From KKD: Abusive Guardianships and treatment of the elderly continue despite the fact that the DOJ knows better, it fails to investigate these cases: Case in Point: Dean and Amelia Sallas

Ken Ditkowsky is correct: the ARDC blew a gasket when it found out that 1) I knew Dean Sallas, and possibly Amelia; 2) I showed him how to get an email, log into zoom, watch his wife’s guardianship proceedings and I also told him to fight the corruption; 3) he now successfully files his own pleadings and communications with the court.

He and his wife have been deprived of their savings, their assets and Dean at age 85 or so was evicted from his own home, entirely due to the actions and inactions of certain judges and attorneys on the 18th floor of the Daley Center. Ken writes more about this in detail below.

The FBI and DOJ clearly know of the details of the Sallas case. They know the judges and attorneys in the guardianship of Amelia Sallas are dealing in looting the assets of married parties: Dean and Amelia without Deans consent, authorization and control despite the fact that all their assets are jointly owned and control and it is nothing but pure theft for 1) place Amelia in a facility without her knowledge and control; 2) ban her husband from seeing her there; 3) for years they banned Dean from taking her home so they could live together again; 3) they interfered in the mortgage of their home, failed to pay the mortgage and got Dean evicted and homeless at age 85. I am told he now lives in his car.

Will no one help this couple find justice? No attorney will touch the case because 1) Dean is homeless and penniless; and 2) the attorney can well expect false bar complaints against him or her for interfering with and delaying the looting of the Sallas estate.

The ARDC will go after you if you even mention stopping the money flow to certain judges and lawyers on the 18th floor in probate.

Hence, they spent hours on me when it was determined that I was helping the elderly use a computer, use the internet, create an efiling account and fully participate in preventing the looting of the Sallas estate.

It is my understanding that Dean Sallas continues to this day to fight for his wife, his home and his estate, despite the fact lawyers and judges operating on the 18th floor have how left him destitute and homeless.

He has no intention of ending this fight anytime soon. As long as he walks and breathes and can type and think, he will be filing his protestations of the horrific abuses suffered in Amelia’s guardianship proceeding.

Read on from Ken Ditkowsky:

The distinction between our current Government and that of a totalitarian government is simple.   We rail concerning inequity, injustice, and inhumanity – the totalitarian government just does it!   Mr Philip’s e=mail and complaint is as American as Apple pie!   Sophia Campasano, Dean Sallas and a cast of thousands of elderly victims all have the very same complaint, to wit:  a loved one has had his/her life taken over by a predatory guardian aided and abetted by a corrupt judge (or a series of corrupt judges) and all the agencies of government who boast of their compassion, honor and devotion to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution manifest total disinterest.  Benign neglect would be a 100% improvement!Unfortunately, this fiasco does not end with rogue goverment or judicial theft – it in fact does not end until every stone has been tossed at the victim and his/her family and every loose dollar has found its way into the miscreants pockets.    Anyone who stands in the way of the juggernaut of corruption is threatened or otherwise neutralized.    Attorney JoAnn Denison attempted to teach Dean Sallas how to access Zoom.    Attorneys for the wrongfully appointed and over-reaching Guardian and for the Byline Bank COMPLAINED THE Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois about Ms. Denison’s interference with the ****** the SALLAS savings and assets.Immediately, the IARDC jumped into action and dispatched a “trial attorney” to Ms. Denison’s abode to make all sorts of absurd and untrue charges against her.  To silence the protest of Sallas, they even subpoenaed his “Goggle account.”   (Sallas shared a copy of the notice with me!!!).    Today, thanks to Ms. Denison’s ethically challenged activity of teaching a senior citizen to use ZOOM, Sallas is even able to access Court matters that concern his interests, speak to reporter Janet Phelan, etc.   (the IARDC has written that they have dropped the ethical charges against Ms. Denison arising from the complaints involving teaching Mr. Sallas to use Zoom – however, they have relented on her suspension for exercising her 1st and 14th Amendment Rights in maintaining the MARYGSYKES blog!.Mr.Phillip’s situation is particularly vexing for the Financial elder abusers and their co-conspirators.   He is not an attorney and he does not frighten.  He just keeps on demanding J U S T I C E for his mother.   The local miscreants are further vexed as he is complaining from a sister State and unless the bad guys wish to advertise that they are Grandma’s predators – Mr. Phillips personally is out of reach!THE SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT WE FACE IS THAT MR. PHILLIP’S COMPLAINT IS TRUE AND it or not, today when we ignore Mr. Phillip’s complaint we set ourselves up in the very near future to experience his woe very soon and very much in the very near future.   

In all seriousness — today it is Mr. Phillip who reaches out for HELP  – Tomorrow it may very well be me or thee!

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 10:53:17 PM CST, Key Phillip-s <> wrote:

I have followed almost every one of the recommendations.  Asked for help from both the State of Washington, the ombudsman group, DHS, state prosecutors office etc and the federal government–DOJ, HHS, etc.  The classic answer is that they are sorry but they either don’t have the resources or they don’t have the authority to even investigate.

I even have in writing a note probably drafted by a junior staff assistant and probably an attorney to Kelly Clarkson with the DOJ. She is too busy.  I asked for help from HHS involving religious persecution and refusal to allow my mother to attend church–same answer.  As if someone is drafting a standard response–I suspect drafted by the American Bar.  The response is almost always the same.   The Washington state prosecutor even went so far to suggest that if my mother was on the streets they could help but since a hotshot guardian was involved “they really didn’t have the resources.”    In writing!  

And help from “good” attorney’s doesn’t exist.  They are all terrified of being sanctioned and possibly losing their license like the sixteen fine men and women in AZ I contacted to represent my mother when Ohana took her Tucson home.  Not a single one would even talk to me as soon as they knew what it was about.  Even the fine attorney of a large law firm who helped my mother and father write their first will and trust here in Tucson wouldn’t even respond–his second refusal to help.  Nor did he allow anyone in his large firm to respond.  I contacted both male and female attorneys, some with licenses in both states–not a single one.  Several angrily hung on me. There is a law school with the UofA, I have called for help several times.  They have no idea what I am talking about??? 

And if you complain too loud, the State of Washington will pull you into court again on trumped up accusations of harassment with threats to family.  

I wonder where they will build the furnaces.  .  

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 04:19:32 PM MST, kenneth ditkowsky <> wrote:


older female judge in judge's robe sitting in courtroom

Guardians and Other Fiduciaries Who Mistreat Older Adults


What is abuse by guardians?

While courts make efforts to ensure that guardians are trustworthy, some guardians have taken advantage of people in their care.  The mistreatment could be financial, physical, emotional/psychological or any other type of abuse of an older person or person with a disability.  Guardians also may neglect the people for whom they have a responsibility to provide care.  These perpetrators of abuse can be anyone serving as a guardian (family members, trusted others, non-profits, professional guardians, agencies).

There is currently limited information on the number of guardianship cases involving abuse. The US Senate Special Committee on Aging and the US Government Accountability Office have highlighted the problem and cited anecdotal information. The National Center for State Courts has found that most reports on the problem of exploitation by guardians lack empirical data.  Reports of fraud or other malfeasance by guardians have most often involved financial exploitation, but other types of mistreatment are also reported.  Abusive acts by guardians may meet the definitions for various state and federal crimes, depending on the facts of the case.  Guardians might be charged with such crimes as elder abuse, embezzlement, larceny, money laundering, theft, and neglect.

For an explanation of how guardianship can be a vehicle for abuse as well as a remedy, see the National Center on Elder Abuse issue brief, Guardianship: Remedy vs. Enabler of Elder Abuse.

To learn about how to spot mistreatment by a guardian and what to do about it, see the National Center on Elder Abuse flyer, What if Your Guardian is Not Doing What They Should?

How can the courts with jurisdiction over guardianship cases respond to abuse?

A court with jurisdiction over a guardianship case might uncover evidence of abuse through monitoring, or a person or government agency might need to file a complaint or petition the court to respond to the mistreatment.  These courts can take the following types of actions:

  • Freeze assets and/or restrict accounts – Courts may take these actions to limit a guardian’s access to money and property while investigating a case or preparing to take another protective step.
  • Investigate allegations of malfeasance– Once allegations of abuse have been made, courts can appoint a guardian ad litem, investigator or visitor to investigate.  A court can also audit an individual’s assets or order an accounting by an external entity such as a certified public accountant.
  • Order repayment for lost assets or property – Such orders might restore lost assets but, in many cases, the only way to recover funds is through a bond that the guardian obtained upon appointment. Sometimes courts do not require bonding when the guardian is appointed, making it more difficult to obtain repayment for losses at the hands of the guardian.
  • Enforce statutory rights to communication and visitation – When abusive guardians use isolation tactics, family members and others may be able to seek orders enforcing state laws that define the rights of people subject to guardianship to interact with others of their choosing.
  • Appoint a co-guardian or limit the powers of the guardian – This strategy may help deter or stop mistreatment by a guardian.
  • Remove the guardian – Removal may be the best way to stop guardian malfeasance, and petitioners might suggest a willing and suitable replacement.
  • Terminate the guardianship – Less restrictive options or changed circumstances might lead a court to terminate the guardianship entirely.

Besides courts with guardianship jurisdiction, who can address abuse by guardians?

Numerous federal, state, and local government entities and non-profit agencies can respond and provide services when someone suspects that a guardian is mistreating an individual.  Although the court has the sole power to impose certain orders such as removing the guardian or surcharging bonds, other entities can get involved and assist victims.  These include:

  • Adult protective services – Anyone suspecting mistreatment by a guardian should report to adult protective services.  Find your state or local adult protective services agency through the Eldercare Locator.  Most states have laws making certain categories of people mandatory reporters of elder or vulnerable adult abuse.
  • Protection and advocacy systems – Protection and Advocacy Systems are federally-mandated state-based organizations that work to protect the rights of people with disabilities, including guarding against abuse. Find your protection and advocacy agency here.
  • Long-term care ombudsmen – If the individual resides in a nursing home (or, in some states, receives home- and community-based services), the long-term care ombudsman can investigate and resolve complaints about abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including complaints about guardians. Anyone can file a complaint, but the resident (or an appropriate representative) must consent in order for the ombudsman to investigate and share information. Learn about the ombudsman program here and find your local ombudsman.
  • Law enforcement – A guardian’s breach of duty may violate criminal laws and warrant investigation and prosecution.  In addition to reporting to Adult Protective Services, individuals suspecting guardian abuse should report it to law enforcement.  Contact your local law enforcement agency, your state attorney general, or call 911.  Some recent examples of guardianship fraud cases pursued by the United States Department of Justice include cases in Pennsylvania and Florida.
  • Attorneys – Separate from the guardianship system, there are various civil actions that may apply to abuse by guardians.  Depending on state law, civil attorneys might bring cases alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, undue influence or a private right of action for elder abuse.  Remedies might include restitution (repaying money lost), voiding documents including deeds, or other monetary awards of damages.
  • Federal agencies – If the guardian also serves as a Social Security representative payee or VA fiduciary and is misusing public benefits, individuals may report to the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General or the VA Office of the Inspector General.
  • Professional licensing boards – In some states, professional guardians may be certified, licensed or registered.  State boards can investigate and may revoke a license or certification.  If the guardian is a lawyer, the state has a committee that takes disciplinary action when a lawyer violates professional responsibilities.

What is power of attorney abuse?

Powers of attorney give a trusted person (the agent) a great deal of authority and access to money and property, without regular oversight.  Power of attorney abuse can take many forms.  The agent might spend the individual’s money on items for his or her own use rather than for the individual’s needs. The agent might do things that the document doesn’t allow, such as making gifts when that power hasn’t been granted.  The power of attorney document itself might be forged or fraudulent in some other way.

State laws may help to prevent or limit power of attorney abuse.  For example, the Uniform Power of Attorney Act, adopted in over half the states, permits a third party such as a bank to refuse to honor a POA when the abuse is suspected and the third party reports it to an adult protective services agency. 

What are the remedies to address power of attorney abuse after it occurs?

Lawyers may help people to stop power of attorney abuse and to get money back that has been improperly taken by the agent.  For example, a lawyer could:

  • Draft a document to revoke (cancel) the POA
  • Ask a court to require the agent to file an accounting to see how the agent has spent the money
  • File a civil action to cancel contracts or deeds that the agent should not have made
  • File a civil action to recoup money
  • Petition a court to appoint a guardian who can manage the finances if the individual is unable to manage money independently

In addition, agents under a POA may be prosecuted for abusing a power of attorney.  Depending on state criminal law, power of attorney abuse might be theft, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, exploitation or another financial crime.  Through the criminal court process, a prosecutor could ask the court to freeze the individual assets to prevent further abuse, and could also seek restitution (repayment of money taken).

What do we know about abuse by government fiduciaries?

Reports from the Social Security Advisory Board, the Office of the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration, the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences and other government and quasi-governmental entities over the past fifteen years have documented abuse by both individual and organizational representative payees. These incidents have prompted removal of payees from the program and, in some cases, criminal prosecution.  The Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Veterans Affairs also has investigated and substantiated allegations of abuse by VA fiduciaries.

Ken Ditkowsky

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:37:35 PM CST, kenneth ditkowsky <> wrote:

I dialed up the Committee’s web site and sent the following, to wit:

There is a war going on in Chicago that is not being reported in the media.     Certain criminal elements (with great clout) have and are using the Courts to prey on elder citizens.        The Guardianship case of AMELIA SALLAS  07 P 5360 is a prime example.   Its companion case entitled BYLINE BANK vs. AMELIA SALLAS 2019 CH 13960 , now pending in the Appellate Court of Illinois is a text book example of wrongdoing. (Appellate Court 1=22 -1111).

By e-mail I’ve forwarded to you a draft copy of Dean Sallas’ brief.     

Legislation is in place in Illinois and in most States that husband the WAR AGAINST GRANDMA & GRANDPA – the problem is a lack of enforcement.    

In Illinois a guardian is appointed pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3.    Section 3a sets for a procrustean criterion for determining if a person needs a guardian, and section 3b the instruction how CONSISTENT WITH THE 14TH AMENDMENT that authority to appoint a guardian and the severe limitations required by our 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.

Briefly, a guardian is a fiduciary and as such limited to actions that are 1) reasonable, 2) necessary, and 3) beneficial all judged by the clear light of hindsight.   IN PRACTICE, the guardian with the consent and ultra vires conduct of a corrupt judge becomes the alter ego of the victim ward, and the sorry individual is left, homeless, helpless, friendless and segregated i for not only her/his savings but isolated without hope.

Taking the Sallas case as an example, the appointment of a guardian was done without any finding of facts and law by the Judge as to specifics required by statute.   No matter, two guardians were appointed.   One guardian recognized that its appointment was wrongful and resigned.    No problem, a second guardian was appointed.    case 07 P 5360.    No matter, the beat went on.     The 8 million dollars plus in assets saved by Mr. and Mrs. Sallas has all disappeared (even though there was no authority for any guardian to touch marital assets or the assets of Mr. Sallas.    Mrs. Sallas is in a nursing home, toothless and with limited mobility.   Her husband is homeless, and on charity.     Their half million dollar valued home in Skokie, which in 2018 had a mortgage of about $175,000.00 is gone by foreclosure.   Thanks to the Byline Bank and the Cook County public guardian without borrowing a dime, the debt grew by about $200,000.00 and was sold at a foreclosure suit.

Remedial legislation designed to protect people like Mr. and Mrs. Sallas were ignored — it seems that this elderly couple – in their 80’s signed commercial loan documents.    Mrs. Sallas signature was an overt crime pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.     

The actions of the guardian, the supervising judge, and the Byline Bank all (in my opinion) violated 720 ILCS 5/17 -56 – another remedial statute.     

Not only has every attorney been intimidated by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Illinois Supreme Court, but no law enforcement agency will enforce the statutes protecting the elderly.     As an example, The CFPB  is reported as informing Mr. Sallas that as he and his wife signed documents that were “commercial” the agency could not help them!!!!      

The Byline Bank’s conduct herein is reprehensible – they and their “assignees” knowing that their conduct was REPREHENSIBLE  had Dean Sallas thrown out of his home.      Of course, the court and law enforcement are silent!    Benign neglect would be a major step forward.THE FOREGOING IS ALL OLD HAT, BUT MR. & MRS. SALLAS ARE STILL CAPTIVES & STILL BEING DEPRIVED OF THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS!     It is very frustrating knowing that there are statutory remedies but noting that they are all a facade.    If a lawyer can be found who has the courage to assert the human rights of the designated victim of this heinous criminal conduct emanating right from the bench, the ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION of the SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS will accuse the lawyer of lying et al and the lawyer will be granted a kangaroo trial and suspended from the practice of law.   
LAW ENFORCEMENT finds one excuse after another as to WHY enforcement of the law cannot occur to protect grandma and grandpa from the predators – thus, law enforcement is out to lunch!.
The committee has GAO reports reporting this travesty and ignores them.  So why did I send anything to the Committee?
HOPE SPRING ETERNAL!    I cannot believe that the government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA no longer gives a damn about its citizens and we no longer count!    Certainly we do not count in Cook County, Illinois!    
I wonder why the government of Chicago/Cook County, Illinois even bothers with a vote for the mayor of Chicago?????    

Ken Ditkowsky

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 03:25:55 PM CST, kenneth ditkowsky <> wrote:

Guardianship abuse is about as pervasive and venal as can be imagined.    The only thing missing in the Sallas case are JACK BOOTS, and railway freight cares packed with people.     Respect for the Rule of Law and the Constitutional protections of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments are in stark evidence.    Statutory limitations are routinely ignored, and the miscreants are not shy in making it very clear that their object is not to assist the elderly who fall into their custody, but to exploit them.

The cries of Sallas, and Campasano to Judge Boliker are not only ignored but ridiculed.   Albert Campasano 2021 P 3717 (Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court) is a veteran – on the one hand they thank for his service, and other the hand they deny him the very friends that he fought for – going so low as to take his sundry possessions and that of his wife.  (Of course, they do not recognize his wife, or the limitations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 b.)   The credo – is Albert and Sophia have a few dollars – the dollars are better served in the pockets of *****,

Relative to Sallas 07 P 5360   (mortgage foreclosure 2019 CH 13960 on appeal as 1 – 22 -111, a draft of Dean Sallas brief to the Appellate Court of Illinois is instructive, to wit:


This is an Appeal from a Summary Judgment Order of foreclosure and Sale in direct derogation of current remedial legislation designed by the Illinois Legislature to abrogate Financial Elder Abuse of vulnerable citizens such as the elderly vulnerable defendants herein, i.e. Dean Sallas (age 85) and Amelia Sallas (approx. age 80) who were married for more than ½ a century.   (see 720 ILCS 5/17 -56)

This particular appeal is unique in that.”

1.   The complaint C 24 filed herein, and the record in general appears to be devoid of any averment of any assignment of the security agreement sought to be foreclosed to the initial plaintiff Byline Bank.   It is therefore respectfully suggested that the Byline Bank has no standing to bring this foreclosure suit.

2.   That the Guardian appointed for Mrs. Sallas is   a fiduciary who breached his relationship toward Mrs. Sallas in that he did not raise as a defense the Financial Elder Abuse protective statutes 720 ILCS 5/17 -56  and in particular to this foreclosure proceeding, did not raise a defense the fact the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 voids any attempt by the holder of an agreement signed by such a person as Mrs. Sallas to foreclosure or otherwise collect on an obligation evidenced by a document signed in violation of the said section 22.  Mrs. Sallas, is a necessary party to this foreclosure action – however pursuant to the aforesaid 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22  

3.   That as part of the Motion for Summary Judgment  C 485 , the plaintiff presents a Petition presented by the Guardian in case 07 P 5360, entitled in Re: Amelia Sallas   C 371 wherein the Guardian for Mrs. Sallas appears to make some serious omission of fact and law.    In particular, knowing that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 as violated by Byline Bank on January 25, 2018 the Guardian makes no mention of said fact.   Instead the Guardian requests the Court for permission to enter into the very wrongful and ultra vires contract voided  Section 22 and most importantly  – a criminal offense for Byline Bank to enter into.  (It is respectfully submitted that this action by the Guardian, appearing to be represented by the Byline Bank as attornment to the crime by the Court invokes the Himmel case and 18 USCA 4 reporting to law enforcement requirements.  

4.   That without a scintilla of proof as to either the Standing of the plaintiff to pursue this foreclosure, or mesne debts appearing to have been long abandoned by 3rd persons, the plaintiff was  not only allowed to have such stranger debts added to the judgment, but to do so by a Summary Judgment entered prior to the defendant Sallas having an opportunity to take discovery, or file defenses and counterclaims to the instant foreclosure complaint objected to.

5.   That without any indication that the plaintiff made any disclosures required by Federal and States law C 27, the balance due as of the date of the alleged default was set $152,607.00, but the judgment for more than $200,000 in excess.     Note:  The initial principal balance due when Mr. and Mrs. Signed the loan documents to be $173, 366 (C67)  dated January 25, 2018.[1]    .

Notwithstanding a continuing objection as to the standing of the Byline Bank to bring this foreclosure action herein, this commercial loan document was signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas on January 25, 2018. And the said agreement appears of record as exhibit H attached to the complaint filed herein (C24)     Stripped to its primary issue and concern, this appeal raises the pressing issue of whether or not the Chancery (Equity) Division of the trial court attorns to and countenances the Financial Elder Abuse clearly barred by its own rules, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, and 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56.

The casual deceptions of the Byline Bank et al  herein, not only as to the initial service of process on Dean Sallas (C201 ), the Petition of February 15, 2018 (C371  ), amounts due and owing C636,  omission of assignment by Plaza Bank to Byline Bank ,  affidavit of Attorney fees C 727, casual characterization of predatory mortgage as a legitimate loan arrangement rather rank FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE of the most predatory nature, cannot be tolerated.    The commercial loan aside the efficacy of the Judicial system required pursuant to Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution is challenged by disrespect for integrity, decency, and honor by the decisions in this case and the EVICTION from his home of Dean Sallas.     Allowing such predation as renders Sallas homeless and vulnerable and denies him his human and vested civil rights.

Table of Authorities

1.   Statutes:  

a.   755 ILCS 5/11a – 20

b.   720 ILCS 5/17 – 56[i]

2.   Cases

a.   In re: Neprozatis

b.   In re: Himmel

c.   Wambaugh vs. Parsons.


The instant appeal is distinguishable from most appeals that are brought to this Court as the Appellant, Dean Sallas, is not only pro se, but elderly (age 85) l   Mr. Sallas’ wife  (and codefendant) has become a victim of a predatory guardianship, wrongful isolation, and worse.   Sallas’ Constitutional Rights have been overtly and repeatedly violated, and it is respectfully suggested that Mrs. Sallas’ Court appointed Guardian in these proceedings abdicated the responsibility he claims.    (see Petition of Feb 15, 2018 (c    )  See also Wambaugh vs. Parson                           .

Pursuant to the criteria of the Himmel decision, the clear words of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the statute that provides for appointing a guardian, i.e. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3, this Court is placed on notice that the plenary Guardian’s appointment and assignment are severely  limited solely to the property vested solely of Mrs. Sallas but not to any property of Mr. Sallas, including but not limited to his interest in the marital property of the parties.   The Guardian is not appointed to be the alter-ego of Mrs. Sallas and his appointment gives him no jurisdiction concerning either Appellant Dean Sallas or  Sallas’ property interests.   In fact the Guardian’s “power” is severely limited to acts specifically granted in the statute of those only to the extent that said ‘powers’ are 1) reasonable, 2) necessary and 3 benefit the individual who is designated his ward.

That said, the Guardian is a fiduciary, and he owes to  Mrs. Sallas the highest brand of fidelity, integrity, and honesty possible.   755 ILCS 5/11a- 3 and the 1st, 4th,5th, and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution further embellish define and limit the guardian’s responsibility.    In a similar manner, this Court is placed upon notice that the affidavits submitted to the Court by the Attorney’s for the Byline Bank praying for a reimbursement of attorney fees for their client are patently absurd – and this Court on the record substantially reduced the claim for attorney fees.

The Appellant respectfully suggests that he at 85 years of age, and his wife at      years of age are classic victims of Financial Elder Abuse perpetrated in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. 

Issue 1.   Do statutory and common law protections against abusive and predatory lending practices have meaning in Foreclosure of Mortgage proceedings.

Issue 2.   What are the criteria for the entry of Summary Judgment.    In particular can Summary Judgment be entered while there is pending a Motion to Dismiss filed by plaintiff and prior to the defendant being given an opportunity to do discovery, file counterclaims or defenses to the pleadings of the plaintiff.

Issue 3.  Does the Court in a home mortgage foreclosure have to protect senior citizens from clear abuse by lenders.    In simple terms do the hallowed principles of Equity and Justice apply.


That essential parties to this case are:

1)   Appellant, Dean Sallas.   He is the spouse of Amelia Sallas for more than ½ a century.  Mr. and Mrs. Sallas are the homeowners of the property subject to the Byline Bank foreclosure action herein.

2)   Mrs. Amelia Sallas   In the related cases of In re:  Amelia Sallas 07 P 5360 the Circuit Court of Cook County on******* entered an order finding the Amelia Sallas as a disabled person and in need of a Guardian of her person and her property.    Both Mr. and Mrs. Sallas resided in the “property” under foreclosure until approximately           ( C     )   .

3)   Byline Bank (and is claimed assignees).   The plaintiff herein.      (NB.  Without evidence being submitted the appellant of a proper assignment of the collateral from the initial lender to the Byline Bank, defendant does not concede the Byline Bank has standing to bring this foreclosure).

4)   The Cook County Public Guardian.   Mr. Golbert was appointed plenary guardian for Mrs. Sallas after a series of mesne transactions and appointments.

On January 25, 2018 the Byline Bank, being fully aware of the prohibitions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 in derogation of the statutory prohibition demanded and obtained the signature of both Mr. Dean Sallas, and Mrs. Amelia Sallas on a Commercial loan document connoting that the signatories owed the Byline Bank the sum of $$173, 366dollars and was required to repay to the Byline Bank that sum at the rate of                 dollars per month at an interest rate of       %.    This loan was secured by the borrower’s home.  (C 67)    This document is the basic document upon which this collection action is based.    A prior security agreement in favor of a stranger to these proceedings is sought to be foreclosed.

On January 25, 2018, all parties knew that amongst the Illinois Statutes was 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.   In words and phrases section 22 states:

 (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.)

On February 15, 2018 it appears of record in the plaintiff/appellee’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and in case 07 P 5360   (C 371) that the Cook County Guardian  (the plenary guardian appointed to protect Amy Sallas)  appeared before Judge Boliker by petition dated said date to seek to authorization execute commercial loan documents noted supra and appearing as exhibit H attached to the complaint.    Dishonestly, the Guardian’s petition to the Court and presentation did not disclose that on January 25, 2018, the Byline Bank had in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 had obtained the signature of his ward. Mrs. Amy Sallas, the wife of the Appellant.   [N.B The Guardian, having a duty of disclosure to the Court, and a fiduciary duty to Mrs. Sallas, did not inform the Court that the actions of the Byline Bank were a serious violation of the law prohibited by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and the Financial Elder Abuse Statutes.   The Petition submitted in words and phrases asked for permission for Guardian to sign the Byline Bank papers.  (c371)]

Subsequently, by a series of mesne transactions the Guardian removed from the marital funds of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas approximately $40,000.00 and according to the Summary Judgement documents (c 377 )paid the same over to the Byline Bank apparently reducing the balance due to about approximately $153,000.    

The Byline Bank on or about filed this foreclosure suit on or about              .   On or about          a Motion to Quash to false return of summons on Dean Sallas was filed, C . and granted on                     C     .[2]   On           Dean Sallas filed a MOTION TO DISMISS  C      .on                     raising the issues of unclean hands, and pointing out the irregularities in this proceeding. This Motion was denied on                      .C      .

The Counter to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was a Motion for Summary Judgment.C      .   Even though prior to the ability of the defendant to take discovery, asset defenses, answer the complaint, the trial court on                          . in the Amount of total sum of                                dollars granted the motion and ordered the foreclosure sale of the subject real estate.C         .    This Summary Judgment order accepted affidavits from the Byline Bank that were in conflict with the actions and or demeanor of the Byline Bank and in the case of the claim for attorneys overtly absurd.    (NB. The full claim for attorney fees of approximately $41,000.00 was rejected by the court but $            of attorney fees was granted for the proceeding not out of the discovery stage.C    , C    )

On or about                       , the Byline Bank successfully petitioned to the trial court for leave to the Court for the Court to recognize an assignment of interest to                                             and the change the name of the case eliminating the Byline Bank from the title  C      ..    Sallas protested that such would bar him from asserting any counterclaimsC      or affirmative defenses he might have against the Byline Bank.   The Court on               entered an order that in words and phrases C     stated:

A judicial sale was held on                           , the sum $                      was bid,   This sale was confirmed on                               , and on                     C       the defendant Dean Sallas filed his notice of Appeal.

N.B.   At all-time relevant the title to the subject real estate is vested (though a land trust arrangement) as the marital property of both Amelia Sallas and Dean Sallas.    A search of case 07 P 5360 does not indicate that at any time the Guardian appointed for Mrs. Sallas (Amelia)or any other person or entity was granted a quit claim deed or other conveyance of Mrs. Sallas marital interest in her home.    [3]


The appellant Dean Sallas (age 85) is pro-se and apologizes in advance as to his lack of legal skills and any deficiencies in his presentation or brief.    


Illinois in Article 1 Section 12 of its CONSTITUTION of 1970 states:


    Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for

all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person,

privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by

law, freely, completely, and promptly.

A foreclosure action, such as the instant action is an Equity/Chancery action and addresses the issues to the conscience of the sovereign and thus requires parties seeking relief to not only do equity, but to come to the Court with ‘clean hands.’   

The Appellee (Byline Bank) demonstrates a callous disregard for these principles in the ‘key document’ required by this foreclosure – the loan document.    This loan document was executed by the Byline Bank and Amelia Sallas in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 which in clearly obviates the right to a Foreclosure.   The statute stating.

    (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.)

The total record herein including but not limited thereto the MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT clearly indicates that Mrs. Sallas, a necessary party to any foreclosure action concerning her home, was adjudicated a disabled person, and a Guardian was appointed to protect her personal interests.     A clear criminal violation of section 22 occurred on January 25, 2018 that cannot be swept under the rug, or buried with a multitude of copies of documents such as filed herein by the Byline Bank.     

The record is devoid of any mitigating circumstances that might obviate the enforcement of State and Federal financial elder abuse legislative protections or justify the Circuit Court in ignoring its own heritage and core principles.

Indeed, the case of In re: Neprozatis                      , makes it very clear that in Illinois Equity Courts if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, has feathers like a duck it is indeed a duck.     Indeed, 720 ILCS 5/17- 56 similarly decrees that entities that have the ability to subject an individual to Financial Elder Abuse are not under Illinois law free to use the facilities of Illinois Courts to do so.    That statute renders such persons not only subject to triple damages and attorney’s fees, but the burden of proof is reduced from clear and convincing to preponderance of the evidence.

The case Wambaugh vs. Parsons                    , addresses the fiduciary duty of a guardian.   The case is relevant along with Struck vs. Cook County Public Guardian                                          , tolay emphasis upon the fact that the Court (i.e. the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the judicial establishment recognizes that a guardianship is a ‘thin ice’ situation as in a parens patrie matter requires strict integrity, decency, and statutory compliance so as to not infringe of the basic protections of the Federal Constitution, the Illinois Constitution and most importantly the 14th Amendment.     A Guardian’s power is thus severely limited solely to his specifically published grant (published in the order of appointment and the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3) and actions that are 1) reasonable, 2) necessary, and 3) benefit the word.      It is respectfully suggested that the record herein and in case 07 P 5360 suggest that all the protective criteria were vitiated and ignored.  (Judicial notice of this Court’s records and case 07 P 5360 is requested in the interest of justice).

The Summary Judgment order entered herein is particularly offensive to not only the origins, and principles, of Equity, but  Article 1, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution, but Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution.     A litigant seeking the equitable relief of a foreclosure cannot engage in FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE or deal inappropriately with senior citizens.    Indeed, the grant of Summary Judgment not only ignores statutory prohibitions, but even basic concepts that even lay litigants are aware.

In particular, how is the Byline Bank even before this Court to file a foreclosure action.    An examination of the documents filed by the Byline Bank does not include an assignment, quit claim deed, or other evidence of a conveyance of the Security Interest from the original holder of the Mortgage (Plaza Bank) to Byline Bank).     Byline Bank may have some relationship with other creditors of Mr. Sallas, but proxy litigation is not appropriate for a court of equity.

Indeed, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Byline Bank/appellee is replete with documents that connote AND emphasize the plaintiff’s ‘lack of doing equity, unclean hands, criminal conduct’ and serious conduct that raises serious concerns.    The clear unequivocal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22), and 720 ILCS 5/17 -56 cannot be ignored or swept under the Rug.    Both statutes are remedial and intended to address the very concerns that are raised in these proceedings.

Further, even though the HIMMEL decision is ignored in these FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE cases the totality of the legislation enacted at both the State and Federal level manifests a demand that the elderly’s 14th Amendment protections not be trampled on by institutions such are noted herein.   

The disclosure rules and ordinances enacted both at the Federal and State level that address loans to senior citizens and other vulnerable people are more than words on paper.    They are intended to be strictly enforced, even if a Byline Bank, or a Court Appointed Guardian would be embarrassed or lose money.     The spectacle created by the calculation of the alleged balance due illustrated the point.     As the Guardian (Mr. Golbert) has never been specifically authorized to address any asset of Appellant Dean Sallas (including his marital property interests) serious questions of ultra vires conduct (as well as criminal contempt of court questions) are raised by the February 15, 2018 petition.  These questions and the comments made by the Byline Bank in support of its MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT suggest some serious conspiratorial action.    

On January 25, 2018 the contract that violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 was signed.   This contract was attached to the complaint as the first 3 pages of exhibit H.     It is respectfully submitted that the claimed balance due to the Byline Bank was approximately $175,000.00.     There was no mention of any sundry secret judgments outstanding etc.  In fact the Guardian’s February 15, 2018 petition to Judge Boliker similarly made no mention of such a judgment.    Protection of Debtors under law require such items to be disclosed when the documents are signed.   

Thus, the Byline Bank /Cook County Public Guardian pattern continues unabated in the lower Court.    Mr. and Mrs. Sallas are elderly and vulnerable – ergo,  being a bit disrespectful, it is the position of the defendant/appellant that the trial court ruled that if remedial legislation designed to protect against FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE interferes with the whim and caprice of the Byline Bank & Guardian the said legislation not only can be ignored, but the objecting elderly are silenced![4]          

Without discovery, the appellant/defendant has not had the ability to make inquiry as to what if any attunements, special dispensations  et al may have been facing him in these proceedings.     It is apparent now that the  appellant pursuant to the provision of 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56, the appellant might have a serious counterclaim against not only the Byline Bank, but others involved in the trial court proceedings.    Section 56 may not come with the hype of a RIC0 action, but not only does this remedial legislation connote a legislative intent that the FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSERS face criminal charges, but on the Civil side the award to be assessed is Triple Damages, plus Attorney fees.    So serious was the Illinois Legislature that this remedial legislation be readily available, that it also lowered the Standard of Proof to preponderance of the Evidence.

The appellee is not paranoid in suggesting some sort of attornment or special dispensation by Judge Boliker in approving the Guardian obfuscating a criminal action perpetrated against its ward.    He cannot understand Judge Boliker and/or Judge Robles did not forward to Law enforcement a referral in this instant case.    It is respectfully suggested that the totality of the facts memorialized in the record herein are a cogent example of FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE barred by Illinois Statutes, and so corrosive to the core values of America that not only must the Summary Judgment be reversed, but a referral to Law enforcement must be made.  18 USCA 4 demands the same.

The demand of the appellant for a referral is not taken lightly.    Indeed,  it is respectfully submitted that no making such a request would a measure of disrespect by the appellant for himself, but the Justice system.    The calculation of loan balances demands the same.  No Court can, in my opinion, garner the respect that is demanded to do its job and accept the calculation of a creditor that commences with a initial loan balance on January 25, 2018 and ends two years later after the payment of approximately $20,000 with a new balance of approximately $200,000 more than the initial debt

With all due respect, the Appellant suggests that the concept of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW as defined by centuries of English and America Equity law cannot tolerate the conduct disclosed by the Byline Bank in this foreclosure suit toward an elderly couple i.e., Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas.    The Summary Judgment of foreclosure and the subsequent orders of Court approving the “sale” of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Sallas must be reversed and rendered for nought.  



The Judicial system of the State Court is the ‘escape value’ of society and thus the Court system must not only be held to the standard of “Caesar’s wife”  but, in fact be free of bias, favoritism, and even the appearance of corruption.    Thus,  if a citizen is to be denied his right to a trial on the merits by a ‘short cut’ procedure of Summary Judgment the proof of liability cannot be tinged by obvious exaggerated claims for attorney fees, obvious breaches of fiduciary relationship, misleading petitions such as the February 15, 201

[Message clipped]  View entire message

kenneth ditkowsky5:33 PM (5 minutes ago)
to, Joanne, Cheryl, Janet, Ed, Key, JANET, Mary, Katherine, Ditkowsky, Chicago, Dean,, AP,, ADA, ABA, Cook,, Tribune, USDOJ, Fox,,, Rick, U.S., Jay,, Brian,,, Whistleblower, SUNTIMES, Nasga, Aging.Ilsenior, United,,,, Aging, The, ABA,,, American, Probate,,, Mary,, Sam, Ray,, FBI, Debra, Legal, Campasano, Ombudsman, CFPB_Ombudsman, Judiciary, Chicagobar, Illinois, ABA, AARP, American, American, Adult, Lisa, Atty, APS,, McKnights, Loyola, Joe, Breitbart,, Suntimes, CFPB, Crain’s, CONTACT, Citizen, Durbin, Kenneth, Human, Joanne, Diana, Dorothy, The, Mary, CFPB_EEO,, CFPB_FederalRegisterComments, Federal, International,, International, Law, Harry, Scott, Headline, YoungTiffany, Dean,

Mr. Phillips 

It is always interesting to see what entities accept a particular e-mail on a particular subject and where the e-mail does not reach the entity to which it is sent.

Indeed, some of the addresses are old, some are copied wrong etc — On Government e-mail addresses I usually go with the flow and send the -e mails to the address that I was given or that pops up on the computer.

Apparently, a nerve has been hit – I was a little more careless than usual on my last e-mail to you – a bunch of what I thought to be dead e=mail addresses actually appear to have received the e-mail.   

The last time this happened was just before the Britney Spears case exploded.  (That was the guardian case where this young woman was given a plenary guardian even though she negotiated and performed multi=million dollar contracts!   Her obvious incompetency was in NOT protesting more vigorously that her 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights were violated by The California Courts.

Using the criteria of Spears, anyone at random can be Guardianized.   Indeed, in your parents situation that is exactly what has happened.    

Methinks that the overt violence in our cities across America may be bringing BIG GOVERNMENT to the realization that our Courts are THE EXCEPT VALUE OF OUR SOCIETY and the lesson that they are teaching is that Anarchy is the wave of the future.    DEMONIZATION of your enemies (or perceived enemies) is the norm — GRANDMA is no longer is a favored person in the Little Red Riding Hood story – it is the wolf!   

The guardian is doing a public service in today’s “world”    He according to current narrative – he is eliminating the elderly so as to make more room for the next crop of oldsters.   He is also sharing the wealth!!   (Especially with the courthouse criminals! – Judge **** has at least one child to support, and a Byline Bank loan her husband was given to pay off!! – Judge *****     Amy and Dean Sallas are old!   The Guardian and judge arranging for burial of Amy Sallas are doing a public service!!!   That public service may violate both the Federal and the State Constitution – but – what the H*** – those are outdated documents anyhow.   The credo is printed on the back of the dollar bill, to wit:  IN JUdge **** we trust!!!  (God is also old!)

Ken Ditkowsky

[Message clipped]  View entire message

ReplyReply allForward

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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