Memorandum
I went over the notes from the zoom hearing that occurred today in regard to the Circuit Court of Cook County case 07 P 5360 entitled IN RE: AMELIA SALLAS. There are a number of issues that are quite interesting that expose the problem that we all face with the HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY. (exploitation)
Starting with square one, a reoccurring theme in these American Holocaust sagas is the fact that a dysfunctional family is found all to often to be part of the mix and available as prey or a stalking horse for the Criminal venture. As I look back over the cases I examined the ‘dysfunctional family’ was more often than not an element. In the Sykes case a daughter stole $4000.00 from her mother and when mother went to seek out a protective order the daughter used clout to get the matter into Probate Court and a predatory guardianship. In Gore the predators used a disabled granddaughter to oust the caring family member who was Guardian 1 and appointed her (the disabled person) as guardian. In JayCox target was estranged from his wife and two sisters. The beat goes on.[1]
Today in Sallas to divert attention from the Guardian’s criminal misconduct, misrepresentations to the Court and the unlawful usurpations, and massive losses to the Estate and the husband of the Amelia Sallas of more than Nine (9) million dollars – the miscreants started the Court diversion immediately. The kidnapping of Amy Sallas and her incarceration were used to divert attention – the Guardian ad Litem asserted that the husband had agitated the Ward. Indeed, having been wrongfully isolated without any color of law by the guardian the captive wife discovered that she still has a life – a saint would be agitated! Indeed, Amelia learned that there was a possibility that she was not on the fast track to be a Zombie!
Such was the opening Salvo!
The ploy did not work – Dean was not deterred from presenting his Motions and pointing out that:
1) There was no statutory authority for anything that was going on, and in fact the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America prohibited it. Indeed, the Guardian ‘s authority was limited to the ward by the words of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b, to wit:
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
The Guardian had no legal power over him and in fact he was not before the Court except to protest the outright theft of his vested MARITAL PROPERTY INTERESTS of $9,000,000.00 and the continued illegal and criminal efforts of the Guardian to carry out the threat of being left homeless and penniless.
2) That he, as Amy’s husband, had a duty to protect her and to protest the fact that the Guardian’s appointment had to be pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b and if it was so limited just about everything the Guardian was doing was ultra vires – and in direct violation of Amy Sallas’ rights under the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America.
3) That the Guardian was not honest with the Court and in fact was presenting reports to the Court that were not in accord with objective reality[2].
The unexpected happened – Dr. Samuel Sugar M.D. appeared in the Zoom gallery. With the remarkably successful Symposium that he sponsored still fresh he commented on the sorry spectacle her was observing. Journalist Janet Phelan also appeared as observer and most important Dean Sallas stood his ground and demanded Justice.
Of course, as unfortunately expected, the Presiding Judge was/is disinterested in the plight of Amelia Sallas or Dean Sallas. It appeared from her demeanor at the hearing – for all to observe – that she could care less that the Guardian demonstrated no respect for her or her office – indeed, she was totally disinterested in the fact that a Guardian she appointed had abused his office and was mocking her by not informing her of the fact that he allowed his ward (Amy) to be victimized by the criminal conduct of the Byline Bank in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. Indeed, it matter not to her that she was not informed of the Guardian’s conflict of interest, the wrongful isolation of his ward or the overreach of his office. Of course, the Judge was not interested that the Guardian without lawful color of law had , used his office to gain unlawful dominion over Dean Sallas’ vested property interests and had in direct violation of 18 USCA 241, 242 and the specific prohibition of 42 USCA 1983 had seized almost all of Dean Sallas property and was forcing him to live an abject poverty. Indeed, having usurped all the Sallas family funds he seeks to unlawfully evict Dean from his ½ million-dollar home by assuring that the utilities, the taxes, insurance, and upkeep expenses are not paid. His supervisor brags that Dean will be homeless and penniless.
The Guardianship which is designed to HELP a disabled person acclimate into the world was prostituted in case 07 P 5360 to abuse the elderly person. Nine million dollars of savings is unaccounted for – a lifetime of savings lost! A Circuit Judge is herein presiding over the UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE of Illinois law and claims related to wrongful conduct and interpreting that Statutory limitation of:
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
This clause and prohibition according to today ruling approving the Guardian’s fees is thusly to be interrupted to be the functional equivalent of a jail sentence and the loss of all property and liberty not only for the unfortunate soul who is declared to be a ‘ward’ but for her spouse and anyone who objects to the HUMAN TRAFFICKING in the elderly.
The oral order of this Judge suggests that the RULE OF LAW and the Constitution is an inconvenience to be ignored[3].
I wish I could say that the action described is unusual or unique. It certainly is not unique in case 07P 5360. It certainly was not unique as reported by the presenters at Dr. Sugar’s AAAPG symposium, nor is it unique in the reports from AAAPG, Cear, NASGA, Probate Sharks, MaryGSykes ** blogs. Nor was it unique in the articles and material aired on Netflix, written about in the NewYorker, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or a bunch of GAO reports to Congress. IT IS WRONG and is illustrative of wrongdoing.
We have reached the point of NO RETURN. As speaker after speaker at Dr. Sugar’s symposium urged it is time to fish or cut bait. Dean Sallas brought his petitions today to highlight the perfidy that he faces. He has appealed to Law Enforcement. He has received some encouragement, but he realizes that DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT.
In the weeks to come, Dean will rise up in the Chancery Court in the case of BYLINE BANK vs. AMELIA SALLAS 2019 CH 13960 and pursuant to his MOTIONS now pending Demand that the Court of Equity give honor to its heritage and take cognizance of the fact that in violation of the laws as to elder abuse, predation of elders, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, consumer protection laws designed to protect the elderly dismiss with prejudice the wrongful foreclosure action.
I have to comment on the Byline Bank’s conduct. The Bank is well aware that at the time of the loan (Jan 25, 2018) neither Dean nor Amelia was engaged in any business venture. They were also aware that interest rates for HOME MORTGAGES had hit rock bottom. Indeed, it was no secret that to aid seniors such as Sallas the Government was encouraging REVERSE MORTGAGES. It takes real greed to resist the temptation to provide an elderly couple with run of the mill Home loan at the advertised 3% loan rate or a REVERSE MORTGAGE that will obviate month loan payments.
It takes a ‘special’ kind of lender to openly and notoriously ignore a criminal statute that reads.
(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.
Obviously, the lender was aware of Amelia Sallas’ adjudication by the Circuit Court in case 07 P 5360 as a person with disability.
The hearing of today before Judge Boliker was informative in that the words and phrases of this remedial Statute in Illinois have little meaning as at least in Judge Boliker’s court room this statute is not enforceable. (see transcript of July 28, 2020 Zoom hearing! Not only does the criminal nature of the loan have no meaning, but the responsibility of the Guardian to protect the assets of the ward is not applicable.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged person with a disability himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a person with a disability , but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a person with a disability as defined in Section 11a-2. If the court adjudges a person to be a person with a disability , the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate.
(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.
755 ILCS 5/11a-3
Obviously, Judge Boliker on July 28 was aware of the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 by the Byline Bank and was aware that on February 15, 2018 when the Guardian approached her for leave to negotiate the mortgage that had already been signed 3 weeks prior, he was not being candid with her. Thus, it should not be surprise to yours truly and Sallas that when the Guardian on that date told her that he was not contesting the void loan and unlawful mortgage foreclosure we really should not have been surprised. The issue in case 2019 CH 13960 is whether the Chancery Court will follow the RULE OF LAW.
Democracy is NOT a spectator sport! We appear to have lost the battle in the PROBATE COURT – do we love our inheritance enough to fight to win the war?
[1] This disfunction is unexplainable but clearly exploitable. Amelia and Dean’s children by their attornment to the pandemic scheme to exploit their mother promulgated by the Guardian and other have assisted in the loss of their inheritance. They certainly should realize that their mother is pushing 80 and their father 84. The days separating them from their inheritance is short, yet, to satisfy whatever drives them they must be deemed ready to imprison their mother, impoverish they father and deprive themselves of a substantial inheritance and comfort. This disfunction is known as cutting off your hand to spite your face! It is common and as observed today easily maneuvered.
[2] It is sad, but it appears that the Judge’s conduct and total disinterest in the alleged CRIMINAL ACTIONS and deceptions by the guardian indicated to at least the undersigned that the Judge not only was aware of the deceptions but attorned and approved of them.
[3] I am aware that calling a ‘spade a spade’ or exercising FIRST AMENDMENT rights to complain of the felonies of elder abuse is in Illinois ethically challenged and lawyers who stand up against criminal abuses such as are evident in the Sallas cases are summarily punished by the IARDC (Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Commission). In its zealousness the IARDC subpoenaed DEAN SALLAS’ Google records. His crime of not attorning to the abuse and exploitation of the Guardian was quickly addressed by the IARDC. The only problem is the fact that Dean Sallas is not a lawyer and they like the Guardianship Court in fact have no jurisdiction to take possession of his property or intimidate him.
Ken Ditkowsky
My reaction to all of this is to show that zoom hearings MUST and should continue after Covid as an option to every litigant who requests them.
The Sallas case has now garnered the attention of major guardianship corruption activists and Dr. Sam Sugar is clearly a leader in all of this. Good for him for attending.
Boliker is going to have some major problems with her position in the Sallas case, letting lawyers and guardians touch assets belonging to Dean Sallas, a marital partner, with claims to marital assets which have been stolen, converted and trespassed upon. Only Dean Sallas and Dean Sallas alone should have access to his wife’s assets, as she has to his assets, but he is not under any guardianship. He still has all of his facilities and is clearly competent.
The threats and intimidation of Boliker and the OPG and attorney Casanova cannot be ignored in a civilized society.
This has to end. Dean should get his house secured, his $9 million in assets returned to him and also his beloved wife should be returned to him instanter. The OPG’s job is to do this, instead they prey on the elderly and vulnerable.
you can see a copy of the sallas foreclosure file at the following link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16smq7BZ0n-aumSPKVSW6GT45DA5_5u5M/view?usp=sharing
MaryGSykes.com 