Pro -se Petition of Dean Sallas
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLNOIS
County Department Probate Division
The Estate of Amelia Sallas 2007 P 5360
OBJECTIONS TO “ACCOUNTINGS OF GUARDIANS,
AND FOR OTHER RELIEF.
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. 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 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. (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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
PETITION TO SURCHARGE GUARDIAN FOR LACK OF FIDELITY IN ADDRESSING THE PROPERTY OF THE MARRIAGE FOR WRONGFUL ACTS DURING GUARDIANSHIP
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.
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.  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.)
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.
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.
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) 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:
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.
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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 As a lay person, I apologize to the Court if I get some of the lawyer phrases wrong.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.