CONFIRMED BY ILL. SUPREME COURT– YOU ARE VIEWING THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOG IN ILLINOIS. This blog warranted a 3 year suspension by the ARDC/Jerome Larkin! Mottos: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Justice Louis Brandeis ; "If the truth can destroy something, then it deserves to be destroyed" Carl Sagan; "Justice is Truth in Action" Benjamin Disraeli. Illinois uses the ARDC to quash dissenting attorney activist blogs ; "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments" — (1776-First Amendment preamble adopted by 8 US colonies)
Patent and Trademark Attorney practicing in Chicago, Illinois accepting clients nationwide. We also do trademarks, general intellectual property and business litigation. See our website at www.DenisonLaw.com. Now suspended for 3 years by the Illinois Atty Regn and Disciplinary Commission for blogging about corruption and telling truths that the ARDC wants to cover up. And while I am doing that, I will continue on my blogging work. Latest fun blog with all the myths and urban legends about Q anon and the other Quackers and Fingers is www.qanonfakers.com. Lots of fun and silly stuff.
and while this article blames one party, BOTH parties engage in it, and I have heard from numerous sources the FBI and the FEC knows about this and does nothing about it!
One of the family members said his mother would ask him who he was, meaning she didn’t recognize her own son. She hadn’t voted since 2012 — yet MyVote Wisconsin revealed she voted twice in 2020.
Racine County, Wisconsin law enforcement blew the 2020 election integrity question wide open on Thursday after an investigation into one nursing home. It revealed not only that state election officials flagrantly broke the law and ordered health-care employees to help them, but that the problem likely runs much deeper throughout the swing state’s other 71 counties.
An “election statute was in fact not just broken, but shattered by members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission,” Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said during a Thursday press conference in which he and Sgt. Michael Luell detailed the findings of an investigation into Ridgewood Care Facility.
What Happened in Racine County?
The investigation came about when a woman named Judy signed a sworn affidavit with the Wisconsin Elections Commission after she discovered that her mother, who had died on Oct. 9, 2020 after a period of severe cognitive decline, had voted in the 2020 presidential election. The affidavit was later passed along as a complaint to the county district attorney.
Judy alleged that her mother Shirley’s mental state had deteriorated so far that she was having hallucinations and wasn’t able to recall what she had eaten during a day or even what day it was. According to Judy, her mother couldn’t see — her glasses were broken, and she couldn’t even recognize her own daughter — so even if she were of a sound mind, she wouldn’t have known whether someone assisting her with a ballot had voted according to her wishes.
Luell, who led the investigation at the request of the district attorney, found an unusual spike in voting at this care facility: 42 people had voted in the 2020 presidential election. That number is usually 10. Furthermore, in 2020, 38 people had requested absentee ballots, up from the usual 0-3 in normal years.
When Luell attempted to contact the families of these voters to check whether their loved ones had the cognitive capacity to cast a vote, seven replied no, and almost all of them hadn’t voted since 2012. One of the family members said his mother would ask him who he was, meaning she didn’t recognize her own son. She hadn’t voted since 2012 — yet MyVote Wisconsin revealed she voted twice in 2020.
Wisconsin Election Commission Broke the Law
This surge in voting was the result of Wisconsin Elections Commission officials breaking state law. The commission — which is made up of six commissioners, including three Democrats and three Republicans, who are appointed by legislative leaders or the governor and serve as an agency in the executive branch under the governor — authorized nursing home employees to help residents vote, which Luell noted “is a direct violation of law.”
According to Luell, employees would ask residents how they voted in the past and then vote according to that party. In other words, if Judy’s mother “could only recall JFK,” staff would vote Democrat for her.
According to state law, however, nursing home staff can’t assist residents with voting. In fact, nobody can help the voter other than a relative or “special voting deputies,” which are people appointed by municipal clerks or elections boards to conduct absentee voting at care facilities.
In March, however, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent out a letter mandating that municipalities should not use the “special voting deputy process.”
“Ladies and gentleman, it’s not a process. It’s the law,” Luell said, citing state Statute 6.875.
The original letter was issued under the guise of COVID guidelines. Nevertheless, in September, after the governors’ lockdown orders had expired and the initial shock of the pandemic had passed, the Wisconsin Elections Commission sent a letter to all residential care facilities telling the workers how to help residents vote, including even marking the ballot for them, in direct violation of state law.
Racine law enforcement looked at 2020 visitor logs and found that other visitors were let into the nursing home throughout the pandemic, about 900 times between the decision in March not to use special voting deputies and November 2020. Those visitors included someone to clean the fish tanks and birdcages and even DoorDash delivery people.
Under Wisconsin state statute 12.13, breaking these laws about special voting deputies constitutes “election fraud,” which is a felony.
“We’re just one of 72 counties, Racine County,” Schmaling noted. “Ridgeland is one of 11 facilities within our county. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these facilities throughout the entire state of Wisconsin. We would be foolish, we would be foolish to think for a moment that this integrity issue, this violation of the statute, occurred to just this small group of people at one care facility in one county in the entire state. I would submit to you that this needs the attorney general’s investigation,” the sheriff said, calling for the AG to launch an immediate probe into the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Add It to the List
This bombshell investigation is only the latest in the long list of malfeasant actions by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, especially regarding the 2020 election. As Wisconsin radio host and lawyer Dan O’Donnell put it, the commission “was downright derelict in its duty to fairly and impartially oversee an election.”
As O’Donnell documented, the commission unlawfully allowed clerks to “cure” ballots, illegally permitted clerks to go home on election night and return to finish counting in the morning, and illegally told clerks they could relocate polling locations in the weeks before the election.
Furthermore, the commission failed to issue relevant laws and rules for training municipal election workers, special voting deputies, and election inspections. Worse, it failed to investigate voter rolls for the hundreds of thousands there incorrectly, including more than 45,000 first-time voters whose names didn’t match Department of Transportation records, among other issues.
As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway outlines in her new book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” the Wisconsin Elections Commission also wrongly kept third-party candidates off the ballot, including Kanye West and the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins. Third parties can significantly affect elections in the Dairy State.
“Following the [Legislative Audit Bureau] report, what Sheriff Schmaling has uncovered + disclosed might only be tip of the iceberg of fraud in the 2020 election. The Legislature must be given the time, resources, and cooperation of election officials to conduct a complete investigation of allegations,” tweeted Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin following the Racine press conference. “Using elderly residents with cognitive decline to commit election fraud is reprehensible, and should concern every Wisconsinite and American.”
Johnson continued: “If Democrats will stoop this low to impact elections, one can only imagine what else they’re willing to do.”Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.Photo Spc. Miguel Pena/U.S. Army
From Joanne;
From what I have heard, this type of fraud from the nursing homes is not party specific. Generally operatives at the nursing homes call both parties, as for a bid on all their ballots and the party that pays the most, gets a straight party vote from that party.
This has to end.
Online voting would end this fraud in that a computer program can easily capture signature, voice and face recognition to automatically check for voter fraud.
If we can bank online, we can vote online and the votes don’t need to end up as those from the highest bidder paying to nursing home operatives.
And remember, statistically election fraud does not favor one party over the other. When fraud is committed, both parties seem to benefit about equally.
Finally, someone came to their senses. Hospitals are so used to enforcing senseless and inhumane rules, charges against and elderly grandmother have become the rule of the day. That has to end. Kudos to this grandmother
A 70-year old great grandmother was hauled off to jail last month after refusing to leave her critically ill daughter’s side at UF Health in Jacksonville.
A 70-year old great grandmother was hauled off to jail last month after refusing to leave her critically ill daughter’s side at UF Health in Jacksonville.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – It’s a story that gained national attention.
A 70-year old great grandmother was hauled off to jail last month after refusing to leave her critically ill daughter’s side at UF Health in Jacksonville.
On Thursday, News4Jax learned the misdemeanor charge of trespassing have been dropped.
“I was not looking at spending any time in jail,” Lynn Savage said.
Savage said she is happy the charges were dropped but she says the UF Health nurse who called security on her should have recognized her as her daughter’s advocate.
The last time News4Jax spoke with Savage she had just been released from jail after being arrested on a charge of trespassing.
Savage was arrested after she refused to leave her daughter’s bedside at UF Health after her daughter had just undergone brain surgery.
“It makes sense to me that they would drop the charges. It didn’t make sense that they would arrest me at all,” she said.
Savage said she’s her daughter’s caregiver, advocate and interpreter since her daughter is mostly non-verbal after suffering a brain injury. She says her daughter’s doctor had asked her to be at the hospital to calm her down following the surgery.
“I was being instrumental in helping them communicate with her, then all of a sudden they wanted me to leave,” Savage said.
Savage was asked to leave after visiting hours ended. According to UF Health, those hours end at 7 p.m. due to COVID-19 restrictions. According to the arrest report, security and police pleaded with Savage for two hours to leave after visitation ended. Savage says she asked the supervising nurse to call the doctor that asked her to be there but says the nurse refused so she refused to leave.
“We’re not asking for anybody to bend the rules. We’re asking people to provide the same service to her that are provided to people without a handicap. The ADA ruled on that,” Savage said.
In other words, because her daughter can’t effectively communicate, she feels the nurse should have recognized that she is her daughter’s communicator. Amber Miller was only able to explain in one word what it was like when her mom was taken away in handcuffs.
“Stressful,” she told News4Jax.
Although the charges have been dropped, it’s still unclear if Savage is still banned from the hospital. Her daughter has to undergo another surgery.
News4Jax reached out to UF Health for a statement but we haven’t heard back yet.
Copyright 2021 by WJXT News4Jax – All rights reserved.
Rarely do prosecutors charge anyone with a crime, but they seize large amounts of cash all the time, no trial no judicial review. Just some low life TSA agent takes the cash and threatens the traveler.
95% of the time the cash is grabbed and no charges are ever filed.
Cash grab investigation Part 2, is this the US? Robbed without out a gun, just a pen and a TSA badge and a pat down.
Like we all didn’t know this already. We know that all the time in Illinois nursing homes residents are not fed, not cared for, the nursing homes smell of urine and feces and the smell hits you right when you walk in. Friends and family reveal trays are plunked down in front of a frail, elderly patient promptly at 9 am, noon and 5 pm. If they don’t eat? so freaking what. The trays are taken away. The resident loses weight, they do a fake “swallow test” and put in a feeding tube laced with drugs at one end and a diaper at the other. A major nursing home operator in Chicago, Phillip Esformes is indicted in one county only in Miami Dade Florida for $2 billion in nursing home fraud and sent to prison for 20+ years. IQ 45 gets the requisite bribe of $2 million (chump change for the perp) and PE gets a pardon. His system continues of tie ins to the courts, the police and the courts.
PE has nursing homes in Illinois for over 20 years.
For years, including the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois officials failed to properly oversee nursing homes, including not enforcing staffing requirements and not imposing penalties sufficient to deter inferior operations, a consultant’s investigation concluded.
As a result, nursing home residents lodged an increasing number of complaints and faced ongoing dangers. Some facilities were cited repeatedly for the same violations, including abuse and neglect of residents, the report found.
Illinois had the second highest number of substantiated complaints per facility compared with similar states, with 1 out of 5 long-term facilities in the state having the lowest federal rating — one star. And ratings were disproportionately worse in Black areas with higher percentages of Medicaid patients.
A crucial contributing factor was that the state didn’t follow the law to maintain minimum staffing of its own inspectors, the investigation found.
To correct the situation, the state was advised to increase enforcement of staffing and other regulations, require public reporting of facility performance, use data to improve equity, and target consistently poor performing facilities for technical support, according to the review by Manatt Health Strategies, which was commissioned by the state.
The widespread shortcomings and sweeping recommendations were reported by Manatt in November 2020, but the Illinois Department of Public Health only recently revealed the findings after a Freedom of Information request by the Tribune.Watch now: Illinois honors fallen state trooperPlay Video
In response to Tribune questions, the department did not address all the recommendations individually, but reported that it had taken numerous actions to improve its oversight of nursing homes. The agency “fully agreed with the report’s recommendations and took immediate actions to reorganize the office, increase staffing levels that had been decimated under prior administrations, and completely eliminate the backlog of complaints,” spokeswoman Melaney Arnold wrote to the Tribune.
The department has hired a new management team, a project manager to implement the recommendations and 40 new nurse surveyors since September 2020.
Perhaps most importantly, the state has also proposed revamping its funding formula to tie it to staffing and quality improvements. But that may take until next year for lawmakers to address.
Meanwhile, advocates for nursing home residents said that based on residents’ experiences not enough has been done. Nursing homes report that staffing shortages remain widespread, statistics show that many staff members remain unvaccinated and some residents worry they are still vulnerable to substandard care and death from COVID-19 and other health risks.
The consultant’s review follows years of complaints by senior care advocates about lackluster government oversight of a mostly for-profit industry that houses some of the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Besides being the main state agency that oversees efforts to fight a pandemic, one of IDPH’s steady jobs over the years has been to oversee nursing homes. And in March 2020, with the then-new virus particularly targeting the older and more frail, advocates warned IDPH that the agency needed to aggressively monitor facilities because of their poor track record on fighting infections.
Yet the agency’s initial response was broadly criticized as too timid and uncoordinated as the virus swept through facilities that were often understaffed and short on protective gear. A Tribune investigation later found that during COVID-19′s first wave — even as most COVID-19 deaths were tied to long-term care facilities — IDPH had largely stopped inspecting facilities. Even when inspectors went, they often went well after major outbreaks had occurred, with the agency at times struggling to have accurate counts of cases and deaths at facilities.
At the time, the agency said it was doing all it could in unprecedented times, and that it limited inspections to lessen the chance its inspectors could catch and spread the virus. But, with family visits disallowed too, that meant far fewer outsiders could keep tabs on what was going on inside facilities, worrying advocates and family members about poor care that could more easily be hidden.
Advocate Bruce Carmona noticed that the number of workers at the nursing facility where he lived in Elk Grove Village was steadily dwindling, but state officials didn’t seem to be enforcing staffing requirements.
As an advocate for nursing home residents statewide through Illinois Caregivers for Compromise, Carmona, 64, asked Illinois officials for more oversight, but hasn’t seen much of a response.
“During COVID, everybody laid in their beds, got bedsores, got sick and got lonely,” Carmona said. “From 2019 to 2020, there was a drastic change in staffing and the care you received. Staff was afraid of catching COVID, when they were actually bringing COVID into the nursing homes.”
The nursing home review by Manatt was launched in response to the state’s discovery that its Bureau of Long-Term Care was not properly investigating complaints of abuse and neglect from March 15 to June 2020 — even though complaints spiked in that time. Due to COVID-19, federal regulators had temporarily suspended deadlines to investigate certain complaints, but state requirements remained in place.
The health department reported that it subsequently investigated all of the 272 complaints from that time, and found 17 substantiated.
In the aftermath, the lack of state inspectors was of particular concern. At the time of the report, 90% of non-nurse surveyor positions were vacant.
The Bellwood region in the western suburbs had the largest gap, with almost two-thirdsof surveyor positions vacant, and one inspector per 588 beds, as of September 2020. The Bellwood region also had more facilities, more poorly performing facilities and far more complaints than other regions.
Statewide, Blacks made up 19% of nursing home residents, but 32% of those in one-star facilities. To counter that, the Manatt report recommended using data to assess and correct inequities.
AARP also called for reducing racial and ethnic disparities, in part by ending the practice of overcrowded nursing home rooms with three or four people per room, which disproportionately affects Black and Latino residents.
Commenting on the findings, Lori Hendren, AARP Illinois’ lead on nursing home issues, said, “What’s happened in Illinois nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) through the pandemic is an unacceptable tragedy. Illinois must have stronger oversight of LTCF’s across the state.”
Specifically, AARP called for requiring nursing homes to put most of their taxpayer funding toward direct care for residents through adequate and vaccinated staff. The staffing shortage, made worse by overworked employees who fear getting sick, could be improved by requiring paid sick leave for workers.
The consultant’s report covered a wide range of time, going back to 2014 for some nursing home metrics, through late 2020. In that time, residents of long-term-care facilities were particularly hard hit by COVID-19 in Illinois, where they made up 51% of all pandemic-related deaths, compared with 40% nationwide.
The Health Care Council of Illinois, which represents more than 300 nursing homes in the state, welcomed the recommendation for the state to offer assistance to violators to ensure compliance, as opposed to repeated fines.
“We cannot ticket our way out of the long-standing structural issues that afflict the industry,” HCCI spokesman Kevin Heffernan said. “We have to look at the root cause, which is that for decades the state of Illinois has reimbursed care for low-income patients at among the lowest rates in the country.”
To help operators recover from the pandemic, Heffernan said, Illinois must increase Medicaid reimbursement, which would help to hire more staff and improve the quality of care.
As everyone is aware, ccportal (currently available only to Illinois licensed attorney) has all of the Cook County cases AND documents live. If you do not have an attorney who can access for you and you are poor and indigent or in need, let me know and I will try to find someone for you to do this (not sure why it is not available to Illinois NPOs and NGOs but that’s a whole other story for Iris Martinez, for sure)
so here is the email I received today when asking about a case. It’s total good news!
Elena S. Demos (Circuit Court) esdemos@cookcountycourt.com via cookcounty.onmicrosoft.com
As soon as the Law Division goes live with the new Odyssey Case Management System later this month, all Law Division dockets and images will be available on CCC Portal (the existing 1970s-era case management system does not have the capability to interact with CCC Portal). Once the whole Office is live on Odyssey CMS, dockets and images from throughout the State will be available on RESearch IL, the PACER-type system selected by the Illinois Supreme Court. For now, we can email you requested copies of documents.
*****
Thank you,
Elena Shea Demos, J.D.
Chief Deputy Clerk, Law Division
Iris Y. Martinez, Clerk of the Circuit Court
First Judicial District, State of Illinois
50 W. Washington Street
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 801
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 603-5474
So this is good news and good progress. Thanks to Elea Demos and Iris Martinez
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 voidas 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
CARE homes have been accused of using strong sedatives to kill coronavirus victims more quickly.
Prescriptions for midazolam exploded at the height of the pandemic, with some claiming that it “transformed end-of-life care into euthanasia”.
⚠️ Read our live coronavirus blog for the latest news and updates2Nursing Homes Charged With Using Strong Sedatives To Quickly Kill Covid-19 Victims In Nursing HomesCredit: Getty – Contributor
Official figures indicate that 38,352 hospital discharge orders for midazolam were issued in April, more than double the figure for February.
The monthly average for the past five years in England has been around 15,000.
An anti-euthanasia activist said the spike is proof that nursing homes have put their residents on “end-of-life” pathways, reports MailOnline.
Whistleblowers also claimed to have witnessed the abuse of sedatives – staff instructed to give them to dementia patients to prevent them from wandering the hallways.
Sun Online could not verify these claims.
Retired neurologist Professor Patrick Pullicino, who has exposed the wrongful administration of powerful pain relief to patients suspected of dying on the Liverpool Care Pathway, is concerned that the same thing will happen again.
He told MailOnline, “Midazolam depresses breathing and accelerates death. It turns end-of-life care into euthanasia. ”
He also claimed that some Covid-19 patients were wrongfully kept out of the hospital, despite the fact that their admission could have saved their lives.
Professor Pullicino accuses an official organization chart designed to help health workers decide which patients should be admitted to intensive care.
“To me, this flow chart encouraged the use of end-of-life sedation with midazolam – effectively leading to euthanasia routes,” he said.
Eileen Chubb of the Compassion in Care charity said that nursing home workers told her they thought the sedatives were used too freely during the pandemic.
She said some staff had the “final impression” that residents of very sick care homes should not be sent to the hospital.
The Association for Palliative Medicine responded and said there were good reasons for the increase in prescriptions for midazolam.
Dr. Amy Proffitt of the Association for Palliative Medicine told MailOnline, “I absolutely don’t believe there have been cases of euthanasia in nursing homes linked to Covid-19. ”
She said the drug was an obvious choice for patients with breathing difficulties – one of the main symptoms of coronavirus.
She added, “I can understand why people raise concerns, but when prescribed and used appropriately, midazolam will not accelerate or prolong someone’s death – it will only comfort. “
This is a story about an out of control judge. I do not have transcripts or a case file yet, so names will be omitted for the time being
Apparently an elderly woman, age 72, had a judgment issued against her a few years back. The judgment was substantial and it was based upon a failed business transaction. The Plaintiff wanted to be paid, so they pursued the elderly woman with a series of Citations to Discover Assets, which is their legal right to do. If you owe someone money they can drag you into court every month and question you about your assets.
In this particular case, for some reason, the court issued a court order that she had to pay $25 per month. This is despite the fact she had filed an affidavit of exemption with the court and told the judge that she only had some $1000…
This is a story about an out of control judge. I do not have transcripts or a case file yet, so names will be omitted for the time being
Apparently an elderly woman, age 72, had a judgment issued against her a few years back. The judgment was substantial and it was based upon a failed business transaction. The Plaintiff wanted to be paid, so they pursued the elderly woman with a series of Citations to Discover Assets, which is their legal right to do. If you owe someone money they can drag you into court every month and question you about your assets.
In this particular case, for some reason, the court issued a court order that she had to pay $25 per month. This is despite the fact she had filed an affidavit of exemption with the court and told the judge that she only had some $1000 per month in income from social security and had nothing else.
The judge never should have issued an order that she pay $25 per month, that is illegal. She was entitled to her exemption because she is indigent and owns no property real or otherwise. She lives in a modest apartment on her social security. Creditors are not allowed to attack social security under both state and federal law.
But for some reason at the last court date, after the woman had filed a motion to terminate the payments on the basis of exemption, the judge got mad. He asked her 4 times why she would not pay $25 per month and she responded she didn’t have it and her social security income was exempt. That was the truth so she said it and repeated it politely. I guess on the 5th statement, he held her in contempt and ordered she be jailed.
Now normally, most courts have a small lock up someplace at the courthouse for litigants and the public who are disrepectful to the judge and don’t follow orders. But this woman was polite and merely repeated that she simply didn’t have the $25 per month and the law doesn’t permit creditors to get her social security money.
Not only did the judge transfer her to the main jail, but somehow she also got a strip search and body cavity search as her punishment for challenging the judge’s order to pay $25 per month. Body cavity searches are not to be performed for minor offenses, traffic offenses, and for certain civil litigation defendants who are poor after a contempt of court hearing.
She is currently seeking a lawyer to sue the judges and the deputies involved for false arrest, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In addition, she has had problems getting her transcripts. Apparently she has paid for the last 3 or 4 months of transcripts but she still doesn’t have them. She is going to file a complaint with the state agency that regulates court reporters. A court reporter should have a short transcript done in 2 weeks, 3 weeks at the latest. Apparently the judge has been harassing her about her pro se motions to terminate the $25 per month payment which she has been filing every month and the judge has been entering and continuing them.
And this is actually extremely unusual shameful conduct for a civil judge. Civil judges are not supposed to be in the business of jailing litigants. They have lots of tools at their disposal, and generally they should fine first or order a litigant to X numbers of community service if they are indigent. This judge didn’t have to jail this woman, and for sure she should not have had a body cavity search. That was soooo freaking out of control.
Apparently this judge and court really love the defendants for this to happen to an elderly woman.
The judge should be removed from the bench, the deputies who arrested her should be disciplined and all the lawyers involved in this should be disciplined severely.
I mean, what does this judge want from her, to go to the nearest blood bank and sell her blood or plasma and have the money transferred to the defendants by court order? He seems like he would be voted judge most likely to do it!
It appears to me from the reports of today’s hearings that Judge Boliker has an extreme conflict of interest and in addition has a lack of understanding what her role is in these proceedings. She is not a cheerleader, nor is she a party in the usual sense. I quote from the Struck vs. Cook County Public Guardian 387 IllApp 3d 867
To the extent that James argues that the guardian’s decisions are causing harm to Janie, we note that the circuit court has a duty to protect a ward from such alleged harm. In In re Mark W., 228 Ill.2d 365, 374-75, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15 (2008), our supreme court explained that an individual who has been adjudicated disabled under the Probate Act is viewed as “ ‘a favored person in the eyes of the law’ ” and is entitled to vigilant protection. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 374-75, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15, quoting In re Estate of Wellman, 174 Ill.2d 335, 348, 220 Ill.Dec. 360, 673 N.E.2d 272 (1996). Our supreme court stated that once a person is adjudicated disabled, that person remains under the jurisdiction of the court, even when a plenary guardian of the person has been appointed. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d. at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15. The court therefore has “a duty to judicially interfere and protect the ward if the guardian is about to do anything that would cause harm.” Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15. To fulfill this duty, the court’s authority is not limited to express statutory terms. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15, citing In re Estate of Nelson, 250 Ill.App.3d 282, 287-88, 190 Ill.Dec. 212, 621 N.E.2d 81 (1993) (recognizing the authority of the circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem to investigate an allegation that a ward was neglected). Our supreme court concluded that, in accordance with these principles, a circuit court has the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of a disabled individual even though that individual already had a plenary guardian of the person. Mark W., 228 Ill.2d at 375, 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 888 N.E.2d 15.
Throughout the Guardianship proceedings Judge Boliker has ignored the overwhelming evidence of misbehavior on the part of Guardian – and in particular Charles P. Golbert. The most recent evidence is today’s fiasco in which Dean Sallas petitioned the Court for funds – belonging to him – to be returned to him so that he can have food on the table, facility to participate in the hearings, money to provide for hazard insurance, taxes, closing and other necessities.
In the usual situation it is possible to ‘dream up’ a rationalization for the Judge’s conduct, but, Judge Boliker’s handling of her judicial duties is so below even the lowest standard for a judge every citizen has to speak out.
The nadir of judicial competence was exposed in the Zoom hearing of July 28, 2020, as well as in today’s proceeding. That hearing discloses that the Byline Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit against Amy Sallas, who was found to be a disabled adult in the case before Judge Boliker. 2007 P 5360. The Byline Bank was not shy or secretive. Indeed, in their pleadings in the case Byline Bank vs. Amy Sallas 2019 CH 13960 the Bank makes it very clear that on January 25, 2018 they solicited and obtain the signature of Amy Sallas on loan documents which were the subject of the foreclosure lawsuit. The security for the loan was the marital home of Dean and Amy Sallas.
Under Illinois law it was event to the attorneys for the Byline Bank, the Attorneys for the Guardian, the Guardian, the Guardian ad litem, and the Judge (Judge Boliker) that Illinois while not a community property State was a MARITAL PROPERTY STATE. What this meant was that any property brought into the marriage – no matter how titled – was Marital property and each party to the marriage had an undivided interest therein. All the attorneys and the judge were also aware of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and its remedial prohibition on persons – such as the Byline Bank – dealing with an adjudicated disabled person with a guardian appointed.
On this January 25, 2018, officers and agents of the Byline Bank intentionally violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and requested and obtained the signature of Amy Sallas on a loan contract. In addition, they obtained as security for the loan contract the marital home of Amy and Dean Sallas. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 is not complex, it states in one syllable words:
(755 ILCS 5/11a-22)(from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 11a-22) Sec. 11a-22. Trade and contracts with a person with a disability. (a) Anyone who by trading with, bartering, gaming or any other device, wrongfully possesses himself of any property of a person known to be a person with a disability commits a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Every note, bill, bond or other contract by any person for whom a plenary guardian has been appointed or who is adjudged to be unable to so contract is void as against that person and his estate, but a person making a contract with the person so adjudged is bound thereby. (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)
It is incomprehensible that the Guardian, Charles P. Golbert, his attorney, the Guardian ad litem, the attorneys for the Byline Bank, and/or Judge Boliker did not know that the case of BYLINE BANK vs AMY SALLAS 2019 CH 13960 was a lawsuit that not only was wrongfully filed, but was strong evidence of criminal activity. Yet, on July 28, 2020, and thereafter Judge Boliker has ignored her responsibility to the disabled person (Amy Sallas). Not only has she ignored her responsibility but knowing from the pleadings of the Byline Bank that her appointed Guardian was engaged in a pattern of fiduciary abuse of his ward and questionable candor in the Court appointed him as the Guardian of the person of Amy Sallas and did absolutely nothing to protect her interests, except patently deny Dean Sallas (Amy’s husband of more than half a century) his Constitutional Rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment. Indeed, Judge Boliker was prepared to allow the Byline Bank to get away with prior FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE and now the criminal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22.
Dean Sallas tried desperately to free his wife from the ‘elder cleansing/human trafficking in the elderly that befell her. The record demonstrates a pattern of conduct on the part of the Court and the Guardians more akin to a Soviet or 3rd Reich courtroom than an American. Dean and Amy were subjected to what amounted to unwanted, ultra vires, unintentional de facto DISSOLUTION of MARRIAGE. Amy was abducted from her home, and ultimately placed in a nursing home. Naturally Amy became infected with Covid. Dean’s efforts to come to his wife’s aid were repulsed – HIPPA according to the Guardian prohibited him having any information as to his wife’s life-threatening illness, her treatment, her chance of recovery etc. He could not even talk to her on the telephone!
The Judge’s statement on June 28, 2021, as to Dean’s alleged mistreatment of his wife was classic. Without a hearing and without taking evidence how would the Judge know all she recited. The fact was the diatribe was untrue. By in Judge Boliker’s courtroom such an assertion is irrelevant. Evidence in the sense that the Rules require is not required therein – the Judge made up her mind and does not wish to be bothered with the facts. The foregoing statement normally would be considered harsh, but after Amy Sallas had demonstrated overtly that she was wrongfully incarcerated in the Guardianship an anonymous call was received by the Skokie Police Department. The caller demanded a wellness check on Amy and reported that Amy was wandering aimlessly out in the snow in a less than appropriate dress.
The police responded, knocked on the front door of the Sallas residence and was greeted by none other than Amy Sallas (age 80) not only not walking in the snow but properly attired! No matter! The Guardian, and the Court would rather publish the fictional story as evidence of the need for Amy to be sequestered against her will in a nursing and being barred from communication with her husband of half a century.
Of course, the Guardian has without warrant of authority and in derogation of the 14th Amendment has taken complete dominion over the assets of both Dean and Amelia Sallas. So brazen is the Guardian that one of his attorneys was overheard bragging that it would not be long before they would leave Dean penniless and homeless. On July 28, 2020, the transcript of proceedings reveals that not only is the Guardian is not contesting the wrongfully obtained loan contract and the foreclosure. Judge Boliker disregarding her obligation to Amy Sallas is attorning. Neither are concerned that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 makes the loan contract V O I D and bars enforcement against her E S T A T E! As Amy’s estate is the security for the loan the foreclosure must be dismissed!
The loss of a half million-dollar asset does not bother either the Judge or the Guardian – Of course – why should it! Nine million dollars in savings has disappeared due to the domination of the Guardian!
Yes, a complaint has been filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Attorney General, the States Attorney and anyone who can be reached. The response has been disappointing!
Today, Dean Sallas made a simple motion – without funds he cannot prosecute his appeal. He wants his funds released ordered released by the Court! As there is no authority for the Guardian to touch a dime of his funds – he is asking simple relief. “JUDGE – ORDER THE GUARDIAN TO GIVE ME BACK MY MONEY!”
Dean has been advised (not by me) that his social security payment disqualifies him from an outright waiver of the cost of the appeal. However, without funds for food, clothing, transportation, communication, and the litigation he is checkmated. Hazard insurance for the home and car are luxuries, upkeep and maintance is out of the question and utilities are beyond the pale according to Judge Boliker and the Guardian! As things stand today DEAN SALLAS IS BEING DENIED HIS 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW and has petitioned to the Court to exercise her authority over the Guardian and require the Guardian to comport with the prohibition of Section 16-1 of the Criminal code and the 5th and 14th amendment.
You all witnessed the facade of today. First, the access telephone number was unilaterally changed. A new number was given out and then there was an attempt cull the number of witnesses. The delay was outrageous. Finally, when it was observed that some of the witnesses intended to wait till HELL froze over to observe what excuse Judge Boliker and/or her co-conspirators would take in an effort to deny basic CIVIL LIBERTIES to Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas – the ‘trump card’ was played – The Guardian did not receive a copy of the motion!
Playing Solomon, Judge Boliker leaped to the Guardian’s side – she wanted the Guardian to have the opportunity to be heard and thus the case was continued to September 8, 2021, at 10:00 A.M. As Dean actually served the Guardian and after the Guardian complained to the IARDC that Dean was not properly isolated from society, from time to time anticipating such a ploy when Dean sent me a copy of what he intended to file, I forwarded a copy to everyone in sight including the Guardian. Dean’s motion was served on the Guardian about July 4. I know – I was blind copied on the service – and as I was impressed by Dean’s efforts, I sent out a copy to everyone in sight – on the list was Lisa Casanova! She is an attorney for the Guardian who controls who, if anyone can communicate with Amy![1]
I write this memo to place of record the fact that Amy Sallas’ life is in real danger! We’ve all noted that sudden illnesses appear to elderly people who buck the system or have relatives who do so. Dean Sallas at 84 is also at risk! The guardian and the judge are well aware that the limitation of the 14th amendment codified in 755 ILCS 5/11 a – 3b has been wrongfully exceeded by Mr. Golbert. The applicable provision of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b states:
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. The order shall conform with Sections 11a-12 and 11a-14.[2] (Source: P.A. 102-72, eff. 1-1-22.)
There is no authority given to the Guardian to: 1) isolate the victim from her prior life, 2) impoverish her, 3) provide her with an unauthorized ultra vires de facto dissolution of marriage, 4) compromise her rights etc. There are certain no rights given in the statute for the Guardian to terrorize 3rd persons including the victim’s husband.
At stake here is America’s core values! This Sallas case is a touchdown proceeding placing before our society the simple question, to wit:
Are we a legitimate CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY dedicated to the principles of honor, integrity and justice or are we a Banana republic or worse? What happened in Judge Boliker’s courtroom today suggests we are on a path to being worse! Shame on us – this malady and criminal behavior placed in the light of day have to be addressed. It is up to LAW ENFORCEMENT to seize the moment and bring the miscreants to the Bar of Justice.
Time is of the essence!
Ken Ditkowsky
[1] It appears that exercising a FIRST AMENDMENT right and talking to old friends who happened to be targeted by the HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY (ELDER CLEANINGS) felonies is ethically challenged. I understand that JoAnne Denison was contacted by the IARDC for practicing law while suspended because she helped Dean Sallas attend the Zoom hearing of July 28, 2020. The Attorneys for Byline Bank appear to be very upset by Dean’s learning about 755 ILCS 5/11a -22. An IARDC attorney contacted me and wished me to respond to her. I did and found that she apparently did not wish to talk to me – I got back an e-mail rejection telling me I was blocked.
No one seems to be interested in the felony money laundering, wire fraud, mail fraud, financial elder abuse *****. The concern appears to be the fact that Dean Sallas cannot be isolated and in light of his demonstration of being more knowledgeable in the Rule of Law than the Guardian and some of his attorneys – Dean cannot be elder cleansed!
[2] This portion of the Statute, i.e. the order shall conform with Sections 11a – 12 **** are interesting as without the Court in compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3a actually making findings of fact and law literally sends the Guardian out pursuant to Section 3b without adequate instructions – and virtually flirting with ultra vires behavior. Golbert as the Public Guardian of Cook County is well aware his actions toward Dean Sallas are not only wrongful but criminal. His petition of February 15, 2018 heard by Judge Boliker was classic criminal contempt of Court. Golbert neglected to advise the Court that there was no loan contract to negotiate or sign – Amy had signed the contract and 755 ILCs 5/11a – 22 has voided it. Golbert had a duty to disclose this fact to the Judge – of course he did not. He further did not disclose the fact that Amy had negotiated a better contract that he (the big expert) had. His petition read literally suggested that everything was up in the air. THEN there is the 4th page of the 3 page contract. Why was this signature sheet signed by the Guardian? Why did he sign with the usual exculpation?
Golbert was also silent concerning the fact that prior the Byline Bank was engaging in FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE. Why would a 80 year old couple sign or qualify for a COMMERCIAL LOAN? Why was the ordinary fixed term not applicable or the Reverse mortgage? The only rationale was exploitation! The Bank could garner more interest and pay higher commission.
On Thursday, crying, angry family members lined up to tell the first-ever statewide task force on guardianship their horror stories. Many complained that professional guardians and their attorneys are taking advantage of their loved ones, often elderly parents or grandparents.
“Shame on all of you! You all know about it! Every single one of you here knows about it,” Mitzi Perotta said.Advertisement
“My mother has been trapped in guardianship for four years,” Craig Schaeffer said.
“How long do we have before more of our wards are emotionally and financially destroyed? When will we actually see a change?” Linda DeWitte said.
A guardian’s job is to oversee medical and financial decisions for the physically or mentally incapacitated, called “wards.” This group was created to improve the program by recommending new laws to improve oversight and reduce fraud and abuse.
“We don’t need a good guardian system. We need the best guardian system,” state Sen. Jennifer Bradley said.
The statewide task force on guardianship was formed shortly after this March audit was released from the Comptroller of Orange County, saying the guardian program was not being adequately supervised by the clerk’s office.
Rebecca Fierle, charged with two felonies related to the death of one of her wards, played a central role in the audit. It found that she and a dozen other professional guardians spent money that was not approved by the court.
The audit also found a lack of training in the clerk’s office, missing or inaccurate information in case files and judges being unaware of guardians not following the law, all claims Orange County’s clerk denied, calling the comptroller’s staff misinformed about her duties and responsibilities in guardian cases.
The task force will come up with recommended changes to the guardian system by October.
To whom it may concern, the following pages are a revised version of a letter written to the Michigan AG. It has mostly just been corrected of spelling errors. But the letter points out the problems we have had with Wayne County Probate Court. It does not follow the law! We need some kind of oversight of the court and GALs and Guardians. I affirm that this and the following pages are true to the best of my knowledge, under the penalty of perjury. Randy Robinson
Dear Attorney General Dana Nesssel, this is a case of elder abuse! And is extremely urgent! A matter of life and death! My mother Gayle Robinson is an 88-year-old Marine Corps veteran. She has been abused several times now! Physically, mentally and fmancially. Wayne County Probate Court, case numbers 2014-797255-GA & 2014- 797256-CA First by some of my siblings who stole over 100,000 dollars from her home equity line a credit. Then by the Westland police Det. R. Thivierge by not investigating the theft in a timely manor! Then later taking part in her kidnapping, on video. Then the biggest and worst ABUSE has come at the hands of Wayne County Probate Court and judge Terrance Keith, GAL Maria Vulaj, court appointed guardian and conservator, Mary Rowan, and her assistant Katie MacDonald. Also Kathy Law current guardian, Rickie Robinson current conservator, Mary Robinson petitioner, and Linda Robinson (checks). This is a case of obstruction of justice as well by using the probate court to stop the investigation of the theft by the Westland police. And the probate court was all too happy to help! It should be noted that according to EPIC law, five days before the first hearing to declare someone incapacitated you must file with the court any medical proof that a guardian is needed. On the first court date 06/10/2014, the only medical papers presented to the court was from my mothers doctor saying she was OK and didn’t need a guardian. Still the GAL and judge declared my mother incapacitated without any proof! And despite a doctors report stating my mother didn’t have dementia and was able to make her own decisions, regarding personal, health and financial matters. The judge ordered an investigation into the theft of my mother’s money, to this date none has been done! Again I have confronted the judge about this and why there is no report done yet, he says nothing and changes the subject to something else! Again transcripts show this! When my mom found out about her money being stolen, she demanded they pay her back, they refused and told her she just forgot she loaned them the money! And they didn’t owe her anything but rather they owed the bank. My mother went to her bank to get records about her account, as my sister Linda Robinson had committed mail fraud by changing the address on the account to her address. The bank gave my mother statements and cancelled checks. She found several checks with three different peoples handwriting on them. After getting no results from her kids to pay the money back, and the bank telling her they can’t tell her whose bank accounts thousands was transferred to online. The bank told her to go to the police to get subpoenas or warrants in order for them to tell who owns the accounts. My mother then went to the Westland police several times. She finally meets with Det. Thivierge, during the meeting he told me and my sister Debbie Fox and my mother. Not to leave mom alone anyone who either stole money or is trying to convince her they just borrowed the money, as if they get mom to sign anything or take a payment it would ruin his criminal case. So from that point one we made sure to not leave my mother alone with any of them and video record them when they came over. They didn’t like that as they kept saying, “mom I’ll explain everything to you away from Randy and Debbie and no cameras.” Well my mother didn’t fall for any of that. So they soon took her to PROBATE COURT to have her declared incapacitated. But just two days before filing in probate my two sisters Kathy Law, Mary Robinson and brother Rickie Robinson, came over and upset my mother on mothers day 2014. My sister Mary attacked me in the church parking lot while my sister Kathy filmed on her phone. My brother Rickie had hit me with his car three times, bumping me; luckily my then 14-year-old daughter also filmed them on her phone. The two sisters filed false police reports about me, when the police saw the video they were both charged with filing false police reports. And pled guilty. For some unknown reason the police didn’t charge them with assault even though they said they would. Soon afterward a lady showed up at the house Maria Vulaj and said she was a GAL that my sister Kathy Law had filed to be my moms guardian and conservator. My mother told her she didn’t need or want that, and told her about the money being stolen. I showed the GAL the video of the attack in the church parking lot and police reports. She told us, my mother, me, and Debbie that we didn’t have to show up in court, that they would have another hearing date after that one, of June 10th 2014, and at that time the judge would appoint my mother a lawyer, because she was objecting to everything. She interviewed my mother alone on the front porch. Then the day before the first court date GAL Maria Vulaj and Det. R Thivierge came to the house and tried to convince my mother that is was ok that some of her kids took the money, as they only took it from the bank not out of her pocket! Luckily I have this recorded too! I have all kinds of documentation! Police reports, medical reports, bank records, forged checks, show cause, petitions, motions, court orders, videos of all kinds of things that have happened, audio recordings, hand written letters from my mother, court transcripts that show statements from my mother, perjury, by almost everyone from the GAL to the guardian, and many of my siblings. I have proof of the perjury also! The perjury was also pointed out to the judge right after it happened but he does nothing. My mother has been kidnapped, held against her will in a psych ward, against a court order that she not be removed. Also the guardian’s paperwork was expired! So she had no authority to do anything to my mother! That’s why at first the hospital refused to admit my mother because my mother refused treatment, and the guardian had no proper paperwork. Again I have hospital records saying that! They only admitted her the next day after the guardian made a call to the Doctor that she has a “relationship” with and has worked with in the past at the hospital. The transcripts from 10107/2014 show the judge just being mad about his order not being followed, and ignoring all medical records, even stating that they were enough to end my mother’s guardianship! But he wasn’t going to ignore that fact that his order wasn’t followed. He ordered an IME; my mother went to the doctors of her choice as stated in the paperwork given to her by the GAL. So this is a case of revenge! Punishing my mother even with proof that she was ok! My poor mother has been through HELL! She doesn’t deserve this! Now they are going to sell her home too! Under value and to someone the GAL found? Strange that the house never had a for-sale sign in front, but she found a buyer? Also there was another conservator on the case for about a year, didn’t do much but billed over 70 thousand! They talked him down to 37 thousand! If his billing were legit he never would have came down! There has been fraud on the court, and when it’s pointed out with proof the judge says there no proof! Also after Mary Rowan cut off the rest of the family from seeing my mother . they got mad and went to court to have her removed. In the beginning, my siblings claimed my mother had dementia, this was proven wrong with many doctors’ reports! Then when they were removing, Mary Rowan. Who had my mother under lock and key at Maple Manor. They wanted my mother to live in an independent facility, Mary Rowan said, ” she needs 2417 care she has dementia!” They all screamed she does not have dementia! Then Mary Rowan and The GAL said that was the basis for you to start the guardianship, they pointed it out to the judge! My siblings denied saying that I pointed it out too. I told the judge just go back and look at the video of the hearing, it’s all on the record! What kind of judge is he? So the judge then removes Mary Rowan, and makes my sister Kathy Law my mother’s guardian! Even though there was a report from Henry Ford Hospital Neuropsychology Evaluation stating my mother is afraid of Kathy Law, and does not want to be left alone with her Since then my mother has told me and just about everyone involved in the case. That Paul Law attacked her! This is Kathy Law’s husband. I have this on video, and audio of a phone call, and a hand written letter to the judge from my mother telling him of this! Now they claim my mother has dementia again! And that she just thinks Paul Law attacked her. I pointed out to the judge again how they keep changing that to fit their needs. But did nothing again! That is perjury! My sister Debbie and I haven’t been allowed to see my mother for over a year now! They finally said we could have supervised visits for half an hour once a month, but cant take pictures, or record in any way. They don’t want us documenting anything she might tell us! We still have not seen her though. They also have had her on some very heavy SSRI drugs! Again medial records state my mother is only suffering from depression caused by the guardianship! And even recommends it be stopped to prevent further harm to her mentally, and to help her recover from the damage already done! So this court and this judge are guilty of Elder Abuse on my mother! I ask for a chance to show all my documentation to the Attorney General’s office. I ask for an immediate halt to all court action until investigation is complete. I would also like to point out that the judge made my brother Rickie Robinson my mother’s conservator, Rickie Robinson’s wife Judy Robinson helped set up the line of credit as she worked at the bank National City, now PNC. Rickie Robinson got a check for 11,000.00 dollars. First claimed it was a loan then a gift, then his early inheritance. He was ordered to make timely payment to my mother but refuses to, yet the judge then makes him the conservator? Also Mary Robinson got a check for $45,000.00 said she it was a loan from my mother. She said she bought a HUD house with it then got a loan on the house to fix it up, and was planning on getting another loan for $90,00000 after it was fixed up and then pay my mother back, but the bank got bought out and changed their loan rules. All of that would be bank fraud and fraud on HUD as well. So many things WRONG with this case! I am fighting for my mother’s life at this point! She will be 91 this November. There has also been fraud against the VA as my sister Kathy Law filed for and received Aid and Attendance for my mother~ She even got it retroactive claiming my mother was unable to care for herself, was wheelchair bound, when I have video of my mother chasing her dog down the hall of the home they now have her in, she picked up the dog carried her back to her room without any help from anyone and without a wheelchair, walker or cane! This case is all fraud! From the beginning and it just keeps getting worse! I use to live with my mother with my daughter. I had a very close relationship with my mother, as did my daughter, and my sister Debbie F ox. The other six siblings had claimed that we were systematically destroying their relationship with our mother, again without proof of any kind and my mother telling the judge she didn’t want to have anything to do with them as they stole her money and now have taken her to probate court. In reality they have used the probate court to systematically destroy our relationship with our mother, by asking the court to bar us from even visiting with her. In the last five years there has been a no contact order for us, then very limited supervised visitation. Then no visitation after we tried to report the assault on our mother. In the last five years we have been denied contact with our mother for three of those years. The judge ordered four times that we couldn’t file anything for 180 days, so that’s two full years of not being able to help our mother in anyway! This is out of control I have been in contact with many others that are having the same kind of problems with probates court in Michigan and across the country. I’m sure you know who April Parks is; well Mary Rowan is her Wayne County counterpart! This whole system has destroyed thousands of lives! I have offered more then once to help take care of my mother for FREE in her home along with my sister Debbie and anyone else in the family that wants to help. Instead they her in an apartment paying 21,060 a month for a studio, another 1700 for someone to walk my mother to the dinning room, shower her and give her meds, this is an independent senior apartment, not a nursing home or medical facility. So why is she there when they claim she has dementia? I would also like to point out that on the first court date my mother did show up and had no lawyer, even though at the beginning the GAL told the judge he needed to appoint my mother a lawyer. She had also told my mother she would get a free lawyer since she was objecting. But the law says you only get a free lawyer if you’re indigent, says it right on the paperwork when someone files. Only after the case was over did the GAL tell the judge that he “FORGOT” to give my mother a lawyer. Then he tells a lawyer sitting at the back of the courtroom, he tells her you were here you heard everything; “I don’t have to bring you up to speed.” This is in the transcripts. But she was talking to her client the whole time I doubt she was paying much attention to my mother’s case. A good lawyer would have pointed out to the judge that their now client just had a hearing held without a lawyer, and that she would need time to meet with my mother and that the hearing that just took place should be voided. My mother didn’t like that lawyer so we hired a private one. He soon quit after his retainer ran out. And my mother has not had a lawyer since! So no lawyer the first hearing, and none for the next four and a half years! My mother has been denied he due process, as well as her, “Unalienable Rights to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Once again I am begging you to put a temporary restraining order on this court to stop the sale of my mother home, allow her to return there, get off the SSRI drugs. Then if it is felt it’s necessary to be tested once again. My mother deserves to be happy! I don’t know how much longer we will have her around, but I know she’ll only be happy back in her home, the only home she’s known sine 1956. My mother is supposed to have the right to pick her own guardian and conservator, she has repeatedly asked for me, or my sister Debbie Fox to do these duties. The judge has said that EPIC basically says the family gets to vote on it. Which is not true, and is how I found out about EPIC law saying you must file five days before the first hearing any medical proof. Also the way the judge runs the court room is crazy, he cuts you off, allows others to cut you off, and most importantly he does not swear people in properly. They are not identified for the record. So you get transcripts that say, “unidentified male, unidentified female”, or just “witness” this makes the transcripts very hard to understand to someone who was not there. The judge has a huge EGO problem! He likes to quote movie stars and singers rather the doing the right thing. He has put the fox in charge of the henhouse! So many people who have had similar problems with probate courts around the country have either never gotten to see their loved ones again or if they were lucky enough to free them only end up dying a short time later. This court has taken years from my relationship with my mother, as well as my sister Debbie Fox and my daughter Lynnette Robinson. Please help time is of the essence! This isn’t everything, just the tip of the iceberg. Thank you for you for considering this case for prosecution of all parties invovled on the grounds of elder abuse and financial exploitation.
Sincerely,
Randy Robinson, son and interested party.
Dear Randy;
All of the theft should also be reported to the IRS because there are fees, fines and penalties on criminal income of 2% per month for not reporting and for not filing a tax return and paying income tax on it. The tax rate for crime is a flat 50% so in just 24 months, the perp will owe the entire amount to the IRS.
Next the administration of psych drugs is illegal and should be reported to the Mich. agency that licenses doctors and nurses and you need to have all of them delicensed. There is a CFR on this. Psych drugs, including SSRIs are contraindicated for dementia and they only make it worse. These drugs are typically used as chemical restraints. I believe there was no evidence your mom was depressed at the time these were prescribed.
You did a great job on the letter. File complaints against the lawyers and judges involved too for they should be delicensed.
So why isn’t the states attorneys and FBI doing anything about the fact that Dean Sallas and his wife are the victims of a crime, and Elizabeth Cassanova and Charles Golbert and directly involved in the criminal activity and are using the ARDC to cover up their $9 million crime?
Dear Ms. Opryszek, and Ms. Andrzejewski Please take notice that I will respond to your letter shortly after the 4th of July more fully if your are not still not blocking my e-mails. I know that it offends the individuals who are engaged in or sympatic to the cottage industry of ELDER CLEANISNG (HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY). However, pursuant to my duty as an American citizen, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Himmel and common decency, I’ve continued to send to you information concerning the moneylaunding, kidnapping, theft, elder abuse and varioius other felonies that that still come to my attention. The fact that I retired almost a decade ago does not mean that I gave up my duty pursuant 18 USCA 4 or my moral compass. It is the act of a horrible and terrible person to watch without complaint the humilation, exploitation and predation of senior citizens such as Dean Sallas and Amelia Sallas by corrupt judical officals claiming to act with the scope of their authority. Law enforcement is finally commencing with prosecution of some of the Court appointed guardians who are terrorizing the elderly. Ms. Fierle and others no longer are complacent in the knowledge that they have license to continue their predation of the elderly. Indeed, even the media is giving ink to this travesty that for too long as enjoyed immunity. The elderly should not be stripped of their lives and property by our Courts! By as separate cover I will be forwarding to you a letter that explains this situation more fully. That said, I am sharing your letter with Law enforcement as it appears quite obvious to me and others that your communication to me is intended to intidmiate me, just like Ms. Opryszek attempted with Ms. Denison and Mr. Sallas. The subpeona of Mr. Sallas’ Google account was clearly a violation of his right of privacy and wrong. As a Citizen of the United States of America I was offended by such clearly ethically challenged conduct. What Mr. Sallas purchased or services he obtained from Google is entirely foreign to the IARDC even if he were an attorney – but he is not and at 84 years old I doubt that he will be seeking to become an attorney. Your letter mentions the case of Byline Bank vs. Amelia Sallas 2019 CH 13960. You suggest that I was practicing law in relation to the case. Indeed, if I had been engaged in the defense of said case, the proceedings would not be so tame. I trust you are aware that when the Byline Bank negotiated the documents that form the basis of their forclosure suit the violated 755 ILCS 5/11a -22. (And propbably violated the Federal Mail fraud and Wire Fraud acts as well as the prohibitions of Elder financial abuse set forth in recent Federal legislation and the Care act.) In the years that I practice law I was not docile and would have addressed the criminal conduct that has been disclosed as having occurred in relation to the underlying loan transaction with personal visits to the FDIC, State regulators etc and I would have filed counterclaims (and cross complaints) and jury demands. Financial elder abuse is not to be tolerated and those who engage in such conduct are repehensible people. Those who foster such conduct are usually deemed conspirators and enjoy criminal prosecutions. This mortgage foreclosure case opens the window to the alleged felonies that are now being uncovered by journalists, activists, gadflies and other who are struck by the obvious misconduct of the Guardian – Mr. Charles P Golbert and the presiding Judge. For instance, one journalist found that Judge Boliker has had 3 relatively recent forclosures filed against her and her husband and her husband has business loans with the Byline Bank. Mr. Sallas and some sympathic good citizens have been able to uncover some very disturbing facts concerning Mr. Golbert’s conduct. I’ve forwarded to the IARDC information concerning the same as it assaults the basic principles of our Constitution and our demoocracy. I and other citizens across America are in the process of writing citizen letters to the Department of Justice demanding CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of the miscreants who are brutalizing our senior citizens in these guardianships – and those who are aiding a betting in the financial and other elder abuse. It is my current intention to forward my citizen letter to every law enforcement agency including but not limited Law groups. I will see that you obtain a copy. Treat yourself to a Happy 4th.
Ken Ditkowsky
On Friday, July 2, 2021, 12:07:19 PM CDT, Andrzejewski, Vicki <vandrzejewski@iardc.org> wrote:
Attached please find correspondence from the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. During the COVID-19 emergency, ARDC staff is working remotely, and email is our preferred method of communication. Please submit any email communications regarding this matter to: sopryszek@iardc.org. If you have any questions or need to speak with a member of our staff, please call our general number: (312) 565-2600. On behalf of Sharon D. Opryszek.Vicki J. AndrzejewskiAttorney Registration & Disciplinary CommissionOne Prudential Plaza130 East Randolph Drive, Ste. 1500Chicago, IL 60601Telephone: (312) 565-2600 Attachments areaReplyReply allForward
Here is the file they attached. Note that none of Elizabeth Cassanova, nor Charles Golbert nor the OPG (office of public guardian) have any attorney client or any other confidentiality because these documents were properly obtain via Ken Ditkowsky and these individuals Elizabeth Cassanova, Charles Golbert, the ARDC, Sharon Opryszek and Vicki Andrezejewski are directly involved in a felonious criminal conspiracy and the public has a right to know which state agencies (OPG and ARDC) are using taxpayer funds to commit and cover up crimes against the elderly.
Write your state representative now and demand that these attorneys be delicensed and that the ARDC and the OPG clean it’s house of this nefarious criminal activity.
Mr. Lanre Amu should be given a Medal of Valor for his endless fight in exposing corruption at the ARDC. Illinois attorneys are fed up with the lawlessness of the ARDC and hot it operates to cover up judicial crimes and crimes of the lawyers involve. Lawyer Ken Ditkowsky has just uncovered the criminal activity (once again) of Charles Golbert and the Cook County OPG (Office of Public Guardian) and how they are terrorizing an 84 year old man, Dean Sallas and plotting and scheming to file a false foreclosure action against him to make Byline Bank and others rich from elder abuse and financial exploitation.
Mr. Lanre Amu exposed the criminal schemes of Judge Lynn Egan and her brothers criminal law firm to make money from a suburban hospital by “handling” their malpractices cases in their favor and to the detriment of untold number of litigants.
It is time to end the corruption of lawyers and judges in Illinois. The ARDC must end the suspensions of myself, Ken Ditkowsky and Lanre Amu for speaking out against corrupt lawyers and judges.
Below is Lanre Amu’s recent petition. Please pray for him and that justice is done.
In the Matter of ’Lanre O. Amu Underlying Case No: IARDC No. 2011 PR 00106 Supreme Court No. M.R. 26545 ’Lanre O. Amu, the Petitioner. IARDC Attorney No. 6230736
My Verified Petition to: 1) Unconditionally Vacate the Wrongful Suspension of My Illinois Law License on August 6, 2013; 2) For a Certificate of Innocence, a Formal Written Apology, a Certificate of Commendation for Honesty, Courage, and a Commitment to the Rule of Law; and 3) For Make Whole Relief for the Trauma, Violations, and the Damages Caused to Me, My Family and Dependents, Starting From 2011. Without a Complainant, Accuser, or Witness Against Me, I Was Targeted, Taken Out of Context, Framed, Railroaded, Pronounced Guilty Without Proof, and Persecuted by the IARDC for Demanding an Honest Investigation into My Ethics Complaint Against Two Connected Attorneys. My Constitutional Rights to Due Process, Equal Protection of the Laws, Fair Hearing, and More Were Violated. I Was a Victim of Racism and Xenophobia Because of My Race (Black) and My National Origin (Nigeria). The Viciousness Evince Hate Crime Which is Tragic, Treacherous, and a Disgrace to the Human Race. Integrity, Faithfulness to the Oath of Public Office, Good Conscience, Truth, and Justice Mandate that I Be Made Whole from All these Atrocities.
M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM E-FILED 6/24/2021 3:56 PM Carolyn Taft Grosboll SUPREME COURT CLERK 1 I, ’Lanre O. Amu, a self-represented Petitioner, respectfully bring this verified petition pursuant to the inherent and original jurisdiction of this Honorable Court in attorney licensure matters. In support of this verified petition, I state as follows: A Synopsis of the Issues1 1 Petitioner ’Lanre O. Amu’s Initial Disclosures
Sometime in the year 2000 or thereabout, I was involved in a highly contentious parental rights litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County with the now Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, Justice Anne Marie Burke and her husband, the 14th Ward Alderman Edward Michael Burke. For a brief period I represented “Baby T’s” biological mother, Ms. Tina Olison. The Burkes I believe were then represented by the Patricia Bobbs Law Office. That being stated, I have not had any contact with Chief Justice Anne M. Burke or her husband, the 14th Ward Alderman Edward M. Burke. I have no apprehension of bias from Chief Justice Burke in deciding this case. The justice of my case speaks for itself.
As a member of the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA) from about 1996 until August 6, 2013 when I was suspended from the practice of law, I became acquainted with the now Justice P. Scott Neville, Jr., as a member of the CCBA. In the mid to late 1990s, Attorney Neville was one of many Saturday mornings booth camp lecturers we had at the CCBA on various aspects of the practice of law. He subsequently became the President of the CCBA, and then a Judge. In the course of my legal practice, I have appeared before over 200 judges. I have appeared before Judge Neville when he was a Judge at the Circuit Court of Cook County at the Daley Center. I have also appeared before Justice Neville when he was a Justice at the Illinois Appellate Court on LaSalle Street. Since my ordeal with the IARDC began in 2011, I had contacted some in the CCBA leadership to take up the justice of my cause, but to no avail. Many people inside and outside the CCBA apparently believed IARDC’s media propaganda against me and kept their distance from me. I can understand. I have no apprehension of bias from Justice Neville in deciding this case. The justice of my case speaks for itself. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 2
Please bear with me as this verified petition presents difficult and uncomfortable subject matters that arise out of my ordeal at the hands of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC), to wit: Racism and Xenophobia. My prosecution by IARDC and my suspension from the practice of law are products of racism and xenophobia. Since the African Slavery Era, and the Dred Scott Era, the more things change, the more they seem to remain the same for some of us African immigrants in America – the “land of immigrants”.
Consistent with the Solemn Oath of Public Office, and in order that we can be frank, I respectfully ask the Illinois Supreme Court to take judicial notice of the following facts: ¶1. In the early 1980s an FBI undercover sting investigation, called “Operation Greylord”, revealed that numerous Chicago lawyers, judges, and court clerks were fixing the outcomes of court cases, from traffic tickets to murder cases, with nobody reporting their unethical behavior. Some of them were caught red handed on FBI tapes with the assistance and cooperation of honest and courageous lawyers and judges posing as crooked lawyers and judges. Overall, about 15 judges, 50 lawyers, and 35 court personnel or law enforcement officers were convicted in the Scandal. ¶2. In yet another Scandal, on June 25, 1986, Attorney Alphonse C. Gonzales pled guilty to wrongfully attempting to obtain money from an undercover FBI agent to pay a judge and four police officers to fix an armed robbery case in favor of his client. Attorney Gonzales was a prominent attorney. He was once the president of a bar association in Chicago. He hobnobs with the high and mighty in Chicago’s political circle. Gonzales was also at one time an Arbitrator (Administrative judge) at the Illinois Industrial Commission. Gonzalez once bragged to his potential clients that he could procure false documents to obtain driver’s
M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 3 license under false names through his connections at the Secretary of State’s Office. (See 2013PR0003, M.R. 25825, Dec. 1, 2014) ¶3. On April 16, 1993, Cook County Judge Thomas J. Maloney was convicted in federal court of accepting bribes and fixing three (3) murder cases. Before becoming a judge, Attorney Thomas Maloney shared law office with former 10th Ward Alderman Edward Vrdolyak, aka “Fast Eddie”. Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was also a former law associate of Ed Vrdolyak. ExAlderman Ed Vrdolyak, ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich, and exJudge Thomas Maloney have all served prison time for corrupt practices. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases
In the wake of Operation Greylord, the Illinois Supreme Court held that an attorney’s failure to report his unprivileged knowledge of another attorney’s serious wrongdoing to the appropriate disciplinary authority warranted a suspension from the practice of law. In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531 (Ill. 1988).
My verified petition in fairness must be judged against the backdrop of the above judicial notice (¶¶1-3 above) and the In re Himmel holding.
I filed an ethics complaint on or about July 21, 2011 against two connected attorneys2 with the IARDC because I strongly felt it was the right thing to do to protect and defend the integrity of the system for administration of justice in Illinois. IARDC however ridiculed me and refused to investigate my meritorious ethics complaint. This sparked my disagreement with the IARDC. I was forced to give IARDC an ultimatum
2 By “connected attorneys” I mean attorneys who have clout and/or influence and are thereby able to bend the Rules of Professional Conduct that all lawyers are mandated to obey in court proceedings with impunity to achieve their objectives at other’s expense within the court system. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 4 to either investigate my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint or face a legal challenge of its “no investigation policy.” In the impasse, I failed to anticipate IARDC’s retaliation. IARDC soon began prosecuting me.
The reason that IARDC gave for prosecuting me and getting me suspended from the practice of law, to wit: “that I made false statement concerning the integrity of judge(s)”, is a smokescreen to conceal the true reason. The true reason IARDC filed charges against me and got me suspended from the practice of law is retaliation for my dissent to IARDC’s refusal to investigate my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint against two connected attorneys, and my giving IARDC an ultimatum to investigate or face a legal challenge of its policy not to investigate.
I was betrayed by IARDC which is ironically a Commission of the very Illinois Supreme Court that issued the In re Himmel decision in the wake of “Operation Greylord”. I now present the chronology of the events:
On or about July 21, 2011, I filed with the IARDC, an ethics complaint against two connected attorneys who manipulated the system for administration of justice against my client and I in a case presided over by Judge Lynn M. Egan in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County at the Daley Center. (See Complaint @ Exhibit D, page 21/93) Excerpts of My July 21, 2011 Ethics Complaint, filed with IARDC Attorney Radusa Ostojic, Attorney Suzanne M. Crowley, the Law Office of James Hoffman and Associates, and the Law Firm of M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 5 Pretzel and Stouffer Knowingly Participated in a Scheme to Fix a Case Before Judge Lynn M. Egan. (July 2011, Exhibit D, page 21/93) ¶3. [Paragraph No. 3] My ability to make a living practicing law in the law division is however being impeded through discrimination and corruption. I am essentially being told in more ways than one that I do not belong in the law division by persons who are even less educated or qualified than I am just because they happen to have an exalted position in the judiciary. This is very humbling, and its implication for my community and our ability to champion our own causes in the courts is disturbing. There is nothing going on in the law division concerning cases I have there that is rocket science. Lawyers do not make the facts in any given case. Lawyers simply marshal the facts. ¶4. I have personally experienced sophisticated corruption in the form of case rigging in favor of powerful insurance [company] lawyers by a handful of judges in the law division. The corruption has taken various forms and guises such as: grandstanding and throwing of cases up in the air and let (sic) the jury do just about anything they want; turning a blind eye to facts, unfair and biased ruling to favor those who are connected. ¶6. Corruption takes its toll. It can lead to serious collateral injuries for the defrauded party. . . Even with a reluctance to fight, at some point you have no other viable option but to take on the wrongdoer head-on. Not because you deliberately want to make trouble with anyone, but because you simply have had enough of the shenanigans. ¶11. Canon 63(c): A judge shall disqualify herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. How can Judge Egan knowingly preside over a case wherein her brother is the equity partner of the defendant’s law firm? Why were we kept in the dark about this relationship in almost a year of contentious back and forth litigation before Judge Egan? This behavior undermines public trust in the fair and impartial administration of justice in our courtrooms. ¶12. Judge Lynn M. Egan did not establish high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. Judge Lynn Egan a judicial officer cannot be independent in resolving a dispute where her own brother Matthew Egan’s law firm was hired to be the defense firm. The high standard of conduct required of a judge means that even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided. There was a looming suspicion that there was something odd about the direction the case M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 6 was going before Judge Lynn Egan before the conflict became exposed. ¶13. Canon 62(A): A judge shall respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In this case, Judge Egan was not impartial in the factfinding process. [and this tainted everything else that followed] ¶15. When American Family Insurance Company (AFIC) in-house Attorneys, the law office of James Hoffman and Associates, including Attorney Radusa Ostojic, decided to retain the law firm of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, to vacate the default judgment entered by Judge Lynn M. Egan, they were aware that Matthew J. Egan who is Judge Lynn M. Egan’s brother was an Equity Partner in the law firm of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered. ¶19. At no time in the almost a year of contentious back and forth litigation did anyone including: AFIC, the law office of James Hoffman and Associates, including Attorney Radusa Ostojic, Attorney Suzanne M. Crowley of the law firm of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, and Judge Lynn M. Egan disclose this conflict to plaintiff and his counsel ’Lanre O. Amu. ¶26. The conduct of Judge Lynn M. Egan and the defense counsels Radusa Ostojic, Suzanne M. Crowley, and their law firms: the law office of James Hoffman and Associates (AFIC in-house law firm) and the law firm of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, violate Plaintiff’s due process right to a fair and impartial hearing under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. ¶27. If anything of substance stated in this complaint is denied by anyone, then the due process right to fairness and to confront witnesses demand that plaintiff’s counsel ’Lanre O. Amu be notified and that a face to face hearing be set. Wherefore, Attorney ’Lanre O. Amu respectfully requests an investigation into these matters and seeks appropriate relief. Verified and signed by ’Lanre O. Amu July 2011
Hours before IARDC received my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint against the two connected attorneys, I was an attorney in “Good Standing” on IARDC’s books. All of that changed once I dissented to IARDC’s “no investigation” decision on my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint. I demanded an investigation, and eventually gave IARDC an ultimatum to either M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 7 investigate my ethics complaint or face legal challenge to its policy in federal court or at the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice. (See Exhibit E @ page 38/93, 2nd full paragraph, last sentence).
At issue in my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint is not the amount of money ($273,230.02) involved in the underlying case per se. Rather, at issue is the way and manner connected attorneys connive and manipulate the system for administration of justice against us with impunity. In this particular case, it is the filing of fictitious pleadings and the concomitant hiring of the presiding judge’s brother’s law firm to prosecute the fictitious case before the presiding judge. The secret plot is for the presiding judge to breathe life into a fiction and give fiction credence at our expense. Any attempt to vet the matter by subpoena or discovery so as to expose the fiction and frustrate the plot is foreclosed. By so doing, a fictitious case is laundered into an authentic case and can now work its way up the hierarchy of courts as an authentic case.
When we scheme to subvert the system for administration of justice, we make a mockery of the court, everything from the trial court to the supreme court, and put innocent lives at risk. This can be demoralizing to those of us on the receiving end of this.
From my experience and belief, the bitter truth is that these connected attorneys knowingly set up the sham proceedings with impunity to put the M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 8 plaintiff and (myself) his lawyer who are both African immigrants in “our place” as the marginalized of our society.
Also, from my experience and belief, had Plaintiff and I (his lawyer) been both white and/or non-immigrants these connected attorneys would not have gone to the extent they went to undermine the system for administration of justice against us in the case.
To my shock and disbelief, the IARDC saw no ethical violation and refused to investigate my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint. (See Exhibits F @ page 39/93) IARDC was essentially insulting my intelligence.
IARDC knew that when I asked IARDC to first get a written 14-day response to my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint and let me file a written reply before passing on the merit of my complaint, if complied with, that protocol effectively enshrines transparency, creates a paper trail, and frustrates IARDC’s ability to sweep the ethics violation under the rug.
On August 4, 2011, IARDC formally sent me a dismissive letter stating that my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint “do[es] not rise to the level of ethical misconduct.” (See Exhibit F @ page 39/93). I felt ridiculed.
Fast forward from 2011 to 2014: the ethical issue IARDC failed to see and dismissed with its August 4, 2011 letter became exposed about three years later when Crain’s Chicago Magazine’s Investigative Reporters’ March 1, 2014 “Ethics 101” report miraculously surfaced. (See Exhibit R @ pages 81/93 to 89/93) M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 9
Meanwhile, for my having the audacity to “bell the cat” about three years earlier than “Crain’s Chicago” with my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint, IARDC ridiculed me, tagged me a liar, prosecuted me, and swiftly got me suspended from the practice of law on the pretext that I “made false statement(s) concerning the integrity of judge(s).” Crain’s “Ethics 101” report is independent confirmation that IARDC’s accusation is a pretext and a smokescreen. Where is the false statement?
Back to 2011: Starting in July 2011, I registered my protest in writing to IARDC concerning its refusal to investigate my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint. I was forced to give IARDC an ultimatum to commence an investigation into my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint or face my legal challenge to its “no investigation policy” at the federal court, and/or the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. (See Exhibit E @ page 38/93, 2nd full paragraph, last sentence).
I went to law school with a commitment to fight for “Equal Rights and Justice for All” which I saw as the roadmap to lasting peace and progress in our world. My moral compass directed that I legally challenge the rectitude of IARDC’s decision not to investigate my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint. I however failed to anticipate IARDC’s retaliation.
In a preemptive strike, on December 7, 2011, IARDC charged me with making a false statement concerning the integrity of judge(s) on the same M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 10 facts and occurrence detailed in my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint. Please see count II of IARDC’s complaint. (See Exhibit H @ page 48/93)
IARDC’s complaint against me is a compendium of half-truths. IARDC quoted me out of contexts in pursuit of propaganda against me. The full context of my written statements that will show that I was advocating for “Equal Rights, Equal Access, and Equal Justice for All” in court consistent with the rule of law had been obliterated by the IARDC.
IARDC ignored the fact that if I did not complain in 2011 given my personal knowledge of what happened, nobody else can, and such unfair practices will continue unabated with impunity, as they inevitably did, leading up to Crain’s March 1, 2014 “Ethics 101” report.
With my suspension from the practice of law, IARDC’s coverup of the underlying dispute seemed like a done deal until Crain’s March 1, 2014 “Ethics 101” report miraculously surfaced and blew the cover on IARDC’s ruse. (See Exhibit R @ pages 81/93 to 89/93)
Crain’s March 1, 2014 “Ethics 101” report confirmed “in toto” the truth and the merit of my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint. The Crain’s “Ethics 101” report constitutes an indictment on IARDC’s finding that my [July 21, 2011] ethics complaint “do[es] not rise to the level of ethical misconduct.” worth investigating. (See Exhibit F @ page 39/93). The Crain’s “Ethics 101” report also debunked IARDC’s claim that I made a M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 11 false statement concerning the integrity of a judge. It further exposes that my suspension is unjustified and morally wrong.
The purpose of an attorney disciplinary proceeding is to safeguard the public, maintain the integrity of the profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach. My prosecution by IARDC did not serve any of those three purposes but in fact violated all of those three purposes. My prosecution put me in a ridiculous and humiliating situation. My prosecution stood commonsense and logic on their heads.
IARDC was prosecuting me for filing my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint which sought to safeguard the public, maintain the integrity of the profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach.
Without a complainant, an accuser or a witness, I was nonetheless railroaded by IARDC, and suspended from the practice of law and my thriving 16-year law practice business was destroyed. This is professional murder for my demanding an honest investigation into ethical violation.
The real danger here is that anybody can be targeted like I was on mere propaganda in “an unfair closing of the ranks” and eliminated without evidence of any wrongdoing in the record of proceedings. It is a historical fact that members of the Ku Klux Klan have employed this very strategy against people of African descent who dared to speak up to challenge injustice in the United States. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 12
It is a violation of my Due Process right to pronounce me guilty of a charge I pled not guilty to, to strip me of my law license, and to destroy my 16-year legal practice business, without ever granting my request to confront witnesses, complainants, and/or accusers.
It is dehumanizing for IARDC an agency of government to persistently deny my God given right to confront witnesses against me before I am crucified for my ethics complaint: a request I have persistently been making from about July 21, 2011 when I filed my verified ethics complaint with the IARDC. (See Exhibit D @ page 34/93 @ ¶27)
In perpetrating these atrocities against me, IARDC forgot the following adages: that “Time Will Tell Who is Telling the Truth and Who is Making a False Statement”; that “The Truth That Was Crushed to Earth (by IARDC in my case) Can Rise Again”; that “Three Things Cannot Long be Hidden: the Sun, the Moon, and the Truth.” By divine intervention, these adages came to pass beginning March 1, 2014 when Crain’s “Ethics 101” report surfaced. I had no hand in this. It was divine intervention.
Had IARDC provided a platform for a thorough investigation of my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint in 2011, I was set to present more damning evidence of ethical violations against the connected attorneys than Crain’s Chicago Investigative Reporters were able to unearth in their March 1, 2014 “Ethics 101” report. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 13
IARDC disguised my persecution to the public at large as legitimate disciplinary proceedings when in reality, it was a well-orchestrated public lynching of a Blackman who had the audacity to stand up to IARDC and give IARDC an ultimatum to do the right thing, to wit: “investigate my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint regardless of whose ox was gored.”
With all due respect, lawyers by and large become judges by appointment or by running for election to that position, not necessarily because of superior ethics, morals, intellect or legal knowledge in comparison to myself or any lawyer. None of the judges I am accused of writing complaints about is educationally, morally, or ethically my superior by any objective scale of comparison. What will warrant false statement by me against any judge or anyone?
I recall that well over a decade ago as a deserving member of the CCBA in good standing at the time, I was approached about whether I was interested in being appointed an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County but I declined the offer. I declined the offer in part because I had invested so much in the legal practice I built from scratch, and I sincerely prefer to be a lawyer and to advocate for members of my community as opposed to being a judge. I have never ever lobbied, applied, or tried to run to be a judge. I was content and prefer to be an advocate for the voiceless in my community. I left a professional engineering career to go into law. Legal advocacy is my calling. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 14
If in fact, I made statement impugning the integrity of a judge in the context of a case I personally had before the judge, with all due respect, I am duly qualified by God given intellect, education, morals, ethics, and knowledge of the law to objectively reason things through and come to such a conclusion without malice to the judge. Every human being has the God given light of Conscience.
There is a double standard based on race and/or national origin in IARDC’s enforcement of disciplinary rules.
For example, IARDC did not question or prosecute Attorney Albert W. Alschuler, a White attorney, who represented former Illinois Secretary of State and former Illinois Governor George Ryan in his failed criminal case appeal at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal before Judge Frank Easterbrook and two other appellate court judges and then wrote a Memoir that is critical of Judge Easterbrook titled, “How Frank Easterbrook Kept George Ryan in Prison”, Albert W. Alschuler, University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Paper Series, N. 589 (2016). https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2066& context=public_law_and_legal_theory
Attorney Alschuler’s writing is similar to mine but he is White as such his writing is automatically seen through a different lens by IARDC and subjected to a different standard of review. In this very same fashion the M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 15 13th Amendment protection has been virtually circumvented against us through unfair imputations of wrongdoing to work injustice when if we were White there would have been no wrongdoing at all.
In Attorney Alschuler’s Memoir, he frankly detailed his reasons for questioning Judge Easterbrook’s honesty, candor, and integrity in his dealings with Judge Easterbrook in the Ryan appeal. The last time I checked, IARDC did not intervene, file any charges, or subject Attorney Alschuler to a disciplinary proceeding.
IARDC being a stranger to the issues I wrote about, is not in a position to conjure without proof that I made “false statements” in the full context of my detailed account of what I personally experienced in the course of legal proceedings. If Attorney Alschuler was not gagged by IARDC, why for God’s sake should I be gagged by IARDC? “If I see something, why should I not be equally able to say something like the Alschulers of this world?” If for God’s sake we cannot speak freely, how will these “in your face” wrongs be ever identified and righted?
In yet another double standard, I was subjected to a Dred Scott Era System of Justice that denied my rights under the 14th Amendment as an African immigrant attorney while non-African immigrant Attorneys Brian Keith Sides and John N. Dore facing same or similar charges of “making false statement concerning the integrity of a judge” were subjected to a fairer, and more humane system of justice that protected M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 16 their 14th Amendment rights. This Separate and Unequal Application of the Laws on account of race and national origin is disgraceful and dehumanizing in this day and age. Two specific examples: a. In re Brian Keith Sides 11 PR0144, M.R. 26732 (Nov. 13, 2014): Mr. Brian Sides, who was licensed to practice law in 2002, was suspended for five (5) months, with the suspension stayed after sixty (60) days by a twoyear period of conditional probation. Sides made false and reckless statements about the integrity of judges in his judicial circuit and about another attorney. At the IARDC hearing, beside Sides’ testimony, the other testifying witnesses included: Attorney Frank A. Janello (witness) and Judge Chase Leonhard. In the second example: b. In re John N. Dore 07 CH0122, M.R. 24566 (September 20, 2011): Mr. John Dore who was licensed to practice law in 1974, was suspended for five (5) months and ordered to complete the ARDC Professionalism Seminar. Mr. Dore asserted frivolous position in order to harass others in connection with three different client matters and made false statements about the integrity of a judge. At the IARDC hearing, besides Dore’s testimony, the other testifying witnesses included: Attorney Thomas Piskorski, Wayne Pesek, Attorney Gregory Adamski, Judge Francis Dolan, Judge Mary Anne Mason. c. Comparing My IARDC Hearing With Dore and Sides’ IARDC Hearings Shows Undeniable Double Standard by IARDC: i) The M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 17 Dores and the Sides could not be suspended from the practice of law after they pled not guilty on the same or similar charges without the judges and the lawyers involved coming in “flesh and blood” to testify at their IARDC hearings. Not so for me apparently because I am of such an “inferior race and national origin” that no witness need testify after my plea of not guilty in a legal forum where my means of livelihood and survival are involuntarily put at stake by the IARDC. ii) The Sides and the Dores were not denied their rights to examine or cross-examine the judge and the lawyers at their IARDC hearings to test for truthfulness, bias, and validity. But as a Black African immigrant, I apparently have no such right that IARDC was bound to respect. My subpoenas to the judge(s) and the lawyers to appear to testify under Oath in my defense were swiftly quashed to suppress the bombshell that IARDC did not want to come out at the trial to exonerate me prior to my being crucified. iii) My unimpeached and uncontradicted testimony which in light of Crain’s March 1, 2014 “Ethics 101” report, we now know is the truth, was rejected Dred Scott System of Justice style by the IARDC Hearing Board handpicked to do the hatchet job. iv) I was pronounced guilty by the IARDC Hearing Board without evidentiary basis, without factual basis, with no witness testifying against me, and while protesting my innocence. v) The 14th Amendment right to Due Process, Fair Hearing, and Equal Protection of the Laws, were denied to me on account of my race and M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 18 national origin but were afforded to the Sides and the Dores facing the same or similar charges. vi) The guilty Sides and Dore each received a paltry five (5) months (or even part suspended) sentence that preserved their law practices (means of livelihood) from major interruption (a slap on the wrist sanction), while an innocent Amu, a Blackman, received 3 years and 9 months suspension and until further order of the court – a draconian and professional death sentence that assured the complete destruction of my 16-year law practice and my means of livelihood. Here we see an innocent falsely accused black attorney given more than 8 times the sanction given to similarly situated but guilty white attorneys. There was nothing I could do as a Blackman to extricate myself from this “official” oppression. For God’s sake, how do we justify these inhumane atrocities to a fellow human being in this world in this day and age and still call ourselves civilized? vii) IARDC a stranger to the occurrence I wrote about took my statements out of context, unilaterally decreed they are false in pursuit of its agenda, asked its Hearing Board to rubberstamp its decree and they complied. IARDC believes that because I am Black it can lord it over me, but in its double standard, IARDC will never lord it over the Dores, the Sides, and the Alschulers of this world because they are White. viii) We see a tragic and deeply disturbing departure from what the U.S. Constitution commands on the self-evident premise that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 19 inalienable rights. The basics of Human Rights and Human Dignity: Due Process, Fair Hearing, Equal Protection of the Laws, that ought to be equally guaranteed to all of us as creatures of God without regard to race or national origin consistent with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were guaranteed to others but denied to me by IARDC on account of my race and national origin. This is essentially Dred Scott all over again. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Constitutional Provisions, Rules, Laws, and the Policy Statements Involved.
Illinois Supreme Court’s Statement on Racial Justice, June 22, 2020
IARDC’s Statement on Racism, June 29, 2020
Rule of Law Principles Embodied in the U.S. Constitution: Assures the equality of everyone before the law; that there will be fair and impartial hearing; that the accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise by due process of law; that everyone be accountable to the law; that the rights of the minority be protected against the tyranny of the majority; that the 99.9% majority cannot close ranks to deprive even the 0.1% minority of their inalienable rights, etc.
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press; or the Right of the People to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 20
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 8.3(a): A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(c) shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 8.4(c): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The conduct of the American Family Insurance Company (AFIC) in hiring Judge Egan’s brother’s law firm to prosecute its cause then pending before Judge Egan and the conduct of Judge Egan’s brother’s law firm in agreeing to such incestuous representation amounts to conduct designed to undermine the fair and impartial administration of justice in the courts. Neither Judge Egan nor Mr. Matthew Egan, in dire straits, will ever agree to be on the receiving end of such an arrangement if the tables were turned. AFIC will also not agree for an insured to file a bogus insurance claim or engage in the very unethical conduct it engaged in in this case if the tables were turned. As faithful men and women of integrity, we are to do unto others what we will accept if done unto us by others if roles are reversed.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 8.4(g): it is professional misconduct for a lawyer (here IARDC Attorney) to present * * * professional disciplinary charges (against ’Lanre O. Amu) to obtain an advantage in a civil matter (dispute). To obtain an advantage in my dispute with IARDC concerning its refusal to investigate my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint, IARDC turned the tables by filing disciplinary charges against me on December 7, 2011 in clear violation of Rule 8.4(g). An unlawful preemptive strike.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 753(c)(6): Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the standard of proof in all hearings shall be Clear and Convincing Evidence. IARDC a stranger to the issues could not have met this burden of proof without a witness, an accuser, or a complainant when I pled not guilty to the charges. This is basic logic and commonsense. Further Statement of Facts
Since I have been licensed to practice law in 1996, I have had cause to file three ethics complaints that are similar to my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint which the IARDC refused to investigate, telling me it’s “my word against another’s word” each time, and that IARDC cannot meet its burden of proof by Clear and Convincing Evidence.
Count II of the December 7, 2011 IARDC complaint against me was based on the same facts and occurrence I alleged in my earlier July 21, 2011 ethics complaint. It is impermissible retaliation. It is also a violation of Rule 8.4(g). (See Exhibit D @ 48/93)
IARDC further stacked the deck against me by adding the three (3) prior dormant uninvestigated ethics complaints I filed as counts I, III and IV. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 22 Count IV in fact dates as far back as 2004 (6 years dormant). These are prior ethics complaints which IARDC earlier told me it could not investigate because it could not meet the burden of proof. All were dusted from archives and turned to additional charges against me that I made false statements concerning the integrity of a judge in each case.
In each of the four (4) count complaint against me, IARDC cherry-picked and took my statements out of their full contexts to conjure that I made false statements concerning the integrity of a judge. At the IARDC hearing, IARDC was however unable to find anyone to testify to what is false within the full context of my writings.
Once I pleaded not guilty to the charges of making a false statement concerning the integrity of a judge, IARDC had the duty to confront me with witnesses, accusers, and/or complainants at the IARDC hearing, and to prove my guilty by Clear and Convincing Evidence. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 753(c)(6).
IARDC failed in this regard and I should have been acquitted of all the charges pursuant to the Rule of Law, including the 1st, 13th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, etc.
After all of my subpoenas to compel witnesses in my defense were quashed, the only testimony I was left with at my IARDC hearing was my sworn testimony before “a closed minded” IARDC Hearing Board. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 23
My sworn testimony articulating the full context of my writings in similar detail as the Crain’s Chicago Business Magazine Investigative Reporters’ March 1, 2014 “Ethics 101” report was disregarded by the “closed minded” IARDC Hearing Board in clear violation of my right to a fair and impartial hearing.
Without a complainant, an accuser, a witness, or a factual basis, the Hearing Board by fiat pronounced me guilty of making false statement concerning the integrity of a judge in each of the four (4) counts.
I appealed the decision of the Hearing Board to the Review Board. The Review Board affirmed.
I appealed the decision of the Review Board to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the Review Board and suspended me from the practice of law.
I filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. The petition for a writ was not granted.
Having reached the end of the road in the courts in mid-2015, I fled persecution to Nigeria from where I immigrated in 1982. My Background
My full name is Olanrewaju Olakunle Temitayo Amu. I am a Yoruba originally from West Africa. My name is commonly abbreviated in my M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 24 native Yoruba [African] language as ’Lanre O. Amu. I have never used any other names. I was born in Lagos, Nigeria on August 1, 1961.
I am the last of four surviving children born to a Lay Preacher in the Wesley Methodist Church in Lagos, Nigeria. I attended Methodist Schools for my basic education in Nigeria. I was brought up with the Christian Moral Code.
I learnt at a young age to always strive to do what is right and to always stand up for what is right even if it means having to stand all alone because one with God is in the majority. That Honesty is the Best Policy.
I am a first-generation African immigrant to the United States. That being stated however, the concept of “foreigner” being conveniently used as a malign word and to disenfranchise a person like me, is relative and a function of who writes history and the authenticity of what is in fact written. The undeniable truth of history is that able-bodied men and women who constitute the first-generation of our peoples arrived on the shores of what we now call the United States of America bound in chains having been imported as slaves from West Africa during the transatlantic slave trade long before the United States of America gained its independence from Britain. The descendants of these people are the African-Americans today. Mr. Elon Musk I learnt is also a firstgeneration African immigrant like myself, but of a different skin color, as M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 25 such, he and his likes are better able to escape the “foreigner” stigma and the roadblocks many of us Black African immigrants are mired in.
After my basic schooling in Lagos, Nigeria, I immigrated to the United States in the fall of 1982 to attend the Institute of Technology at the University of Minnesota as an undergraduate student. (Exhibit C @ 5/93)
In Minnesota and at the University of Minnesota, I was not a troublemaker. Rather, I was a people person. I got along well with everyone: Whites, Blacks, Asians, Jews, and Indigenous Americans.
I graduated at the top of my civil engineering class with a Bachelor’s degree with a High Distinction from the Institute of Technology at the University of Minnesota in 1984. (Exhibit C @ pages 5/93, 9/93) This academic achievement is a major feat for a Blackman at the University of Minnesota. With less than 2% blacks and about 90% whites in my engineering class, my graduation at the very top of my civil engineering class was on the one hand record setting for Black youths coming after me, and on the other hand unsettling on the possibility for us black peoples and other minorities, when all hinderances to progress are normalized for.
It is on record at the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota that I, ’Lanre O. Amu, a Blackman came directly from Africa and shattered the mythical glass ceiling for many Blacks my age in undergraduate civil engineering in one of the top engineering schools in M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 26 the United States. However, I will be quick to add that I was only able to accomplish that feat because the University of Minnesota through its faculty at the time provided me, without discrimination, a level playing field to excel like my white counterparts during my studies at the university. For that I am eternally grateful to the faculty at the University of Minnesota. Had I been discriminated against at the University of Minnesota, I most likely would have dropped out of college and not finish my undergraduate studies, much less lead my graduating class.
After my undergraduate degree in 1984, I attended the graduate school at the University of Minnesota. In 1986, I graduated with a Master of Science in Civil Engineering degree (M.S.C.E.). (Exh. C @ page 13/93)
In 1986 after graduate school, I was hired as a structural engineer by an international engineering company in Chicago called Sargent & Lundy. Sargent & Lundy is a technical partner to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, now Exelon Corporation). I was one of thousands of engineers of various fields working on the Braidwood Illinois Nuclear Power Plant project in early 1986.
I was hired by Sargent & Lundy purely on outstanding academic performance before they knew of my race and/or national origin. From my name and credentials, they perhaps assumed I was Asian, and clearly did not expect to see a Blackman or African when I showed up in person M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 27 to start work. By the time I showed up and they knew my race and national origin, it was too late to safely rescind the offer. This is the truth.
The percentage of black engineers in Sargent & Lundy, located at 55 East Monroe Street (by Michigan) in Chicago, when I was there, was a lot less than 1%, more around 0.15%, i.e., one sixth of one percent. Whites were about 80%. Chinese about 2%. Indians/Pakistanis about 10%, etc., etc. This in 1986 was eye opening and mind boggling to me a newly arrived Blackman because I saw nothing in the engineering we were engaged in that is out of the reach of black people in Chicago to have less than a fraction of 1% representation in such an important international engineering company. I was being re-educated.
As time went by, I settled down to realize that the opportunity for advancement for me in the corporate engineering world as a Black African immigrant was bleak as race, having a mentor, the “old boys network”, national origin, etc., took center stage and what I knew was not as relevant. The level playing field that obtained on the university campus, in the classrooms and in the engineering laboratories, in Minnesota simply evaporated for me in the corporate world. I had no clout, no mentor, no connections, and I was not acceptable in the “old boys network” on account of my race and national origin.
In 1986-87, I moved on to an engineer position at Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., then on Clinton Street and West Lake Street M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 28 in Chicago. I became a licensed Illinois Professional Engineer (P.E.) in this Company. (Exhibit C @ page 15/93)
I educated myself in business while working at Envirodyne Engineers in Chicago, by attending the graduate school at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Circle Campus (UIC) at night. About 1989, I obtained an M.B.A. degree from the University of Illinois. (Exhibit C @ page 14/93)
In 1990, armed with the M.B.A. degree, I was hired by ComEd in Chicago. I worked for ComEd for a couple of years. In 1992, I was laid off in a reduction in force, as they called it.
Like many immigrants to America, I had my dreams when I set out for America in 1982. That dream however did not contemplate that I will be treated like a second-class citizen, a displaced person, a marginalized person, less than human, not allowed to reach my full potential, and make contributions to life as a human being created by God on God’s Earth solely on account of my race and national origin by others who came to America before me. I was ignorant of racism and its impact on the everyday lives of Black people when I immigrated to America in 1982 at the age of 21.
My first real life experience with racism occurred when I entered the corporate world in Chicago in 1986. As an engineer, I did not fully appreciate the value of the legal profession until I was personally confronted with racial injustice in Chicago. That personal experience with M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 29 racism sparked my interest in the law, ushered me into a courtroom for the first time, made me a litigant for the first time, and led me to drop-out of the corporate world and to train to be a professional Advocate.
In 1992, I enrolled at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago as part of the journey to fulfil my calling in the law. I paid my way through the John Marshall Law school. I did not apply for or take any loans. Upon admission to John Marshall Law School, I joined the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) to meet and learn from other black people.
I saw in the law profession an opportunity to become an independent professional free of corporate politics and to make positive contributions to society in the area of Equal Rights, Access, and Justice for All. My Character and My Fitness to Practice Law
On August 31, 1995, I graduated from the John Marshall Law School. I took the bar examination when it was offered in early 1996 and I passed the bar exam the first and only time I took it. (Exhibit C @ page 19/93)
As a people person, I am well known and respected by many people in the African-immigrant Community, in the African American Community, and beyond as an upstanding person, a role model, and a trustworthy ally in the struggle for Equal Rights, Access and Justice for All. I am commonly referred to in the African immigrant Community as “The Peoples’ Lawyer” or simply as “The Law” in clear recognition of my M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 30 Advocacy on behalf of the African immigrant Community. (See Exhibit L @ pages 65/93 to 66/93)
While a law student at the John Marshall Law School, besides my membership in the Black Law Student Association, I was known to many outside the black community at the school, including but not limited to fellow White students, Hispanic students, a few Professors, an associate Dean, and the Dean of John Marshall Law School at the time. (See Exhibit K @ pages 63/93 to 64/93)
As far as honors, I am the proud recipient of the Certificate of Recognition from the Black Learning Resource Center at the University of Minnesota. This was in recognition of my pacesetting academic performance with a GPA of 4.00 as an engineering student at the University of Minnesota in 1985. (Exhibit C @ page 10/93)
In 1985, I was also acknowledged by the Black Community of the University of Minnesota as a Model of Leadership and Success. (Exhibit C @ page 11/93).
In 1990, I was awarded the Raymond C. Reese Research Prize by the American Society of Civil Engineers for my graduate level research work in structural engineering at the University of Minnesota. (Exhibit C @ page 18/93).
It is on record that on May 21, 1986, on account of my excellence in academics and the integrity of my character at the University of M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 31 Minnesota, I was inducted into the Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi. (Exhibit C @ page 12/93).
For a while after I became licensed to practice law, I was an adjunct instructor at the Harold Washington College in the Chicago Loop where I taught Business Law and Family Law in the evening paralegal program.
As at August 6, 2013, when I was suspended from the practice of law, I was admitted to practice and did practice law before the Illinois State and Federal Courts, the 7th Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.
Due in part to my upbringing, I live a sober and a disciplined life. I do not drink alcohol. I do not take caffeine. I do not smoke. I do not do drugs. I make no claim to perfection, but I strive to improve myself day by day. I stay out of avoidable trouble. I am law abiding. I have no criminal record anywhere. I have not been convicted of any crime anywhere in my life. I have no mental health issues. I have no health issues. I do not take medications other than dietary vitamin B-12. I have never taken psychotropic medication before in my life. I am not a threat to the public and I have never been a threat to the public in my entire life. In my opinion, my character and fitness to practice law was and is excellent. If with my upbringing, education, lifestyle, and objective record of accomplishments, someone in an office at the IARDC that does not know me drafted a complaint stating that I made false statements concerning M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 32 anyone, fairness demands that a robust hearing, with full subpoena powers, be held to ascertain the truth. I must not be taken out of context.
On May 9, 1996, I was admitted to the Illinois bar, and granted the honor and the privilege to practice law in Illinois. On being admitted, I made the following solemn Attorney Affirmation before God and Man, that: I, ’Lanre O. Amu, do solemnly affirm that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability. So Help Me God.
To the best of my knowledge, I have always been faithful to the Attorney Affirmation I made on May 9, 1996. My word is my bond.
On becoming licensed to practice law in May 1996, I joined the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), and very briefly, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA).
For about the first five (5) years of legal practice, I was associated with a mentor and an inspirational African-American Attorney whose legal practice focused on Civil Rights, Police Brutality, Criminal Defense, and Serious Personal Injury. Thereafter, I practiced as a solo attorney with support staff. (Exhibit C @ page 6/93) M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 33
By 2007 and beyond, I handled mostly major personal injury cases, wrongful death, medical malpractice, product liability, workers compensation, and Civil Rights cases.
My upbringing, education, focus, life experience, and access to resources combined to prepare me to competently practice law no less than any other law firm and to make positive contributions to society.
Unfortunately, there have been a few times when some judges with no knowledge of who I am instinctively judged me on the color of my skin, rather than the quality of my legal work and the content of my character.
While I make no claim to perfection by any means, I work at all times to uphold what is fair, just, true and right in the practice of law and in human relations in clear recognition that there is an ultimate judge of the affairs of men to whom each and every one of us must give an account.
I am a fearless advocate for the persons I represent because as a person of faith and conscience, I harbor no ill-will against any human being. I am able to confront any wrongdoer regardless of title, position, or race in the faithful discharge of my duties as a lawyer and an advocate.
Prior to December 7, 2011 when IARDC filed charges against me, I had successfully practiced as a licensed professional first in engineering and then in law for a combined 25 years (1986-2011) in Chicago, Illinois without any ethical issues. I had an unblemished record of good behavior. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 34 The Racial and National Origin Underpinning of My Dispute with IARDC Before IARDC Brought Trumped-Up Charges Against Me.
As I progressed in the 16+ year legal practice, I became increasingly aware of subtle impediments to practicing law “while Black” especially in cases where a lot of money is at stake, which invariably means the Law Division at the Daley Center.
There have been a couple of times when I appeared in a courtroom as one of just a handful or so black/minority lawyers in a sea of white lawyers, before a new or unknown judge who unwittingly gave away his assumption that by virtue of my being a black African immigrant, I am either in the wrong place, or that my white (insurance company defense) attorney(s) opponents ought to prevail in the controversy at hand.
Prior to being charged by IARDC on December 7, 2011, as I explained earlier, I had issue with IARDC’s policy of refusing to investigate some legitimate ethics complaints and silencing dissent to its policy. I had filed complaint against two connected attorneys in which I alleged that the connected attorneys colluded to subvert the system of administration of justice against my client and I. The crux of the issue in all of the ethics complaints I have ever filed is best articulated by restating verbatim what a former client, Ms. Anita Bowden, told me orally on the telephone on January 12, 2015. (Exhibit J @ pages 58/93 to 62/93) Ms. Anita Bowden unwittingly cut to the chase during our telephone conversation thus: M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 35
On Monday January 12, 2015, at about 12:11 p.m., Ms. Anita Bowden, an elderly African American lady then in her 70s, called me out of the blue. I had not seen or spoken to Ms. Bowden in about 5 years. I had the honor and privilege of representing Ms. Bowden at least twice prior: one case started in 1997, and another case started about 2002.
During our January 12, 2015 telephone discussion, Ms. Bowden reminded me that a couple of years prior, I had agreed to represent her in another case pending at the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission (“Commission”) located at 100 West Randolph Street, in Chicago. That I then instructed her to tell the Arbitrator who gave her time to retain a lawyer that she had retained me as her lawyer, that I had agreed to represent her, and that I will be filing my appearance shortly but due to a scheduling conflict on that date I could not appear with her.
Ms. Bowden told me that when she went to the Commission on her case and told the Arbitrator that she had retained me, Attorney ’Lanre Amu, as her lawyer, the Arbitrator told her not to hire Attorney ’Lanre Amu because Mr. Amu is a “foreigner.” And that if she insists on having Mr. Amu as her lawyer, “they will make sure she loses her case at the Commission.”
The above statement attributed to an Arbitrator (a judicial officer) succinctly cuts to the chase in all of my four (4) ethics complaints. My ethics complaints to IARDC were attempts to spur IARDC – a M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 36 government regulatory agency to investigate and to help provide a platform where the “how and manner in which “they” manipulate the system and make sure we lose cases on account of race and/or national origin” is exposed and dealt with. My ethics complaints did not seek to sanction any attorney or judge but sought (relief) reform and to ensure that these tactics did not occur again. (See Exhibit D @ 34/93, Relief) Unfortunately, IARDC wanted none of that and refused to get involved or investigate. An investigation of each of my ethics complaints could not have taken IARDC more than 5 billable hours if the will is there.
In perspective, I filed four (4) ethics complaints in 16 years of active legal practice in which I had represented over a thousand (1,000+) clients and appeared before over 200 judges.
Immediately I finished the telephone conversation with Ms. Bowden, I composed myself and mailed Ms. Bowden a witness statement form asking her to put in writing what she told me orally on the telephone. Ms. Bowden sent me back a letter refusing to put what she told me in writing. (Exhibit J @ page 62/93)
I then called Ms. Bowden to ask why she refused to fill out the witness statement form stating what she told me on the phone. Ms. Bowden replied that I was only concerned about myself, and that I was not considerate of her own predicament. That she still has a Workers’ Compensation case pending at the Commission, and that she called me M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 37 thinking I was still practicing law and could be of assistance to her on her pending case. And that she also still has a pension case pending.
Apparently, Ms. Bowden was afraid that if she wrote down and/or swore to what the Arbitrator told her, it will come back to hunt her in her pending cases. Ms. Bowden told me that she first has to protect herself which I can understand. But this is the dimension the IARDC an agency of government charged by law to be socially responsible knowingly suppressed while taking my statements out of context to prosecute me and professionally lynch me. This is not a socially responsible use of governmental powers by IARDC when we are all aware or ought to be aware of the real problems of race in society and government’s social responsibility to ameliorate its effect on victims.
This in a nutshell is the crux of all of the four (4) ethics complaints I filed in the 16-year period between when I became a lawyer in 1996 and December 7, 2011 when IARDC filed retaliatory charges against me. IARDC’s Compromise of the Rule of Law, Conflict of Interest, Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance.
The allegations in my July 21, 2011 ethics complaint did not sit well with IARDC. The allegations did not fit into IARDC’s narrative on those implicated which invariably include Matthew Egan and his sister Judge Lynn M. Egan. IARDC had a conflict of interest in the matter. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 38
I found out after the fact that Judge Lynn Egan, her brother Matthew Egan, and their father the late Justice Edward Egan had clout among the collegiate judges, justices, and at the IARDC with the resulting tendency to close ranks in defiance of the Rule of Law. After all, I am an unknown entity vis-à-vis these known colleagues. The late Justice Edward Egan was a highly respected and acclaimed Cook County Judge, an Illinois Appellate Court Justice, and a former chieftain of the IARDC. This however should not have mattered pursuant to the Rule of Law.
Matthew Egan, Judge Egan’s brother, is an Equity Partner and a Shareholder of the defense law firm of Pretzels and Stouffer, Chartered. Mr. Matthew Egan served for over a decade as a member of the IARDC Inquiry Board. He also served on the IARDC Hearing Board. He also served as special counsel to the IARDC. The Illinois Supreme Court appointed Mr. Matthew Egan to serve on the Court’s Committee on Jury Instructions – Civil. He also served on the Judicial Evaluation Committee of the Chicago Bar Association. So, he is undoubtedly clouted. But again, these should not have mattered pursuant to the Rule of Law.
I also learnt that Judge Lynn M. Egan was a highly respected Circuit Court judge in the Law Division and certainly a colleague of the judges and justices who sat in judgment of me – the unknown entity. Again, these should not have mattered. The Rule of Law is very clear that the focus should have been on the issue. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 39
The outstanding, Pope-like, credentials of Judge Lynn Egan, her brother Matthew Egan, and their father, the late Justice Edward Egan, are not disputed by me. But with all due respect, laudable as they are, they are not relevant considerations concerning the specific ethics issue I complained about and should not have stood in the way of a detached and sober analysis of the ethics issue I complained about. The reality however is that clout contributed to the conflict of interest, compromise of the Rule of Law, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias. The easiest way out was to discredit the messenger and to scapegoat the messenger. My Unlawful Targeting, Prosecution, Persecution, Stigmatization, Defamation and Suspension from the Practice of Law “Engineered” by the IARDC Without a Complainant, an Accuser, or a Witness Against Me is Unfair and Oppressive.
On IARDC’s website, the following statement is published as the reason for the suspension of my law license: https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch_Expand.asp Mr. Amu, who was licensed in Illinois in 1996, was suspended for three years (from August 6, 2013) and until further order of the Court. Amu made false statements about the integrity of several judges before whom he was representing different clients in litigation.
The above IARDC statement on why I was suspended from the practice of law is false, a pretext, a smokescreen, and is defamatory. For reasons already stated in this petition, the guilty finding and my suspension from the practice of law violate the fundamental principles on which the American Legal System is based. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 40
No judge in question accused me of making false statement concerning his or her integrity. There was not witness, complainant, or accuser. The judge in fact knowingly contributed to the crisis of confidence by entangling herself in the incestuous representation relationship. After Crain’s “Ethics 101” exposé, the judge in fact corrected herself and resigned from one of the conflicting situations she knowingly put herself thus raising legitimate ethical inquiry, given that she knew or reasonably should have known that judges are held to the highest ethical standards, and they are to avoid even the slightest appearance of impropriety. (See Exhibit R @ pages 85/93, 86/93) It is unfair for IARDC to make me the complainant and messenger the scapegoat for other’s misconduct. I Was Forced to Flee Persecution to Nigeria But I Was Trailed Even in Nigeria by IARDC’s Stigma, Propaganda, and Defamation.
In June 2015, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied my petition for a writ of certiorari, I came to my wit’s end in this battle. I felt if I remained in Chicago, I could be further framed for more serious charges and/or even criminal charges and conceivably in similar fashion railroaded and found guilty without evidence, accuser or witness with even more severe consequences. So, I fled persecution to Nigeria from Unfortunately, with my one and only global identity as ’Lanre O. Amu, there is no hiding place for me even in Nigeria as the IARDC’s defamation is accessible worldwide.
In 2015, I applied to attend the Nigerian Law School. In the application process, I was required to explain my circumstance in Illinois and to get letters of recommendation.
I got a letter of recommendation from the Dean of the John Marshall Law School during my years as a student, Professor Emeritus, the late Robert Gilbert Johnston. (Exhibit K @ page 63/93).
I also got a letter of recommendation from a Chicago-based Africanimmigrant evangelist the Reverend Gabriel O. Farombi. Mr. Farombi had a towering stature arguably similar to that of the American Evangelist the Reverend Billy Graham in the Nigerian setting in the 1990s and has known me in Chicago for over a decade. (Exhibit L @ page 65-66/93).
I also got a letter written by IARDC’s general counsel Mr. James G. Grogan (Exhibit M @ page 67/93).
IARDC’s propaganda, stigma and defamation caused further setbacks and complications in my relationship with the Nigerian authorities and the Nigerian Law School. I was denied admission to the Nigerian Law School on the basis that I was suspended from the practice of law in Illinois for making false statements concerning the integrity of judges. (Exhibits O, P, @ pages 69/93 to 71/93) These entities found the IARDC M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 42 propaganda and defamation too damaging and virtually impossible for me to overcome. As such, I faced rejection at every turn including in Nigeria’s legal system, institutions of government, and places of business opportunities. (Exhibits O, P, @ pages 69/93 to 71/93). In 2017, after the 3 years and 9 Months of Suspension, I Demanded of IARDC the Unconditional Reinstatement of My Law License and the Payment of $35 Million in Monetary Damages. IARDC Demanded that I Admit to Making False Statements Concerning the Integrity of Judge(s), Apologize, and Show Proof of Rehabilitation as a Condition for My Reinstatement, and Did not Respond to My $35 Million Monetary Damages Demand. I Refused to Apologize.
On or about March 21, 2017, after the 3 years and 9 months period of suspension, I made a demand on the IARDC through its Administrator, Mr. Jerome E. Larkin, to unconditionally move to reinstate my law license and to also compensate me to the tune of $35 Million for the damages caused in this ordeal. (Exhibit Q @ pages 72/93 to 93/93)
The damages I have sustained since this ordeal began in 2011 include but are not limited to damages for the trauma, defamation of character, embarrassment, humiliation, pain and suffering, loss of a normal life, loss of enjoyment of life, suspension of my law license, destruction of my 16+ years of legal practice business, loss of my ability to make a living and support my family and dependents, loss of benefits, loss of clients and business opportunities. Monetary estimates include: 1) the opportunity cost of defending the IARDC charges from 2011 to 2015 ($0.5M); 2) the damages resulting from the suspension of my law license from August 6, M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 43 2013 ($5M); damages resulting from the destruction of my 16+ years of legal practice ($14.5M); damages from the loss of goodwill and clients ($10M); damages from the defamation of my character ($5M), and more.
On March 22, 2017, I received an email from Mr. Al Krawczyk, an attorney at the IARDC, asking me to comply with Illinois Supreme Court’s Rule 767 and Commission rules, including Rule 402, as condition for reinstatement. IARDC stated that I must apologize for making false statements, show remorse, and show rehabilitation to be reinstated to the practice of law. IARDC did not respond to my $35 Million monetary damage demand.
The reinstatement rules IARDC referred to apply to a lawyer who is rightly suspended from the practice of law for an ethical violation proved by Clear and Convincing Evidence at an IARDC hearing subject to fair hearing, due process, rule of law, and equal protection of the laws. I was not so lawfully found guilty. I am innocent.
I refuse to apologize because it is illogical and morally wrong to ask me to apologize. IARDC should be the one to apologize to me and to make me whole for the betrayal of public trust and for scapegoating me.
It is axiomatic that unless you have evidence of a wrongdoing against a person, you cannot find that person guilty of a wrong he pleads not guilty to. A judge falsely accused has no less recourse to directly address the false accusation than IARDC – a stranger to the issues. No judge has M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 44 accused me of making false statement concerning his or her integrity. Why is IARDC an outsider to the issues crying more than the alleged bereaved “judge” who has not lodged the complaint IARDC advanced against me? Who refused to show up at trial, even after notice and subpoena, to testify in support of the IARDC’s complaint on his/her behalf? Who chose not to use his/her contempt powers? Who chose not to sue me for defamation when at that time I was in fact professionally insured in the millions of dollars for defamation on account that truth is an affirmative defense in a professional liability insurance claim? How is it fair for IARDC to target my law license and destroy my means of livelihood under these circumstances? Why is this not a hate crime?
If as minorities in a majority rule setting we cannot freely exercise our 1st Amendment rights to dissent to policies, practices, and/or procedures that we feel curtail our Civil Rights, remove a level playing field in the professions, hinder our progress in life, and/or prevent us from equally prospering for fear of retaliation by the majority law enforcers then let us all stop deceiving ourselves, there is hardly any peaceful pathway for the total eradication of racism in the United States. The consequences of this will be tragic and a disgrace to the human race. Frankly, the right policy for social progress is “if you see something say something and we will faithfully judge it honestly, transparently and accountably.” We should neither be afraid to speak up nor concede to be intimidated and silenced. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 45 A Catalogue of Betrayals: To Kill Attorney ’Lanre O. Amu, a Mocking Bird, Who Merely Delivers a Truthful but Bitter Message to IARDC as a Mirror Reflects.
If an exposed insurance company has a court case, can it secretly scheme to sit a sympathetic judge without violating the opponent’s due process right to a fair trial? See Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, 556 U.S. 868 (2009), Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 12-cv-00660, United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis).
Can the insurance company scheme to hire the judge’s spouse or sibling’s law firm to prosecute its case before the judge as here? The obvious objective is to get a judge to do its bidding. This incestuous relationship tips the scale of justice in the mind of any reasonable person. In light of In re Himmel, why should a lawyer who encounters such an incestuous arrangement be afraid to expose or question the secret “family affair”?
When as minorities we are encircled, given the runaround in an influence peddling scheme of sort and we kick and try to expose what is happening, we get slapped in the face on trumped-up IARDC charges, unfairly labeled a liar, and suspended from the practice of law. How is this fair?
IARDC’s leadership, led by the Administrator, Mr. Jerome E. Larkin, are fond of giving lofty annual lectures on practical ethical issues in the abstract and they seemed convincing in lecture halls. However, when the rubber met the road, as in this real case, and the ethics complaint M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 46 concerned connected attorneys and cronies of the IARDC, the IARDC and Mr. Larkin chickened out. Talk is indeed cheap.
IARDC refuses to be conscious of some untoward practices resulting in injustices in the courts and the role it can play to bring about reform.
IARDC fails to recognize that it has a Moral, Ethical, and Legal responsibility to provide a platform where obscure practices that subvert the system for administration of justice in the courts are articulated and exposed so that there can be reform, even without sanction to anyone.
We must also be mindful that a “corrupt judge” is in fact no judge at all, at least concerning the “corruption” controversy at issue, but is in fact an imposter that should be exposed for the betterment of the judicial system and society concerning that issue. This is no different than the hypothetical case of the Pope who ran a red light and injured a sober atheist pedestrian lawfully crossing the road inside the crosswalk. There is no hiding from the fact that the Pope is guilty. To condemn the innocent and acquit the guilty is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. Debunking the Propaganda, Myths, Rumours, African-Immigrant Bashing, Stereotypes, Putdowns, Unfairly Unleashed Against Me.
Ever since IARDC charged me on December 7, 2011, I have been the subject of ridicules, propaganda, stereotypes, and immigrant bashings, all aimed to kill my spirit, to humiliate me, and to discredit me. I do not want to be judged based on any of those. Rather, I will like to be judged on the M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 47 content of my character as reflected in my objective conduct. I feel it is necessary and appropriate to debunk the following:
I have been accused of being unstable, a mental case, and that I got into trouble with IARDC after I stopped taking my medications. My response: I am of sound physical and mental health. I have never taken psychotropic or mental health medications in my life.
I was told that my problem is that I refuse to know my place in society as an African immigrant attorney. That I was venturing into high stakes legal practice areas where millions of dollars are at issue, that I should have known that those areas of practice are closed to someone in my class as an African immigrant. My response: I agree that it may well be part of the issue. I however believe that my education, integrity, character, ability and the law license ought to open doors of opportunity to me that should not be shut on account of my race and national origin.
Its been alleged that we Black African immigrants unfairly take advantage of the systems of America. That we get public aid, food stamp, medicaid, welfare benefits, and take jobs reserved for the native-born Americans. That I got my degrees through government student loans, etc. My Answer: I appreciate the opportunities given to me in America to get an education and to practice law. However, it is unfair to stereotype me or any group. Many of these stereotypes do not even apply to me. For instance, I have never applied for and I have never received public aid, M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 48 food stamp, medicaid, welfare benefits, student loan or government loan before in my life. I dutifully paid my way all through each and every one of the four colleges and/or universities I attended and graduated from in America. As a self-employed lawyer, I think I created job by hiring support staff. All of these objectively speak to my character and value system as a Blackman vis-à-vis the unfair stereotypes.
After my suspension, some judges who believed in IARDC’s propaganda, took me on to humiliate me and do me in. In a case I had won outright, the judge went back to reopen the case on a pretext only to reverse the judgment previously entered in my favor without logical explanation solely to ridicule me for “fighting the system.” Additional Authorities and Relevant Public Pronouncements of Some of the Justices on the Illinois Supreme Court
Quoting Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Anne Marie Burke: My judicial philosophy is to get it right from the facts to the law. In everything you do, you have to be honest, truthful and professional.
Quoting Illinois Supreme Court Justice Rita B. Garman on Law Day
Theme: Advancing the Rule of Law Now! If civilization is to survive, it must choose the Rule of Law. Our way of life as free men and women flourishes when the Rule of Law is acknowledged and upheld as the foundation of an orderly society. The principles of Equal Treatment and Due Process. These God given freedoms and protections must not be M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 49 taken for granted. Where law ends, tyranny begins. We must preserve our Constitutional rights and uphold the Rule of Law. Use your voice and talents to spread this message. If not you, who? We must preach the importance of respecting the laws. Civil society thrives when citizens adhere to its rules. Our world will be a different place if stop signs are routinely ignored. We must ensure that the law applies fairly and impartially, no matter a person’s race, gender, ethnicity or social status. The law must apply equally to lawyers and judges, to the rich and to the poor, to ordinary citizens and chief executives. Only then will our promise of liberty and justice be not for some but for all.
Quoting Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis. Campaign Promise: There must be a commitment to legal ethics, integrity, fairness and impartiality. I spent more than three decades as a public defender and a judge knowing that my actions can change lives. The robes that we wear is about guaranteeing that every voice is heard. Fair and Square.
Quoting Illinois Supreme Court Justice Daniel K. Overstreet. Campaign Promise: I will be fair, impartial, and honest. Justices must uphold the Rule of Law and uphold Constitutional rights.
Do not set your heart on being a judge, unless you have the strength of character and the moral courage to put an end to injustice. If you let yourself be influenced by someone in a position of power, your integrity will be damaged. M.R.026545 SUBMITTED – 13815385 – ‘Lanre Amu – 6/24/2021 3:56 PM 50 CONCLUSION
This is the Moment of Truth: Please help put your words into effect in this case. Please help walk the talk in this case. Please let your action in this case speak louder than your words. Integrity and the Oath of Public Office demand that you apply the same standard of justice that you would want applied to you, your spouse, your children, and/or your loved ones in this verified petition of another human being created by God. I believe that Justice in this case mandates that I be made whole from all of these atrocities. That those who sought to get rid of me and leave me for dead must not prevail. Please let Justice prevail. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, ’Lanre O. Amu, respectfully petitions this Honorable Court to grant the following reliefs: 1) To Unconditionally Vacate the Wrongful Suspension of My Illinois Law License on August 6, 2013; 2) For a Certificate of Innocence, a Formal Written Apology, a Certificate of Commendation for Honesty, Courage, and a Commitment to the Rule of Law; and 3) For an Award of Make Whole Relief for the Trauma, Violations, and the Damages, Caused to Me, My Family and Dependents Starting From 2011; and 4) To Grant Further Relief as this Honourable Court Deems Just and Proper. Respectfully submitted, /s/ ’Lanre O. Amu ’Lanre O. Amu, Self-represented Petitioner
Amelia (Amy) and Dean Sallas (age 84) are an elderly Skokie couple who were targeted by predators who used the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to isolate them and gain control of their substantial assets. The primary vehicle was case 07 P 5360 entitled IN RE AMELIA SALLAS.
The M.O. of the elder cleansing/human trafficking was routine. Amy was hauled before the Court, found to be so disabled as to need two guardians – one for her person and one for her property. Her husband of over 50 years was rejected in favor of strangers. The evidence presented was the usual one-sided clap trap. The standard of CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE was obviated by the Court having the sole determination as to the quality and quantity of evidence. Any testimony presented would have satisfied this Judge. The Court made a mockery of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3a. It did not and could not make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Court appointment of a guardian was similarly not in accord with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b. As the Court had little evidence to support its determination in accordance with the Statute, it could not comply with section 3b. It thus made generic appointments totally ignoring the mandate of the Statute and the requirements of the 14th Amendment and the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, this situation is commonplace. The entire guardianship process is intended to be predatory and benefit the appointed guardian – not the ward!
What was not routine was the fact that the plenary guardian ignored the Civil and Human Rights of the husband and usurped them – including all the marital assets – exercising full dominion over them. The fact that such was FELONY THEFT is irrelevant in Guardianship cases. Resistance was thwarted by the Court and aided by a Guardian ad Litem who cried out to the husband whose property was being stolen – you have no standing! The Husband’s lawyer turned out to be part of the same cabal. She withdrew as his attorney when the Husband asserted that he had VESTED MARITAL PROPERTY rights and he had standing to assert them. The net net result was the wrongful theft of about nine million dollars in savings to date plus a total forfeiture of the couple’s 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.
The guardian of the person ran into a major problem – Amy was not incompetent and had no disability that could be addressed pursuant to the dictates and limitations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3. Thus, this guardian took the route of least resistance and attorned to Amy going back into her prior life without his interference. This truce lasted a decade, until two major events occurred that caused the guardian embarrassment and the threat of exposure, to wit:
a) Sallas had because of the guardian’s patent incompetence and breach of fiduciary relationship been subject to a predatory home mortgage. This mortgage was deceptively cast as a COMMERCIAL LOAN so as to squeeze the maximum rate of interest. No home mortgage or REVERSE mortgage was offered. On January 24, 2018 this mortgage expired and became due and payable. Amy recognized this fact and on January 25, 2018 when she received a telephone call from the Byline Bank and an offer to ‘renew’ the loan she and Dean went to the Byline Bank and signed the new loan agreement. Amy also inquired about the interest rates and obtained not only a lower interest rate than prior but an extended amortization period. Byline would not provide either a HOME LOAN or a REVERSE MORTGAGE.
b) Amy felt sick and signed herself into Swedish Covenant Hospital handling all the paperwork, history et al without the aid of the guardian.
A ‘fly’ entered the environment. Amy’s signature on the January 25, 2018 mortgage was a violation of the law and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a =22. Sometime after the criminal act had been consummated the plenary Guardian, Mr. Charles Golbert, discovered the event. On February 15, 2018 he appeared before Judge Boliker and presented a Petition to sign a new loan agreement. As appears to be his pattern, he neglected to inform the Judge of the fact that such was un-necessary – AMY HAD SIGNED THE NEW MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS and had obtained better terms that he had. Judge Boliker signed the order presented to her on February 15, 2018.
Subsequently, an attempt at a cover-up of the criminal activity commenced but was not successful. Golbert who controlled at this point most (if not all) of the Sallas cash flow retaliated by ceasing to pay the mortgage, the insurance, maintenance on the property etc. Confident that the ‘fix’ was in, the Byline Bank had the temerity to file a Foreclosure Lawsuit that actually had in its title the name of the disabled person protected by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, to wit ByLine Bank vs. Amelia Sallas 2019 CH 13960. Dean filed Motions to dismiss the barred foreclosure suit. His theory was quite straight forward. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 bars enforcement of a loan transaction executed in defiance of the statute. Such a bar abrogates by the express words of the Statute the liability of the disabled person. It therefore follows that as Dean’s contract of Guarantee has been changed by the voluntary action of the Byline Bank, Dean is also released. Byline Bank with all its attorneys and $25,000 dollars in claimed attorney fees certain was well aware of the prohibition of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. Ergo, its actions were intentional.
The Court proceedings in the Guardianship proceeding became more hostile and in fact Dean and Amy received an unwanted, unasked for, and unaccepted sua sponte, ultra vires, de facto dissolution of marriage with all the trimmings including the onerous property settlement of full forfeiture of all assets whether legally under the jurisdiction of the Court or not. Amy after a decade of living in her home with her husband was removed from her home and out of her marriage. Dean was scheduled to be rendered homeless and penniless. A death threat was added to the mix. His attorney without prior notice, a written motion, or any fault on Dean’s part was allowed under highly usual and ethically suspect basis to withdraw her representation during a contested hearing. This left Dean without an attorney. As his file was kept from him his ability to obtain counsel was nullified.
The Final phase of HUMAN TRAFFICKING/ELDER CLEANSING commenced and was highlighted by the July 28, 2020 hearing. In that proceeding a discussion occurred as to the status of the HOME MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE. The attorney for the Guardian informed the Court of the foreclosure and that she and the guardian were monitoring the foreclosure. No defense was going to be raised. The Judge attorned. What Ms. Elizabeth Casanova did not tell the Judge was:
· that the guardian Mr. Charles Golbert had sometime after the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 criminal transaction had signed a blank signature page for the loan. He signed it without the common and usual exculpation clause and thus had personal liability.
· Dean in spite of threats to leave him homeless and penniless and a death threat could not be induced to sign the blank signature page. The page that evidenced criminal conduct on the part of the Byline Bank could not disappear and in fact was attached to the Mortgage foreclosure complaint as exhibit H.
· That another serious breach of fiduciary relationship was intended – the home was appraised by Zillow and local realtors at about 500,000
· That the Byline Bank was seeking almost 40% in penalty interest including $25,000 in attorney fees.
· That the Guardian had a history of filing documents in Court that were reasonably intended to mislead the Court. As an example – on February 15, 2018 the Guardian did not inform the Court that his services in reference to the mortgage with Byline Bank were un-necessary. Amy had been contacted by Byline Bank and she had executed the loan documents. EXACTLY why the Guardian was necessary to attempt at Sallas’ expense to cover-up the criminal conduct of Byline Bank will remain a mystery. Of course, not only does it appear that such was attempted but Judge Boliker approved the fiduciary expenditure from the Sallas marital estate.
Dean did file a defense to the Mortgage foreclosure lawsuit and disclosed the CRIMINAL ACTIONS of the Byline Bank. He also disclosed the apparently miscreant behavior of the Bank and Guardian and the Illinois Rule of law that the discharge of one obligator to a loan release all.
In the Probate division, Sallas raised the limitations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 and the fact that HE WAS NOT ADJUDICATED – only his wife had been. He complained that with the ultra vires attornment and aid of the Court the Guardian has used his judicial office to deny him his HUMAN and Civil rights with impunity and continues to do so. In particular he notes that the guardian in the 11th current account actually brags concerning the invasion of his privacy, the poverty and lack of services that he is being subject to and other indignities. Sallas objects to his VESTED MARITAL ASSETS being used for the purpose of the ELDER CLEANSING OF HIS WIFE and himself and in particular the dissipation and predation leveled against he and his wife.
The usurpation of Dean Sallas’ Marital Estate is as a matter of Law FELONY THEFT! The guardian’s authorization pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b might be construed to give complete dominion and control over the ward and a rogue Court might even confiscate all liberties of the elderly victim, but there is no way that the Guardian can Constitutionally be given any dominion over Deans vested marital interest. Such is FELONY THEFT! It is a taxable event requiring the Guardian to pay United States Income Tax on every penny sequestered and taken dominion over. The Probate Court Judge has no jurisdiction over Dean Sallas without the abrogation of the 14th Amendment.
How could such a travesty such as the SALLAS affair occur? The fact is it has occurred and continues unabated today.
On Amy’s Birthday (April 11, 2021) Dean and Amy secretly met at the nursing home where she was placed so as to be infected with Covid 19 by the guardian to celebrate her birthday. (They had been secretly communicating prior) They were apprehended by Cynthia Montesinos DRCS and informed that for this elder couple married more than 50 years they were required to obtain the permission of Lisa Casanova. This is the same Lisa Casanova who complained to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois that JoAnne Denison was acting in an ethically challenged manner when she assisted Dean Sallas in obtaining an e-mail address. Ms. Casanova – an attorney for the Guardian – has been silent concerning the predatory lending practices of the Byline Bank and its gross overcharges in interest. The foreclosed loan was fraudulent promulgated as a COMMERCIAL LOAN even though in the last decade neither Mr. nor Mrs. Sallas was actively engaged in any Commercial venture. Thousand so predatory interest was extracted from the elderly couple.
Any ethical bank would have provided Sallas with either a REVERSE INTEREST loan or a HOME LOAN. Of course, a guardian who took his fiduciary responsibility seriously would similarly have obtained the same from the ethical lending institution. The Predatory lending attorned to by the Probate Judge and her appointed Guardian is intolerable and wrong. It violates the spirit of all the protective legislation passed by the Illinois legislature and the Congress of the United States to protect senior citizens. IT IS TIME for the RULE OF LAW to be put forth and for JUSTICE FOR THE ELDERLY to have a place in American’s current culture. THE DRED SCOTT style law enforcement witnessed in Cook County, Illinois should be condemned just as in the middle 1800’s the said Scott decision was rejected by Americans. THE 14TH AMENDMENT must have meaning in 2021 America.
The Guardianship/human trafficking in the elderly is worse that any cancer. Once a guardian attached to a vulnerable senior that senior can be expected to be divorced totally and completely from his/her prior life and after all his/her life savings have been sequestered and gotten under the control of the Guardian – the end is sight. Family (including spouses) have no standing and your status is less than the status of slaves incarcerated on Southern plantations in the 1980’s. The Guardian is your Simon Lagree. He determines who you associate, where you live, and your life functions in derogation of the words and phrases of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b. You are toast until the last dollars has been obtained from your savings and Federal and State funds.
But for law enforcement enforcing the RULE OF LAW a person targeted for Guardianship loses all rights privileges and immunities in spite of the clear words of the 14th Amendment. In the Foreclosure case, the Byline Bank is so certain that it has the ‘fix’ in that it filed a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. A Motion for Summary Judgement can be granted only if there is no dispute fact issue to be determined. Exactly how does the adjudication of Amy Sallas as a protected person disappear from the Court records of 07 P 5360? A Court takes judicial notice of its own proceedings!
I assume that the court proceeding as to BYLINE BANK vs. Amelia Sallas – a disabled person – will be presented on Zoom. It is scheduled for early next month. Please attend! It will be highly educational.
On Monday, April 26, 2021, 10:23:09 AM CDT, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
I’ve made it a practice from day one to not advance any funds for clients or friends without exception. In the Sallas case Dean is a blast from the past. He actually goes back to my childhood. I’ve taken an interest in his case because what has happened to him COULD IN FACT HAPPEN to me. It is frightening – including the turncoat nature of his children. Indeed, such a situation is no longer uncommon and at the drop of hat one or more of your children can act irrationally and turn 180 degrees against his and your best interests. (my grown children on Saturday turned up at my home at 6:00 A.M. with a brand new bicycle for me! Yesterday my oldest daughter invited me to ride with her on a beautiful trail in Lake County. At the very same the widow of one of my closest friends had to address a threat from a daughter to put her away in a guardianship. The contrast was not lost on me. My policy of no investment directly or indirectly in other people’s problems was not promulgated because I am cheap, but so that I remain as objective as possible and have no unbargained for pecuniary interest that might break my objectivity. (That is not to say that I am always objective because I am not – I just do not want any other factor interfering with my analysis of the situation – and have set the bar at zero – where it remains to this day. Also by lending only moral support I alleviate the claim I am an advocate for one side or the other – I remain merely a friend. The FIRST AMENDMENT reiterates that my right of association trumps any frivolous claim of a miscreant implemented in anti-social or criminal behavior as to my role. Byline Bank certainly would like to strip Dean Sallas of his friends as they have done with his money! My relationship with Dean Sallas is that of friend to friend. I am not his attorney = just his friend, and at my age I am not going back into the practice of law. I do see Dean’s situation in the harsh light of CORRUPTION. I practiced law for over 1/2 a century and until I ran across these elder cases (starting with Sykes) I really never saw the nadir of the legal profession or the corrupt bastards whose presence defames some very noble people. my forced retirement came at the time of my life it was due. Yes, in my practice I saw the ‘fix’ occur and yes I had to deal with it, but, somehow even that was different. The miscreants were not totally venal or vindictive. The bad guys (Judges, lawyers, clients) were not arrogant about their clout or were they vindictive. They also attempted to hide their perfidy – not try to justify it. When I saw the dealing between ByLIne Bank and Boliker’s husband I was shocked:
I was taken aback. Yes, I know that developers cannot afford to black list certain lenders and a judge’s spouse usually does not consult with the Judge as to whom, if anyone, he/she could do business; but, the actions of Bylne Bank in the Sallas case are beyond repugnant. I doubt if any other Bank in Illinois has ever violated 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 knowingly. And if they did, they did not compound the criminal act. Byline Bank knew of Amy’s disability on day one because a year earlier as it appears in the record, the Guardian did not keep his involvement a secret. Maybe he was obtaining a finder’s fee for bringing his adjudicated ward’s business to Byline Bank. Such an arrangement is not uncommon. Quid pro quo in this predator business is the norm – not the exception. Worse yet it is clearly apparent that the Byline Bank’s ethics are questionable. There is hardly a soul who is not aware that DEAN SALLAS & AMY SALLAS for at least a decade have not engaged in an active commercial business venture. They may have chosen previously to vest their savings in real estate, but it could no more be a commercial venture than my deceased mother in law’s account remains are a commercial venture. The structure of the loan and the absurd penalty usury claimed in the foreclosure suit can be deemed NOT to be oppressive and predatory. No volume of words can convince an honest trier of fact that Byline Bank’s conduct is not inequitable, unethical, wrong, elder abuse and worse. Thus, the number of related loans – since the filing of the foreclosure action in Byline vs. Amy Sallas (a disabled person whose guardianship is being supervised by Judge Boliker) raises a dozen or so hurricane flags! The failure of the Judge to even get excited by the revellation that the Guardian was unconcerned that his petitions before the Court in the Sallas case were misleading is beyond amazing. It is akin to a confession of serious ******. The Guardian’s actions in seizing total dominion over Sallas’ funds have rendered him insolvent. He is living on his essentially his social security. It is a pecuniary hardship for him to travel downtown to file documents with the Court. This is exactly what the human traffickers operating in the Sallas case are counting on. The long and the short of this e-mail is that the Elderly fighting the American Holocaust are losing a valuable voice in their Warsaw getto-like uprising against the corrupt political/judicial underworld that has launched an assault on the individual freedoms of the Elderly. For a couple of dollars – I will break my fast rule and make a contribution to the cause of FREEDOM for the ELDERLY. The Dean Sallas case is fast becoming Waterloo!
Dean is still struggling to get out of foreclosure and to get his wife back.
Please pray for him.
Ask the ARDC why his GAL is constantly trying to find out who is helping him and trying to go after them to deny any help at all. (Attorney Casanova and ask the ARDC to discipline her for this–Dean is a vulnerable adult, elderly at age 85 and he needs all the help he can get) Her behavior is utterly reprehensible.
Justice Department Finds that Alameda County, California, Violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the U.S. Constitution
The Justice Department concluded today, based upon a thorough investigation, that there is reasonable cause to believe that Alameda County is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in its provision of mental health services, and that conditions and practices at the county’s Santa Rita Jail violate the U.S. Constitution and the ADA.
The department’s investigation found that the county fails to provide services to qualified individuals with mental health disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Instead, it unnecessarily institutionalizes them at John George Psychiatric Hospital and other facilities. In Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA requires public entities to provide community-based services to persons with disabilities when appropriate services can reasonably be provided to individuals who want them. However, on any given day in Alameda County, hundreds of people are institutionalized for lengthy stays at one of several large, locked psychiatric facilities in the county or are hospitalized at John George Psychiatric Hospital, while others are at serious risk of admission to these psychiatric institutions because of the lack of community-based services. Without connection to adequate community-based services, people return to John George Psychiatric Hospital in crisis again and again.
“The ADA protects individuals with mental health disabilities from unnecessary institutionalization, and the Constitution guarantees all prisoners necessary medical care, including mental health care,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pamela S. Karlan of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Our investigation uncovered evidence of violations that, taken together, result in a system where people with mental health disabilities in Alameda County find themselves unnecessarily cycling in and out of psychiatric institutions and jails because they lack access to proven services that would allow them to recover and participate in community life.”
The department also concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that conditions at the jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as the ADA. Specifically, the department concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that the jail fails to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners with serious mental health needs, including those at risk of suicide; that the jail violates the constitutional rights of prisoners with serious mental illness through its prolonged use of restrictive housing; and that the jail violates the ADA by denying prisoners with mental health disabilities access to services, programs, and activities because of their disabilities.
As a result of these failures, prisoners with serious mental health needs have experienced worsening mental health conditions, are sent repeatedly to John George Psychiatric Hospital for acute care, have experienced prolonged stays in restrictive housing, and, at times, have seriously injured themselves or died.
The Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section initiated the investigation under the ADA and under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), which authorizes the department to address a pattern or practice of deprivation of constitutional rights of individuals confined to state or local government-run correctional facilities.
Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt. Individuals with relevant information are encouraged to contact the department via phone at (844) 491-4946 or by email at Katelyn.Smith2@usdoj.gov.
I went over the notes from the zoom hearing that occurred today in regard to the Circuit Court of Cook County case 07 P 5360 entitled IN RE: AMELIA SALLAS. There are a number of issues that are quite interesting that expose the problem that we all face with the HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY. (exploitation)
Starting with square one, a reoccurring theme in these American Holocaust sagas is the fact that a dysfunctional family is found all to often to be part of the mix and available as prey or a stalking horse for the Criminal venture. As I look back over the cases I examined the ‘dysfunctional family’ was more often than not an element. In the Sykes case a daughter stole $4000.00 from her mother and when mother went to seek out a protective order the daughter used clout to get the matter into Probate Court and a predatory guardianship. In Gore the predators used a disabled granddaughter to oust the caring family member who was Guardian 1 and appointed her (the disabled person) as guardian. In JayCox target was estranged from his wife and two sisters. The beat goes on.[1]
Today in Sallas to divert attention from the Guardian’s criminal misconduct, misrepresentations to the Court and the unlawful usurpations, and massive losses to the Estate and the husband of the Amelia Sallas of more than Nine (9) million dollars – the miscreants started the Court diversion immediately. The kidnapping of Amy Sallas and her incarceration were used to divert attention – the Guardian ad Litem asserted that the husband had agitated the Ward. Indeed, having been wrongfully isolated without any color of law by the guardian the captive wife discovered that she still has a life – a saint would be agitated! Indeed, Amelia learned that there was a possibility that she was not on the fast track to be a Zombie!
Such was the opening Salvo!
The ploy did not work – Dean was not deterred from presenting his Motions and pointing out that:
1) There was no statutory authority for anything that was going on, and in fact the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America prohibited it. Indeed, the Guardian ‘s authority was limited to the ward by the words of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b, to wit:
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
The Guardian had no legal power over him and in fact he was not before the Court except to protest the outright theft of his vested MARITAL PROPERTY INTERESTS of $9,000,000.00 and the continued illegal and criminal efforts of the Guardian to carry out the threat of being left homeless and penniless.
2) That he, as Amy’s husband, had a duty to protect her and to protest the fact that the Guardian’s appointment had to be pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b and if it was so limited just about everything the Guardian was doing was ultra vires – and in direct violation of Amy Sallas’ rights under the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America.
3) That the Guardian was not honest with the Court and in fact was presenting reports to the Court that were not in accord with objective reality[2].
The unexpected happened – Dr. Samuel Sugar M.D. appeared in the Zoom gallery. With the remarkably successful Symposium that he sponsored still fresh he commented on the sorry spectacle her was observing. Journalist Janet Phelan also appeared as observer and most important Dean Sallas stood his ground and demanded Justice.
Of course, as unfortunately expected, the Presiding Judge was/is disinterested in the plight of Amelia Sallas or Dean Sallas. It appeared from her demeanor at the hearing – for all to observe – that she could care less that the Guardian demonstrated no respect for her or her office – indeed, she was totally disinterested in the fact that a Guardian she appointed had abused his office and was mocking her by not informing her of the fact that he allowed his ward (Amy) to be victimized by the criminal conduct of the Byline Bank in direct violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22. Indeed, it matter not to her that she was not informed of the Guardian’s conflict of interest, the wrongful isolation of his ward or the overreach of his office. Of course, the Judge was not interested that the Guardian without lawful color of law had , used his office to gain unlawful dominion over Dean Sallas’ vested property interests and had in direct violation of 18 USCA 241, 242 and the specific prohibition of 42 USCA 1983 had seized almost all of Dean Sallas property and was forcing him to live an abject poverty. Indeed, having usurped all the Sallas family funds he seeks to unlawfully evict Dean from his ½ million-dollar home by assuring that the utilities, the taxes, insurance, and upkeep expenses are not paid. His supervisor brags that Dean will be homeless and penniless.
The Guardianship which is designed to HELP a disabled person acclimate into the world was prostituted in case 07 P 5360 to abuse the elderly person. Nine million dollars of savings is unaccounted for – a lifetime of savings lost! A Circuit Judge is herein presiding over the UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE of Illinois law and claims related to wrongful conduct and interpreting that Statutory limitation of:
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
This clause and prohibition according to today ruling approving the Guardian’s fees is thusly to be interrupted to be the functional equivalent of a jail sentence and the loss of all property and liberty not only for the unfortunate soul who is declared to be a ‘ward’ but for her spouse and anyone who objects to the HUMAN TRAFFICKING in the elderly.
The oral order of this Judge suggests that the RULE OF LAW and the Constitution is an inconvenience to be ignored[3].
I wish I could say that the action described is unusual or unique. It certainly is not unique in case 07P 5360. It certainly was not unique as reported by the presenters at Dr. Sugar’s AAAPG symposium, nor is it unique in the reports from AAAPG, Cear, NASGA, Probate Sharks, MaryGSykes ** blogs. Nor was it unique in the articles and material aired on Netflix, written about in the NewYorker, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or a bunch of GAO reports to Congress. IT IS WRONG and is illustrative of wrongdoing.
We have reached the point of NO RETURN. As speaker after speaker at Dr. Sugar’s symposium urged it is time to fish or cut bait. Dean Sallas brought his petitions today to highlight the perfidy that he faces. He has appealed to Law Enforcement. He has received some encouragement, but he realizes that DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT.
In the weeks to come, Dean will rise up in the Chancery Court in the case of BYLINE BANK vs. AMELIA SALLAS 2019 CH 13960 and pursuant to his MOTIONS now pending Demand that the Court of Equity give honor to its heritage and take cognizance of the fact that in violation of the laws as to elder abuse, predation of elders, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22, consumer protection laws designed to protect the elderly dismiss with prejudice the wrongful foreclosure action.
I have to comment on the Byline Bank’s conduct. The Bank is well aware that at the time of the loan (Jan 25, 2018) neither Dean nor Amelia was engaged in any business venture. They were also aware that interest rates for HOME MORTGAGES had hit rock bottom. Indeed, it was no secret that to aid seniors such as Sallas the Government was encouraging REVERSE MORTGAGES. It takes real greed to resist the temptation to provide an elderly couple with run of the mill Home loan at the advertised 3% loan rate or a REVERSE MORTGAGE that will obviate month loan payments.
It takes a ‘special’ kind of lender to openly and notoriously ignore a criminal statute that reads.
(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.
Obviously, the lender was aware of Amelia Sallas’ adjudication by the Circuit Court in case 07 P 5360 as a person with disability.
The hearing of today before Judge Boliker was informative in that the words and phrases of this remedial Statute in Illinois have little meaning as at least in Judge Boliker’s court room this statute is not enforceable. (see transcript of July 28, 2020 Zoom hearing! Not only does the criminal nature of the loan have no meaning, but the responsibility of the Guardian to protect the assets of the ward is not applicable.
(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.
(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.
755 ILCS 5/11a-3
Obviously, Judge Boliker on July 28 was aware of the violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 by the Byline Bank and was aware that on February 15, 2018 when the Guardian approached her for leave to negotiate the mortgage that had already been signed 3 weeks prior, he was not being candid with her. Thus, it should not be surprise to yours truly and Sallas that when the Guardian on that date told her that he was not contesting the void loan and unlawful mortgage foreclosure we really should not have been surprised. The issue in case 2019 CH 13960 is whether the Chancery Court will follow the RULE OF LAW.
Democracy is NOT a spectator sport! We appear to have lost the battle in the PROBATE COURT – do we love our inheritance enough to fight to win the war?
[1] This disfunction is unexplainable but clearly exploitable. Amelia and Dean’s children by their attornment to the pandemic scheme to exploit their mother promulgated by the Guardian and other have assisted in the loss of their inheritance. They certainly should realize that their mother is pushing 80 and their father 84. The days separating them from their inheritance is short, yet, to satisfy whatever drives them they must be deemed ready to imprison their mother, impoverish they father and deprive themselves of a substantial inheritance and comfort. This disfunction is known as cutting off your hand to spite your face! It is common and as observed today easily maneuvered.
[2] It is sad, but it appears that the Judge’s conduct and total disinterest in the alleged CRIMINAL ACTIONS and deceptions by the guardian indicated to at least the undersigned that the Judge not only was aware of the deceptions but attorned and approved of them.
[3] I am aware that calling a ‘spade a spade’ or exercising FIRST AMENDMENT rights to complain of the felonies of elder abuse is in Illinois ethically challenged and lawyers who stand up against criminal abuses such as are evident in the Sallas cases are summarily punished by the IARDC (Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Commission). In its zealousness the IARDC subpoenaed DEAN SALLAS’ Google records. His crime of not attorning to the abuse and exploitation of the Guardian was quickly addressed by the IARDC. The only problem is the fact that Dean Sallas is not a lawyer and they like the Guardianship Court in fact have no jurisdiction to take possession of his property or intimidate him.
My reaction to all of this is to show that zoom hearings MUST and should continue after Covid as an option to every litigant who requests them.
The Sallas case has now garnered the attention of major guardianship corruption activists and Dr. Sam Sugar is clearly a leader in all of this. Good for him for attending.
Boliker is going to have some major problems with her position in the Sallas case, letting lawyers and guardians touch assets belonging to Dean Sallas, a marital partner, with claims to marital assets which have been stolen, converted and trespassed upon. Only Dean Sallas and Dean Sallas alone should have access to his wife’s assets, as she has to his assets, but he is not under any guardianship. He still has all of his facilities and is clearly competent.
The threats and intimidation of Boliker and the OPG and attorney Casanova cannot be ignored in a civilized society.
This has to end. Dean should get his house secured, his $9 million in assets returned to him and also his beloved wife should be returned to him instanter. The OPG’s job is to do this, instead they prey on the elderly and vulnerable.
you can see a copy of the sallas foreclosure file at the following link:
Watch this attorney struggle to justify guardianship. He does describe it to an “out of control tsunami” and how courts want to err toward protecting people, but in doing so, often strip them of important rights.
This couple has been unbelievably isolated from one another for over 18 months by the Office of Public Guardian.
There is no court order to do this. There is no reason to do this. He has never been investigated by APS or ever accused of a crime regarding his beloved wife.
Dean Sallas is about to be 84. He needs his wife.
The nursing homes have finally opened up. He goes to visit wife (who has been placed in a nursing home against her will by the Office of Public Guardian and she wants to see her husband he wants to see his wife (who is about the same age, maybe a few years younger).
This is the note he gets when he visits:
Dean Sallas You may not visit Amelia Sallas until you have talke to Lisa Casanova and we have permission for visitations. THIS IS A DIRECTIVDE FROM LISA CASANOVA ATTORNEY signed cynthia Montesinos drcs 04/09/2021
This case is a travesty. The guardianship needs to be investigated and everyone involved who is a part of this should be indicted for fraud and elder abuse (of both Dean and Amy Sallas). The OPG should be immediately investgated and defunded.
The horrors of the OPG continue on unabated and the ARDC is involved!
Sharon Opryszek and Jerome Larkin must be investigated and the agency defunded until it can be show that it operates in an honest, transparent and ethical manner.
Pier Hopkins and her beloved Grandmother Marlynn Hopkins are also suffering at the hands of judges and attorneys.
Many cases out there need to be investigated by the authorities. This appears to be a continuing pattern and practice.
Please pray for all these victims and that justice be done.
The ARDC is coming after me for reporting on these cases. Their perfidy and mendacity must not continue.
To Law Enforcement charged with protecting the Elderly from abusive conduct:
Subject: the ELDER CLEANSING OF AMELIA SALLAS – A CRY FOR HELP!
Reference: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois cases, to wit: In re: Amelia Sallas 07 P 5360, & Byline Bank vs. Amelia Sallas et al 2019 CH 13960
While the Human Trafficking the in the elderly has become a certificated ‘growth industry’ in Cook County, Illinois and it is becoming common for elderly citizen’s Civil and Human Rights to be trampled upon by corrupt and unsupervised Court appointed guardians there has to be line in the sand that cannot be trespassed.
The Amelia Sallas case has been the subject of literally hundreds of e-mails and mailings complaining of the whole violation of the Civil and Human Rights of Amelia Sallas and Dean Sallas – a couple who until the intervention of a Court appointed guardian not only were secure in their homes but enjoying a long-term marriage. The couple have been married for more than fifty years, accumulated savings well in excess of 9 million dollars and were secure in the belief that as citizens of the United States of America they could live out their retiring years together and in comfort.
In derogation of the 14th Amendment Amelia Sallas ran afoul of the Justice system, was declared incompetent by a Judge san the evidence required by 755 ILCS 5/11a -3a and railroaded into a guardianship wherein the criteria of the statute were again totally circumvented and ignored. See 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b. Amelia’s husband objected and without a legal basis the wrongfully appointed guardian for Amelia Sallas seized dominion over not only Amelia vested marital property interests, but the vested marital property interests of her husband Dean Sallas. The net result has been the dissipation of 9 million dollars in assets and continued exploitation of Amelia Sallas.
Placing Amelia Sallas in a ‘sheltered care facility’ did not terminate her life even though the guardian was successful in having her infected by Covid 19, however, the aforesaid removal of Amelia Sallas from her home and marriage did serve to temporarily isolate the elderly couple. This evening, the ‘sheltered care facility’ discovered that this elderly couple were COMMUNICATING and this very evening they were in each other’s presence enjoying each other’s companionship and some pastry.
All HELL BROKE LOOSE! Dean was ordered off the premises! By order of ELISABETH CASANOVA, Dean was not have contact with his wife of ½ a Century. Ms. Casanova is an attorney for the Court appointed guardian. Though the tears of his wife, Dean meekly removed himself from the premises. ELDER CLEANSING requires the victim to be totally isolated from her prior life!
The outrage and assault on HUMAN RIGHTS has now reached the point of no return. Dean Sallas has reached out to the Illinois and Federal authorities for assistance in retrieving the CIVIL RIGHTS of he and his wife. He has complained of:
1) Loss of liberty. Arbitrarily the Guardian, first recognized the Court well exceeded its statutory authority in rubber stamping an order allowing for a Guardian to be appointed for Amelia. A compromise was reached – Amelia was returned after her adjudication to the marital home where she continued to reside with her husband. This truce ended when Amelia embarrassed the Guardian by:
a. On January 25, 2018 she negotiated (with her husband) a reinstatement and renewal of the predatory home mortgage that the Guardian was maintaining on the marital home. She signed her signature on the loan documents. (This action created a criminal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and voided the predatory mortgage)
b. Amelia suffered a medical abnormality and without permission of the guardian sojourned to SWEDISH COVENANT HOSPITAL . She discussed intelligently her medical conduction and signed herself into the medical facility.
Amelia was subsequently hauled out of her home and her marriage and without consent of either Dean or Amelia subjected to a sua sponde involuntary de facto dissolution of marriage that apparently is being maintained by order of Elizabeth Casanova, one of the attorneys for the Guardian.
2) Loss of Property. The Guardian has sequestered almost even item of property previously owned by Dean and/or Amelia Sallas. He engineered the loss of 9 million dollars in real estate assets and is now engaged in handing over to the ByLine Bank, pursuant to a void mortgage the marital home having a value of approximately half a million dollars.
Today’s outrage requires emergency action. Across America citizens have complained to deaf ears that when a court appointed guardian is embarrassed by some event – such as occurred today – i.e., Dean and Amelia getting together and enjoying each other’s company against the express authority and demand of ELIZABETH CASANOVA terrible things happen to the captive elderly person. Unavoidable accidents are frequent. They include unexplained illness, various induced pneumonia, restrain bars on the bed being in the down position, drug reactions etc.
My concern is not paranoia. It appears that the Guardian has not be entirely candid with the Judge who appointed him and who is charged with supervising him AND Dean Sallas has filed dispositive Motions in the 2019 CH 13960 case, and in this guardianship case 07 P 5360. The ELIZABETH CASANOVA, one of the attorneys for the Guardian is reported to have requested the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to investigate if an attorney has been assisting Dean Sallas in addressing the violation of the CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS of he and his wife. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois has immediately responded and in direct violation of Dean Sallas’ 1st, 4th , 5th and 14th Amendment sent out a subpoena to obtain information as to Dean Sallas’ Google account.
The retribution against Dean and Amelia Sallas is not a new situation. They have had to deal with a total invasion of their privacy, their marriage, the loss of their life savings, the loss of their health and security and threats – including a death threat. A supervisor of the Guardian’s staff (not ELIZABETH CASANOVA) bluntly told Dean Sallas that he was going to see him penniless and homeless! The Court transcript of July 28, 2020 demonstrates that except for the pandemic and the discovery of the Guardian’s dishonesty with the Court he might have actually accomplished that feat by Christmas of 2020.
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021, Dean Sallas will object to the Guardian’s 11th current account, the Guardian’s request for fees for the time spend in violating the Civil and Human Rights of both Dean and Amelia Sallas, the lack of candor of the Guardian with the Court, and the violation by the Guardian and the Court of Dean Sallas’ 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment Rights.
In Summary – Dean and Amelia Sallas need the help of law enforcement. All that they are requesting is that Law Enforcement enforce the Law. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 regulates the appointment of a Guardian. The criteria are severely limited by both the ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There is no way that the current guardian CHARLES GOLBERT meets any of the criterion of the Statute or can perform the acts allowable by the Statute. Golbert, may have political and judicial clout but he is not above the law! His lack of candor to the Court and his established incompetence disqualifies him from acting as a guardian. His lack of supervision of his subordinates or his direction to his subordinates (Elizabeth Casanova) . Nowhere in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 is there any authority provided to the guardian to nullify a 50-year marriage, adjudicate the forfeiture of the assets, and enjoin the couple from enjoying their mutual FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS together. Ditto of intimidation –
Kenneth Ditkowsky, a friend of Dean Sallas. APPENDIX 1.
On Thursday, April 8, 2021, 09:57:59 PM CDT, wrote:
You can view “Motion by Sallas Filed Apr 4 021.pdf” at: Adobe Acrobat
________________ Sent with Adobe Document Cloud. Click on the link above to access the file online. No sign up or installation of Acrobat is required to access.
On Thursday, April 8, 2021, 10:55:32 PM CDT, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
A few minutes ago at Dean’s request I forwarded what should be his dispositive Motions for case 07 P 5360 entitled IN RE: AMELIA SALLAS set for the next Court date to the service list. while I did not do the scanning of the two motions, I am proving that you can teach on old dog new tricks. JoAnne – I copied the IARDC so that they will not have to subpeona my wife’s Google account to ascertain that it was me who assisted Dean Sallas in the 21st Century act of serving copies of his motion. Pursuant to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution – whether your friend Ms. O likes it not I can and will continue my friendship with Mr. Sallas and as a citizen do what I can to see that he obtains JUSTICE! Until I read the material in the cases of ByLine Bank vs. Amelia Sallas 2019 CH 13960, and the material in this file, including and not limited to the https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:abc6fdc4-21c9-4774-b875-7b99ee534c5fetc I still believed that we lived in the United States of America. I am having doubts! How could an elderly couple be literally stripped of their freedom, their property and virtually everything they have – including their marriage! Neither Dean nor Amelia committed any crime – EXCEPT TO GROW OLD! They were drawn into this nightmare literally set for life – their net assets were in excess of nine million dollars, they had a nice home etc. Dean put up one heck of fight and is still doing so against terrible odds – the motions he filed sek to vindicate the Court – I could not even imagine a Judge having the temerity to treat the Constitution with such contempt – but it happened herein in case 07 P 5360 from day one through today. I could not imagine such avarice as has been demonstrated by the fiduciary Guardians – but it happened right here in the Circuit Court of Cook County in case 07 P 5360. The averred perfidy of the Guardian in NOT being candid with Judge Boliker is beyond CONTEMPT. I am surprised that Boliker of her own MOTION has not cited Golbert for CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT. It is in insult not only to Judge Boliker, but every lawyer everywhere that he did not make the required disclosures – Such demonstrates the lack of respect that the Judge and the Court have for themselves and the Rule of law. Dean has brought all this to the forefront. The first reaction is in the record book – that was Ms. O of the IARDC sending a subpeona for Dean Sallas’ Google Records! We have really sunk to new lows! Did she believe that she would intimidate Mr. Sallas? Or maybe she wished to intimidate someone else and prevent Sallas from attending the presentation of his dispositive motions? Greylord was a low point in Illinois jurisprudence – the subpeona to Google drove the nadir even lower! Judge Boliker similarly has an opportunity to to demonstrate just how little respect Illinois jurisprudence is entitled and how little respect she has for the Rule of Law – or she can take a step to vindicate herself and the Rule of Law by disapproving the 11th current account and referring the entire criminal matter to the ILLNOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL. I hope that she will stand up for the Constitution! I lack confidence in such occurring and expect instead another subpeona from Ms. O to Google, Yahoo, or whomever. thank you Dean for setting the stage for Illinois to fish or cut bait! We are all standing shoulder to shoulder with you! Maybe on APRIL 15, 2021 you and your beloved wife will be reunited and out of the predatory control that you and she have been burdened.
kenneth ditkowsky
Fri, Apr 9, 8:11 PM (12 hours ago)
to Human, elder.justice@doj.gov, askdoj@doj.gov, doj@doj.gov, Federal, FBI-, United, Judicial, Katherine, shauna.boliker@cookcountyil.gov, The, Janet, Chicago, ADA, Cook, The, stateattorney@cookcountyil.gov, Attorney, USDOJ, WLS-TV, Whistleblower, Angela, newseditors@wsj.com, ABAJournal.com, ACLU, Joanne, Dean
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021, 08:00:22 PM CDTSubject: A CRY FOR HELP FROM DEAN AND AMELIA SALLAS! To Law Enforcement charged with protecting the Elderly from abusive conduct:
Subject: the ELDER CLEANSING OF AMELIA SALLAS – A CRY FOR HELP!
Reference: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois cases, to wit: In re: Amelia Sallas 07 P 5360, & Byline Bank vs. Amelia Sallas et al 2019 CH 13960
While the Human Trafficking the in the elderly has become a certificated ‘growth industry’ in Cook County, Illinois and it is becoming common for elderly citizen’s Civil and Human Rights to be trampled upon by corrupt and unsupervised Court appointed guardians there has to be line in the sand that cannot be trespassed.
The Amelia Sallas case has been the subject of literally hundreds of e-mails and mailings complaining of the whole violation of the Civil and Human Rights of Amelia Sallas and Dean Sallas – a couple who until the intervention of a Court appointed guardian not only were secure in their homes but enjoying a long-term marriage. The couple have been married for more than fifty years, accumulated savings well in excess of 9 million dollars and were secure in the belief that as citizens of the United States of America they could live out their retiring years together and in comfort.
In derogation of the 14th Amendment Amelia Sallas ran afoul of the Justice system, was declared incompetent by a Judge san the evidence required by 755 ILCS 5/11a -3a and railroaded into a guardianship wherein the criteria of the statute were again totally circumvented and ignored. See 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b. Amelia’s husband objected and without a legal basis the wrongfully appointed guardian for Amelia Sallas seized dominion over not only Amelia vested marital property interests, but the vested marital property interests of her husband Dean Sallas. The net result has been the dissipation of 9 million dollars in assets and continued exploitation of Amelia Sallas.
Placing Amelia Sallas in a ‘sheltered care facility’ did not terminate her life even though the guardian was successful in having her infected by Covid 19, however, the aforesaid removal of Amelia Sallas from her home and marriage did serve to temporarily isolate the elderly couple. This evening, the ‘sheltered care facility’ discovered that this elderly couple were COMMUNICATING and this very evening they were in each other’s presence enjoying each other’s companionship and some pastry.
All HELL BROKE LOOSE! Dean was ordered off the premises! By order of ELISABETH CASANOVA, Dean was not have contact with his wife of ½ a Century. Ms. Casanova is an attorney for the Court appointed guardian. Though the tears of his wife, Dean meekly removed himself from the premises. ELDER CLEANSING requires the victim to be totally isolated from her prior life!
The outrage and assault on HUMAN RIGHTS has now reached the point of no return. Dean Sallas has reached out to the Illinois and Federal authorities for assistance in retrieving the CIVIL RIGHTS of he and his wife. He has complained of:
1) Loss of liberty. Arbitrarily the Guardian, first recognized the Court well exceeded its statutory authority in rubber stamping an order allowing for a Guardian to be appointed for Amelia. A compromise was reached – Amelia was returned after her adjudication to the marital home where she continued to reside with her husband. This truce ended when Amelia embarrassed the Guardian by:
a. On January 25, 2018 she negotiated (with her husband) a reinstatement and renewal of the predatory home mortgage that the Guardian was maintaining on the marital home. She signed her signature on the loan documents. (This action created a criminal violation of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 and voided the predatory mortgage)
b. Amelia suffered a medical abnormality and without permission of the guardian sojourned to SWEDISH COVENANT HOSPITAL . She discussed intelligently her medical conduction and signed herself into the medical facility.
Amelia was subsequently hauled out of her home and her marriage and without consent of either Dean or Amelia subjected to a sua sponde involuntary de facto dissolution of marriage that apparently is being maintained by order of Elizabeth Casanova, one of the attorneys for the Guardian.
2) Loss of Property. The Guardian has sequestered almost even item of property previously owned by Dean and/or Amelia Sallas. He engineered the loss of 9 million dollars in savings and is now engaged in handing over to the ByLine Bank, pursuant to a void mortgage the marital home having a value of approximately half a million dollars.
Today’s outrage requires emergency action. Across America citizens have complained to deaf ears that when a court appointed guardian is embarrassed by some event – such as occurred today – i.e., Dean and Amelia getting together and enjoying each other’s company against the express authority and demand of ELIZABETH CASANOVA terrible things happen to the captive elderly person. Unavoidable accidents are frequent. They include unexplained illness, various induced pneumonia, restrain bars on the bed being in the down position, drug reactions etc.
My concern is not paranoia. It appears that the Guardian has not be entirely candid with the Judge who appointed him and who is charged with supervising him AND Dean Sallas has filed dispositive Motions in the 2019 CH 13960 case, and in this guardianship case 07 P 5360. The ELIZABETH CASANOVA, one of the attorneys for the Guardian is reported to have requested the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to investigate if an attorney has been assisting Dean Sallas in addressing the violation of the CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS of he and his wife. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois has immediately responded and in direct violation of Dean Sallas’ 1st, 4th , 5th and 14th Amendment sent out a subpoena to obtain information as to Dean Sallas’ Google account.
The retribution against Dean and Amelia Sallas is not a new situation. They have had to deal with a total invasion of their privacy, their marriage, the loss of their life savings, the loss of their health and security and threats – including a death threat. A supervisor of the Guardian’s staff (not ELIZABETH CASANOVA) bluntly told Dean Sallas that he was going to see him penniless and homeless! The Court transcript of July 28, 2020 demonstrates that except for the pandemic and the discovery of the Guardian’s dishonesty with the Court he might have actually accomplished that feat by Christmas of 2020.
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021, Dean Sallas will object to the Guardian’s 11th current account, the Guardian’s request for fees for the time spend in violating the Civil and Human Rights of both Dean and Amelia Sallas, the lack of candor of the Guardian with the Court, and the violation by the Guardian and the Court of Dean Sallas’ 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment Rights. In Summary – Dean and Amelia Sallas need the help of law enforcement. All that they are requesting is that Law Enforcement enforce the Law. 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 regulates the appointment of a Guardian. The criteria are severely limited by both the ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There is no way that the current guardian CHARLES GOLBERT meets any of the criterion of the Statute or can perform the acts allowable by the Statute. Golbert, may have political and judicial clout but he is not above the law! His lack of candor to the Court and his established incompetence disqualifies him from acting as a guardian. His lack of supervision of his subordinates or his direction to his subordinates (Elizabeth Casanova) . Nowhere in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 is there any authority provided to the guardian to nullify a 50-year marriage, adjudicate the forfeiture of the assets, and enjoin the couple from enjoying their mutual FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS together. Ditto of intimidation – JUST FOR THE RECORD – inspite of the illegal and CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPROMISED action of the KGB housed in Chicago preying on our elderly, Dean and Amelia have clandestinately been having contact with one another. The miscreants were bound to find out! This e-mail is sent out broadly in the hope that LAW ENFORCEMENT of our American Democracy can over-ride the self appointed usurpers and protect Amelia from punishment for her avoiding element 2 of elder cleansing – We all know about Helen Stone!
Kenneth Ditkowsky, a friend of Dean Sallas. APPENDIX 1.
kenneth ditkowsky
Fri, Apr 9, 8:33 PM (12 hours ago)
to Nasga, CEAR, Rick, AARP, AMERICANS, Tribune, Joanne, WLS-TV, Whistleblower
Maybe the cry for hell ought to go on all the blogs! In Jaycox they solved the problem by having his get an ‘aspirated pnemomoia. It is fatal – today’s venture and discovery that she has been in contact with Dean may be fatal! (I am not paranoid – once burned twice warned!
I wish I could help. How is this so openly done in our country. How can the FBI and DOJ ignore when they surely must know it is happening all over the country. Good lord.
The empowerment of the HUMAN TRAFFICKERS IN GRANDMA has been going on for a long time and most of us have been molified by the political set doing their think – agreeing with us and PASSING MORE AND MORE LEGISLATION that is not enforced. Dr. Sugar’s Symposium will again discuss the problem, many will participate, and it will end with all who participate feeling good. Will one Grandma be freed from her captors? Will one criminal go to jail? Of course not and quite probably Dr. Sugar, Rick and a few others will follow through BUT the majority will fall by the wayside. The CALL TO ACTION ****** Law enforcement has to enforce the Law and we – the great unwashed – have to heed the call to action and not be distracted. How do we accomplish on goal? One case at a time. Like it or not if you win and free your mother, we all win. If Dean Sallas on Wednesday obtains his freedom and that of his wife from the predatory guardian – AND law enforcement does an HONEST INVESTIGATION FOLLOWED BY AN HONEST PROSECUTION of the crimes openly and notoriously committed in case 07 P 5360 and 2019 CH 13960 we all win. What do we win? We win a reaffirmation of our core values and the fact that we ar ea Nation of laws. We send a message to our corrupt political icons that they serve us and our core values. We send the corrupt politicans that IT IS NOT WHAT IS SAID THAT IS IMPORTANT – IT IS WHAT IS DONE! Lanre Amu is a principled man who happens to have a dark hue to his skin. He is educated, religious and a nice person. He immigrated from Africa and can be classified as Negro. Amu has a problem besides the racism that is part of the Chicago culture – he sees the world in terms of right and wrong and like many of us does not see too much in grey. To belong to the cancel culture movement or any of the current cults you have to be a believer – Amu’s integrity would never allow such to occur – ergo he is a pariah. As a Black pariah — OH hell I do not have to spell it out. Joe Louis has in e-mail after e-mail described the scenario. The First Amendment and the 14th Amendment were enacted to address this situation – Government is not an instrument of TRUTH! It is an instrument of protecting the rights of all citizens. This cannot be done when Judgeships are for sale by political parties, elections are rigged, certain political individuals are targeted and others given a pass, and certainly not when we target groups of our citizens for exploitation. Dr. Sugar on April 11 – tomorrow will hold his symposium. Will it get any press? Will it have an effect? I sincerely hope so.
Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Iris Martinez speaks at a press conference at the Daley Center on Wed., April 7.
Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Iris Martinez has walked back a campaign pledge to give the public more access to records from her office under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
The clerk is the official record keeper for the Circuit Court and is responsible for collecting and distributing tens of millions of dollars in court fines and fees. But the agency is not subject to the state’s open record laws. That exclusion means the public has largely been kept in the dark about the operations and funding of one of the largest unified court systems in the country.
On Wednesday, Martinez touted her support of a bill, SB583, in the state Senate that would make the office subject to the Local Records Act, a state law that attorneys said doesn’t provide the same transparency as FOIA.
Investigations that expose, influence and inform. Emailed directly to you.
Your emailjohnsmith@example.comSign me up
“We certainly believe that the public has a right to know how public dollars are being spent and, more importantly, that they have access to that information,” Martinez said at a press conference at the Daley Center alongside the bill’s chief sponsor, State Sen. Michael Hastings (D-Frankfort). “Including the Circuit Clerk’s office in the Local Records Act makes sure that the information remains public, even after my tenure as the Clerk of the Circuit Court is over.”
But the new bill is a change of tune from the promises Martinez made as a candidate.
At a candidates’ forum in February 2020, Martinez, then an Illinois state senator, said making the Clerk of Court’s office subject to the Freedom of Information Act was “the only way we’re going to be able to really dig deep and find where the problems are at and start addressing them.”
Martinez’s predecessor, Dorothy Brown, was the subject of a federal corruption investigation, and allegations of delays and inefficiencies have long plagued the office. In 2018, the Chicago Reader reported that at least two dozen state inmates had post-conviction appeals delayed because the Circuit Court Clerk’s office couldn’t locate their case files.
At the same time, the office has shut the public out of accessing crucial information about how cases are moving through the court system, who court fines and fees impact the most by, and how the Circuit Court Clerk manages the office’s $120 million annual budget.
A campaign promise amended
Martinez wasn’t the only candidate to promise to make the Circuit Court Clerk’s office subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Still, as a sitting state senator, she had a leg up on her opponents: A week before the forum last year, she had introduced a bill that would do just that.
“For the first time in over 20 years we’re going to have an opportunity to actually bring some sunshine and transparency into an office that has been overshadowed by so much corruption, patronage, and bad management,” Martinez said at the forum, which the nonpartisan Civic Federation sponsored.
Her bill didn’t go anywhere in last year’s legislative session, which was interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic.
When Hastings introduced an identical bill earlier this year, the Civic Federation, which advocates for good government, supported the effort, according to a letter they sent to the bill’s sponsors. But then he introduced an amendment, supported by Martinez, that struck all references to the Freedom of Information Act and instead made the Clerk of Court’s office subject to an older, more obscure, and less robust law called the Local Records Act.
Attorney Alexandra Block said the amendment “renders [the bill] effectively toothless.” Block, who has litigated public records lawsuits on behalf of news organizations and advocated for more transparency in the court system, said the Local Records Act falls short in several respects.
Unlike the Freedom of Information Act, which allows any member of the public to request a wide range of records from public agencies, the Local Records Act only allows requesters to “inspect” documents in person and the amendment only applies to Clerk of Court records about the “obligation, receipt and use of public funds.”
“It was a statute that was written for the paper age, not the electronic age,” Block said, adding that there’s “no recourse” under the Local Records Act if public agencies don’t fulfill requests.
Patrick Hanlon, a top aide to Martinez, said the clerk remains dedicated to transparency, but that during the campaign, it became “clearly evident” that the Clerk of the Circuit Court is a “nontraditional office of the judiciary” and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
“You can’t force the judiciary to be part of FOIA,” he said.
But Block called this “utter nonsense.”
“The state legislature is fully empowered to set policy for free access to information, including for the non-judicial functions of the court system,” she said.
The amended bill passed a Senate committee last month and now heads to the full Senate for a vote.
At the press conference Wednesday, Hastings said the bill was a step forward for transparency for an office that has operated in the dark for too long and he was confident the bill would pass the Senate and the House.
“This idea is all about good government and transparency. A lot of legislators down in Springfield, they realize a need for that,” he said.
I think your attorney harassing Dean Sallas with a subpoena is not only outrageous but an embarrassment to the entire legal profession. Dean at 84 is not and never has been an attorney and his dealings with x, y, and z are NONE OF THE IARDC’S business. The over-reach by your IARDC attorney cannot be swept under the rug as it is so beyond propriety it should be a termination offense! In fact her total disregard for the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS of citizen DEAN SALLAS should result in termination of her LAW LICENSE. iNDIVIDUALS in the public sector who so blatantly thread on the Constitution cannot be allowed public license. Respect for the RULE OF LAW and the Constitution are not to be taken lightly. Please let me make an observation – Ms. O did forward a letter she apparently received from Attorney Elizabeth Casanova. This letter was similarly grossly inappropriate. The letter claims that Dean Sallas might be obtaining help in resisting the clearly criminal conduct emanating out of the COOK COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN’S OFFICE. Attorney Casanova apparently has no understanding of the Illinois and United States Constitutions and in particular the 1st Amendment. Such lack of understanding and the maintenance of a law license are incompatible. If Ms. Casanova does not recognize the 1st Amendment such is her right – but when she uses public offices to advance such lack of respect the activity crosses the line and the IARDC should take action. Most importantly, Dean Sallas – a citizen – has made some very serious averments in his MOTIONS in the Circuit Court. They are all accurate! The public is now aware of those allegation – WHY IS THE IARDC not acting to protect the public from the public officials who have soiled their oath? If certainly is a disgrace that the IARDC joins forces with the miscreant public officials who are openly and notoriously making war on Grandma! Kenneth Ditkowsk
DETROIT (AP) – The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decisions of a Kalamazoo-area judge who terminated the parental rights of a poor couple after their two children had missed 25% of school.
While the absences in 2017-18 were higher than the school’s average, there was no evidence of resulting harm or neglect, the court said Friday, a key threshold when a judge decides whether to take jurisdiction over children.
The case was closely watched by advocates for poor families, especially during a pandemic when education has been significantly disrupted.
“In 2017, over 230,000 children were chronically absent,” Tim Pinto, an attorney for the father, said during arguments in March. “I’m positive that those stats are much worse today.”ADVERTISEMENThttps://0a667e7f654a162c79b85f21ab0f25c9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Kalamazoo County Judge G. Scott Pierangeli placed the two children in foster care in 2018 and ordered the parents to meet several conditions, including drug screens, counseling, psychological evaluation and employment.
Parental rights were subsequently terminated because the couple didn’t engage in certain services, according to a summary of the case.
“If the only issue was school absenteeism, I’m not sure the service plan made sense,” Pinto said in an interview Monday.
One child’s first-grade teacher said he had been performing at grade level despite absences. There was no testimony about his sister’s performance, according to the child welfare appellate clinic at University of Michigan law school, which represented the father.ADVERTISEMENThttps://0a667e7f654a162c79b85f21ab0f25c9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
The case now will return to Kalamazoo County. The children’s mother did not appeal the termination of her parental rights at the Supreme Court.
Before losing their rights, the couple had many challenges. They fell behind in rent after the funeral of a 22-year-old daughter. The father also was hospitalized with a chronic illness.
The Supreme Court agreed with an appellate judge who said Pierangeli was wrong to take control over the children, who now are 9 and 13.
“Ideally, every child should have perfect school attendance, but I cannot conclude that a 75% average absenteeism rate is a convincing force of there being educational neglect that is on the level of child abuse,” Judge Michael Riordan said last year.
Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
Than you for sending me a copy of your resonse to Ms Casnovia’s complaint to the IARDC concerning the fact that Dean Sallas was able to attend the July 28, 2020 hearing and to learn about the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 22 criminal violation that occurred on January 25, 2018.
While Ms. Casanovia does no say so in her letter of complaint what really frosts her was that he lack of candor in Judge Boliker’s courtroom on February 15, 2018 (and apparently at other times) was exposed. whether Mr. Golbert has any intellectual or other respect for Judge Boliker as he appointed fiduciary he does have to at least give the expression of respect. Dean was over at the house yesterday and he pointed out some items in the 11th current account that if I were Judge Boliker at the present time I would be livid. Let me be mores specific. On February 15, 2018 when Casanovia appeared for Golbert in Judge Boliker’s courtroom she was careful NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE LOAN DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN ALREADY SIGNED BY AMY. This had to be deliberate. On July 28, 2020 Ms. Casanova again was careful not to disclose to Judge Boliker that CHARLES GOLBERT, the COOK COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, had signed a blank signature page that was attached to EXHIBIT h – The predatory loan documents! He had not executed an EXCULPATION CLAUSE and therefore the words and phrases of the signature page made him personally liable on the loan. It appears from papers furnished Dean by Byline Bank that Golbert has attempted to at this late to negotiate an exculpation from the Byline Bank. This also was not disclosed to Judge Boliker. He and Ms. Casanovia appear completely confident that the Judge will rubber stamp anything that they put in front of her and will allow the abandonment of $300,000 in equity. In the olden days – back in the 2oth Century lawyers protected a Judge from being ‘sold!’ I remember on several occasions telling a Judge he was being ‘played’ or ‘sold.’ The 1st was at a Kiwanis meeting in direct response to a question and the 2nd when the Judge gave me ride home and confided in me that he was upset by something that occurred in his courtroom on that day. Had I not been asked the question directly I would have volunteered it. Judge Boliker is entitled to same courtesy BUT I do not expect anyone will provide her with it. As the Attorney General of the State and the Illinois Department of Aging are both designated to help seniors who are being exploited I’ve copied both in this e-mail. I’ve also coied the FBI and others. Everyone is on the record as being against the HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE ELDERLY however, the no one has stepped up to help Dean Sallas or any of the other victims.
Protective Services, forcing the state to come up with new training for its workers and pay more than $127,000 for wrongfully removing a couple’s children and allegedly lying to the court about it.
Now, attorneys for parents Melissa and Dillon Bright are calling for the firing of the CPS workers involved and asking for prosecutors to investigate and consider criminal charges.
“They lied in their affidavit, they lied in their sworn removal testimony and they have – when questioned about those lies – taken the Fifth,” said family lawyer Dennis Slate.ADVERTISEMENThttps://5a60f16b30b52e0c8a57eb9b13beed1f.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
“When the Harris County District Attorney ran for office said that she would investigate perjury claims within the Harris County courts. She needs to live up to that campaign promise and look into this case and bring the appropriate action.”
The judge’s ruling late Thursday came weeks after caseworker Lavar Jones shocked the courtroom by pleading the Fifth repeatedly during a removal hearing in which Judge Mike Schneider at one point ordered CPS to stay away from the two young children before ultimately giving them back to the parents.
It’s an unusual case that offers repeated examples of CPS missteps, but the Brights’ attorneys say it’s also a sign of a “broken system” and the need for more accountability from the agency tasked with making decisions as to whether parents are fit to keep their own children.
The agency offered a terse comment on the decision.
“In light of today’s ruling, we are reviewing our options,” said CPS spokeswoman Tejal Patel, “including our right to appeal.”
****
The trouble that eventually landed the Bright family in court started back in July. It was a hot, Texas summer day and Melissa Bright let her kids – 2-year-old Charlotte and 5-month-old Mason – play in sprinkler.
Melissa put the baby down on a lawn chair as she turned around to strip off Charlotte’s wet clothes. When she did, she heard a thud. Mason had fallen, the 19 inches from the chair to the cement driveway below.
Panicked, Melissa called her husband – then dialed 911. At the hospital, the child abuse prevention team at first told CPS that Melissa’s explanation of the injury was a likely one, according to court records.
But the next day, an MRI revealed that Mason had a second fracture – a smaller, hairline crack – and bleeding in his brain.
That second fracture, the abuse team decided, would have come from a second incident. And when Melissa couldn’t offer an alternate explanation, the team deemed the injuries were “consistent with child abuse.
So, as the Brights struggled with medical decisions, the bills those would entail, and the difficulties of parenting from the hospital, they also now needed to placate CPS and fend off accusations of child abuse.
They tried to agree on an in-home monitoring plan, but before Mason even left the hospital, CPS supervisor Niesha Edwards instead decided the kids would have to go live with Dillon’s mother in her home in Baytown, more than an hour away.
Meanwhile, the Texas Children’s Hospital hematology department found that Mason likely had a blood clotting disorder. That could have explained how a fall from a lawn chair could generate so much bleeding and so many problems, but it also meant that there could be more problems ahead – and there were.
The head injury didn’t heal as planned, and before leaving the hospital baby Mason ended up needing a hole drilled in his brain to relieve pressure. Afterwards, according to the Brights, doctors warned that if the family wanted to avoid a second surgery it was important to keep the child from crying.
But that would require nursing – and CPS wouldn’t let Melissa live with the child.
After he was released from the hospital, the baby went to Baytown – but eventually caring for a medically fragile child became too much Dillon’s mother, and the Brights wanted to move their baby closer to home with an aunt and uncle in Tomball.
But the agency dragged its feet in approving that move, repeatedly promising answers and failing to deliver, records show. Eventually, Dillon called caseworker Jones, according to court records, and told him that since CPS hadn’t followed through on getting approval and the current plan was quickly becoming infeasible, the Brights planned to bring the kids home.
So they did.
Twenty-two days passed.
Then, on Sept. 18, Jones texted to ask how the kids were – and Melissa sent along happy photos and a health update.
The next day, Jones marched into court and – without notifying the Brights of the court appearance – filed a petition asking for emergency custody of the children who, he said, were in “immediate and continuing danger.”
He didn’t tell the court about the diagnosed blood disorder, which could have explained some of the medical problems. And he didn’t mention that the parents had gotten a second medical opinion that explained the second, hairline fracture.
So, just after noon on Sept. 19, a court approved the removal.
“It didn’t even dawn on me that he was going to show up and take our kids,” Melissa told the Chronicle. “It wasn’t even on our radar, especially after it being so long.”
That night, the children were separated and both taken to foster care. The caseworker didn’t even leave behind a copy of the order of removal as required by law, family attorney Slate said.
***
A few weeks later, in early October, the parents, their lawyers, CPS workers and county attorneys showed up in court again for a three-day hearing to figure out whether the state had enough cause to keep the kids.
When questioned about his the earlier claims he’d made during the Sept. 19 emergency hearing and about the agency’s reasons for removing the kids, Jones pleaded the Fifth, making for a case the judge found thoroughly unconvincing.
“It is not possible,” Schneider said in court last month, “to look at the facts and imagine that the agency actually felt there was any sort of urgent need for protection to remove the children.”
When Schneider sided with the Brights, the case moved on to a November sanctions hearing, where Slate and fellow attorney Stephanie Proffitt argued that the agency’s efforts to take the kids were based on such groundless arguments that they should be forced to pay the family for legal fees and other costs – a total of more than $127,000.
Over the course of five days, the court heard testimony from the Brights, a program director and supervisor Edwards who drew incredulous looks in the courtroom when she so frequently claimed that she didn’t know, couldn’t answer or didn’t understand the questions that Slate eventually asked whether she had any knowledge that made her qualified to make decisions.
Slate and Proffitt laid out a litany of accusations, including claims that workers had altered computer records to match an affidavit, intentionally failed to turn over incriminating text messages, and plowed ahead with the “bad faith” removal to avoid telling their program director they had not checked on the kids for 22 days.
“We’re not here to get a pound of flesh from CPS,” Slate said. “I haven’t solved the riddle of why they would – knowing that were going to be caught in a perjury trap – continue going on with the case, except that they didn’t want to tell their program director. It’s baffling to me.”
Stephen Dieu with the Harris County Attorney’s Office, which represented CPS in the hearing, accused the family’s attorneys of “cherry-picking” text messages and records, and argued repeatedly that the agency was protected by sovereign immunity.
“There are legal remedies but this is not the one,” he said. “The department cannot be sanctioned.”
But a look back at agency records would show that’s not true. Seven years ago, Slate and Proffitt won a $32,000 sanction in another case involving a “groundless” removal where the agency didn’t tell the parents about the emergency hearing and waited hours to take the kids after courts closed.
“When we got the sanctions in 2011, we really thought that would open somebody’s eyes,” Proffitt said. “There are only a handful of cases in Harris County that have even filed for sanctions. There’s no repercussions.”
This time, there were.
In a scathing ruling from the bench on Thursday, Schneider dinged the agency for being “dishonest” and possibly “malicious,” saying the entire removal and subsequent legal battle never would have happened if the agency just told the Brights about the emergency removal hearing and gave them a chance to defend themselves at the start.
“We do need to deal with the issue of how we make sure this doesn’t happen again,” he said, before ordering the agency to pay $127,000 and giving them two weeks to create new training for its workers.
But, Schneider said, there was one thing the family requested that he could not order: an apology.
In recent years, DCFS throughout the nation has been targeting perfectly good parents and slamming their kids into foster care where they languish and sometimes even die without their parents. Ripping kids from their parents has to have a better process and procedure and rights for good parents. Currently the proceedings are held in secret and parents are routinely denied their court file, the state’s attorneys’ files and even their own attorney’s files.
I knew someone in a similar situation. She spoke to an attorney immediately. The attorney advised her to take her child somewhere, such as to her own mother’s house, and stay there until her child’s pediatrician’s office opened. At that time she was to take the child directly to the pediatrician for an examination.
That’s what she did. The pediatrician wrote a letter with the date of the examination, with the fact that he had been the child’s pediatrician since whatever the date of the initial visit (in this case, since the child had been brought home from the hospital after his birth), and with a statement that there were currently no signs of abuse or neglect and had never been any signs of abuse or neglect since the child’s birth. The letter also contained information for the CPS worker to use to contact the physician.
With the physician’s statement that there had been no signs of abuse or neglect the up to and after the time the report had been made, no CPS worker would have grounds to intervene. If a CPS worker did come to the home, the parent would be able to say that a threat by a neighbor caused the parent to take the child to the pediatrician. Then the parent could give copies of the physician’s letter to both the worker and the police. This is probably the best way to get CPS to back off. It would also be a good way to get a copy of the letter into the police files. In case of further trouble, an attorney might appreciate proof from the police that the letter had been presented to CPS at the initial contact.
You can’t prevent someone from making a report, but you probably can prevent any investigation from going further than a knock on your door, and yes, you should step outside and make it clear that you will not allow anyone to enter your home without a valid reason.
See below. In far too many corrupt cases, GAL’s Child Reps and attorneys are asking the judge to place gag orders against Facebook Blogging, posts and pages. All of this is highly unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Below is a sample Motion to Vacate a Gag Order. In most states, you have to file a Motion to Vacate based upon “good cause” in 30 days, or where a gross mistake of law was made, within 2 years.
Gag orders are considered immediately appealable because they are injunctions in effect. Illinois has a 2 day shortened period to appeal with a decision being made in about a week, or the aggrieved party can file a normal Notice of Appeal in 30 days and ask for an expedited briefing schedule.
Other states may have different rules for appeals of gag orders.
Sample motion:
Firm Code pro se
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE X JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
X COUNTY, Y STATE
FATHER NAME, Petitioner
v.
MOTHER NAME Respondent
Case No. XXXX
Hon Judge’s Name
Court Room x
Zoom Information X
MOTION TO VACATE GAG ORDERS (NON FINAL ORDERS)
Now comes Respondent Mother X and motions this honorable court to vacate the following gag orders on the grounds they are patently unconstitutional, overbroad, and not issued in accordance with 7th circuit law which requires strict strutiny: 1) Order of X date that litigants could not talk about the case on social media and 2) Order of Y date where it was added to the previous order that litigants could not talk about the case or the attorneys on the case on social media. In addition on Z date the court order stated that DCFS (who is not a party to this case and the court accordingly has no jurisdiction over them) was ordered not to permit any additional sexual assault kit testing on the children.
Each of the foregoing gag orders are unconsitutional and violate the rights of Respondent Mother and must be vacated. Further, the Order against DCFS is invalid because DCFS is not a party to the case and this court has no jurisdiction over DCFS which is an agency of the State of X or its employees. DCFS has not filed an appearance in this case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On X Respondent Mother was raped by the Petitioner in this matter, (father’s name). She reported it to the police 3 days later. She then had a rape test kit done at X Hospital in Elgin, Illinois. The Elgin police department has now received back the results of the test kit and have found a DNA match with Father.
On March 25, 2019, Respondent Mother filed for an Order of Protection in the X County Court system, Case No. Y. That case has since been consolidated into the above case.
Respondent Mother was granted both an Emergency Order of Protection and a Plenary Order of Protection which expires 4/11/21,
The parties have two children, SW born X date and JB born Y date.
In August 2018 Mother was raped by Father. This rape was not reported to the police, but the parties separated and Father was told he could not live with Mother until he received counseling and got a job. He never went to get DV counseling, nor has he obtained a job.
In October of 2018, Father lied to Mother and told her he was in counseling for psychopathy. Mother did not know at the time that psychopathy is not curable, and there is no treatment for it. She has spent long hours since then studying up on what a psychopath is, how dangerous they are and how there is no cure for psychopathy because a psychopath enjoys being a psychopath.
In December of 2018, Father was trying to pressure Mother into sex, he was mean, cruel, and abusive. He locked her out of the house, called her a whore, slut, a bitch, etc….. and threatened to murder her. This was done in front of the children. He threatened to take the children to X country and she would never see them again.
Petitioner Father continued to live with Mother because his name was on the lease and he threatened to kill her if she left and take the kids and she would never see her children again. He repeated these statements to Mother’s boss on March 22, 2019.
In January or February of 2019, Father hit SW so hard he left bruises because she refused to go to bed.
On Feb. 27, 2019, Petitioner Father told Mother that she had to have sex with him and she refused and he became enraged.
From the first time that Mother was raped by Father until March 22, 2019, Petitioner Father insisted he was seeing a counselor for his antisocial behavior. . In addition, Petitioner Father admitted he lied to Mother about seeing a psychologist.
On March 22, 2019 Petitioner Father admitted in a text message that he never went to counseling.
In November, 2018, Mother was told by SW that her grandfather Father was hitting her. In December of 2018, SW then reported that her Grandfather hit Grandmother, his second wife.
In March of 2019, SW complained that grandpa was touching her “down there” and there was a large bruise on her lower backside. She made it clear he was not just touching her vulva, but was inserting his fingers in her vagina. She was 3 at the time. Mother called a child psychologist to make an appointment, but the child psychologist insisted on Mother taking SW to her pediatrician for a sexual assault exam. She took SW to the pediatrician on March 25, 2019. Mother showed a bruise on her lower back and she examined the child and referred the case to DCFS. The pediatrician believed that there was a problem with either the father or grandfather but not with Mother.
The diagnosis from the pediatrician was parental concern regarding child sexual abuse and a referral to DCFS to investigate.
On April, 19, 2019 SW came home after visitation with her dad, and her lower back was even larger than before and there were scratches on her legs, and there was a large bruise under her right butt cheek, and her vulva was bright red and looked irritated. SW said that grandpa hit me and threw me down and that Grandpa had given her a bath. Mother took her to the police station who then advised Mother to take SW to Hospital.
Mother took SW to Hospital and the doctor diagnosed her with contusions and domestic concerns. The police took pictures of the child’s back. Doctors at Community Hospital said they could not do a rape test kit for children there, that Mother had to take the child to Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago. One doctor did not think it was necessary, so Mother did not take the child to Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago because it was 4 am.
A doctor then contacted Mother the next day from Children Memorial Hospital and that doctor asked her to bring in SW. SW was brought in the following Monday as requested. On that Monday, SW had an anal swab and a rape kit test performed. This was done in April of 2019. SW has been observed on numerous occasions in the late part of 2018 through 2019 acting out sexually, particularly with men. This was not normal behavior for a three year old child.
In May of 2019, SW told Mother and the court appointed supervisor, Heather W, that Grandpa had touched her with “mommy finger and daddy finger” on her vulva, this is a reference to a children’s song which would be index finger and middle finger. Mother contacted her DCFS case worker and the case worker continued her investigation for abuse of the child by the father and/or grandfather.
In June of 2019, SW had bruising on her sides and back. SW reported that “grandpa threw me down.” SW said that this was because grandpa was mad at her.
In June 2019, JB had a bruise on his forehead over his left eye. Since he was about 2 years old he could not say what happened to him. He was non verbal at the time.
On July 9, 2019, SW had a black eye. She said that Grandpa got mad and hit her. This was reported to DCFS and a photo was sent to the caseworker.
On July 22, 2019, SW came home with a split lip. She refused to say how it happened. Whenever Mother asked her about the injury, SW would start to cry.
In retaliation for Mother filing an Order of Protection against Father, Father filed a Petition for Parentage on April 8, 2019 and asked for temporary and permanent residential custody of SW and JB, despite his long history of abusing both Mother and the children.
On April 24, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Rule to Show Cause because allegedly Mother did not sign up for Our Family Wizard and she was not responding to Petitioner’s messages. This was a false petition. However, the Judge ignored the Petition and never ruled on it. Mother in fact did sign up for Our Family Wizard and did in fact answer all of Petitioner’s messages in a timely manner.
On April 15, 2019, without any Petition having been filed, the court granted an order to allow Petitioner 4 days per week parenting time.
On April 24, 2019, Respondent Mother filed an Emergency Petition to Restrict the parenting time of Father due to his abusive behavior and the abusive behavior of the grandfather who lived with Father in P suburb. The judge ignored the pleading, but issued an order that the Grandfather would be barred from seeing the children SW and JB. When asked how that would work because Grandfather and Father live together, Judge X stated that “grandfather could just go into another room.” Judge X also said there would be an evidentiary hearing on the issue of parenting time on May 2, 2019, but that never happened, instead the court held a status conference.
In Mother’s Petition which was filed on April 24, 2019, she made numerous serious allegations of abuse, detailed on pages 2 to 3, ¶ ¶ 8 to 10 therein.
On April 30, 2019, Petitioner filed for a continuance of the evidentiary hearing set for May 2, 2019.
On May 15, 2019 Petitioner filed an “Emergency Motion” to Restrict Respondent’s parenting time based upon a plethora of false allegations not found in the records at all. The Petitioner falsely accused Mother of screaming at the police and DCFS, of acting irrational in front of them, of threatening suicide, of harming the children, etc. when there is nothing whatsoever in the medical records, DCFS records or police records to substantiate these claims. The May 15, 2019 Petition was not filed with any evidence whatsoever to support these claims and it was utterly false. It is believed that the Petition was filed in retaliation for Respondent Mother revealing a history of psychopathy and abuse by the Petitioner to both Mother and her children. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mother has PTSD around her children or has any suicidal thoughts. That is not reflected in any reports whatsoever of DCFS, the police or her medical records or psychological evaluation. Again, this pleading is false and baseless.
On July 10, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Rule to Show Cause against Mother for her posts on social media. Specifically, in ¶ 6 on page 1, Petitioner claims that Mother cannot refer to him as a “rapist” or “liar” despite the fact she has filed a police report against him for rape, she has reported the rapes to this court and to her therapists and is obtaining counseling for the DV. In addition, since Respondent has admitted to being a psychopath (i.e., narcissist or sociopath), he is a liar, has admitted numerous lies to Respondent, and Petitioner is only presenting the truth on social media. Also he has admitted to raping Mother and lying to her and to possessing child pornography.
Petitioner has a constitutional right to talk about her case on social media in an honest and truthful fashion. Since Respondent has admitted he lies and has raped her and has possessed child porn, the statements are truthful and are protected by the First Amendment.
In addition, Mother has a page on her Facebook Account, which is a public group with over 1,000 members. Mother publishes frequently on the status of her case, her struggles and on the status of many other troubled custody cases in Illinois and the U.S. Mother has a First Amendment right to do this and she is a protected reporter and part of media in Illinois and the U.S. Respondent, the lawyers and court have no right or authority to interfere in her First Amendment rights.
In addition, those who have stated on the transcript that she should not or cannot contact DCFS or the police may be charged with Obstruction of Justice, for which there is no immunity. Mother reports truthfully on her case and on other cases.
Media and its reporters may assert defenses to defamation and false light suits for: litigation privilege, reporter’s privilege, hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion and other well recognized defenses. Father has not sued Mother for defamation, false light or libel.
On August 30, 2019, counsel for Father filed a Motion for a Restraining Order against Mother for her reporting activities on Facebook. He claims that he and his employees have been threatened by unknown third parties. However, he is the one who chose to represent an abusive Father. He is getting paid handsomely to represent an abusive Father, perhaps $300 per hour or more. He has a law degree and bar admission. He has been practicing law for over 26 years. He claims to be an award winning attorney. Mother has received repeated death threats over the years from her ex partner and she is not whining about them that she needs to stop counsel’s social media posts, if he ever makes any, nor has she ever asked for a gag order against him or his client.
Further, Attorney Scott Sheen claims that Mother is “mentally ill” but she has had two psych evaluations that reveals she has no known mental illnesses. Her transcripts show she is lucid, clear thinking and does a better job arguing her case than Mr. Sheen. Perhaps Mr. Sheen is the one that needs a psych evaluation. (In one recent pleading, he filed a Rule to Show Cause and repeatedly moved for sanctions against “SW”–the couple’s three year old child. He needs to read his pleadings before signing them. His client does too, but his client has an excuse, he does in fact have a mental impairment as shown by Father’ psych evaluation.
LEGAL ARGUMENT-–NO RIGHT TO SEAL COURT INFORMATION In the present case, the court has made it clear that they do not want Respondent Mother to talk about the case, the litigants or even the attorneys. This is tantamount to a sealing of the case, without actually sealing the case. Respondent Mother is a mother of two young children who has suffered severe physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her ex partner for years, and now believes that her children may also be suffering from abuse at the hands of her ex partner, an admitted liar, rapist and abuser. She is also working on her case pro se and needs the support and advice of other people who have suffered the same fate in the court system. The presumption of public access “disallows the routine and perfunctory closing of judicial records.” Cendant, 260 F.3d at 193-94. Before records can be sealed, the party advocating secrecy must meet its “burden of showing that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect” and that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury.” Id. at 194 (internal quotations omitted). Only specific and identifiable privacy interests, such as genuine trade secrets, privilege, or interests created by statute or court rule justify sealing the record in civil cases. Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6th Cir. 1983). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” Hammock, 142 N.J. at 381-82, 662 A.2d at 559; Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194. Even assuming that the parties satisfy their burden of identifying a compelling privacy interest, they must still show that the interests in secrecy substantially outweigh the strong public presumption of access. Hammock, 142 N.J. at 381, 662 A.2d at 559; Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194. This balancing process must be conducted separately for each document to be sealed. Hammock, 142 N.J. at 381-82, 662 A.2d at 559. Moreover, “to have the least intrusive effect on the public’s right-ofaccess,” an entire document should not be sealed when it is possible to redact just the private information. Hammock, 142 N.J. at 382, 662 A.2d at 559. In addition to the common-law right of access, the First Amendment provides a right of access to judicial decisions and other sorts of filings in civil cases. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.B., 120 N.J. 112, 119-123, 576 A.2d 261, 264-66 (N.J. 1990); Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1067-71 (3d Cir. 1984). The presumption of openness under the First Amendment is even stronger than the common-law presumption and can be overcome only by showing “an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1073 (internal quotation omitted); In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2002). In the present case, there is absolutely no need to place a gag order on anyone. The Petitioner has already admitted to rape, lying and possession of child pornography. Those are his admissions and he should live with them. Respondent has published truthfully about her case and she is seeking the advice of some 1,000 members of her Facebook page for how to proceed in this case. She reports on her case and is part of the media. Likely her Facebook page is shared on other Facebook Pages, timelines and other blogs. She has the right to disseminate blow by blow information about her case, publish anything filed in her case, and neither the court nor the attorneys should interfere with or suppress her First Amendment rights. WHEREFORE, Respondent Mother respectfully moves for an order reversing the gag orders of August 14, 2019 and September 5, 2019 wherein she was ordered not to discuss, comment upon or disclose any case information regarding the parties, the court or the lawyers. Such Orders are clearly overbroad and violate her First Amendment Rights. Copies of these orders are attached hereto. Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Mother/
Mother , pro se Appellant
Prepared by: Mother address Phone email:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served on the following parties a copy of the foregoing Motion to Vacate Gag orders via the Clerk of Court’s ECF system on October 8, 2019.
/s/Mother/
Respondent Appellant Pro Se
NOTICE OF FILING
This is to notify you that on October 8, 2019 I filed the foregoing Notice of Appeal electronically with the Clerk of Court’s website via the ecf online filing system.
/s/Mother/ Respondent Appellant, Mother , pro se Mother
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection and where based upon information and belief, were believed to be true at the time the statements were made.
s/Mother/ Respondent Mother , pro se
NOTICE OF MOTION
You are herewith notified that I shall present the foregoing Motion to Vacate Gag Orders on October 9, 2019 in Court Room 100 of the X County Circuit Court at 9:00 am.
:strip_exif(true):strip_icc(true):no_upscale(true):quality(65)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/gmg/05d46952-23a2-4488-a325-8629a355164e.png)
8:15 AM (9 minutes ago)
ReplyReply allForward
MaryGSykes.com 