and bring the corrupt Judicial and Political miscreants to Justice.      Hopefully in the process we can protect some of the elderly targeted for the FELONIES OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY.[2]

Laws that are un-enforced are as good as no laws whatsoever!       Public officials such as Judges who do NOT understand that a public position is a public trust have no business on the bench or in the practice of law.      The Covid 19 pandemic has killed of tens of thousands of people who should have been protected by the Act!      Why were they not?      Why did States like Illinois and New York allow this travesty to exist?    Unfortunately, we know why?    A five-letter word explains the situation, to wit: M O N E Y.        But for Covid 19 each of the miscreants would have gotten away with ELDER ABUSE on a grand and very profitable scale!



[1] Mr. Sallas is testing whether or not Federal Laws are going to be enforced or are merely words on paper to appease the elderly and people who care for them.    Tomorrow Mr. Sallas will have in the mail a complaint to several Federal agencies charged specifically with addressing the laws that were violated.

[2] The organized intimidation of the legal profession directing it to attorn to the criminal enterprise promulgated and being conducted in the Probate Division of so many of our Courts has been extremely effective and continues to be so.     Unfortunately, bureaucrats are ingrained from day one in the universal military principle – DO NOT VOLUNTEER!      Indeed, they have been true to their code regardless how heinous the crime committed on an elderly person or his/her family.      Lawyers who followed the dictates of ABA Rule 8.3 were prosecuted for violating Rule 8.4.    How dare you accuse a judge who has his hand in the till with having his hand in the till!      The administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission pointed out that Attorney JoAnne Denison in exposing judicial corruption was disrupting the workings of the Illinois Court system and characterized her action as akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theater!”      The Illinois Supreme Court agreed, and Attorney Denison received a suspension of her law license.    They also insisted on an “interrim suspension” prior to when the Illinois Supreme Court would rule based upon the fact her blog was a danger or threat to the public.  Truth is the ultimate threat to the Illinois ARDC