From KKD–a History of the Sallas’ Case

A HISTORY OF THE SALLAS HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE

IN THE OPINION OF KEN DITKOWSKY

Amelia (Amy) and Dean Sallas (age 84) are an elderly Skokie couple who were targeted by predators who used the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to isolate them and gain control of their substantial assets.    The primary vehicle was case 07 P 5360 entitled IN RE AMELIA SALLAS.

The M.O. of the elder cleansing/human trafficking was routine.    Amy was hauled before the Court, found to be so disabled as to need two guardians – one for her person and one for her property.     Her husband of over 50 years was rejected in favor of strangers.      The evidence presented was the usual one-sided clap trap.    The standard of CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE was obviated by the Court having the sole determination as to the quality and quantity of evidence.     Any testimony presented would have satisfied this Judge.   The Court made a mockery of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3a.   It did not and could not make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Court appointment of a guardian was similarly not in accord with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.    As the Court had little evidence to support its determination in accordance with the Statute, it could not comply with section 3b.      It thus made generic appointments totally ignoring the mandate of the Statute and the requirements of the 14th Amendment and the Rule of Law.     Unfortunately, this situation is commonplace.   The entire guardianship process is intended to be predatory and benefit the appointed guardian – not the ward!

 What was not routine was the fact that the plenary guardian ignored the Civil and Human Rights of the husband and usurped  them – including all the marital assets –  exercising full dominion over them.     The fact that such was FELONY THEFT is irrelevant in Guardianship cases.    Resistance was thwarted by the Court and aided by a Guardian ad Litem who cried out to the husband whose property was being stolen – you have no standing!     The Husband’s lawyer turned out to be part of the same cabal.    She withdrew as his attorney when the Husband asserted that he had VESTED MARITAL PROPERTY rights and he had standing to assert them.      The net net result was the wrongful theft of about nine million dollars in savings to date plus a total forfeiture of the couple’s 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.

The guardian of the person ran into a major problem – Amy was not incompetent and had no disability that could be addressed pursuant to the dictates and limitations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3.      Thus, this guardian took the route of least resistance and attorned to Amy going back into her prior life without his interference.    This truce lasted a decade, until two major events occurred that caused the guardian embarrassment and the threat of exposure, to wit:

a)        Sallas had because of the guardian’s patent incompetence and breach of fiduciary relationship been subject to a predatory home mortgage.     This mortgage was deceptively cast as a COMMERCIAL LOAN so as to squeeze the maximum rate of interest.     No home mortgage or REVERSE mortgage was offered.     On January 24, 2018 this mortgage expired and became due and payable.      Amy recognized this fact and on January 25, 2018 when she received a telephone call from the Byline Bank and an offer to ‘renew’ the loan she and Dean went to the Byline Bank and signed the new loan agreement.     Amy also inquired about the interest rates and obtained not only a lower interest rate than prior but an extended amortization period.    Byline would not provide either a HOME LOAN or a REVERSE MORTGAGE.

b)      Amy felt sick and signed herself into Swedish Covenant Hospital handling all the paperwork, history et al without the aid of the guardian.

A ‘fly’ entered the environment.   Amy’s signature on the January 25, 2018 mortgage was a violation of the law and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a =22.      Sometime after the criminal act had been consummated the plenary Guardian, Mr. Charles Golbert, discovered the event.     On February 15, 2018 he appeared before Judge Boliker and presented a Petition to sign a new loan agreement.     As appears to be his pattern, he neglected to inform the Judge of the fact that such was un-necessary – AMY HAD SIGNED THE NEW MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS and had obtained better terms that he had.    Judge Boliker signed the order presented to her on February 15, 2018.

Subsequently, an attempt at a cover-up of the criminal activity commenced but was not successful.   Golbert who controlled at this point most (if not all) of the Sallas cash flow retaliated by ceasing to pay the mortgage, the insurance, maintenance on the property etc.        Confident that the ‘fix’ was in, the Byline Bank had the temerity to file a Foreclosure Lawsuit that actually had in its title the name of the disabled person protected by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, to wit   ByLine Bank vs. Amelia Sallas  2019 CH 13960.    Dean filed Motions to dismiss the barred foreclosure suit.      His theory was quite straight forward.    755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 bars enforcement of a loan transaction executed in defiance of the statute.    Such a bar abrogates by the express words of the Statute the liability of the disabled person.     It therefore follows that as Dean’s contract of Guarantee has been changed by the voluntary action of the Byline Bank, Dean is also released.      Byline Bank with all its attorneys and $25,000 dollars in claimed attorney fees certain was well aware of the prohibition of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.    Ergo, its actions were intentional.

 The Court proceedings in the Guardianship proceeding became more hostile and in fact Dean and Amy received an unwanted, unasked for, and unaccepted sua sponte, ultra vires, de facto dissolution of marriage with all the trimmings including the onerous property settlement of full forfeiture of all assets whether legally under the jurisdiction of the Court or not.     Amy after a decade of living in her home with her husband was removed from her home and out of her marriage.     Dean was scheduled to be rendered homeless and penniless.     A death threat was added to the mix.   His attorney without prior notice, a written motion, or any fault on Dean’s part was allowed under highly usual and ethically suspect basis to withdraw her representation during a contested hearing.     This left Dean without an attorney.     As his file was kept from him his ability to obtain counsel was nullified.

The Final phase of HUMAN TRAFFICKING/ELDER CLEANSING commenced and was highlighted by the July 28, 2020 hearing.     In that proceeding a discussion occurred as to the status of the HOME MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE.     The attorney for the Guardian informed the Court of the foreclosure and that she and the guardian were monitoring the foreclosure.    No defense was going to be raised.     The Judge attorned.      What Ms. Elizabeth Casanova did not tell the Judge was:

·         that the guardian Mr. Charles Golbert had sometime after the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 criminal transaction had signed a blank signature page for the loan.     He signed it without the common and usual exculpation clause and thus had personal liability.

·         Dean in spite of threats to leave him homeless and penniless and a death threat could not be induced to sign the blank signature page.  The page that evidenced criminal conduct on the part of the Byline Bank could not disappear and in fact was attached to the Mortgage foreclosure complaint as exhibit H.

·         That another serious breach of fiduciary relationship was intended – the home was appraised by Zillow and local realtors at about 500,000

·         That the Byline Bank was seeking almost 40% in penalty interest including $25,000 in attorney fees.

·         That the Guardian had a history of filing documents in Court that were reasonably intended to mislead the Court.   As an example – on February 15, 2018  the Guardian did not inform the Court that his services in reference to the mortgage with Byline Bank were un-necessary.  Amy had been contacted by Byline Bank and she had executed the loan documents.   EXACTLY why the Guardian was necessary to attempt at Sallas’ expense to cover-up the criminal conduct of Byline Bank will remain a mystery.    Of course, not only does it appear that such was attempted but Judge Boliker approved the fiduciary expenditure from the Sallas marital estate.

Dean did file a defense to the Mortgage foreclosure lawsuit and disclosed the CRIMINAL ACTIONS of the Byline Bank.     He also disclosed the apparently miscreant behavior of the Bank and Guardian and the Illinois Rule of law that the discharge of one obligator to a loan release all.         

In the Probate division, Sallas raised the limitations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 and the fact that HE WAS NOT ADJUDICATED – only his wife had been.      He complained that with the ultra vires attornment and aid of the Court the Guardian has used his judicial office to deny him his HUMAN and Civil rights with impunity and continues to do so.    In particular he notes that the guardian in the 11th current account actually brags concerning the invasion of his privacy, the poverty and lack of services that he is being subject to and other indignities.    Sallas objects to his VESTED MARITAL ASSETS being used for the purpose of the ELDER CLEANSING OF HIS WIFE and himself and in particular the dissipation and predation leveled against he and his wife.     

The usurpation of Dean Sallas’ Marital Estate is as a matter of Law FELONY THEFT!      The guardian’s authorization pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b might be construed to give complete dominion and control over the ward and a rogue Court might even confiscate all liberties of the elderly victim, but there is no way that the Guardian can Constitutionally be given any dominion over Deans vested marital interest.      Such is FELONY THEFT!    It is a taxable event requiring the Guardian to pay United States Income Tax on every penny sequestered and taken dominion over.     The Probate Court Judge has no jurisdiction over Dean Sallas without the abrogation of the 14th Amendment.

How could such a travesty such as the SALLAS affair occur?     The fact is it has occurred and continues unabated today.    

On Amy’s Birthday (April 11, 2021)   Dean and Amy secretly met at the nursing home where she was placed so as to be infected with Covid 19 by the guardian to celebrate her birthday.    (They had been secretly communicating prior)  They were apprehended by Cynthia Montesinos DRCS and informed that for this elder couple married more than 50 years they were required to obtain the permission of Lisa Casanova.    This is the same Lisa Casanova who complained to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois that JoAnne Denison was acting in an ethically challenged manner when she assisted Dean Sallas in obtaining an e-mail address.    Ms. Casanova – an attorney for the Guardian – has been silent concerning the predatory lending practices of the Byline Bank and its gross overcharges in interest.    The foreclosed loan was fraudulent promulgated as a COMMERCIAL LOAN even though in the last decade neither Mr. nor Mrs. Sallas was actively engaged in any Commercial venture.      Thousand so predatory interest was extracted from the elderly couple.   

Any ethical bank would have provided Sallas with either a REVERSE INTEREST loan or a HOME LOAN.    Of course, a guardian who took his fiduciary responsibility seriously would similarly have obtained the same from the ethical lending institution.      The Predatory lending attorned to by the Probate Judge and her appointed Guardian is intolerable and wrong.    It violates the spirit of all the protective legislation passed by the Illinois legislature and the Congress of the United States to protect senior citizens.      IT IS TIME for the RULE OF LAW to be put forth and for JUSTICE FOR THE ELDERLY to have a place in American’s current culture.       THE DRED SCOTT style law enforcement witnessed in Cook County,   Illinois should be condemned just as in the middle 1800’s the said Scott decision was rejected by Americans.     THE 14TH AMENDMENT must have meaning in 2021 America.  

The Guardianship/human trafficking in the elderly is worse that any cancer.     Once a guardian attached to a vulnerable senior that senior can be expected to be divorced totally and completely from his/her prior life and after all his/her life savings have been sequestered and gotten under the control of the Guardian – the end is sight.    Family (including spouses) have no standing and your status is less than the status of slaves incarcerated on Southern plantations in the 1980’s.     The Guardian is your Simon Lagree.      He determines who you associate, where you live, and your life functions in derogation of the words and phrases of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.     You are toast until the last dollars has been obtained from your savings and Federal and State funds.       

But for law enforcement enforcing the RULE OF LAW a person targeted for Guardianship loses all rights privileges and immunities in spite of the clear words of the 14th Amendment.      In the Foreclosure case, the Byline Bank is so certain that it has the ‘fix’ in that it filed a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.    A Motion for Summary Judgement can be granted only if there is no dispute fact issue to be determined.     Exactly how does the adjudication of Amy Sallas as a protected person disappear from the Court records of 07 P 5360?       A Court takes judicial notice of its own proceedings!      

I assume that the court proceeding as to BYLINE BANK vs. Amelia Sallas – a disabled person – will be presented on Zoom.    It is scheduled for early next month.       Please attend!    It will be highly educational.

Ken Ditkowsky.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

On Monday, April 26, 2021, 10:23:09 AM CDT, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

I’ve made it a practice from day one to not advance any funds for clients or friends without exception.   In the Sallas case Dean is a blast from the past.   He actually goes back to my childhood.   I’ve taken an interest in his case because what has happened to him COULD IN FACT HAPPEN to me.   It is frightening – including the turncoat nature of his children.   Indeed, such a situation is no longer uncommon and at the drop of hat one or more of your children can act irrationally and turn 180 degrees against his and your best interests.    (my grown children on Saturday turned up at my home at 6:00 A.M. with a brand new bicycle for me!    Yesterday my oldest daughter invited me to ride with her on a beautiful trail in Lake County.    At the very same the widow of one of my closest friends had to address a threat from a daughter to put her away in a guardianship.    The contrast was not lost on me.  
 My policy of no investment directly or indirectly in other people’s problems was not promulgated because I am cheap, but so that I remain as objective as possible and have no unbargained for pecuniary interest that might break my objectivity.   (That is not to say that I am always objective  because I am not – I just do not want any other factor interfering with my analysis of the situation – and have set the bar at zero – where it remains to this day.   Also by lending only moral support I alleviate the claim I am an advocate for one side or the other – I remain merely a friend.   The FIRST AMENDMENT reiterates that my right of association trumps any frivolous claim of a miscreant implemented in anti-social or criminal behavior as to my role.    Byline Bank certainly would like to strip Dean Sallas of his friends as they have done with his money!   
My relationship with Dean Sallas is that of friend to friend.   I am not his attorney = just his friend, and at my age I am not going back into the practice of law.   I do see Dean’s situation in the harsh light of CORRUPTION.    I practiced law for over 1/2 a century and until I ran across these elder cases (starting with Sykes) I really never saw the nadir of the legal profession or the corrupt bastards whose presence defames some very noble people.   my forced retirement came at the time of my life it was due.   
Yes, in my practice I saw the ‘fix’ occur and yes I had to deal with it, but, somehow even that was different.   The miscreants were not totally venal or vindictive.    The bad guys (Judges, lawyers, clients) were not arrogant about their clout or were they vindictive.   They also attempted to hide their perfidy – not try to justify it.    When I saw the dealing between ByLIne Bank and Boliker’s husband I was shocked:

I was taken aback.  Yes, I know that developers cannot afford to black list certain lenders and a judge’s spouse usually does not consult with the Judge as to whom, if anyone, he/she could do business; but, the actions of Bylne Bank in the Sallas case are beyond repugnant.   I doubt if any other Bank in Illinois has ever violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 knowingly.    And if they did, they did not compound the criminal act.    Byline Bank knew of Amy’s disability on day one because a year earlier as it appears in the record, the  Guardian did not keep his involvement a secret.     Maybe he was obtaining a finder’s fee for bringing his adjudicated ward’s business to Byline Bank.     Such an arrangement is not uncommon.    Quid pro quo in this predator business is the norm – not the exception.
Worse yet it is clearly apparent that the Byline Bank’s ethics are questionable.   There is hardly a soul who is not aware that DEAN SALLAS & AMY SALLAS for at least a decade have not engaged in an active commercial business venture.   They may have chosen previously to vest their savings in real estate, but it could no more be a commercial venture than my deceased mother in law’s account remains are a commercial venture.    The structure of the loan and the absurd penalty usury claimed in the foreclosure suit can be deemed NOT to be oppressive and predatory.    No volume of words can convince an honest trier of fact that Byline Bank’s conduct is not inequitable, unethical, wrong, elder abuse and worse.     
Thus, the number of related loans  – since the filing of the foreclosure action in Byline vs. Amy Sallas (a disabled person whose guardianship is being supervised by Judge Boliker) raises a dozen or so hurricane flags!     The failure of the Judge to even get excited by the revellation that the Guardian was unconcerned that his petitions before the Court in the Sallas case were misleading is beyond amazing.   It is akin to a confession of serious ******.
The Guardian’s actions in seizing total dominion over Sallas’ funds have rendered him insolvent.  He is living on his essentially his social security.   It is a pecuniary hardship for him to travel downtown to file documents with the Court.   This is exactly what the human traffickers operating in the Sallas case are counting on.
The long and the short of this e-mail is that the Elderly fighting the American Holocaust are losing a valuable voice in their Warsaw getto-like uprising against the corrupt political/judicial underworld that has launched an assault on the individual freedoms of the Elderly.   For a couple of dollars – I will break my fast rule and make a contribution to the cause of FREEDOM for the ELDERLY.
The Dean Sallas case is fast becoming Waterloo!   
   

Ken Ditkowsky

1 thought on “From KKD–a History of the Sallas’ Case

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s