The fiasco with Mrs. West is outrageous. Tomorrow she goes before a Judge pro se – this e-mail was sent to here with the hope that she can remember:
1) The guardian’s appointment was limited – he was not appointed to be God – but only to assist Mr. West to address – without interfering with his 14th Amendment Rights and also within the limits that the guardian’s action is to be:
1) reasonable,2) necessary, and3) actually, provide a benefit to Mr. West. The standard for determining whether the criterion are met is – “by the clear light of hindsight.”
The guardian is not appointed GOD!
Ken Ditkowsky
On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 08:36:13 PM CDT, Joanne Denison <joanne@denisonlaw.com> wrote:
There is also freedom of association under the first amendment and probably also somewhere in the Illinois Constitution which means that parents and children and spouses can freely see and communicate with one another. That is being violated too
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 5:55 PM kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have to be kidding!
The foregoing notwithstanding. I think my note to Mrs. West can be used in both the SAllas and the Compansano cases.
April 16, 2014
To: Mr. David Chipman – dchipman@monzonlaw,com
Subject: William and Rose West/ financial elder abuse
Dear Mr. Chipman,
Please allow me to introduce myself. I have encouraged Mrs. Rose West to seek legal help in addressing the financial elder abuse that she and her husband are currently experiencing. As Mrs. West has contacted your office for that service, I’ve taken the liberty of contacting you in the hope that you will help her and her husband out of this totally amoral and deplorable situation. Indeed, it gets worse almost daily – this afternoon I understand that Mr. West’s trust has been depleted by almost ¾’s to about $100,000.00 from its original corpus of approximately $400,000.00 –
Financial elder abuse usually accomplished by breaches of fiduciary relationship by Court supervised guardians has become a National scandal. The West case is outrageous in that Mrs. West and the family pastor are both being denied not only the usual courtesy to which they are entitled, but visitation with Mr. West. And it appears to me and those who have contacted me that Mr. West’s convalescence at his current “sheltered care facility” is reported to be more in the nature of solitary prison confinement rather than any health care endeavor. Mrs. West today informed me that she has some documentation that is most disturbing and allegedly wrongful.
Unfortunately, the West case is not a lone situation of financial elder abuse, but part of a serious problem. It has been reported in the New York Times, the New Yorker magazine, the Wall Street Journal, Netflix, some GAO reports to Congress ***** etc.
Mr. and Mrs. West are being forced to address an alleged wrongful interference in their marriage along with the dissipation of their estate. Worse yet, Mrs. West (and many other victims) have reached deaf ears in their attempts to interest Law Enforcement in protecting them and similarly situated elderly. The fact that the guardian =as a matter of law – is a fiduciary and held to the highest of standards appears to be irrelevant. Mr. West is allegedly held captive far from his home. In my opinion = based upon Mrs. West’s statements to me – intended as a deterrent to Mrs. West demanding that Mr. West receive appropriate health care and services that are tailored to Bill West’s needs.
I am certain that Mrs. West’s very legitimate complaints were communicated to you and your office. I am communicating with you in the hope that you and your firm will undertake to assist Mr. and Mrs. West in addressing this very serious problem.
While I know nothing about Nebraska law, I do know that it is wrong for any individual to interfere with the rights of husband and wife in each other, and a claim for alienation of affections is usually recognized. I am also aware that a ‘bunch’ of laws have been passed to obviate the scandal associated with FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE.
Recently I sent out an e-mail that summarized the situation here in Illinois, to wit:
Memorandum.
Pursuant to the 14th Amendment every person is guaranteed certain rights of civilization and in particular to be treated equally under the law. This right is not limited to a vague statement mumbled and forgotten but an honest recognition of each individual’s worth. The elderly and the disabled are included in this understanding and recognition.
Thus, when it became apparent that an individual might be suffering from a disability, or a mental deficiency society is faced with the prospect of assisting that individual with only such assistance as might be need for the individual to reasonably survive in a competitive environment/society. Illinois Law described this situation in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b. (It should be noted that each state has an amazing similar statute/statement, to wit:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-3) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-3)
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.
(Source: P.A. 102-72, eff. 1-1-22.)It should be noted that the 14th Amendment provision is mentioned, i.e. “ only as is necessary to promote the wellbeing of the person with disability” To protect the citizen’s rights from over-reaching the statute provides another limitation, to wit: “GUARDIAN SHALL BE ORDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSITATED BY THE INDIVIDUALS ACTUAL MENTAL, PHYICAL & ADAPTIVE LIMITATIONS.
In the Sallas, Compasano, West, and just about every other guardianship case that has been discussed these limitations have been grossly ignored. In the West case, as an example, why should a guardianship place Mr. West more than 100 miles from his home when it bars him from having the companionship of his wife and family. In the Sallas Mrs. Sallas was placed for a decade right in her home with her husband. To facilitate the “Tyler” style theft of the equity of her home, she was removed into a nursing home mile from Skokie in Buffalo Grove. In the Campasano case not only was the marriage arbitrarily not recognized by the guardian, but to prevent Mr. Campasano from enjoying the rights of his marriage an order of protection was granted by Judge Boliker without notice to Mrs. Campasano. (We also believe that Mr. Campasano was not given the right to protest). ALL OF THE FOREGOING ARE DIRECT VIOLATIONS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT to the United States Constitution.
American Law, prior to present assault on the rights of the elderly, honored the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional protections of the 1st Paragraph of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, protection was even provided prior to the appointment of a Guardian. Unfortunately, it appears that this protection was granted in form and not in substance. Such is manifest by the number of professional guardians rummaging through the estates and the absence of express findings of law and fact by judges. In Illinois, the applicable statute is 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3a, which states:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-3) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-3)
Sec. 11a-3. Adjudication of disability; Power to appoint guardian.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged person with a disability himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a person with a disability, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a person with a disability as defined in Section 11a-2. If the court adjudges a person to be a person with a disability, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate. The court may appoint co-guardians in accordance with Section 11a-15.If one reads section 3a and 3b together, we note the following requirements, to wit:
1) Due process averments must be made, served on all interested parties and proven by clear and convincing evidence. This is most procrustean of the burdens of proof.
2) The burden of proof is upon the person asserting that another person is disabled and in need of a guardian. This burden of proof has to be specific to meet the criteria of section 3b.
3) The person appointed to be guardian is A FIDUCIARY and as such is held to the highest standard of conduct.
4) The guardianship appointment is not a rote matter. A person being deprived of his/her rights is entitled to counsel, a written document detailing the basis upon which guardianship is sought, and the finder of fact a jury rather than the judge. (In fact the usual proceeding is a “joke!” if all the required people are indeed notified, they are silenced by a judge who 99 out of 100 times will appoint predatory Guardian’s ad litem, and listen to a physician who would if every person in the Courtroom was wearing a mask and dressed in the same attire as the elderly person would find them all in need of guardian including the esteemed judge. In too many cases this physician is not paid to give evidence, he/she is paid to provide a testimony that he has examined the elderly person, and he finds from his examination that the elderly person has no ability to do anything of substance.
(In the case of Amy Sallas, she was actually doing the shopping, engaging trades people to do work around the home, making meals, etc. She was so disabled that her guardian placed her back in her home where she and Dean lives for ten years with virtually no supervision. The guardian’s primary duty was to harass the couple and make demands of the court for compensation).
The statute is consistent [1] with the proposition that as a fiduciary the Guardian is held to highest standard of care and compliance with the RULE OF LAW. What this means in simple terms is that the guardian’s actions must be a) reasonable, b) necessary, and c) must provide a benefit to his ward.
If any of these 3 elements are not present not only is the guardian not entitled to compensation, but the guardian is subject to sanction and reimbursement of the guardian’s estate. In today’s guardianship lawfare, it is noted that.
a) In most of these guardianship cases the presiding judge does not make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ergo, the Court cannot enter and order that comports with the requirements of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.
b) The order entered by the Court makes no attempt to spell out the authority of the guardian and specifically limits the same to the criteria of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.
c) That the Judge presiding in the Guardianship Court is essentially a rubber stamp and no matter what, if anything the Guardian requests he gets. In the Sallas case the guardian desired to ravage Mr. Sallas credit. It appears that a Judgement was entered against Mr. Sallas for support of his wife – no petition, no service of process, no domestic relations proceeding, no basis, no averment – the real purpose was to prevent Sallas from refinancing certain loans that were coming due. Such was successful. In the Campasano case the Order of Protection appears to have been entered – the real purpose is to prevent Ms. Campasano from preventing the neglect of her husband.
d) If a person KNOWS the object of his bounty, KNOWS the extent and nature of his property, and CAN PERFORM a simple business-like transaction such as purchasing something from the local store – -the need for a guardian is very questionable.
Every State in the Union has a Statute similar to the Illinois statute addressing the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on indenturing citizens for the benefit of public officials such as guardians and protection all citizens so that they enjoy the RULE OF LAW. In the Britney Spears case, the California Courts made a mockery out of the Guardianship law. Ms. Spears negotiated and performed multi=million-dollar contracts – the fact that she liked to wander around inappropriately dressed and say wild things did not warrant her rights being violated. But they were!
Across America, the elderly are being preyed upon but individuals who owe them fiduciary responsibility and corrupt judges. This aspect of Lawfare is being ignored by Law enforcement and government in general. It is corruption personified and cannot be further tolerated.
I assume that Nebraska has similar laws that are designed to protect its citizens. Illinois’ 720 ILCS 5/17 – 56 was remedial and in Illinois provides a civil lawsuit that is interesting and an incentive to the legal profession. In particular, it provides for Attorney fees, and triple damages – PLUS – the reduction of the burden of proof from clear and convincing to preponderance.
As I am retired, and pushing 88 years of age, I do not have ready access to Nebraska law, but section the financial elder abuse statute was enacted as a remedial statute based upon the overflowing number of financial elder abuse situations that are current being perpetrated -thus Nebraska mush have something similar.
Today, it is Bill West – tomorrow it may be me or thee! I hope that you can assist Mr. and Mrs. West in getting the remaining years of their life back.
Thank you for your courtesy and any assistance you can provide my friends.
Ken Ditkowsky
[1] Read together 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 states, to wit:
‘
(755 ILCS 5/11a-3) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-3)
Sec. 11a-3. Adjudication of disability; Power to appoint guardian.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged person with a disability himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a person with a disability, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a person with a disability as defined in Section 11a-2. If the court adjudges a person to be a person with a disability, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate. The court may appoint co-guardians in accordance with Section 11a-15.
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.
(Source: P.A. 102-72, eff. 1-1-22.)Ken Ditkowsky
On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 02:24:09 PM CDT, Joanne Denison <joanne@denisonlaw.com> wrote:
biden is not involved in the doj and the doj is mostly republican. remember the states are mostly going after clown 45, not the feds or the gop. the federal court judges are mostly gop.
Joanne M Denison, Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFP, 5534 N. Milwaukee Ave, Chicago, IL 60630
phone 312 553 1300, cell 773 255 7608 efax 773 423 4455
NOTE: Joanne Denison is not a licensed attorney and does not provide any legal opinions or advice. She is an expert consultant in political/court corruption only.
make an appt at https://joanne-denison.youcanbook.me/ and please bring a donation if you can. We do not charge, but we do ask for a small donation or whatever you can afford.
our work can only continue through your generous donations. please donate at www.paypal.me/joannedenison or www.patreon.com/joannedenison if you are using our services
see our blogs at www.marygsykes.com and www.justice4every1.com
we are a 501.c.3 not for profit. donations may be tax deductible with a receipt
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:34 PM kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
Interesting observation – apparently I’m not the only one to observe this situation.
Now let’s translate this to guardianship scenario. Trump has billions of dollars to defend him – Rose West, Dean Sallas, Sophia Campasano ***** do not. Have you noticed Rose and Sophia are being harassed with claims of orders of protection that may or may not exist. Dean has been threatened with arrest.
Ken Ditkowsky
MaryGSykes.com 