From KKD: Judge Boliker has problems understanding Guardianship

From Ken Karl Ditkowsky:

It appears to me from the reports of today’s hearings that Judge Boliker has an extreme conflict of interest and in addition has a lack of understanding what her role is in these proceedings.     She is not a cheerleader, nor is she a party in the usual sense.      I quote from the Struck vs. Cook County Public Guardian 387 IllApp 3d 867

To the extent that James argues that the guardian’s decisions are causing harm to Janie, we note that the circuit court has a duty to protect a ward from such alleged harm.   In In re Mark W., 228 Ill.2d 365, 374-75, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15 (2008), our supreme court explained that an individual who has been adjudicated disabled under the Probate Act is viewed as “ ‘a favored person in the eyes of the law’ ” and is entitled to vigilant protection.   Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 374-75, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15, quoting In re Estate of Wellman, 174 Ill.2d 335, 348, 220 Ill.Dec. 360, 673 N.E.2d 272 (1996).   Our supreme court stated that once a person is adjudicated disabled, that person remains under the jurisdiction of the court, even when a plenary guardian of the person has been appointed.  Mark W., 228 Ill.2d. at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15.   The court therefore has “a duty to judicially interfere and protect the ward if the guardian is about to do anything that would cause harm.”  Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15.   To fulfill this duty, the court’s authority is not limited to express statutory terms.  Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15, citing In re Estate of Nelson, 250 Ill.App.3d 282, 287-88, 190 Ill.Dec. 212, 621 N.E.2d 81 (1993) (recognizing the authority of the circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem to investigate an allegation that a ward was neglected).   Our supreme court concluded that, in accordance with these principles, a circuit court has the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of a disabled individual even though that individual already had a plenary guardian of the person.  Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15.

Throughout the Guardianship proceedings Judge Boliker has ignored the overwhelming evidence of misbehavior on the part of Guardian – and in particular Charles P. Golbert.     The most recent evidence is today’s fiasco in which Dean Sallas petitioned the Court for funds – belonging to him – to be returned to him so that he can have food on the table, facility to participate in the hearings, money to provide for hazard insurance, taxes, closing and other necessities.      

In the usual situation it is possible to ‘dream up’ a rationalization for the Judge’s conduct, but, Judge  Boliker’s handling of her judicial duties is so below even the lowest standard for a judge every citizen has to speak out.     

The nadir of judicial competence was exposed in the Zoom hearing of July 28, 2020, as well as in today’s proceeding.      That hearing discloses that the Byline Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit against Amy Sallas, who was found to be a disabled adult in the case before Judge Boliker.  2007 P 5360.     The Byline Bank was not shy or secretive.    Indeed, in their pleadings in the case Byline Bank vs. Amy Sallas 2019 CH 13960 the Bank makes it very clear that on January 25, 2018 they solicited and obtain the signature of Amy Sallas on loan documents which were the subject of the foreclosure lawsuit.    The security for the loan was the marital home of Dean and Amy Sallas.

Under Illinois law it was event to the attorneys for the Byline Bank, the Attorneys for the Guardian, the Guardian, the Guardian ad litem, and the Judge (Judge Boliker) that Illinois while not a community property State was a MARITAL PROPERTY STATE.     What this meant was that any property brought into the marriage  – no matter how titled – was Marital property and each party to the marriage had an undivided interest therein.      All the attorneys and the judge were also aware of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and its remedial prohibition on persons – such as the Byline Bank – dealing with an adjudicated disabled person with a guardian appointed.

On this January 25, 2018, officers and agents of the Byline Bank intentionally violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and requested and obtained the signature of Amy Sallas on a loan contract.      In addition, they obtained as security for the loan contract the marital home of Amy and Dean Sallas.     755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is not complex, it states in one syllable words:

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

It is incomprehensible that the Guardian, Charles P. Golbert, his attorney, the Guardian ad litem, the attorneys for the Byline Bank, and/or Judge Boliker did not know that the case of BYLINE BANK vs AMY SALLAS  2019 CH 13960 was a lawsuit that not only was wrongfully filed, but was strong evidence of criminal activity.     Yet, on July 28, 2020, and thereafter Judge Boliker has ignored her responsibility to the disabled person (Amy Sallas).    Not only has she ignored her responsibility but knowing from the pleadings of the Byline Bank that her appointed Guardian was engaged in a pattern of fiduciary abuse of his ward and questionable candor in the Court appointed him as the Guardian of the person of Amy Sallas and did absolutely nothing to protect her interests, except patently deny Dean Sallas (Amy’s husband of more than half a century) his Constitutional Rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment.     Indeed, Judge Boliker was prepared to allow the Byline Bank to get away with prior FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE and now the criminal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.

Dean Sallas tried desperately to free his wife from the ‘elder cleansing/human trafficking in the elderly that befell her.    The record demonstrates a pattern of conduct on the part of the Court and the Guardians more akin to a Soviet or 3rd Reich courtroom than an American.     Dean and Amy were subjected to what amounted to unwanted, ultra vires, unintentional de facto DISSOLUTION of MARRIAGE.     Amy was abducted from her home, and ultimately placed in a nursing home.    Naturally Amy became infected with Covid.    Dean’s efforts to come to his wife’s aid were repulsed – HIPPA according to the Guardian prohibited him having any information as to his wife’s life-threatening illness, her treatment, her chance of recovery etc.    He could not even talk to her on the telephone!

The Judge’s statement on June 28, 2021, as to Dean’s alleged mistreatment of his wife was classic.    Without a hearing and without taking evidence how would the Judge know all she recited.   The fact was the diatribe was untrue.   By in Judge Boliker’s courtroom such an assertion is irrelevant.    Evidence in the sense that the Rules require is not required therein – the Judge made up her mind and does not wish to be bothered with the facts.     The foregoing statement normally would be considered harsh, but after Amy Sallas had demonstrated overtly that she was wrongfully incarcerated in the Guardianship an anonymous call was received by the Skokie Police Department.     The caller demanded a wellness check on Amy and reported that Amy was wandering aimlessly out in the snow in a less than appropriate dress.

The police responded, knocked on the front door of the Sallas residence and was greeted by none other than Amy Sallas (age 80) not only not walking in the snow but properly attired!        No matter!   The Guardian, and the Court would rather publish the fictional story as evidence of the need for Amy to be sequestered against her will in a nursing and being barred from communication with her husband of half a century.

Of course, the Guardian has without warrant of authority and in derogation of the 14th Amendment has taken complete dominion over the assets of both Dean and Amelia Sallas.   So brazen is the Guardian that one of his attorneys was overheard bragging that it would not be long before they would leave Dean penniless and homeless.       On July 28, 2020,  the transcript of proceedings reveals that not only is the Guardian is not contesting the wrongfully obtained loan contract and the foreclosure.     Judge Boliker disregarding her obligation to Amy Sallas is attorning.     Neither are concerned that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 makes the loan contract V O I D and bars enforcement against her E S T A T E!      As Amy’s estate is the security for the loan the foreclosure must be dismissed!

The loss of a half million-dollar asset does not bother either the Judge or the Guardian – Of course – why should it!   Nine million dollars in savings has disappeared due to the domination of the Guardian!

Yes,  a complaint has been filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Attorney General, the States Attorney and anyone who can be reached.   The response has been disappointing!   

Today, Dean Sallas made a simple motion – without funds he cannot prosecute his appeal.  He wants his funds released ordered released by the Court!      As there is no authority for the Guardian to touch a dime of his funds – he is asking simple relief.     “JUDGE – ORDER THE GUARDIAN TO GIVE ME BACK MY MONEY!”

Dean  has been advised (not by me) that his social security payment disqualifies him from an outright waiver of the cost of the appeal.   However, without funds for food, clothing, transportation, communication, and the litigation he is checkmated.     Hazard insurance for the home and car are luxuries, upkeep and maintance is out of the question and utilities are beyond the pale according to Judge Boliker and the Guardian!       As things stand today  DEAN SALLAS IS BEING DENIED HIS 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW and has petitioned to the Court to exercise her authority over the Guardian and require the Guardian to comport with the prohibition of Section 16-1 of the Criminal code and the 5th and 14th amendment.

You all witnessed the facade of today.    First, the access telephone number was unilaterally changed.   A new number was given out and then there was an attempt cull the number of witnesses.    The delay was outrageous.    Finally, when it was observed that some of the witnesses intended to wait till HELL froze over to observe what excuse Judge Boliker and/or her co-conspirators would take in an effort to deny basic CIVIL LIBERTIES to Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas – the ‘trump card’ was played – The Guardian did not receive a copy of the motion!     

Playing Solomon, Judge Boliker leaped to the Guardian’s side – she wanted the Guardian to have the opportunity to be heard and thus the case was continued to September 8, 2021, at 10:00 A.M.     As Dean actually served the Guardian and after the Guardian complained to the IARDC that Dean was not properly isolated from society, from time to time anticipating such a ploy when Dean sent me a copy of what he intended to file, I forwarded a copy to everyone in sight including the Guardian.    Dean’s motion was served on the Guardian about July 4.    I know – I was blind copied on the service – and as I was impressed by Dean’s efforts, I sent out a copy to everyone in sight – on the list was Lisa Casanova!    She is an attorney for the Guardian who controls who, if anyone can communicate with Amy![1]

I write this memo to place of record the fact that Amy Sallas’ life is in real danger!     We’ve all noted that sudden illnesses appear to elderly people who buck the system or have relatives who do so.     Dean Sallas at 84 is also at risk!    The guardian and the judge are well aware that the limitation of the 14th amendment codified in 755 ILCS 5/11 a – 3b has been wrongfully exceeded by Mr. Golbert.    The applicable provision of 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. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.[2]
(Source: P.A. 102-72, eff. 1-1-22.)

There is no authority given to the Guardian to:  1) isolate the victim from her prior life, 2) impoverish her, 3) provide her with an unauthorized ultra vires de facto dissolution of marriage, 4) compromise her rights etc.      There are certain no rights given in the statute for the Guardian to terrorize 3rd persons including the victim’s husband.

At stake here is America’s core values!      This Sallas case is a touchdown proceeding placing before our society the simple question, to wit:

Are we a legitimate CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY dedicated to the principles of honor, integrity and justice or are we a Banana republic or worse?       What happened in Judge Boliker’s courtroom today suggests we are on a path to being worse!     Shame on us – this malady and criminal behavior placed in the light of day have to be addressed.   It is up to LAW ENFORCEMENT to seize the moment and bring the miscreants to the Bar of Justice.

Time is of the essence!

Ken Ditkowsky


[1] It appears that exercising a FIRST AMENDMENT right and talking to old friends who happened to be targeted by the HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY (ELDER CLEANINGS) felonies is ethically challenged.      I understand that JoAnne Denison was contacted by the IARDC for practicing law while suspended because she helped Dean Sallas attend the Zoom hearing of July 28, 2020.      The Attorneys for Byline Bank appear to be very upset by Dean’s learning about 755 ILCS 5/11a -22.     An IARDC attorney contacted me and wished me to respond to her.   I did and found that she apparently did not wish to talk to me – I got back an e-mail rejection telling me I was blocked.

No one seems to be interested in the felony money laundering, wire fraud, mail fraud, financial elder abuse *****.   The concern appears to be the fact that Dean Sallas cannot be isolated and in light of his demonstration of being more knowledgeable in the Rule of Law than the Guardian and some of his attorneys – Dean cannot be elder cleansed!   

[2] This portion of the Statute, i.e. the order shall conform with Sections 11a – 12 ****  are interesting as without the Court in compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3a actually making findings of fact and law literally sends the Guardian out pursuant to Section 3b without adequate instructions  – and virtually flirting with ultra vires behavior.    Golbert as the Public Guardian of Cook County is well aware his actions toward Dean Sallas are not only wrongful but criminal.      His petition of February 15, 2018 heard by Judge Boliker was classic criminal contempt of Court.    Golbert neglected to advise the Court that there was no loan contract to negotiate or sign – Amy had signed the contract and 755 ILCs 5/11a – 22 has voided it.    Golbert had a duty to disclose this fact to the Judge – of course he did not.   He further did not disclose the fact that Amy had negotiated a better contract that he (the big expert) had.     His petition read literally suggested that everything was up in the air.    THEN there is the 4th page of the 3 page contract.     Why was this signature sheet signed by the Guardian?   Why did he sign with the usual exculpation?

Golbert was also silent concerning the fact that prior the Byline Bank was engaging in FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE.   Why would a 80 year old couple sign or qualify for a COMMERCIAL LOAN?     Why was the ordinary fixed term not applicable or the Reverse mortgage?      The only rationale was exploitation!    The Bank could garner more interest and pay higher commission.

Ken Ditkowsky

2 thoughts on “From KKD: Judge Boliker has problems understanding Guardianship

  1. My mother was executed by Shouna Boliker being only 5.5 months into guardianship . Court was a joke for us .My mother did not need guardian.

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