From KKD: Dean Sallas still mired in a cesspool created by the Cook County Office of Public Guardian

I hope you are on the latest list I sent out.    I’m forwarding the latest copy of Dean’s Motion to the ‘world!’    
It has been a long time since I read anything like Dean’s Motion.   reading it gave me regrets – I’d like to present it, but I’m retired and it is against the house rules here to even think about getting back in the game.    The rules do not prohibit me from standing on the sidelines with the ‘big kids!’     
Dean wrote a truism – no matter how you slice it or call it, on January 25, 2018 the Byline Bank made a HOME LOAN.    As a home loan by Federal Law certain disclosures had to be made.    THE BYLINE BANK did not do so, ergo *********
Couple the lack of disclosures with the mickey mouse antics contained in the Foster affidavit, the Guardian, Mr. Charles P. Golbert, ***** and Byline is toast.
There is another hidden reef that Byline walked into when it decided NOT TO PLAY the game straight the true.     Mr. Foster’s affidavit creates an unsatisfied deficiency judgment that Byline seeks to lie (and has tied in) to the judicial sale.   This judgment may or may not exist.   If it did it was included in the original principal balance of the home loan.    If it did not ******.    Either way Foster got the Byline in serious trouble.
If such an item existed independently or not so independently IT WAS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE A NON-CONFORMING LOAN and had to be reported as such.   Obviously it was not written off and no collections were instituted.
Filing inaccurate reports to the USA is not good banking practice.   Mr. Goster’s affidavit reports the filing of false financai reports to the FDIC etc.
The Petition is now being proofed and may be edited a bit – and then it will be filed.     I suspect that the Judge is honest and the Prayer will be granted.     As most of the necessary parties are named in the foreclosure suit I assume that the miscreants will want the foreclosure dismissed – however – the Byline Bank may enjoy pain.
(yes I suspect the can of worms from the 18th Floor of the Daley Center will have leaked over here and *******.)
The Motion is again reproduced:   

In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois –County Department,  Chancery Division

BY LINE BANK Plaintiff                                                                                        

Case number 2019 CH  13960    Cal 59

-vs-                                    

Amy Sallas,   et al                                                                          

   MOTION BY DEFENDANT DEAN SALLAS TO RECONSIDER ALL ORDERS ENTERED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021  AND OR LATER IN REFERENCE TO MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO DENY DISMISSAL OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO REFER THIS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, MOTION TO HOLD A JUDICIAL SALE AND MOTION BY DEAN SALLAS FROM COURT ASSISTANCE  PURSUANT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT THE DEFENDANT DEAN SALLAS IN UNDERSTANDING THE RATIONALE FOR THE COURT’S ORDERS OF SEPTEM BER 23, 2021 AND FOLLOWING, A REQUEST TO THIS COURT TO RENDER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Now comes Dean Sallas,  an 84-year-old senior citizen, who has had the Court appointed Guardian for his wife take dominion and control over his and his wife’s life savings and marital property and render him without funds and the ability to engage counsel pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act pro se[1] and states:Prefatory statementOn January 25, 2018, the plaintiff  Byline Bank induced the Petitioner Dean Sallas and his judicially determined to be disabled wife to come into the Bank and sign loan documents that the Bank represented to be necessary to be executed to defray an alleged balance due of  approximately $172,000 on their home mortgage.       The defendant and his judicially determined disabled wife signed at the request of the Byline Bank officers the documents that are attached to the plaintiff’s complaint as the first three pages of exhibit H.[2]    It appears the none of the required by law disclosure statements were furnished by the Byline Bank nor were Mr. and Mrs. Sallas provided copies of the documents that they signed.    That on February 15, 2018, the documents furnished by the Byline Bank in response to defendants Motion to Dismiss reveal that the Guardian (Mr. Charles P. Golbert ) appeared in the Circuit Court of Cook County in the case of IN RE; AMY SALLAS   07 P 5360  and sought permission to negotiate the renewal of the  prior loan of April 25, 2017, which became due and payable on January 24, 2018.   At the time the total loan balance was $173, 366.00.         What Mr. Golbert, the then Court appointed Guardian for defendant Amy Sallas,  did not inform the Circuit Court of was that1)     The then  total loan balance of $  173, 366.00 had been renegotiated on January 25, 2018, by Amy Salles, a judicially determined  disabled person and the Byline Bank.      2)     Mr. Golbert further appears to have not disclosed to the court in case 07 P 5360  that in re-executing the loan the disabled person and her husband had obtained  concessions in interest and amortization from the Byline Bank and/or that  the Byline Bank had violated  755 ILCS 5/11a – 22,  and Financial elder abuse laws enacted by the State of Illinois and the United States of America[3].       In particular, there appeared to be a history of the Byline Bank and the Guardian ignoring loan arrangements that were beneficial to the elderly couple and instead enhancing the pecuniary benefits of  the Byline Bank.     (The financial disclosure law violations were also not communicated to Judge Boliker) 3)     That in the default section under Death or insolvency section of the April 25, 2017, loan agreement signed by Dean Sallas and the Guardian it is noted that a Default occurs by“ The death of borrower or the dissolution or termination of the Borrower’s as going business  *****”N.B.   The very same clause appears on page 1 of the January 25, 2018, contract (exhibit H).       Golbert is believed to have kept secret that the Byline Bank was discriminating and openly taking advantage of this elderly couple saddling them with a Commercial loan rather than the usual  consumer loan arrangements used in common practice.The Byline Bank was fully aware on January 25, 2018, that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Sallas now in their 80’s was NOT engaged in any going business.     So was Mr. Golbert, the Guardian.     Inquiry as to what, if any documents were used to memorialize  this transaction in addition to the four pages disclosed as exhibit H attached to the complaint has never been disclosed.      The Mortgage complaint indicates that on January 25, 2018, only the first three pages of exhibit H were executed.It is uncontested by Byline Bank  that the documents signed by Mrs. Sallas on January 25, 2018, clearly violated a remedial statute designed to protect senior citizens, to wit:(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.)This Court in Granting Summary Judge to the Byline Bank and appears to have ignored this remedial statute and without further inquiry other than a self-serving affidavit accepted the outrageous charges claimed by the  Byline Bank  for penalty interest, late fee penalties, interest, deficiency judgments not mentioned in the loan contracts, costs and attorney fees  that appear to increase the Balance due at the time of the claimed default to a claimed balance due almost 100% greater in Amount of the principal sum that but for the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 would have been due had the Byline Bank and its alleged co-conspirator acted properly.   .     It appears that this Courted  ignored Consumer laws enacted to protect debtors from over-reaching by creditors and the fact that during this period to time the United States of America suffered the Covid 19  pandemic.      Good conscience should not singularly punish Dean Sallas for the chaos that closed the Courts and prevented and prevents his enjoying his 14th Amendment Constitutional Rights.It is respectfully suggested that the Byline Bank apparently with the inappropriate attornment of this Court used the medical emergency and pandemic for its own unjust enrichment and to take pecuniary advantage of a disabled person and her elderly husband[4].      A Court of Chancery historically does Equity and requires the same from the litigants that appear before it.      The orders entered by this Court on September 23, 2021, obviate the proud tradition of the Chancery Court. In its foreclosure complaint 2019 CH 13960 entitled BYLINE BANK vs. AMY SALLAS  the  Byline Bank  unilaterally admits its history of predation of the elderly.    The foreclosure pleading and the exhibits attached  disclosures a pattern of financial exploitation of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas by it attorned and/or participated in by the Court appointed guardian for years.      The plaintiff Byline Bank was fully aware that Mr. and Mrs. Sallas had no business enterprise viable, yet their loan was couched as a COMMERCIAL LOAN.      This fact alone should have alerted the Court to some impropriety on the part of the Byline Bank.    The statutory prohibition on contractors dealing with disabled people is proudly disclosed by Byline to have been arrogantly ignored.         Byline  attaches to the complaint   as exhibit h it attaches the 3-page contract signed in derogation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22  and a page 4 = being a second signature page signed only by the Guardian but having a signature line for Dean Sallas.        This contract as security claimed the home of Dean and Amy Sallas ignoring the words:(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.

.       It should be observed  that under Illinois Law,  this security (i.e., the home of  Mr. and Mrs. Sallas) is marital property even if held under some other title arrangement.    This property is part of the estate of Amy Sallas  as it was acquired during the marriage.      As the security is clearly the “ESTATE OF AMY SALLAS”   as a matter of law this complaint for foreclosure has to be dismissed.        Amy Sallas is a necessary party to this litigation and her estate is used as collateral.     As this fact is uncontested the Foreclosure lawsuit cannot proceed and must be dismissed.As the words of the statute (755 ILCS 5/11a – 22) are precise and the statute is remedial this Court as a matter of law must honor the Statutory words.      As this court has ignored the mandate of this remedial statute the litigants are entitled to be informed on what basis this Court ignores the plain words of the Statute.       The litigants are entitled to know the basis of this Chancery Court ignoring the legislative mandate.       For instance, does this Court find 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22  sua sponde unconstitutional or find some words and phrases in the statute not disclosed in the statute book exempting the Byline Bank?    It is common fairness that requires disclosure.The Statute (section 22) does not release Dean Sallas from the alleged  loan obligation; however, the extraordinary circumstances i.e.  the failure of the Byline Bank to hold Mr. Golbert accountable for the loan obligation and the criminal action of the Byline Bank in addition to the release of the liability of Amy Sallas provide a very strong argument (not decided by the Court) that Dean Sallas’ contract of liability has been so compromised by the actions of the Byline Bank that he too has been released.     That question at this time is not before this Court but would be raised in the normal course of litigation BUT FOR the erroneous grant of Summary Judgment.The question is exasperated  by the fact Byline Bank is exposed to have engineered this transaction as Commercial when it clearly it is not and appears to have failed to comply or comport with all the required Consumer Protection disclosures.       The unilateral characterization of a home loan transaction as a commercial loan by a lender does not abrogate the Consumer protections that all consumers are entitled.     It is respectfully suggested that casting this garden variety home loan transaction as  commercial raises a red flag suggesting wrongful conduct.   It is respectfully suggested that by itself the unusual characterization demands an investigation as to whether or not Byline Bank openly and notorious engaged in Financial elder abuse and a form of Consumer fraud.        This red flag is buttressed by the exaggeration by Byline’s Bank ‘s counsel as to the attorney fees he sought, and the outrageous calculation of interest and the loan balance.          (NB      The loan transaction revealed is designed as a COMMERCIAL LOAN, not the usual fixed low interest home loan that was garden variety in the industry, but the legal and functional equivalent  of a ‘outfit’ elevated risk juice loan  )    Clearly this ½ million-dollar luxury home in Skokie with a large equity was not a high-risk commercial venture requiring a procrustean loan[5] arrangement.     Findings of fact and conclusions of law are required so as to disclose to all how the deceptive action and its accompanying discriminatory interest (usury )   does not raise an issue of FINANCIAL  elder abuse or a violation of elderly and consumer protection laws that would require sanctions to imposed upon the Byline Bank appropriate to its perfidy.The usual fixed rate home loan charging interest over a long-term amortization period or the generous REVERSE MORTGAGE loan was not offered (or claimed by the Byline Bank to be offered).      Instead, it is revealed that a frighted adjudicated disabled person was induced to sign documents by the Byline Bank in direct violation of a remedial protective Statute.   It cannot be emphasized  enough that this Bank knew by its own admission that Amy Sallas was a protected person.     Yet on January 25, 2018, it sought and obtained Amy Sallas’  signature on a document that was replete with  procrustean Commercial clauses.  Significantly these clauses were part of the loan package[6]  previously negotiated by the Guardian and were  retained in the January 25, 2018, contract offered by the Byline Bank to Mr. and Mrs. Sallas. [7]    (The prior loan agreement of April 25, 2017,  had a disclosed principal balance of $183,499,83 and required the period payment of $2,154.80 with a first payment on May 25, 2017, and a final payment on January 25, 2018.  See exhibit G).     Another suspicious matter is disclosed in the judgment based upon the no personal knowledge affidavit of Robert Wilson.       Suddenly there appears a decade late a deficiency judgement allegedly unsatisfied against Dean Sallas.      Ten years late this Judgment is recorded however,  clandestinely it appears in this litigation.      Indeed, no mention is made of any deficiency judgment being carried forward in said contract  (exhibit H) or the prior contract exhibit G.      Of course, there are no disclosure statements in the record.     In fact,    it is respectfully suggested that if such a judgment in fact existed it was merged into the claim represented by the void contract (exhibit H) and discharged.  Consumers are entitled to disclosure statements to prevent exactly the conduct exhibited by Mr. Wilson’s  no personal knowledge affidavit.      A finding of fact and conclusion of law is necessary to disclose how a previously unmentioned claim got included in the foreclosure proceeding  and how Byline Bank is exempt from Consumer Protection disclosure laws. On  January 25, 2018, it is uncontested that both Dean Sallas and Amy Sallas signed exhibit H[8].       On February 15, 2018   (according to the revelations of the Byline Bank in the discussion of Sallas’ Motion to Dismiss ) the Guardian, Mr. Charles P. Golbert,  represented to the Circuit Court in case 07 P 5360 that the averred debt represented by page 1-3 of exhibit H , required  negotiation by he, as guardian.        Thus,  it appears that page 4 of exhibit H had to be executed after January 25, 2018.       The Guardian’s lack of candor  – disclosed and attorned to  by the Byline Bank – needs explanation.    Certainly, the Guardian’s and the Byline’s Bank’s apparent misconduct should not benefit the Byline Bank to the detriment of both the ward of the Guardian and her husband.      This Court cannot as a matter of law be party to the orchestrated deception evidence by the February 15, 2018, proceedings.      If there was NO VIOLATION of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 there was no rationale for page 4 to Exhibit H and the signature line for Dean Sallas’ signature.       If 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 says what the remedial statute appears to say, the conduct of both Byline Bank and the Guardian is explained as clearly wrongful and in the case of the Byline Bank – criminal.       This Court of equity has a duty to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to clarify its refusal to address what appears to be a serious Fraud occurring in its presence.    It should also supply findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain how its  attorns to  the obvious financial elder abuse occasioned by a high interest predatory commercial loan.The Guardian appointed by the Court in case 07 P 5360 co—operated with and participated in the wrongful financial elder abuse by unilaterally forcing the defendant and his ward’s estate – that he managed as a fiduciary – to tolerate such financial elder abuse as is disclosed in these proceedings.      Exhibit H suggests some heretofore undisclosed wrongful alliance between the Byline Bank and the Guardian.   Page 4 of exhibit H is attached to the complaint.     This document (page 4)  was signed by the Guardian for some unexplained reason[9]  even though  it was totally un-necessary if 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is ruled to be inapplicable, unconstitutional, etc.     However, it is also apparent that if Dean Sallas could be induced to sign page 4, page 3 could disappear and any violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 would similarly disappear.   While it is improper to assume that the Guardian, the Bank, or anyone else will commit a FRAUD, the specter is clearly raised by the failure of the Guardian to inform the Court in case 07 P5360 accurately and with integrity the true state of affairs as it related to his ward.       Since the Guardian was so lacking in candor and integrity it is not outrageous to believe that the current page 3 of exhibit H  would disappear from the written record if Dean Sallas could have been induced to sign page 4 of exhibit H.    – all that had to be done was substitute page 4 for the current page 3.         Interestingly enough Dean Sallas was NOT provided with copies of the document he and his wife signed as required by law.    (The Byline Bank does not appear to claim that it ever provided copies of the documents it required signed to its loan customers .)[10]The Guardian for a period of months, knowing that the execution of any contract by a disabled person was a crime and knowing that the statute made the criminal act’s occurrence void the contract as to the disabled person and her property made payments on the void loan to the Byline Bank.      When it became clear that Dean Sallas was not going to be intimidated into signing page 4 of exhibit H, the Guardian stopped making payment on the void loan and the Byline Bank foreclosed.     As a matter of law, if 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 has meaning the Byline Bank and the Guardian, Mr. Golbert must account for said payment.Candidly, the Foreclosure action herein is  in character with the predatory loan arrangement and the growing scandal of Guardianship fraud and the Felonies of Elder Cleansing.      The Byline Bank claimed attorney fees of $40,000.00 and interest and other expenses in the aggregate over $150,000.00 (see page    of the judgment of foreclosure)[11]     The balance claimed to be due on the date of default was $    $152, 457  (see page 6 of the foreclosure judgment) and  at the drop of a questionable set of material representations of fact authored by the Byline Bank  increased to  $   370, 763.52 (page 7)  This admission of a predatory loan to a senior citizen apparently has been ignored by this Court, but it is the very definition of Abusive loan practices and felony Financial Elder Abuse.   Interestingly enough,  even though on page 4 of exhibit H attached to the complaint the Byline Bank had the signature of Mr. Golbert,  no judgment was sought against the Guardian, Mr. Golbert.   The total onus of the foreclosure was directed at Dean Sallas[12].    Mr. Sallas, the husband of Amy Sallas for more than 50 years is the sole obstacle to her ‘elder cleansing!’Dean Sallas, after finally being served with summons filed a MOTION TO DISMISS and refer this matter to LAW ENFORCMENT.     The Byline Bank in response filed a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.       This court heard the Motions on September 23, 2021, denied the defendant’s motions, and granted Summary Judgment.DiscussionThe granting of a Motion for Summary Judge is a serious matter.     It states that examining all the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party that there are no triable fact issues.       All the fact issues must therefore be determined by this Court prior to granting SUMMARY JUDGMENT to be in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant with such complete certainty so as allow the Court to determine that indeed any objection to the claim, the amount of the claim, setoffs, counterclaims, cross complaints etc. would all be frivolous.      It is absolutely clear that the burden has not been met and the grant of Summary Judgment herein cannot be sustained.The effect of the grant of Summary Judgment in addition to depriving Dean Sallas of his day in Court, but to deprive him of discovery and the ability to ascertain just how inappropriate the non-personal knowledge ad hoc affidavit of Mr. Wilson might be.   It is clear that By-Line Bank is careful not to disclose the fact that it failed to provide the disclosures required by remedial Federal and State mortgage disclosure legislation or allow him to investigate the highly suspect relationships that have been disclosed from his sundry inquires.      Indeed, the record is replete with serious suggestions of bad behavior by the Byline Bank; however, the Grant of  Summary Judgment forecloses discovery and suggests that Byline Bank’s position is so meritorious and conclusive that Sallas’ further discovery and claims are frivolous.       Such a proposition cannot be sustained.     Demand is made for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law demonstrating the validity of the proposition.     Without such findings of fact and conclusions of law it is suggested that Dean Sallas’ 14th Amendment Rights have been violated. It is respectfully submitted and advanced  by this motion that the  Motion for Summary Judge fails not only because the Byline Bank cannot explain it violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and or its apparent violations of disclosure requirements applicable to all consumer loans, but because its documents, its claims, and calculations  do not make sense when examined.1.       Exhibit G as an example discloses the loan balance as $ $184, 000 .     There is no mention in the documents of any other specific loans or specific obligations that Mr. and Mrs. Sallas  might directly or indirectly be indebted to the Byline Bank.        Indeed, there is no mention of any  deficiency from prior loans relating to Dean Sallas or any other person until in his no personal knowledge affidavit Mr. Wilson invents as ten years plus deficiency judgment that no apparent effort was made to address by either the plaintiff or Dean Sallas.       This is the same Byline Bank wherein the attorneys submitted a claim for $40,000 in attorney fees expenditures.     In 2017 the Byline Bank was squeezing out the last dollar from Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and could manage a balance to be paid of $184,000.       No mention was made of any other claims.    Thus, Dean Sallas and the Guardian for Mrs. Sallas signed exhibit G.      It should be noted that Amy Sallas did not sign the loan documents.    2.        In particular,  Exhibit H discloses the loan balance as $173,000.00    (Again there is no mention in the documents of any loans, deficiencies etc. from alleged  prior loans) as of January 25, 2018.     The very same form loan document is used.      Amy Sallas had Mr. Golbert as her plenary guardian, and nothing had changed from the execution of exhibit G.      Of course, it appears that the Byline Bank did not make the required Consumer Protection disclosures and ignored 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.In granting its SUMMARY JUDGMENT this Court accepts the  Byline Bank the prior undisclosed claimed deficiency judgment as gospel .        It does not even require Mr. Wilson in his affidavit to aver facts that would support the factual conclusion or the explanation as to why for a about a decade  of loan transactions Byline Bank failed to disclose the claimed deficiency judgment and had not in instance one consolidated into this loan all claimed obligations.     (NB.   There is a logical reason that would indicate why the loan was characterized as a commercial loan.     The loan may have in fact been commercial when promulgated.    It may have been the liquidation of the claimed deficiency judgment.      The Guardian had taken unauthorized control over all the marital assets of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas and Dean was left financially embarrassed.    In an effort to gain control and refinance that obligations of Mr. Sallas’ savings, Sallas filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceeding and tried to reduce his non-conforming assets – refinancing the deficiency judgments etc. into manageable loan payments.     The plan failed ***** leaving Sallas with the residual to address  –  the particular loan may be such a residual.       Mr. Wilson in his declaration of facts does not claim to have any knowledge – but this Court accepted his speculation without a scintilla of proof.) The lack of disclosure and the lack of inclusion of other claims due from a prior decade suggests that there was no prior balance existed that had not been resolved        No explanation is given for the highly unusual carry forward of a deficiency judgment against a non-commercial customer who had lived for more years than the average life expectancy for men his ethnicity and profession.        I reiterate, the  affidavit of Mr. Wilson is supporting the Motion for Summary Judgment is silent as to the history of this transaction and it is questionable if the deposition of the affiant would disclose any relevant information    to cure the deficiency.      As the burden of proof is on the Byline Bank, no evidence does not equate to the granting of Summary Judgment in this matter and the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest charges.      Such action by this Court is unfair and an abuse.      It must be reversed.The contract dated January 25, 2018, signed by Amelia Sallas and Dean Sallas is titled CHANGE OF TERMS AGREEMENT and makes no mention of any prior deficiency judgment but discloses a $173,000 balance due as of the date of signing.      The Payoff Statement of the Byline Bank  dated Feb 12. 2-21 discloses a principal balance of $152, 457.    It then claims interest, default interest, late charges, legal fees, negative escrow, and even a file closing fee.     No mention is made of the additional claim invented in Mr. Wilson’s non-personal knowledge affidavit.The Best-case scenario ignoring the CRIMINAL ACTION OF THE BYLINE BANK in reference to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 would suggest that the real balance that was owed the Byline Bank is something less than $152, 457.       The payments made by the Guardian are in breach of his fiduciary responsibility and wrongful.     The Byline Bank – if in good faith (which it is clearly not) – is not entitled to be paid for the criminal act of violating 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and possibly the Mail and Wire Fraud Federal Statutes.Adding to the argument that Summary Judgement is not appropriate in this case,  Dean Sallas wishes to point out that the Summary Judgment affidavits provided by the Byline Bank are silent as to why for years this now claimed loan balance was NOT included in the loan arrangement.      The failure of the Byline Bank along with its augmentation of interest charges, attorney fees and other costs suggests a serious Fraud is being perpetrated by the Byline Bank in these very proceedings.       The declaration of facts of Mr. Wilson does not suggest that the Byline Bank made any of the mandatory disclosures required by law, nor does the Bank in its presentation.       The Byline Bank expects this Court to rubber stamp any proposition that it puts forth and the said Byline Bank is not shy in making such a demand.        Sallas asserts that this Court in honoring such a request would dishonor itself and defeat his and his wife’s rights pursuant to the ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION and the 14th Amendment to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.There is a valid reason that the RULE OF LAW imposes requirement so complete disclosure on Consumer lending and on Banks doing residential lending.    IT IS TO PREVENT EXACTLY WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THIS INSTANT  MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CASE.         The Congress and the Illinois legislature recognized that the Byline Bank could make loans to the spouse of the Judge who appointed the Guardian,  having covert transactions with the Guardian, obtain affidavits couched to provide information that may or may not be accurate and spend thousands of dollars on Attorney Fees to unbalance the field of Justice.      Congress and the Illinois Legislature made prior disclosures the Law in attempt to give the citizen borrower a level playing field.    It is respectfully submitted that the grant of Summary Judgment herein defeats decades of the Rule of Law.       In fact, the fraud suggested in light of the strict requirements for disclosure imposed on consumer lenders mandates a comprehensive investigation of the Byline Bank and a referral to Banking authorities of the Bank so as to protect the public.To reiterate  – Disclosure is the keystone of the modern consumer transaction – such may be inconvenient to Byline Bank, but neither the Rule of Law nor regulation excepts them from CONSUMER PROTECTION.         Indeed,  secret loan obligations are interesting but frowned upon.    IF  Dean Sallas in fact owed any old mortgage obligation to the  Byline Bank it should have been/would have been  disclosed and mentioned in exhibit G  and/or  in exhibit H.        Criminal Conduct by Banking institutions cannot be tolerated.       755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is as straightforward a remedial statute as can be drafted.       The words are clearly intended to lay out a blanket protection for disabled people and prevent exactly the type of misconduct that is the subject of this mortgage foreclosure.       The Grant of Summary Judgement does not specify any basis for the Court to ignore the terms of the statute, to wit:(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.)This Court states no reason for not applying this remedial statute.        There is no doubt that the Byline Bank had Amy Sallas signed exhibit h.      There is no doubt that Amy Sallas did not sign exhibit g, but her guardian did.      There is no doubt that Amy Sallas is a necessary party to this foreclosure action and her and Dean Sallas’ marital home is part of Amy’s estate (Marital Property) and no subject to any collection effort.      It therefore follows logically that the court must dismiss the foreclosure action whether or not Amy’s Guardian approves or not.      In fact, it is suggested his lack of approval and a MOTION to dismiss this Mortgage foreclosure action is a clear BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP that is so obnoxious as to require a referral to law enforcement.Most troubling in  lay terms the granting of the Motion says that the willful violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, the Guardian’s clear failure to inform the Court of the criminal act of the Byline Bank (as well as the possible violations of Federal law, and elder protection acts) were not only meaningless but irrelevant.       Mr. Golbert (the Guardian) is a lawyer and pursuant to Himmel  he has an ethical duty to report the over -reach and wrongful conduct occurring herein by the attempted profiteering ******.  It is respectfully submitted  that onerous and highly suspect charges for interest and attorney fees doubling the amount claimed by the Byline Bank to be due are clearly wrongful conduct that cannot be tolerated or condoned.     Indeed, the grant of Summary Judgment says that Financial Elder Abuse is perfectly acceptable even though laws barring the same are being enacted across America on a daily manner.    In particular, overcharging a preying on the elderly are par for the course and A Guardian who overtly and openly violates his fiduciary relationship to his client is so commonplace that a Court of Equity lauds such conduct.[13]        Findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary to explain just how this situation could be attorned to in Illinois in light of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and in particular Article 1 section 12.[14]The foregoing notwithstanding,    the terms of this loan should not be lost on this Court.      They are abusive and the cost of this loan far exceeds any offered by the lending competition.        This situation is not mitigated by  Mr. Golbert, (Amy Sallas’ guardian) being complicit in predatory and financially abusive loans that were made herein.      This Court also does not cover itself with glory when it  denies the Defendant’s  Motions in this Court and suggests that Mr. Salles raise the issue in the Probate Division.        Indeed, the Court had to note that Mr. Golbert filed no defense to the mortgage foreclosure and did not raise a word of protest to the fact that:1)     the Byline Bank was dealing directly with a judicially determined disabled person and having her sign documents that lost her home.2)     That the Bank by definition was committing illegal financial elder abuse against both Mr. Golbert’s ward but her 84-year-old husband3)     The violation of Federal and State Statutes.   Including but not limited to 755 ILL 5/11a – 22,   the Care Act, the ElderJustice Act, Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud etc. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY Summary Judgement is rarely granted, not because it is not requested, but because it forecloses the defendant having his day in Court and says that taking all the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant has no defense.     The finding foreclosures the defendant from enjoying discovery of facts that might address the amount of the alleged debt and even its validity.      The defendant is thus denied discovery, investigation, and the right to contest tens of thousands of dollars of charges claimed by the Byline Bank for interest and attorney fees.       Herein that actions of the Byline Bank were so obnoxious and ethically challenged that  sua sponde this Court reduced that Byline Bank’s attorney fees by about 30%.      It is respectfully submitted that the court in recognizing a gross overcharge in the Byline Bank’s attorney fees and the outrageous sums of interest charged during the pandemic to this elderly couple – only findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court can explain just how these over-charges (and or discriminatory charges) do not obviate any claim for Summary Judgment.   This case is not the usual run of the mill foreclosure case.        It is a graphic illustration of corruption and contempt for the Rule of law exhibited by a Court appointed Guardian and a predatory lending institution.      It is an acknowledgment of contempt by the Court appointed Guardian and the Byline Bank for the Rule of Law. It is no secret  that the Byline Bank is not going to pay their attorneys $40,000.00 in this foreclosure case and it is almost certain that it will not pay its attorneys  $26,000.00 for a routine foreclosure in which no testimony was taken and most of the expertise claimed either would qualify for a Nobel Prize in fiction or at best were routine office expenses that were included in the dollars charged per hour.     It does not appear from the docket that the Byline Bank’s attorneys have filed with the clerk of the Court their retainer contract.    Such information is necessary to ascertain how much, if any sum would be paid to the said attorneys.     As the contract has not been filed, it would not be unreasonable as part of discovery by plaintiff to request the attorney contract actually signed by the Byline Bank and their attorney and ascertain just how much of the claimed fee the law firm will receive.     The statute allows the creditor to obtain reimbursement of its legitimate costs – not obtain a windfall from the unfortunate victimized elder alleged debtor.This instant case is a quagmire.       The corruption disclosed in lay terms ‘covers the waterfront!’ and cannot be ignored.       For instance, it was reported by journalist Janet Phelan that Judge Boliker’s husband had a financial relationship with the Byline Bank.      Did this relationship have any relevance as to the actions of the Guardian in not contesting the abusive and predatory loan arrangement revealed in the exhibits attached to the complaint herein?    Only ‘discovery’ would reveal whether this previously undisclosed conflict of interest clarifies the Guardian’s abandonment of Amy Sallas’ ½ million-dollar home in Skokie, Illinois.      Only findings of fact and conclusions of law can clarify why suspected Judicial corruption exhibited by the Guardian is not relevant to the rights of Dean Sallas.       A cross complaint or counterclaim might be disclosed that obviates or substantially reduces the damages to which the Byline Bank might be entitled.      Why Dean Sallas is denied said opportunity to obtain Justice can only be explained by this Court making findings of fact and conclusions of law.  It is respectfully suggested that this situation is a clear violation of Mr. Sallas’ FIRST, FIFTH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS protected by the Constitution.     Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law are necessary to explain how during the Covid 19 pandemic such seemingly obscene interest charges are reasonable and how such charges do not signal prohibited FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE.     If I am reading the judgment order correctly the claimed amount has grown to $370, 763.52 from a little over $152,000 on February 12, 2021.    (See payoff letter from the Byline Bank).   I am told that it is not uncommon for Attorneys for a defendant in any suit to evaluate the complaint with a Motion to Dismiss.     I am entitled to know why I was not so allowed but subject to a premature Motion for Summary Judgment that virtually ignores the protections that Congress, and the Legislature have enacted to protect people like me – Dean Sallas.     Why is the clear 30% overcharge in attorney fees not an abuse lending practice that bars collection under the FAIR DEBT COLELCTION ACT in force in IllinoisWhy is the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22  held invalid when the clear words and phrases of the act not only void as to Amy Sallas the loan agreement contact, but is deemed a crime and void against Amy and her estate?       As the Estate is the security for the loan how can it be foreclosed?Why are the Federal and State ELDER PROTECTION ACTS not honored by this Court?     I am certainly entitled to know why this Court approves of the Guardian and the Byline Bank imposing on Amy and me a predatory commercial loan with its procrustean clauses, confiscatory interest charges?    Findings of fact will elucidate how I, aged eighty-four and my wife aged eighty can be discriminated against by being forced into loan arrangements that have terms that are onerous and clearly are FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE.PRAYER FOR RELIEFWherefore I, Dean Sallas  pray that this Court reverse it finding granting Summary Judgment to Byline Bank and the mandatory finding that taking the facts of this case in the light most favorable to me, Dean Sallas, that I have no possible remedy to contest the admitted action of the BYLINE BANK,      Indeed I, Dean Sallas,  seeking reversal of the implied finding that I have no recognized claim for Justice even though the acts of the Byline Bank  clearly admits to violating  755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and possibly other Federal and State Civil and Criminal Statutes that are designed to protect the elderly from predators and Financial Elder Abuse.    I seek by this motion relief from the ruling that I have no right to or basis of seeking judicial discovery or complaining of interest charges and attorney fees charges claimed by the Byline Bank that approximately double the claimed balance due on a Commercial loan granted to an 80-year-old couple[15].     I seek my 14th Amendment Rights and the right to require the Standard of decency, and integrity be required of the Byline Bank and I and my wife be afforded protection from the obviously predatory actions of the Byline Bank[16].     As a citizen/DEFENDANT  I am entitled to a full disclosure of the unexplained clear breach of fiduciary relationship promulgated by the Guardian Charles P. Golbert in not raising the remedial statute enacted by Illinois to protect his ward and her property (which is the security for this foreclosure action), the Byline Bank’s reported dealings with the husband of the Judge in the Disabled person’s Guardianship proceedings, the (hopefully)  unusual proceedings of February 15, 2018 disclosed by the Byline Bank,Most importantly, I seek this Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law disclosing to me and the public the Court basis for finding that I am to be foreclosed from discovery, the right to file a counterclaim and/or cross complaint herein, and the Consumer and elder citizen protections afforded to all Citizens of the United States of America pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.Respectfully submitted, 
[1] I must apologize.    As a lay person these documents are unfamiliar to me and I have a problem with designation.     Sometimes I refer to me as DEAN SALLAS and from time to time I revert to personal pronouns.     I do not have an attorney to represent me in these proceedings because the Guardian has taken control over my money and has impoverished me.    I literally have no money and no cash flow other then my social security.    I’ve filed a petition in the Guardianship Court to free myself of the Guardian’s dominion over me and to gain control of my vested property.     I live under unacceptable terms.     My wife of more than 50 years has been separated from me so effectively that communication between us  – even on the telephone = is barred and I am so impotent in presenting my grievances that I have no remedy as well as no financial means to obtain an an attorney or relief.    [2][3] Mr. Golbert did not inform the Court of the re-execution of the loan documents by Dean Sallas, or the signing of the new loan contract by Amy Sallas, the disabled person.     In addition, while the Court and counsel are presumed to know the law, Mr. Golbert had a duty to inform the Court of the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22  – but he did not.     The Byline Bank attempting to use this FRAUD ON THE COURT as a defense to the section 22 sanction and criminal designation is a clear message of its perfidy and unclean hands.[4] The Court and counsel in designing the orders herein to make it appear that the onus of this foreclosure is solely on Dean Sallas, the protected assets of Amy Sallas and Dean Sallas are all under Illinois Law ‘marital property’ and her interest in the life savings of the couple are also forfeit if the Byline Bank is able to obviate the penalty of section 22..[5] The Motion for Summary Judgment  – even in pro se cases – does not require the Court to live in a bubble or to be ignorant of the ‘facts of life!’      Home mortgage rates in 2018 were exceptionally low and loans such as this loan premium especially when the security was a luxury home in a upscale section of a Chicago suburb.     Dean Sallas’ independence from the Guardian was severely compromised by the Guardian and his control of his marital property interests under attack.   [6] In 2018 interest rates tanked.    It was reported that negative interest rates were in the offing and home mortgage rates charged by legitimate Banking institutions were as low on home loans as 2, 3, and 4 percent.     The interest was not enhanced by additional ‘loan charges.’     The Commercial loan of the type Dean and Amy were forced to address had a short amortization schedule and was designed to enhance the interest charge for the high risk commercial borrower.       The United States of America to prevent exactly the travesty that is revealed in this case 2019 CH 13960 further authorized its lenders to sell a REVERSE MORTGAGE.      An elderly couple could access the equity in their home without the drain of monthly payments.    Of course such a financial windfall was not offered to Mr. and Mrs. Sallas.      The vehicle disclosed as exhibit H instead provided the Bank with the full pecuniary benefits of the Covid 19 pandemic.      In its findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court can explain why such discrimination is appropriate.[7]  Assuming that there was some legitimate reason for the Guardian to sign a 2nd signature page in blank in connection with this loan arrangement, and for the Byline Bank to apparently seek a remedy only against Dean Sallas, it is basic that Dean Sallas should have a right to after he tested the Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss would have a right to seek contribution in this proceeding from the Guardian and damages from the Byline Bank for the failure to provide copies of the documents signed, notices required by law, and credits, if any, that Dean Sallas might be entitled.     Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law are necessary to disclose why such a rights would be denied.      It should be noted that if the Guardian indeed did not commit a breach of his fiduciary relationship in connection with the execution of this loan arrangement and the payment of loan payments on this void loan  the security interest that collateralizes this loan arrangement was protected by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.     Findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary to clarify this situation.[8] Amy signing exhibit H was a violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 ipso facto.    Such signing was a criminal act on the part of the Byline Bank, and by statute her signature voided the obligation and prevented enforcement of the loan and attempts to access the security for the loan.     Amy Sallas is a necessary party to this foreclosure action and the remedial penalty of section 22 not only bars collection against her but her property.   As the property is security for the loan this foreclosure cannot proceed.    Amy is a necessary party for this foreclosure to be successful.   As she cannot be a party to this foreclosure suit, the foreclosure must be dismissed.     The court by its findings of fact and conclusions of law must explain how it can grant Summary Judgment to the Byline Bank and dismiss as required by statute Amy Sallas.    (The Court did not dismiss Amy Sallas!)[9] The signature on page 4 does not bear the usual exculpation clause that representatives usually attach.[10] § 618.8325 Disclosure of loan documents.(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:(1) Borrower means any signatory to a loan contract who is either primarily or secondarily liable on such contract, including guarantors, endorsers, cosigners or the like.(2) Execution of the loan means the time at which the borrower and the qualified lender have entered into a legal, binding, and enforceable loan contract and any subsequent amendment or modification of such contract.(3) Loan means a loan made to a farmer, rancher, or producer or harvester of aquatic products, for any agricultural or aquatic purpose and other credit needs of the borrower, including financing for basic processing and marketing directly related to the borrower’s operations and those of other eligible farmers, ranchers, and producers or harvesters of aquatic products.(4) Loan contract means any written agreement under which a qualified lender lends or agrees to lend funds to a borrower in consideration for, among other things, the borrower’s promise to repay the loaned funds at an agreed-upon rate of interest.(5) Loan document means any form, application, agreement, contract, instrument, or other writing to which a borrower affixes his signature or seal and which the qualified lender intends to retain in its files as evidence relating to the loan contract entered into between it and the borrower, but shall not include any document related to a loan which the borrower has not signed.(6) Qualified lender means:(i) A System institution that makes loans (as defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section) except a bank for cooperatives; and(ii) Each bank, institution, corporation, company, union, and association described in section 1.7(b)(1)(B) of the Act, but only with respect to loans discounted or pledged under section 1.7(b)(1) of the Act.(b) Each qualified lender shall provide a copy of all loan documents to the borrower or the borrower’s legal representative at the execution of the loan. Subsequently, upon written request of a borrower or a borrower’s legal representative, a qualified lender shall provide, as soon as practicable, a copy of any loan documents signed by the borrower, a copy of other documents delivered by such borrower to that qualified lender, and a copy of each collateral evaluation of the borrower’s assets made or used by the qualified lender. To the extent that a collateral evaluation may contain confidential third party information, the lender may protect such confidential third party information by withholding any information that would disclose identifying characteristics of the third party or his property. One copy shall be furnished free of charge. The lender may assess reasonable copying charges for any additional copies requested by the borrower.(c) Each System bank and association shall have available in its offices copies of the institution’s articles of incorporation or charter and bylaws for inspection and shall furnish a copy of such documents to any owner of stock or participation certificates upon request.[51 FR 39504, Oct. 28, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 35458, Sept. 14, 1988; 56 FR 2675, Jan. 24, 1991; 59 FR 46734, Sept. 12, 1994; 61 FR 67188, Dec. 20, 1996] [11] To its credit, even the Chancery judge could not abide by the fiction of $40,000 in attorney fees being charged in a routine mortgage foreclosure case.   He reduced the attorney fee award to approximately 26,000.00 by 30%.[12] The failure of the Guardian, who is a fiduciary, to even mention 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 speaks volumes.    The history of predatory loans attorned to by the Guardian needs explanation.     Elder couples in their late 70’s early 80s do not make Commercial loans.      The Guardian as a fiduciary had a duty to obtain for his ward the best deal – not the most expensive and inappropriate.      As a fiduciary the Guardian had a duty to protect his ward’s property.   The fact that this Guardian does not needs explanation.     Exhibit H page 4 also needs explanation.     As on January 25, 2018 all the documents need to meet the loan requirements were met – why did the Guardian appear before Judge Boliker and why did he not disclose vital facts.     Why did in the discussions as to the Motion to Dismiss did the Byline Bank bring up the Guardian’s questionable conduct?     Why did the Byline Bank have the Guardian sign a signature page.    Why was there a place of Dean Sallas’ signature on that page?     Why did the Byline Bank seek personal judgments and seek to collect charges only against Dean Sallas?       The rule – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, smells like a duck, it is probably a duck!        The wrongful conspiracy between Byline Bank and the Guardian certainly are facts that have to be explored.     Does the release of Charles P. Golbert by the Byline Bank trigger the release of Dean Sallas?      [13] Dean Salles is 84 years old and his wife 80.   They have been married over 50 years.     The Government and legitimate Banking institutions have provided REVERSE MORTGAGES for elderly citizens.    The home being foreclosed is reputed to be worth approximately ½ a million dollars.     An honest guardian working for his ward would have not negotiated COMMERCIAL LOANS paying the highest rates of interest, but a reverse mortgage that in 2018 would have yield approximately $300,000 net net.      With interest rates approaching zero = a non-commercial rate would have been approximately 2% without hundreds of thousands of penalty interest charges in the event of a default.[14] It may be presumptuous to inform a Chancellor of the history of the Court he presides, but, Mortgage foreclosures are equity proceedings.      Equity proceedings are unique in that the Court originates as the conscience of the sovereign.     I guiding principle is ‘he who seeks equitable relief’ must do equity.      The sordid history of the Byline Bank transactions revealed in the case 2019 CH 13960 are indicative of the worst of Financial Elder Abuse.      Such is totally inconsistent with the principles of a Court of Equity.     755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is a remedial statute designed to protect people like Dean and Amy Sallas from financial elder abuse.     Why this statute is ignored must be explained by this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.      It is suggested that the acts of the Byline Bank on January 25, 2018 may also have violated a number of Federal Laws.     IT IS NOT DENIED by the Byline Bank that they dealt with an adjudicated disabled person and by this foreclosure seek to foreclosure on the ‘estate’ of the disabled person  in direct contravention of a statute barring such conduct and making it a crime.[15] Even the Court’s sua sponde recognition of a substantial overcharge in attorney fees and disallowance of 30% does not give rise to rights in me to discovery, investigation and the usual discovery afforded all litigants – except the targeted elderly.[16] Illinois subscribes to the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT and similar remedial legislation.     Using a foreclosure action and loading the same up with attorney fees, outrageous interest charges etc. as a penalty is prohibited under the act, except in this instant case.     My wife and I are in our 80’s we are retired.     The huge charges for attorney interest, penalty interest, late charges etc. are clearly abusive loan collection activities that violate all consumer legislation and laws.       I am entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why I am singled out not to be subject to the protection of the Consumer laws in force in Illinois and the United States of America.  15 USC 1692f§ 808.  Unfair practicesA debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 
Ken Ditkowsky