From DAS and KKD — Probate judge Boliker turns a blind eye to open and notorious criminal activity

kenneth ditkowsky12:24 PM (19 minutes ago)
to USDOJDitkowskyJoanneaclu@aclu.orgAPwsj.lts@wsj.comADACookABAJournal.comexecutive-editor@nytimes.comTribunenewseditors@dowjones.comKatherineJudiciaryMaryABAKeyRickJayfraud_aging@aging.senate.govNasgaSUNTIMESAging.Ilseniormember@email.aarp.orgBrianJanetThegov.goca@illinois.govWhistleblowerSamABAAgingAmericanexecutive-editor@nytimes.comnewseditors@wsj.cominfo@bettergov.orgLegalemail@gop.comProbateRayRobertkev_pizz@hotmail.comSenatorRichardAndyFoxKennethOmbudsmanIardcSuntimesJANETattorney_general@atg.state.il.usChicagoU.S.WhistleblowerFBIGovernorWLS-TVEdHumanCFPB_Ombudsmanlawsters@googlegroups.comTeenaMcKnightsmer@wsj.comCFPBIllinoisiteam@abc.comFederalInternationalInternationalChicagobarCookNationalkeith.nelson@ic.fbi.govRhodeInternationalClerkGovernorLoyolaclerk.ethics@cookcountyil.govkim@wsj.comLawCFPB_WHISTLEBLOWERNewsJoanneeveningnews@cbsnews.comdiana@vizcainolaw.comPhiChicagoACLUACLUstateattorney@cookcountyil.govSTOPjudgenap@foxnews.comMaryEdMary, Janet, Janet, me, CEAR, Michael

Today’s hearing is significant in allowing Law enforcement to know the alignment of the players.

The hearing transcripts and petition filed by the Guardian on February 15, 2018 were not only intentional attempts to mislead Judge Boliker, but it appears that she was part and parcel of it.   THUS, WE HAVE THE FOLOWING events which cannot be tolerated.1) We have a Bank engaged in a criminal enterprise  – i.e. the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE OF A SENIOR CITIZEN in direct violation of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56.2) That Bank in pursuance of its criminal conduct on January 25 has Mrs. Sallas sign a document  -i.e. a commercial loan document that is predatory and abusive.   Documents that would be beneficial to the elders were avoided.   The Bank does not comport with any of the requirement of Federal and State Disclosure Law.3) On Feb 15, 2018, to ‘cover up the criminal activity in violation of 18 USCA 1341 the Guardian appears before Judge Boliker and makes statements that are misleading, untrue and deceptive.   Judge Boliker accepts the statements and gives the Guardian the permission to attempt to cover-up the criminal act of January 25,2018.   They do!4) That from 2018 to 2019 the Guardian raids the assets of his ward and her husband to pay to the Byline Bank some $40,000.00.  In addition it appears that the Guardian conducts some sniping  — he reports a vehicle owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sallas titled in the name of Mrs. Sallas stolen and collects 4000.00 dollars for it.    The5) The Byline Bank then files a foreclosure.   That foreclosure is rubber stamped by Judge Robles who ignores not only 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56, and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 but the equitable principles of fairless, honesty integrity and grants SUMMARY JUDGE OF FORECLOSURE IN AN AMOUNT of approximately 375,000.00.  The original balance due when the illegal note was signed was $175,000.00.    Thus penalty interest of approx $240,000 was allowed – well in excess of the criminal interest rate of 36%. 

  The integrity of the Rule of Law of the State of Illinois is at stake in these proceedings.   It appears that the State of Illinois has given out a franchise to certain judges to appoint guardians and delegate them UNPRECEDENTED AUTHORITY to violate the 14th Amendment and all the elder protection statutes.   Not only are they delegated the right to do this openly and overtly, but the RULE OF LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM.
Judge Boliker today ruled that any crime against an elderly person is acceptable conduct!!   THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY!!!THE QUESTION TO GOVERNOR PRITZKER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE STATES ATTORNEY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS — IS THAT ALSO YOUR UNDERSTANDING  AND ARE YOU ATTORNING TO IT?The question to the Federal authorities is also quite simple – is it the policy of the United States of America to allow Illinois to be a haven for crimes against the elderly?

Ken Ditkowsky

And here is additional argument Dean put together that he did not have time to make:

Argument for hearing July 12, 2022

In re Amelia Sallas

Mrs. Sallas has been in a guardianship in Cook County. While at one time she might have needed a guardianship, the guardianship was establish on a fraudulent basis which I will go into in much detail later.

In summary, the couple, Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas have been forced into a de facto divorce, without their authorization or consent. They cannot freely see one another. This is a marriage of over 4 decades, with a couple very much in love and very dependent upon one another. Together they raised 2 children, Paulette and Thomas.

Their lives, prior to the guardianship, had been completely intertwined. They lived together happily for decades. Maybe their marriage was not perfect, but they never separated, legally or otherwise–until the guardianship.

During this guardianship there have been very serious gross violations of the US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution on a continuing basis, including the 1st, 4th,5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

Several Guardians have been appointed in this case, most from the OPG or Office of Public Guardian. None it appears has taken his or her duty seriously as a fiduciary to Amelia Sallas, and by proxy to her cherished husband Dean Sallas. The conduct has been serious, continuing and the motion by Dean Sallas to dismiss the Guardianship should be granted immediately by this honorable court.

Most serious is the continued separation of the couple. After that is the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE 720 ILCS 5/17-56 which has been perpretrated upon Mrs. Sallas by Charles P Golbert, his attorneys and a “Greek chorus” of lawyers, the GAL and a myriad of guardians.

Factual statement made previously by Dean Sallas have not been denied. The over reach by these actors has been serious and continuing.

The question is, has this guardianship been 1) at all beneficial to Amy Sallas who only wants to go home and live with her husband in peace; 2) has the conduct of the court and the lawyers involved been reasonable; and 3) has it been necessary.

The answer to all these questions is no.

Prior to the guardianship, the couple lived together and took care of one another. It is admitted that the couple own both a nice home in Skokie and a nice condo (which is leased on a month to month basis) at 1555 N. Dearborn Pkwy in Chicago.

Either residence would be suited for the couple to use as a marital home.

But instead, and without the consent of either husband and wife, Amelia Sallas has been forced to live in an ALF to the tune of $7,000 per month, as admitted in the pleadings of the OPG.

The Sallas’ could be living at home. They could be caring for each other there. Instead the court and the OPG has forced the couple apart and into an unnecessary and undesired living situation at $7,000 per month. A situation which is unnecessary and expensive when they could be living in one of their own homes.

A Guardian is not an alter ego of the ward. He should at all times follow the direction of the Ward and her desires–not the desires of the court and the lawyers and the GAL and the OPG. This couple wants to live together in one of their own homes. The fact that this has never been accomplished or even considered is a serious breach of rights under the Illinois Probate Act. It is further a breach of Amy’s Constitutional rights.

The Illinois Probate Act spells this out nicely for all Disabled Persons living in the State of Illinois:

(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.
(Source: P.A. 93-435, eff. 1-1-04.)

It it patently obvious that Charles Golbert, as guardian, has consistently overstepped his statutory authority and does so in defiance of his attorney oath.

The guardianship was initiated without actual finding of facts and conclusions of law by this honorable court as to Amy’s disabilities Amy Sallas was rubber stamped as “fully disabled” by conclusion and continues to be conclusorily rubber stamped as such, without any proper statutory analysis of exactly what her disabilities are and how a guardian may actually alleviate those disabilities.

Dumping a ward into an ALF without her consent is not a “necessary solution”. Amy wants to live at home and the Guardian, for about 1.5 years has not lifted a single finger to get Amy back home with her husband. The action is so egregious that it warrants immediate dismissal of the guardianship for such a gross and continuing violation of Amy’s needs, wants and desires and under the US and Illinois constitutions

The Illinois legislature in enacting section (b) clearly intended to limit the actions of Guardians and provide Disabled Persons with as many rights and abilities as is possible. The words “as is necessary to promote the well being…of the disabled person” are clearly the operative words.

In addition, the OPG does not seriously contend any where in their Response that there were actual findings of fact and conclusions of law for exactly how to limit the rights of Amy. In ¶ 19 in rubber stamp fashion they declare Amy to fully disabled and unable to care for her person and finances. And yet, from 2008 to approximately 2019, Amy was in fact caring for the couple’s home, cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and even grocery shopping. These actual facts are in direct opposition to ¶ 19 of the OPG Response that Amy was fully disabled and that a limited guardian would not suffice.

In addition, it would appear that during those years, prior to forcing Amy into an ALF, a place where she does not want to be, she was also signing forms at the doctor’s offices and signing herself in and out of the hospital when she required some minor procedures.

Again, the facts fly in the face of the OPG’s ¶ 22 which states “this court carefully considers and weighs Amelia’sneed for a guardian during each appointment hearing”
This statement is so far from the truth, it’s as if the two had never even met.

Again, the operative words in the Illinois Probate Act are “actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations”. Amy apparently was doing well on her own with her husband for 10 years and yet no one from that OPG dismissed the guardianship.

A guardian is not the “slave owner” of the elderly person targeted and human trafficked into a Cook County Guardianship. The Guardian does not have the right to vote for the ward, nor can he terminate family relationships at will. Every single action of a guardian must yield the ward a benefit and be necessary and reasonable.

The record in this case reveal that the OPG’s overreach and custodial confinement of Amelia are not beneficial, necessary or reasonable. Amelia wants to go home and live with her husband of 50 some years.

The Byline Bank transactions appear to be text book examples of wrongful foreclosures, financial elder abuse,mail fraud, wire fraud and a violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a-22 (trade and contracts with a person with a disability).

The transactions appear to be nothing but an exercise in self enrichment and self dealing with a known predatory lender. A lender that arranged with the OPG to contract for a commercial loan so the couple’s marital home would have none of the consumer safe guards afforded to consumer mortgage loans such as lower interest rates, MAFA and TILA and even Covid relief. The Sallas’ were trapped into a commercial loan by the OPG so that the home could later be sold at a discount and to nefarious miscreants at a later date.

If Amy Sallas had been deemed a disabled person, what did it matter to the OPG to have her sign the loan renewal documents?

The court is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of it own proceedings orders and petitions in the case of 07 P 5360, 2019 CH 13960 (Byline Bank v. Sallas, et al.) And Constellation Condo v. Sallas where representatives of the OPG sat by and watched a wrongful foreclosure, a grossly inflated Judgment and a wrongful Eviction order issue without comment or objection from the OPG lawyers. And yet they bill for being a fly on the wall. They bill to watch predatory lenders and HOAs steal from their Wards and take advantage of them. In the Byline wrongful foreclosure the judgment was inflated by hundreds of thousands of dollars and the OPG said and did nothing. In the Constellation Condo case, Dean and his attorney were never served, yet the OPG attorneys watched the court enter an inflated judgment for $20,000+ and never said a word, and made no objections.

With respect to the Byline loan documents, the contract was so procrustean that upon signing the contract the ward appears to be in instant default.

In addition, it must be noted that:

1) the loan was a commercial loan, not subject to consumer mortgage loan safeguards.
2) other financial institutions at the time were offering much lower interest rates
3) that the Guardian could have considered a reverse mortgage, but those generally do not involve the added benefit of a finder’s fee.

To recap, the OPG sent in an attorney on all of the cases, who did nothing and said nothing, but billed the estate. They pointed out no obvious errors in the drafting and execution of these documents. In fact, they pretty much said to the predatory plaintiffs, go ahead and take it all, and then some. The defendant is a a ward which is not human and a subspecies.

The losses incurred during the Byline wrongful foreclosure are estimated at a half million.

The loses incurred during the wrongful Constellation Condo HOA eviction are approximtely $22,000 while OPG attorneys said nothing and did nothing.

Obviously the system of OPG attorneys seriously is not working. They bill and bill and bill and make no objections, file no motions to dismiss and grossly underrepresent wards on a regular basis.

All of this is a serious breach of their fiduciary duties to the wards and by proxy to their loved ones. Not all the wards are vegetables. Many are keenly aware that he OPG has deftly and swiftly eliminated entire family fortunes in the blink of an eye, such as in the Sallas case.

There is simply no doubt that in the Byline Bank case the OPG via Mr. Goldbert, obtained a predatory commercial loan from a predatory lender.

In the case of the HOA, a predatory HOA hired a predatory law firm to wrongfully, and without notice or service, obtain a wrongful court ordered eviction of the Sallas’ tenants.

It really must be noted for the record, that the reason why the OPG and the court has not sold the Dearborn Parkway unit is because Dean smartly 1) granted the tenants a never ending option to renew their lease at below market prices; 2) the rent does not cover the HOA fees and taxes which means the OPG makes no profit; and 3) the assets is preserved free from the grips of the predatory OPG. They can’t sell it, they can’t kick the tenants out, and they make no profit. Perhaps the OPG went behind the backs of the Sallas’ to provoke a wrongful eviction from a predatory law firm, but that is a question for another day and time.

In summary, the Sallas case is the quintessential case of how the OPG system does not work and has never worked. Attorneys are hired at a flat rate to engage in nefarious dealings with sleezy lenders, HOAs and law firms. This HOA and Bank have shown themselves to be openly sleezy. The law firms associated with HOAs and foreclosures are well known to be sleezy and no further discussion is necessary. This court can readily take judicial notice of all the online articles from the AP and UPI news sources regarding HOA law firms and predatory lender law firms. They are in fact notorious and operate freely without impunity in the Cook County Court system.

However the real question is why is the OPG charging estates $250 to $300 per hour when the salaries of all attorneys are paid by the taxpayers of Illinois and the over head and expenses of the OPG are paid by the taxpayers of Illinois while private attorney can only fee petition for the same rates, but they have to pay their own overhead and expenses, typically 1/3 of that rate. OPG attorneys get free office space courtesy of the taxpayers of Illinois.

In summary, the over reaching, the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law as to what, if any disability Amelia actually had for years, while she was doing all the household cooking, cleaning and laundry for herself and her husband daily readily comes into question. The OPG’s ¶ 19 is preposterous, especially in light of the fact that she was signing herself in and out of hospitals really reaches deeply into the very core of the desperately flawed Illinois Probate guardianship system. And in the end, this only amounts to serious violations of Amy’s 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights.

This clearly necessitates the dismissal of this guardianship case on an immediate basis.

And if the court does not dismiss the guardianship case, then Dean is respectfully requesting in person visits for as long as he desires for each day Amy is wrongfully incarcerated in an ALF against her will, authorization and consent. He wants cameras install in the ALF facility to ensure his wife is not being abused.

He also wants a plan in place to bring her home. Even if the court (wrongfully) requires 24/7 care, it still will be cheaper than a $7,000 per month ALF

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 )

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