From LS: Writ of Cert to SCOTUS for murder of her mother in probate.

You can read the brief here in PDF form or see below.  Appedix not included.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ccoqXNkuYtG6GfKiQ_Ca2SJk_5oUpWiy
CASE NO. ___________________
IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
LINDA SCULLY
Plaintiff – AppellantLinda Scully
MARK SCULLY
Plaintiff – AppellantMark Scully
HAROLD SCULLY
Plaintiff – AppellantHarold Scully

v.

NATHAN GOLDENSON, et al., in his individual and official capacity
Defendant – Appellee
ON A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Appeal No. 17-2486
Prepared by:

Linda Scully, pro se
PO Box 481081, Niles, IL
email: linda.scully@gmail.com
phone: 312 549-2112

Harold Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #704
Chicago, IL 60626
email: haroldscully@gmail.com
phone: 773 629 0129

Mark Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #2417
Chicago, IL 60626
email: Markanthonyscully@gmail.com Phone 773 273 5016:

COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS

1. Deft. Nathan Goldenson, upon information and belief is a Cook County Resident
residing at: 5018 N. Mozart Ave, Chicago, IL 60625, and does business in Cook
County for the Office of Public Guardian as an attorney.
2. Deft. James Burton, upon information and belief is a Cook County Resident who
has a place of business at: 69 W. Washington St, 7th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602.
6. Deft. Richard Gasik, upon information and belief, is an independent contractor for the OPG, and does business in Cook County and all of the actions complained of
regarding him occurred in Cook County, Illinois.
7. Deft. Hanny Pei, is an Illinois licensed attorney doing business at Dutton &
Casey, PC, 79 W. Monroe St, #1320, Chicago, IL 60603.
8. Deft. Alexa Raines, is a licensed social worker, doing business at: Presence St.
Francis Hospital, 355 Ridge Ave, Evanston, IL 60202 in Evanston, Illinois.
9. Deft. Robert Harris, upon information and belief is a Cook County Resident, and
doing business at the OPG, 69 W. Washington St, 7th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602.
10. Defendant Richard McGreal is an individual who resides in the County of Cook,
Illinois at 4713 106th Pl, Oak Lawn 60453, and does business in the State of
Illinois.
11. Defendant Presence St. Francis Hospital is an Illinois Not for Profit Corporation
(“NFPC”) located in Evanston, Illinois with an address of 355 Ridge Ave,
Evanston, IL 60202 and does business in Cook County, IL.
12. Defendant Carlton at the Lake, Inc., is an Illinois NFPC doing business in Cook
County, Illinois and its address is: 725 W Montrose Ave, Chicago, IL 60613.
13. Defendant Presence Saint Joseph Hospital is an Illinois NFPC doing business at: 2900 N Lake Shore Dr, Chicago, IL 60657.
14. Defendant Burrows Moving Company, Inc. Is an Illinois corporation doing
Page 3 of 24 – Second Amended Complaint Scully v. Goldensen, Et Al.
business at: 6542 N Clark St, Chicago, IL 60626.
15. Defendant Loving Hands Hospice, Inc., is an Illinois Corporation doing business
in Cook County, IL and its address is: 6535 N Olmsted Ave, Chicago, IL 60631
16. Defendant Globetrotters, Inc. Is an Illinois Corporation doing business in Cook
County, Illiniois doing business at: 300 S. Wacker Dr., #400, Chicago, IL 60606.
17. Defendant John Doe #1 is an individual working as an independent (HVAC)
contractor for the OPG, and does business in Cook County and the acts
complained about regarding him occurred in Cook County, Illinois.
18. Defendants John and Jane Does #2 to #9 are individuals working either directly
for the OPG wrongfully evicting family members, or are the agents of the OPG or
those in privity with them.
19. Defendants John and Jane Does 10 to 17 are the eig ht (8) arresting officers of
the Chicago Police Department
20. Defendant Joseph Monahan is an Illinois attorney doing business within Cook
County and his work address is: 55 West Monroe, # 3700, Chicago, IL 60603.
21. Defendant Amy McCarty is an Illinois attorney doing business at: 55 West
Monroe, #3700, Chicago, IL 60603.
22. Defendant Joseph W. Peiper is an Illinois attorney who does business at 205 W.
Randolph St, #1250, Chicago, IL 60606.
23. Defendant Ashley C. Coppola is an individual who does business at 205 W.
Randolph St, #1250, Chicago, IL 60606.
24. Defendant Julie M. Fontanarosa is an individual who does business at 205 W.
Randolph St, #1250, Chicago, IL 60606.
Page 4 of 24 First Amended Complaint – Scully v. Goldensen, et al.
25. Defendant Tom Leko, is a real estate developer doing business in Cook County,
Illinois and his place of business is: 6849 N. Keeler Ave, Lincolnwood IL 60712.

INTRODUCTION
Appellants are the elderly disabled children of Mary J. Teichert, age 82, who was placed under an abusive guardianship in the Illinois Probate Court system on July 26, 2013 (Cook County Case No.13p 4339). St. Francis Hospital in Evanston, Illinois filed a Petition for Guardianship after an Emergency Room physician determined that Mary Teichert was in good health. Mary was then drugged and kidnaped by St. Francis Hospital and held in 4 point restraints for days on end. She was isolated from 20+ friends and family members. The Office of Public Guardian (“OPG”) immediately sealed the Guardianship case and provided no case information to the Scully Children despite the fact that Linda Scully had filed an appearance in the guardianship case. Linda Scully’s Powers of Attorney for Health Care and Property were summarily terminated without due process, notice or hearing. Linda Scully suffered approximately 8 false arrests trying to protect her Mother Mary Teichert and the Family Residence worth $2 million on Lunt Ave. in Chicago. The false arrests were instigated by the OPG defendants. This Family Residence was eventually sold for pennies on the dollar via a Realtor that laughed about how to “get these great deals” from probate court cronies. In order to sell the Family Residence, the Probate court had to break a vested Land Trust and the OPG did so without due process, no notice, no hearing to Mark Scully and Linda Scully who were beneficiaries of the Land Trust. In the end, Mary Teichert was transferred to a series of hospitals and nursing homes and when the Estate money was depleted by the probate attorneys and the OPG, she was narcotized to death and food and water withheld.
Plaintiffs filed a pro se Complaint in Federal District Court against all the individuals involved in stripping Mary Teichert of all her assets and then murdering her in the end. The Second Amended complaint contains the following causes of action: 42 USC § 1983, Wrongful Eviction, False Arrest, Trespass upon Chattels, Conspiracy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
The Federal District court found that Plaintiffs did not and could not state proper causes of action in Federal Court and dismissed all Federal causes of action with prejudice. They dismissed the State causes of action without prejudice. Plaintiffs believe they have stated proper causes of action under Federal Law and they do not want to be returned to State Court where all of the egregious breaches of their civil rights originally occurred.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Did the trial court err when it dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 USC § 1983 when Plaintiff Linda Scully suffered 8 false arrests?
2. Did the trial court err when it dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against the Office of Public Guardian employees when they illegally sealed the Guardianship case, did not provide copies of pleadings and motions to Linda Scully, broke a vested land trust selling the Family Residence for pennies on the dollar, summarily terminated her Powers of Attorney for Property and Health Care all without due process, notice or hearing, and then in the end they had Mary Teichert narcotized to death with food and water withheld?
3. Did the Trial Court erred when it dismissed the Original, First and Second Amended Complaints for failure to be “clear and concise”?
4. Did the Trial Court Err when it dismissed each and every Petition for a Fee Waiver for failure to answer a question or two when all the Plaintiffs were disabled, elderly, indigent and on Social Security Disability.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents for the Writ of Certiorari
Description Page
COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS ii
INTRODUCTION vi
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
STATEMENT OF CASE – THE 7TH CIRCUIT DECISION 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE–FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4
A. The Abusive Probate Guardianship Proceeding 4
B. The False Arrest and Imprisonment 5
C. ADA Retaliation 6
D. Wrongful Eviction 7
E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8
F. Pattern or Practice – Office of Public Guardian 9
G. Errors in 7th Circuit Decision 10
1) the probate exception 10
2) The Younger Doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman do not apply 11
H. List of Violations of Due Process and Civil Rights 14
1) Emergency Petition for Temporary Guardian was False
And violated the US constitution and due process 14
2) Isolation from Mother violated Constitutional Rights 14
3) Not providing Mary with a Phone violated Plaintiffs’
Constitutional rights 15
4) Retaliation against Linda Scully for filing complaints against the Defendants violated her constitutional rights 16
5) Summary Termination of POAs without Due Process violated Linda Scully’s constitutional rights 16
6) Disabled Plaintiff Mark Scully was limited in his visits, ridiculed, harassed and tormented, thus violating the ADA 17
7) Plaintiff Linda was held in contempt without due process, a Summons, Petition, Discovery and Jury Trial violating her rights 18
9) Nathan Goldenson had items taken from the Subject Premises without Due Process or court order 19
I. Efforts to Obtain an Attorney 20
J. The In Forma Pauperis Application 25
K. Rulings and Decision 28
L. Detailed Legal Argument, including Standard of Review 28
1) Standard of Review for all issues is de novo 28
2) Detailed Legal Argument 28
M. Plaintiffs were never provided with a list of how to correct their deficiencies 33
N. The Defendants are Proper in this Cause of Action 33
O. Well documented evidence that the Plaintiffs are experiencing a phenomena that is no longer rare in the US. 36
P. Conclusion 37
Table of Authorities
Cases Page
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 562 (2009) 29
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir., 1983) 32
Grove Fresh Distribs. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994) 32
Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) 33
Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 801-02 (11th Cir. 1983) 32
Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987 33
Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3rd Cir., 1984) 32
Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988) 32
Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir.
2005) 28 34
Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) 32
Statutes
Illinois Consitution Art. 1 § 12 12
42 CFR § 483 (1-8) and (g)(6) and (10) 15
Scholarly Blogs
http://www.probatesharks.com 24
Www.marygsykes.com 24
Www.aaapg.net 24
stopguardianabuse.org (NASGA) 24
Government Reports
Government Accountability, 5 reports on Guardianship
https://wordpress.com/post/marygsykes.com/15773
33
Industry Surveys
From AAAPG.net http://aaapg.net/guardianship-2017-survey/
22

STATEMENT OF CASE – THE 7TH CIRCUIT DECISION

This Writ of Cert is being filed by Appellants by Order which issued on Oct.1, 2018 by a three judge panel consisting of Justices Rovner, Brennan and St. Eve. In the Order, the Justices basically decided that the severe abuse and murder of Mary Jane Teichert 1) was not a murder; 2) was not of concern to the U.S. Federal Court System; 3) and there was no remedy which could be brought in the N.D. of Illinois Federal Court for the abuse, torture and murder of Mary Jane Teichert because the Scully children “had no standing”, inasmuch as none had been appointed Executor. In addition, it was not a concern or held to be a remedial cause of action that Plaintiff Linda had been arrested numerous times after Deft. Nathan Goldenson and the Office of Public Guardian (“OPG”) all filed false police reports against her, and/or colluded to file false police repots against her resulting in False Arrest and False Imprisonment, all of which were promptly dismissed.
The Scully Children vigorously refute that they have no remedy in Federal District Court for violation of their civil rights, and in addition they have not asked the Federal District Court to act as an appellate court for them. Since the guardianship file still cannot be publicly viewed and printed, and because it was unconstitutionally sealed in the first place, the time has not even ripened for filing an appeal of any of the issues which were before the guardianship court because there are no document publicly available which can be used for an appeal. There is not even any appeal possible unless and until that entire file is made publicly available, which has not yet happened so far, and accordingly there is no way that any Federal District court could possibly sit in the role of an appellate court since the state decisions cannot even be appealed at the present time.
The Scully children are still filing Motions to Vacate in Guardianship court, these motions have not been heard, and once those Motions have been heard, then the Guardianship attorneys fees, jurisdiction, the false contempt order against Plaintiff Linda Scully, etc. will all be appealed. Until the file is publicly available and Plaintiffs can secure the documents they need, no appeal can be filed just yet. The appeal is in the process. Nonetheless, the appeal of the guardianship case will not affect the District Court proceedings on the torts which the Defendants committed, either singly or jointly with others, in a conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their civil rights and property which was stolen and/or confiscated without due process by Deft. Nathan Goldenson and the OPG.
Because the case involves the murder of an elderly woman, her false imprisonment in a string of nursing homes where she never saw the light of day again because she was drugged, tortured and then narcotized to death, and her children had to stand idly by and watch this nightmare unfold and could not do anything about it, being elderly, disabled and indigent themselves, the case is clearly exceptional in nature and demands the strictest of scrutiny by this honorable U.S. Supreme Court. This entire pattern and practice is occurring the U.S. and the U.S. Supreme Court should be dealing with these.
For these reasons, the US Supreme Court should reverse and remand this case to the District Court with instructions regarding their Second Amended Complaint.
Exhibits A and B are attached hereto as letters from important Probate Victims’ Social Justice Websites that support Plaintiff’s Statement their case is very, very exceptional in nature.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE – FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Abusive Probate Guardianship Proceeding
On or about July 22, 2013, Plaintiff Linda and her fiancé John Bisbikas
(“Caretaker John”), caretaker to Mary Jane Teichert (“Mother Mary”), took Mother Mary to Deft. St. Francis Hospital because she had been found walking the neighborhood, but appeared to be overly warm and dehydrated. Plaintiff Linda and Caretaker John desired to have her checked out to ensure that nothing further was wrong, so they called an ambulance to take her to St. Francis Hospital. At St. Francis, the ER doctor had declared Mary to be fine and healthy and she could go home. However, St. Francis admitted Mother Mary Jane and later Plaintiff Linda returned a few hours later, she found that her mother had been admitted to the hospital and had been placed in a room where had she been drugged and was in 4 point restraints and in obvious distress. She was filthy and had a dirty diaper on.
Upon information and belief, Mother Mary remained a prisoner at Deft. Francis for at least 4 months, and never saw the light of day, she was isolated from about 20+ family and friends–everyone was told for 4 months, she could not see her family, friends or coworkers. In addition, she was never given her eye glasses, although they were brought to her to be given to her. Mary Jane was never able to see for the rest of her life.
Four months later, Mother Mary was sent to Deft. Carlton at the Lake (“Deft.
Carlto”), which turned out to be nothing but a prison and slum for the elderly and
disabled. Again, she was isolated and drugged with no phone in her room. No one,
except for Deft. McGreal, and Plaintiff Mark was allowed to see Mother Mary Jane.
Mother Mary’s nails were always dirty, her hair was always dirty, she was smelly, and unknown persons were allowed to steal all her belongings.
Deft. McGreal was part of the aforementioned abusive actions, he allowed the
abuse to continue, he threatened each of Plaintiffs Linda, Harrold and Mark and
Caretaker John that if they made any complaints, there would be retaliation–no
visitation, or worse.
Mother Mary spent approximately 17 months at the Deft. Carlton being abused, isolated, drugged with illegal chemical restraints, she was held against her will and she never saw the light of day again.
After Deft. Carlton, she went to Deft. St. Josephs for an unknown length of time. The Guardianship file was sealed illegally and without notice to anyone. No motion was prepared or finding of fact made, the Order to Seal the File was simply issued by Order of the Court one day unknown to any of the Plaintiffs named herein. None of the Plaintiffs were allowed to see where Mother Mary was or when she was transferred or her state of health.
After Carlton and St. Josephs, Mother Mary was transferred to the care of Deft. Loving Hands Hospice Inc. where she was further abused, drugged and isolated with no visitors until the day she died.
B. The False Arrest and Imprisonment
After the Guardianship case was brought, Plaintiff Linda was arrested at least 8 times, upon direction of Deft. Goldenson, and others at the OPG for attempting to oust dangerous squatters (“Squatters”) from her mother’s apartment building located at 1639 W. Lunt Ave. in Chicago, Illinois (“Subject Premises”). No fewer than eight (8) police officers were told the allegations were false.
Plaintiff Linda had the following items stolen from her during the guardianship by Deft. Burrows Moving and others acting at the direction of the OPG: fine jewelry and art and other items, silverware, china and other valuable items. Plaintiff Harold had many tools stolen from the premises by the squatters because the property was under rehab. Plaintiff Mark had valuable medical equipment, artwork and other valuable items stolen by the Squatters. The Squatters and the OPG attorneys, Defts. Goldenson, Gasik and Burton, and Burrows Moving all conspired together to destroy, vandalize, convert, steal and misappropriate numerous items of personal property belonging to all Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Linda also had 2 precious pit bulls taken by the OPG and carted off in a van.
Upon and belief, Plaintiff Linda was arrested with the assistance of Defendants Nathan Goldenson and James Burton and Richard Harris for false reports of arrest and assault, none of which occurred, and all of which were eventually dismissed at the first court date. Now all 8 arrest records are missing from the criminal court’s files.
C. ADA Retaliation
During the time that Plaintiff Mark Scully was visiting with his mother, he was subjected on a continual basis to a barrage of insults, defamatory comments, and threats. He was told if he filed any complaints about the treatment of his mother, or allowed Plaintiff Linda or Caretaker John to talk to, visit with or in any manner communicate with Mother Mary, his visiting privileges would be terminated permanently.
Plaintiffs Harold and Mark were told this by Defts. Goldenson and Burton, on the direction of Richard Harris, as well as Defts. McGreal. St. Francis and Carlton also told the Plaintiffs that they could not complain about the abuse or they would be retaliated against.
Plaintiff Mark was repeatedly made fun of by Carlton staff. They would talk about Plaintiff Mark as if he was not in the room; they would say that Plaintiff Mark should be put in an institution, away from his mother. Plaintiff Mark was constantly afraid that they would do this to him. Plaintiff Mark was continually subject to rude threats, derogatory and insulting comments, all of which are prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
D. Wrongful Eviction
Sometime in January, 2014, Plaintiffs Linda and Mark received a phone call from the OPG that they were to vacate their own apartment building immediately. Plaintiffs Mark and Linda had lived on the Subject Premises with Mother Mary for decades. The OPG, together with other defendants cause a vendor (John Doe #1) to enter the Subject Property in July of 2013 when he cut a main boiler pipe for heating so the Subject Premises would be without heat. All OPG Defendants knew that at the time Linda and Mark Scully were tenants in the building and both were disabled. Eventually, winter came, and the water pipes in the Subject Property froze and broke and freezing icy freezing water ruined most of the Subject Property, rendering it uninhabitable.
None of the OPG Defendants filed a proper eviction proceeding against Mark and Linda Scully. The Subject Property had been placed into a vested trust at Chicago Title and Trust, (“CT&T Land Trust”) and upon information and belief, Mark and Linda Scully were the beneficiaries of a vested Land Trust and had the right to be on the premises. They were to receive the Subject Property afer their Mother had passed.
This did not happen. The court summarily broke the vested Land Trust and sold the Subject Property, all without Notice to the beneficiaries and a hearing. Plaintiffs Mark and Linda Scully were entitled to Notice, Service by the Sheriff, a Petition to Invade the Trust, Discovery and a Hearing on the Merits.
The OPG conspired with the City of Chicago department of buildings to have
Plaintiffs Mark and Linda summarily evicted upon 4 hours notice. No advance notice was provided. Plaintiffs Mark and Linda were simply told they had to move in 4 hours or their personal property would be put in the trash. If they stayed over 4 hours, they would be arrested for Criminal Trespass.
E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
All plaintiffs were continually subject to a barrage of negative comments, nasty
defamation, false light, slander and libel against all the Plaintiffs. The OPG Defendants and other unknown persons continutally told the Plaintiffs to continually be quiet, they falsely and maliciously told the court that all the Defendants abused Mother Mary, they made and filed false reports to Catholic Charities–all of which were dismissed as unfounded–that Plaintiffs financially, physically and emotionally abused Mother Mary Jane Teichert her entire life. This was completely untrue, all false reports were dismissed as unfounded and no charges were ever brought against any of the Plaintifs.
Each of Defts. Monahan, MacCarty, Pieper and Coppola and Fontarosa told the court that Plaintiffs had abused their Mother and given her cocaine and alcohol Mother Mary never drank alcohol and never took any illegal substances in her life. Deft. Fontarosa secreted away the Guardianship file, thereby denying Plaintiffs their due process rights. Toxicology reports from Deft. St. Francis showed no intoxicating substances in Mother Mary’s blood whatsoever.
The conduct by the OPG Defendants and conspiracy with others, most notably
John Doe #1 and John Does #2 to 9 was extreme and outrageous, intended to cause
severe emotional distress and in fact did cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs Mark and Linda Scully. John Does #2 to 9 directly participated in the wrongful eviction of Linda and Mark Scully from the Subject Premises. They had no court order, they served no papers to evict. Rather, they used the police to threaten arrest in order to evict Mark and Linda Scully.
As a result of the above tortuous actions, all Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from severe acute and chronic adverse psychological effects.
F – Office of Public Guardian
That the OPG was appointed as Plenary Guardian over Mother Mary on or about July of 2013 by falsely claiming that Plaintiff Linda was giving her mother cocaine and alcohol and in other manners abusing her. They made repeated statements to the court that Mother Mary had been subject to abuse by all her children–Mark, Harold and Linda for years and had been financially exploited. All of these claims were false and unfounded. In fact, the Caretaker John had worked for Mother Mary for years and always had good evaluations of her care and comfort by Catholic Charities, the State of Illinois and Assyrian Center that he was employed with.
That the OPG has a long history of making false claims to take over guardianship cases and it then engages in the following wrongful conduct; a) summary wrongful eviction of a loved one; b) wrongful eviction of someone who actually has title to the Subject Property; c) isolation of a Disabled Person; d) issuance of a DNR when the Disabled Person has not provided authorization and there is no court order; e) dispensing psychotropic drugs without the authorization of the Disabled Person or a court order; and e) allowing the theft, conversion and vandalism of the Disabled Person’s Real Estate without filing an insurance claim or police report or absconding with insurance proceeds; and f) drugging or narcotizing the Disabled person to death without a court order and summary orders issued without Due Process
G. Errors in 7th Circuit Decision
In its Oct. 1, 2018 Order and Decision, the 7th circuit found that all of the following doctrines applied which would bar all Causes of Action brought by Plaintiffs against the Defendants:
1) the probate exception – despite the fact that Plaintiffs explained in great detail that the probate exception was a narrow one and only applied to routine probate matters such as deciding who would be executor, will disputes and inheritance disputes, the 7th Circuit routinely declared they would apply it to the instant case. None of those three doctrines apply at all to cases such as these where there were numerous civil rights violations, violations of due process, lack of jurisdiction (Mary Teichert was never served with notice of the Guardianship by the sheriff, nor were the Scully children), the guardianship file was sealed without notice or any findings of fact, conclusions of law, etc. and other egregious violations of due process, the 4th and 5th amendments and the 14th amendment;
2) the Younger doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman doctrines do not apply because the guardianship was never appealed, because it could not be appealed yet. The Complaint makes it clear that the Scully Children are not asking to sit in the role of appellate court for both the guardianship and decedent’s estate proceedings for Mary Jane Teichert. The file was unsealed not once, but twice by Judge Riley in both September of 2016 and July of 2017. The Scully children can and will appeal those decisions, just as soon as the court file pleadings are available for printout and they can file the appropriate motions. As of the date of writing of this pleading, when Plaintiff Linda recently went to the Offices of the Clerk of Court for Probate on the 12th floor, she still could not view and print out 90% of the guardianship file pleadings. The 12th Floor Clerk’s Offices blames the Clerk in the Courtroom, the Courtroom Clerk says this is the fault of the 12th Floor Clerks and the Probate Judge tells his clerk to unseal everything, but nothing seems to get done. In any case, between the two, none of the documents needed by the Scully Children to advance the guardainship case to appeal have been unsealed and provided to the Scully Children despite two court orders authorizing the unsealing of the Guardianship case file.
Moreover, the Scully children have filed the instant lawsuit on two bases: 1) violations of their own civil rights and constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, and in addition, it now appears that Plaintiffs must cite the Illinois Constitution Article 1, § 12 which provides that
SECTION 12. RIGHT TO REMEDY AND JUSTICE
Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for
all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person,
privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by
law, freely, completely, and promptly.
(Source: Illinois Constitution, Art. 1 § 12)

The Scully children, Linda, Mark and Harold, are all heirs to the Estate of Mary Jane Teichert and they not only have their own civil remedies for breach of their rights, but they also have an Expectation of Inheritance and that Inheritance has effectively been stripped away from them by not being able to file suit under 42 USC § 1983 and related torts when the defendants conspired to deprive them of their rights in Probate Court. The Probate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction for probate matters for decedents and disabled adults only and it does not entertain causes of action sounding in tort or civil rights violations for Children of a Disabled Adult or Decedent. Accordingly, none of the probate exceptions, Younger or Rooker Feldman should apply to the instant cause of action brought in the Subject Complaint or 2nd Amended Complaint provided at page A.0162.
The records of the Sheriff’s department show no service whatsoever on either of Mary, Mark or Linda Scully. Accordingly, the due process rights of Mary, Mark and Linda Scully were violated, without their knowledge or consent. (See, Cook County Sheriff’s Office, Civil Process Look up website, A.0222-0225).
As noted above, the Younger Doctrine and the Rooker Feldman Doctrine and the Probate Exception were only meant to be narrowly applied to specific cases. The Scully Children have not alleged a routine failure of the Probate Court to decide a dispute of who will be an Executor, an inheritancy dispute or an asset distribution dispute. Their Original and Amended Complaints were each narrowly tailored to address the issue of violations of their civil rights and due process–rights for which there is no remedy in Probate Court. What the Scully Children have alleged are torts against persons who have harmed Mary Jane Teichert, an elderly disabled and vulnerable woman, and only on behalf themselves in their course of conduct for protecting their mother. It is not possible to even bring these torts on behalf of the Children in a Probate Case involving the guardianship of a disabled adult, or even in Mary Jane Teichert’s decedent’s case. These tortious actions for damages must be brought in a separate civil action against each of the individual persons directly involved.
If the 7th circuit is saying the District Courts cannot entertain such actions, then effectively there is no forum in which these egregious tortious actions may be brought, and effectively the Scully Children have been ousted from both the US and Illinois Court System, all in contravention to the Illinois Constitution Article 1, § 12 which provides for all harm done to an Illinois citizen, the courts must provide an appropriate remedy.
a. List of Violations of Due Process and Civil Right of the Plaintiffs
1) The Emergency Petition for Temporary Guardianship was false and violated Due Process and the US Constitution

A guardianship case was filed against Mary Jane Teichert (“Mother Mary Jane”) on 7/26/13 and she was not served as shown by the records of the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. A.0222. She was 81 years old at the time. The Petition filed by St. Francis hospital alleged an “emergency temporary guardianship” was needed, but this was a blatant falsehood. Mary Jane Teichert at the time was in the hospital and then transferred to a series of nursing homes. No such emergency ever existed. The pleading filed was false and fraudulent by Defts. St. Francis and attorney Robert Harris and the OPG. The hospital’s own medical records show no drugs–legal or illegal whatsoever found in Mary Jane. The entire report was nothing but a lie. In addition, the report said it took “2 days” for the POA Linda Scully to come to the hospital, when in fact she was there within 2 hours and the police were called on that very same day! There was absolutely no basis for the “Emergency Guardianship” and it was based upon a pack of lies from Deft. Nathan Goldenson, the OPG and Robert Harris.
2) Isolation from Mother violated Constitutional Rights.
None of Plaintiffs Mark, Linda or Harold Scully were served with the time, date and place of hearing for Guardianship at least 14 days in advance, as required by the Illinois Probate Act, yet on 9/19/13 Mother Mary Jane was guardianized regardless. This violated all of their civil rights, drained the estate with unnecessary nursing home placements and they were also isolated from their beloved mother when they should have had a constitutional right to see their own mother. Defts. OPG and Nathan Goldenson violated these important constitutional rights.
3) Not providing Mary Jane with a phone violated Scully Children’s rights to call their mother.

Mother Mary Jane spent 17 months against her will in a series of nursing homes, where she was narcotized with psychotropic drugs against her will and consent. (See, In re Tiffany, citation omitted). She was not provided with a telephone in her room so she could contact her beloved children at will. (See Federal Nursing Home Regulations, Patient’s Bill of Rights, 42 CFR § 483, and 42 CFR 483 (e)(1-8); 42 CFR (g)(6)–right to a phone).
§ 483.10 Resident rights.
(a)Residents rights. The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility, including those specified in this section.

(1) A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident’s individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident.
***
(b)Exercise of rights. The resident has the right to exercise his or her rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States.

(1) The facility must ensure that the resident can exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility

(2) The resident has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and reprisal from the facility in exercising his or her rights and to be supported by the facility in the exercise of his or her rights as required under this subpart.

****
(j)Grievances.

5 (e)Respect and dignity. The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including:

(1) The right to be free from any physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience, and not required to treat the resident’s medical symptoms

(1) The resident has the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents; and other concerns regarding their LTC facility stay.

The OPG limited Mother’s visits with her children.
4) ADA Retaliation against Linda Scully for filing Grievances violated her Constitutional Rights.

Linda Scully continually complained about the fact her mother was being abused at S. Francis Hospital, and the OPG in retaliation limited her visits. Retaliation for protecting an elderly, disabled adult is prohibited under the ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act. After the complaints were filed with the authorities and relayed to the nursing home staff, the OPG and Nathan Goldenson retaliated by banning Linda Scully from visiting with her mother at all and she was even banned from waving to her mother and blowing her kisses from the parking lot!
5). Termination of POAs without Due Process violated Linda Scully’s constitutional rights.

On or about an unknown date (7/29/13? Unk, record sealed), without notice and due process, the Guardianship court summarily terminated Plaintiff Linda’s Powers of Attorney for Property and Healthcare. No petition was prepared or served upon her, which violated her due process rights under the 5th amendment and 42 USC § 1983. As a result, Mother Mary Jane was granny napped, kept in a series of nursing homes against her will and consent and never returned home, and never saw the light of day again. She was drugged with psychotropic drugs against her will and consent. These drugs are not FDA approved for use in persons over age 60 or those suffering from dementia, but the OPG allowed this abuse to continue.
6) Disabled Plaintiff Mark Scully, was limited in his visits, ridiculed, harassed and tormented, violating the ADA.

When Plaintiff Mark Scully visited his mother, he was mocked by the staff of Deft. St. Francis where they would make fun of him, tell him he should be put in an institution, and they continually threatened his well being. He uses a walker and has severely unintelligible speech due to a prior brain aneurysm. This is a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) for retaliation against disabled US citizens. The 7th circuit brusquely brushed off this Federal Law Violation and seemingly condoned ridiculing, threatening and belittling the disabled–despite the fact this facility likely receives million annually from the State of Illinois and the US Federal Government. The ADA further protects against the isolation of the elderly from family and friends. Plaintiff Mark Scully was isolated from his mother; Plaintiff Linda Scully was also isolated from her mother, she was even prohibited from waiving to her own mother from the parking lot and blowing kisses to her! That clearly violated their rights under the ADA.
7) Plaintiff Linda was held in contempt without due process, a Summons, Petition, Discovery, Jury Trial, etc. violated her rights.

Sometime during the pendancy of the Guardianship proceeding, 13 P 4339, a series of Orders issued holding Plaintiff Linda in contempt of court for allegedly failing to return to the OPG one bronze statue (which Plaintiff Linda actually owned), and she was held in indirect civil contempt of Court. (Order dated 3/25/14). The only problem was, Pltff Linda was never served with a Summons or Petition to Recover the Bronze Statue, as shown by the records of the Civil Process Look Up service, as shown on the internet at the Cook County Sheriff’s offices. (A.0222) However, that did not stop the OPG and Deft. Goldenson from representing to the court that they had the right, power and authority to obtain an indirect civil contempt order, and on Mar. 25, 2014, such an order did issue.
8) False Arrest and Imprisonment of Linda Scully.
Linda Scully was arrested the following times when the OPG conspired with numerous officers of the Chicago Police Department to have her arrested in an attempt to constructively evict her from the family’s apartment building located on Lunt Avenue in Chicago, Illinois:
Case No. Arresting Agency Charges Date of Arrest Disposition
M 14123156101 CPD Animal Cruelty 8/19/14 Stricken
M 13124936801 CPD Battery 10/29/13 Nolo Prosec.
M 13123119301 CPD Trespass 10/16/13 Stricken

Plaintiff Linda went to the Chicago Police Department to get a complete arrest record and what she found is about 6 arrests were missing from their records.
Nearly all of the missing records appear to relate to the false arrests perpetrated upon her (which were instigated by Deft. Nathan Goldenson–he actually gave keys to squatters he had put in place on the premises, and he gave the squatters his cell phone number), and he conspired to have Plaintiff Linda falsely arrested numerous times via a conspiracy with the squatters. Almost all of those arrest records are missing from the CPD arrest report on Plaintiff Linda. Plaintiff Linda is currently working with the CPD records division and will update the list when it becomes available.
***In addition, she was under a contract with her mother to manage and live at the Lunt Avenue Property. Plaintiff Mark Scully lived in one of the apartments because he was disabled, walks with a walker and his speech is about 90% not understood by the average person.
Certainly it is not within the duties of a Guardian of Mother Mary Jane’s Estate (Nathan Goldenson and the OPT) to constructively evict a beneficiary of a Land Trust by instigating a series of false arrests against lawful residents Mark and Linda Scully.
9) Nathan Goldenson had numerous items taken from all the apartments on Lunt
Plaintiffs Linda and Mark lived in separate apartments on Lunt Aveue. Deft. Goldenson gave the squatters a key and Deft. Burrows a key. Numerous items were removed from both Plaintiff Linda’s apartment and Mark’s apartment. Plaintiff Linda lost: several valuable hand knotted rugs, valuable china, oil paintings and other collectibles) and Mark lost valuable medical equipment essential to his needs and care. This clearly violated Plaintiff Linda and Mark’s constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments since Deft. Goldenson had no right to enter these units and take any valuables therefrom.
In addition, Plaintiff Linda Scully has already petitioned to have Administrator McGreal removed for all of his waste and mismanagement of the decedent’s Estate of Mary Jane Teichert (failure to file a wrongful death claim when Mary Teichert was narcotized to death, wrongfully imprisoned in a nursing home, abused in several nursing homes, etc.), the inventory from the Guardianship does not match the inventory he filed with the Probate court; numerous items are missing from the inventory, including numerous fine oil paintings worth $100k+, oriental hand knotted rugs worth $10k+, several sets of Haviland Limoges French China in the Rose pattern worth $5k+, and two sets of sterling silver in the matching Roses pattern worth $5k each. All of this was on the Guardianship inventory filed by the OPG, where are all these valuables now? McGreal filed a Decedent’s Estate inventory with all of these items missing and has not asked the OPG at all about where the items are. He needs to be removed as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Jane Teichert.
I. Efforts to obtain an attorney
In the 7th Circuit Decision, page 5, second full paragraph, the Court believes that the District Court properly denied the Scully Children’s request for a lawyer because they did not show detailed efforts (it should be noted at this point, the Courts seem to vacillates between the Scullys “providing too many details” and “not enough details) In any case, when a pro se litigant goes to court on the 12th floor of the probate court, they are told to contact one of the numerous organizations for free or low cost legal services. The list is famous. Unfortunately, the list is also famous for telling all litigants that only a few minutes of help can be dispensed, and for sure, no lawyer will file an appearance on any case involving probate issues.
Early on in this case, Plaintiff Linda contacted the following agencies on “The List”: Asian Legal Services, Northwest Univ. Legal Clinic, Austin Circle Law Group, Legal Assistance Foundation for Metro Chicago (the South Side Office and Northwest Offices are closed), Chicago Legal Clinic, CVLS, Legal Aide Bureau of Metro Family Services; Life Span, Inc. (For DV only), Loyola Univ. Community and Elder Law Center, Pro Bono Advocates, and none of them would file an appearance on a Probate matter. None of them would touch a probate case. That was back in 2013 when Plaintiff Linda was told firmly no pro bono legal clinic would file an appearance on a case, let alone a probate case. More recently, in November 2018, Plaintiff Linda undertook the same exercise, contacting all the foregoing agencies, and she was told firmly they would not represent her. That is dozens of phone calls and hours of wasted time with no result.
All of this was explained to the trial court in a fairly detailed Original Complaint (A.010) which was filed on 2/17/17. However, the Trial Court wrote an opinion on 4/18/17 date this Original Complaint was not “clear and concise” and they dismissed it but gave Plaintiffs 30 days to amend. (A.06 on 4/18/17) While the court referred Plaintiffs to the “pro se assistance program”, the Pro Se Assistance Program does not in fact draft complaints for pro se litigants, and even they could not tell Plaintiff Linda Scully exactly what was wrong with the complaint. While the court at page A.082 states that the Plaintiffs told their story, the court asserted that Plaintiff did not state the elements of their claims, when in fact they did.
The trial court did not even discuss the other 7 causes of action or what was wrong with each of them. In an opinion rendered on 6/21/17 (A. 133) again the court dismissed the Amended Complaint without stating exactly what was wrong with any of the claims filed against the defendants. This opinion clearly repeated the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and the court seemed to understand the story of the abusive guardianship, yet the District Court judge again dismissed the Amended Complaint once again, not explaining what exactly was wrong and how it could be corrected. A visit to the Pro Se Program attorneys again did not result in any advice from them either as to what Judge Korcoras exactly wanted to see in the Complaint. Plaintiffs had tried their best to condense over two years of an abusive guardianship proceedings (from 7-26-13 to 9-24-15). In the Guardianship case (13 P 4339, Cook County, Illinois), Mary Teichert had been continually drugged (illegal chemical restraints), had been place in 4 point physical restraints (also illegal), had been found dirty, in her own urine and feces on many occasions, had rarely been bathed, her estate drained and much of it given to lawyers at the OPG, court room vendors, much precious artwork, hand knotted rugs, sterling silver, precious Haviland Limoges China had been taken by Burrows Moving or had just disappeared
On 7/21/17 again Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended complaint (A. 161). In this Complaint, again, Plaintiffs tried to shorten and make their points clearer and more condense. Again, with little explanation (how many pages of facts are acceptable, what elements exactly are missing from each cause of action claimed, etc.), again the District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint. However, this time, Court seemed to include a very good summary of what the Probate Court case was all about–an abusive guardianship of Mother Mary Jane. (A.0156 -159) What is interesting about this analysis is that the District Court argues the Statue of Limitations issue, which of course can be waived by the Defendants if they do not assert it as an Affirmative Defense. No where in its analysis does the District Court present any case law or argument for asserting Affirmative Defenses for OPG and hospital and hospice defendants. Further, the District Court conveniently side steps the concept of “continuing tort” which clearly extends the limitations period until the tortious activity cases, this clearly was the date of death of Mary Jane Teichert–and perhaps even beyond that date. The original complaint was filed exactly 2 years after the date of death of Mary Jane Teichert.
By making statements in its Order of 9/25/17 as to the affirmative defense of statute of limitations and ignoring sealed pleadings, files cleansed, etc., it appears that Judge Korcoras is acting as counsel for numerous defendants, and he is not acting in his limited scope as to wether Plaintiffs have clearly explained what happened to them and then reasserting these allegations as the necessary elements to show their 8 cause of action.
It is explained in the Complaints filed (A.035-036, A.0121, A.0178) that Globetrotters and the City employees were the ones, presumably acting under the orders of the OPG, to cut a heating pipe (which Plaintiff Linda witnessed), so that the heating would not work, the building would freeze in winter, and then water would pour out of the pipes for months ruining the entire building so that it could be sold for pennies on the dollar. This is a well document technique employed in abusive guardianships.
Realtor Chayla Small knows this and when a 3rd party recently called her she just giggled about how she got the listing “from an attorney” and “did good on it.” That is a very suspicious comment that needs additional discovery.
Buyer Tom Lefko likewise refuses to answer questions about the transaction when called.
****The intentional destruction of Estate and Guardianship property is well known on all the probate blogs–NASGA, http://www.probatesharks.com, http://www.marygsykes.com, stopguardianabuse.org. and http://www.aaapg.net. The public has been made well aware of the perfidy of the Illinois probate system, but this court seems to be lacking knowledge in that arena. (Hence the statement on A. 0159 “impossible allegations”, “conspiratorial, implausible an incongruous.”) Yet, the probate blogs, facebook and other reliable sources of information are reporting all the time that the events associated with Mary Jane Teichert, are not only true, but they can continue for years before the courts stop this nefarious and insidious activity.
J. The In Forma Pauperis Applications
On the same date, Plaintiffs each filed an In Forma Pauperis Applications to waive the filing fee with each form indicating that each Plaintiff had no assets, owned no real estate, and lived month to month only on government benefits. They also filed a request to have an attorney represent them. A.044, A.048 and A.052. In its review, the District Court denied each request at page A.065 because the forms were “incomplete”. The Plaintiffs forgot to given beginning and ending dates of employment (each had not worked for many years, and did not recall much of that information). And they forgot to fully answer questions 4, 10 and 11. Clearly the Plaintiffs needed help and need an attorney. Plaintiff Linda did visit the Pro Bono Program, but the attorneys there did not offer help on the In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) forms.
Again on 3/10/17, the Plaintiffs filled out more forms to proceed IFP. A068, A.072, A.076. In the court’s order on 4/18/17 at A.080 they stated Linda Scully failed to answer question 4G, Harold Scully failed to answer questions 2B and 4A. Nothing was said about Mark Scully’s application. In this Order, the Plaintiffs were advised to seek help from the Pro Se Program but again the Pro Se Program attorney did not help with the forms.
Then, on 5/17/17, the Plaintiffs again submitted corrected IFP’s at A.084, A.088 and A.092 together with a written motion for a court appointed attorney and a litigation representative for Mary Jane Teichert. A.0129. On 6/21/17 the court issued an order at A.133. However, this time, the Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the IFP’s were deemed moot. In its opinion on 5/17/17, the District Court basically stated all of Plaintiffs assertions (the drugging of Mother Mary Teichert–illegal chemical restraints, the false arrests of Linda Scully, the breaking of a Land Trust and sale of the Family Residence, (an apartment building worth $2 million), the isolation of Mother from her three children–Mark, Linda and Harold Scully were conclusory in nature and therefore the District Court Judge had the right to dismiss their Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Again at A.0138, A.0143 and A.147 on 7/21/17, the Plaintiffs filed three more IFP’s and a Second Amended Complaint together with Motion to Reconsider dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. A.151. A brief was submitted at A.212. Again, on 9/25/17 at A.154 the District Court Judge dismissed the complaint and in its Order noted that while the Plaintiffs reduced their complaint to 22 pages (a near impossibility, given the 2 year history of an abusive guardianship), they added their details of the torts committed against them and their Mother in a 35 page Affidavit which explained details of the abusive guardianship. It was in this Opinion that the District Court judge took to arguing the affirmative defenses of the Defendants–tasks that they should have been doing themselves, had they been served. Basically, the District Court Judge said that what happened to the Plaintiff was impossible. However, the probate blogs and other blogs about Corruption in the courts of Chicago back up the Plaintiffs’ assertions with story after story after story. (See above websites). What happened to Mary Jane Teichert and this family should have never happened.
In any case, a story being implausible or impossible should not prevent these Plaintiffs from filing their Complaints. And, not filling out a question or two on long complicated forms that elderly disabled person might have difficulty with, should not be a reason not to grant them relieve. It should be noted that the Illinois Supreme Court has recently revamped their Fee Wavier form down to one basic question: are you receiving any type of government benefits for the poor. It is now just one check box. Very simple, very easy. Each of the Scully Plaintiffs indicated they were on Social Security Disability as well as food stamps and had no assets. Harold and Mark Scully were and are living in a senior citizens housing project. Clearly all three Scully Plaintiffs are desperately poor. The court knows they are elderly and disabled. It is well known that the elderly re not as adept at filling out long complicated forms. It is submitted that the US District Courts should make their forms much simpler, in accordance with the ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act so that the Elderly can more easily fill them out by simply stating name and address and checking off a box or two that they are receiving benefits from the US and/or State government for the indigent. Presumably these agencies have already done the proper investigative work.
K. Rulings and Decisions.
The District Court dismissed the Original Complaint on 3/3/17 at A.064, it dismissed the First Amended Complaint on 6/21/17 at A.0133, and then it dismissed a Second Amended Complaint on 9/25/17. In none of its decisions did the District Court provide a list or statement of how the deficiencies might be cured. It did not set a page limit or count limit. However, in the 9/25/17 dismissal order, it began to discuss an affirmative defense, the limitations period for certain counts, which should be impermissible. If the defendants do not assert this affirmative defense, then it is waived. The decision appears to be providing sua sponte legal advice to defendants that have not even been served or have filed their appearance.
L. Detailed Legal Argument, including Standard of Review
1) Standard of Review for all issues is de novo.
With regard to motions to dismiss a Complaint for failure to state a claim, the stand or review is de novo.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A. Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

2) Detailed Legal Argument
i. The Dismissal of the Complaint and Amended Complaints was improper
On 7/21/17, A. 212, Plaintiffs argued the following:
While the Court cited the Iqbal case for the proposition that a complaint must provide more than unadorned the-defendants-unlawfully-harmed-me acusations” the Iqbal case was never about the actual actors creating harm to the Iqbal Plaintiffs. The Iqbal case was about the fact that the court did not want Iqbal and others similarly situated to sue very high, powerful, important government entities such as the like of Dick Cheny and George Bush Jr. In the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 562 (2009) the U.S. Supreme Court held that top government officials were not liable for the toritious actions of their subordinates absent evidence that they ordered or directed the allegedly discriminatory activity themselves (“Bivens Action”). At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including the FBI Director Robert Mueller and former US Attorney General John Ashroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained after the Sept. 11 attacks. The decision “transformed civil litigation in the federal courts” by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals’ suits.
However, the present Causes of Action do not sue top government officials that took no direct action in causing lower level officials and staff to harm and discriminate against individuals. It is clear from the allegations, which the court has noted, that the Defendants named herein each actively and directly participated in the Causes of Action brought against them. They are directly responsible for the harms caused to the Scully Plaintiffs.
The District Court noted that Deft. St. Francis Hospital is accused of having Mother Mary “drugged,” “filthy” and placed in “4 point restraints.” (Which are clearly illegal for an elderly frail woman such as Mary Teichert). The District noted that it was certain that Defendants that actively an knowingly kept Mother Mary Jane Teihert “a prisoner” at St. Francis Hospital for 4 months. She was clearly being held against her will, and none of the defendants seemed to care, except they were very good at fling fee petitions. The OPG defendant Nathan Goldenson was directly involved. There were not remote disinterested third parties creating policies and procedures from remote offices thousands of miles away (Iqbal was held in a Brooklyn Detention Center, hundred of miles away from Mueller’s and Ashroft’s offices). These were the attorneys and vendors directly hired by the OPG that were actively engaged in the harm to Mother Mary Jane and the Plaintiffs.
In Iqbal, Ashcroft and Mueller were sued by Iqbal because “the complaint alleges that they adopted an unconstitutional policy that subjected respondent to harsh conditions of confinement on account of his race, religion, or national origin.” Id at 666. However, Iqbal provides the following guidance in determining whether or not a Plaintiff has adequately stated a Cause of Action:
(b) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not required, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), but the Rule does call for sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” id., at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556. Two working principles underlie Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements. Id., at 555. Second, determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense. Id., at 556. A court considering a motion to dismiss may begin by identifying allegations that, because they are mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Pp. 13–16, pp. 1948-1951. Id at 663,664. Emphasis added.

In the present cause of action, the Scully Plaintiffs not only gave the details of who, when and how their mother was granny napped, drugged, isolated, her estate drained, how the inventory of the guardianship differed markedly from the inventory of the decedent’s estate with tens of thousands of dollars of personal property missing, but she also submitted records showing she was never served when the probate court broke a land trust (this is required under the Illinois Probate Act to break a Land Trust) and how she was summarily held in contempt for taking a statue that was not found in her mother’s apartment, did not belong to the Mother, and she also submitted documents to the Court of Appeals that the case, while ostensibly unsealed (why was it sealed in the first place, is the better question, without due process–notice, hearing, discovery, etc.), it was unsealed not once but twice and to date it still does not appear on the computers in the 12th floor clerk of court’s offices. These are very profound details of the conspiracy that evolved in guardianship case no. 13 P 4339, the court can easily check them out, yet it says all Plaintiffs produced were conclusions. It is not known how the Plaintiffs can produce more proof or evidence of the glaring problems in Cook County guardianship cases. This is especially in light of the fact that the court has consistently held the complaint provides too many details, while at the same time, it claims the complaint is not “clear and concise”; it is bloviated and too long.
In the Opinion of (9/25/17 at A.0154),it would appear that the District Court fully understood,

****The Guardianship case was unconstitutionally sealed without Notice or Hearing, Motion or Petition. No court order was ever made public containing findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to remove an ordinary Guardianship case from public view and scrutiny. (See, Docket Sheet, A.0226) (All the federal courts of appeals to have decided the question have held that the First Amendment protects access to civil filings. See Grove Fresh Distribs. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994); Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988); Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984);Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3rd Cir., 1984); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir., 1983); Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 801-02 (11th Cir. 1983). As of the writing of this Brief, Judge Malone in the Circuit Court of Cook County has now issued two orders directing the Clerk of Court to unseal the file. Plaintiff Linda still has not seen the entire file and while the Clerk was also directed to provide her with a free copy of the file, she still does not have it, even though the first Order to Unseal issued Sept. 2016. The second issued July 2017. As of the writing of this Brief, most documents are not in the file, it has been cleansed and the computer in the file room shows “view unavailable” for most images. Any complaints about this fall on deaf ears.
The “Court must accept as true well-pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint.” Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. Of Am., 714 F.3d 1017, 1019-20 (7th Cir. 2013).
M. Plaintiffs were never provided with a list of how to correct their Deficiencies

Plaintiffs attempted to amend their Original Complaint not once, but twice. (A.097 and A.0161). The Court dismissed both of these complaints without pointing out deficiencies and specifically how they might be corrected. However, when a District Court “ dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)).
But in each of its rulings shown at A.080. A0133 and A.0154, the court never provided such a listing, gave the Plaintiffs any statement of what facts are missing and should be pled, and hence, apparently the errors were repeated with each Amended Complaint. The court could have just provided Plaintiffs with a page limit or some sort of guidelines on what exactly they considered to be “clear and cncise.”
N. The Defendants are Proper in this cause of Action
From the US DOJ website:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. Emphasis added.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law.

Each of the Defendants engaged in the tortious and illegal behaviors complained of which directly led to the wrongful death of Mary Jane Teichert.
In addition, this is a pro se complaint, filed by three (3) disabled adults who do not have the monetary resources to hire an attorney.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A. Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Pursuant to § 1915A, a district court shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Allegations in a complaint are to be liberally construed, and a court should not dismiss an action for failure to state a claim “‘unless after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.'” De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002)). Courts are instructed that pro se filings “however unskillfully pleaded, must be liberally construed.” Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir. 1994).

In addition the 7th Circuit has stated:

a motion for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), should not be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief.” Gustafson v. Jones, 117 F.3d 1015, 1017 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Frey v. Bank One, 91 F.3d 45, 46 (7th Cir.1996)). In evaluating the motion, we view the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Id.

The present Second Amended Complaint is far from frivolous. The Plaintiffs were clearly harmed by a number of state actors–from the police to the judge to the OPG. Their Family Residence was destroyed by the OPG, their dear beloved Mother was abused, isolated and eventually narcotized to death in an abusive guardianship proceeding which was so outrageous that early in the case, the Probate Court summarily, and without Due Process, or the 7th Circuit guidelines, sealed the case.
Plaintiffs apologize for not having further facts regarding the abusive Guardianship, but the file still has most of the pertinent facts unviewable to the public as of the writing of this Brief, so they had no idea when the OPG was appointed guardian, what Orders issue without their knowledge, when the case was opened or when it was closed. Despite the Illinois Probate Act that requires all next of kin, defined as parents, siblings and children, must receive notice of the filing of a Petition for Letters of Office 14 days in advance of the hearing date, none of the Plaintiffs – all Mother Mary Jane Teichert’s children, never received any notice of anything in the Guardianship case. 755 ILCS 5/11a-10(f). Until Plaintiff Linda receives a copy of that file, it is obvious that much information is missing from the Complaint. She has called and requested a copy of the file for free, but it is not ready yet for her. All she has is the docket sheet which appeared a couple of days ago, by magic or a miracle on Dorothy Brown’s website.
In addition, Plaintiffs are still attempting to get much needed information for their complaint via the discovery process in the Decedent’s Estate for Mary Jane Teichert, including all of Mother Mary Jane’s medical records, the names of the arresting officers, a statement from Catholic Charities that none of the Plaintiffs ever had a founded indication of abuse against their mother, as well as other facts and information.
All the Plaintiffs are asking of this Honorable Court is the chance to take their case to a jury. They only want justice for their Mother and for other guardianship victims similarly situated, to encourage them to come forward to clean up the court system. To do so, the Court must accept some form of a Complaint. The Plaintiffs apologize that they know cases like these are very hard to file and prosecute. No one wants to criticize attorneys, judges and court actions. However, even those state actors must be held accountable for their actions as they are not above the law and Justice must be done.
O. Well documented evidence that the Plaintiffs are experiencing a phenomena that is no longer rare in the US.

There is no doubt that justice was eventually done in the Ciavarella case (“Kids for Cash”), 3rd circuit 2013, and no less than five GAO reports have documented the exact same problems as these in US guardianship courts across the nation.
In addition, the website AAAPG has conducted a survey and amassed data on hundreds of abusive probate guardianships. See http://www.AAAPG.com. In 2017, Dr. Sam Sugar, a well know elder rights activist took a guardianship survey of 200 respondents over 4 months and determined the following: http://aaapg.net/guardianship-2017-survey/
● 66% said their visits with their loved ones were restricted
● 78% said they had to pay to visit their loved one
● 76% said the judge violated their civil rights
● 71% said advance directives were ignored
● 77% were threatened with legal action
● 50% said their were exparte ocmmunications with the court
● 97% said their civil rights were violated in court
● 45% of the judges prevented visitation with loved ones
● 41% said their right to freely associate with a loved one was violated.

Based upon this survey, it appears that there are indeed serious problems in many, many guardianship cases. The case of Mary Jane Teichert is not alone, it is not the only one, and Plaintiffs are telling the truth about what happened to them over the course of a 2 years abusive guardianship.
In addition, Plaintiffs are in possession of a detailed spreadsheet that provides information on over 200 recent cases involving guardianship court abuses, violations of civil and human rights and even Federal Statutes, Rules and Regulations pertaining to the care of the Elderly. The database was provided in confidence and will only be provided to this Honorable Appellate Court pursuant to an in camera Order and protected as containing Confidential information on abuse of the elderly and their family members.
P. Conclusion and Relief Sought
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court reverse and remand her case with appropriate instructions to the District Court regarding;
1) the Dismissal of a pro se complaint must be provided with a listing of exact deficiencies and how they may be overcome;
2) that the Plaintiffs have in fact stated proper Causes of Action in their Second Amended Complaint and service on all defendants should commence;
3) that the Paupers Petition forms were in fact properly filled out and showed that all defendants were on disability and qualified for fees. The Illinois Supreme Court has recently streamlined its own forms, which may be found at: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Forms/approved/procedures/fee_waiver.asp,
and the Federal Court should do the same. Many people are elderly and disabled and need very simple forms to fill out.
4) the District Court should have appointed a lawyer for the Scully children if it did not like the way they drafted their Original, First and Second Amended Complaint. Further, the District Courts should be ordered to keep a website with a list of attorneys willing to work pro bono on civil and human rights cases, where litigants can send prospective pro bono attorneys their complaints to see if they are interested in taking on these cases. Currently, there is no such system, but one should be put in place. Handing indigent pro se clients lists of 20 or so pro bono agencies that are swamped and overloaded with work and who do not file appearances regardless, is not a workable system for the poor and disabled..

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_/s/LindaScully/____ __/s/MarkScully/____ ___/s/HaroldScully/_______
Linda Scully, pro se Mark Scully, pro se Harold Scully, pro se

Prepared by:

Linda Scully, pro se
PO Box 481081, Niles, IL
email: linda.scully@gmail.com
phone: 312 549-2112

Harold Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #704
Chicago, IL 60626
email: haroldscully@gmail.com
phone: 773 629 0129

Mark Scully, pro se
6400 N. Sheridan Road #2417
Chicago, IL 60626
email: Markanthonyscully@gmail.com Phone 773 273 5016:
Verification
The undersigned herewith certifies that this brief is true and accurate to the best of her knowledge and belief, and where statements are based upon information and belief, were believed to be true at the time the statements were made.

/s/lindascully/
Linda Scully, Plaintiff-Appellant pro se
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served the following entity via email, although no parties have be served, nor have they filed appearances in this case on December 5, 2018
Nathan Goldenson, via email at:
Nathan Goldenson, OPG
via email nathan.goldenson@cookcountyil.gov

/s/lindascully/
Plaintiff Appellant pro se
Notice of Filing
You are herewith notified that I have caused to be filed the foregoing Writ of Cert to the US Supreme Court on May 6, 2019 by place the orignal and 10 copies in the USPS, first class mail, postage prepaid to:
Clerk of the US Supreme Courtm 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543
/s/lindascully/
Plaintiff Appellant pro se
EXHIBIT A

Advisory Board
Gregory Marsella, MD
Laura DeLuca, MD
Rana Goodman, Journalist
Eileen Leslie, CPA, CFE, MTx
Frederick J. Bailey, City Trustee
Michael A. Hackard, Esq.
Consultants
Kelley Smoot Garrett, CIO

December 2, 2018
Re: Scully v. Goldenson, et al. 17, 2486, 7th Cir. C.A. Fed.

Dear Honorable Justices Rovner, Brennan and St Eve;

I have reviewed the complaint and Brief in the above captioned case.

It is my understanding that Mary Jane Teichert was an elderly woman who allegedly suffered from some degree of memory loss. She was hospitalized at St. Francis for a routine check up and subsequently was held hostage there, surreptitiously transferred to a series of nursing homes against her will, forced into hospice against her will and eventually murdered by means egregious overmedication and withholding food and water. Her long time residence in an apartment building was neglected and ruined by the OPG (Office of Public Guardian) and their coconspirators and then sold for pennies on the dollar by a controversial realtor to a crooked crony purchaser.

I have a file containing many hundreds of cases nationally where this is a common tactic to gain control of an elderly person’s assets and basically hand it off to attorneys and by underhanded fraudulent means to judges via campaign contributions. There is also a growing body evidence to show that money laundering and mortgage fraud occur in this courts.

I founded a 501 c3 and maintain http://www.aaapg.net. I am the author of the Best Selling New Release on Amazon.com of “Guardianships and the Elderly—The Perfect Crime”. I am a Board Certified Specialist in Internal Medicine and considered a lay expert in Probate court matters across the nation.

I believe our nation must urgently correct a horrendous situation where the elderly are targeted, drugged with illegal psychotropic medications and then placed in a string of nursing homes against their will and when the money runs out, they are quickly dispatched with powerful, inappropriate psychoactive atypical antipsychotics drugs and denied food and water. This is nothing but professional slow assisted suicide and elder cleansing for profit. It should never happen in the US.

I understand that Mary Jane had 3 children who loved her and who were caring for her at home. She did not want to leave her home, she wanted to live in her home until her natural demise with her three children Linda, Mark and Harold caring for her there.

I believe that this is an exceptional case and that you should review it carefully and allow the Plaintiffs to proceed with their case to a jury trial.

This is not about the money, it is about bringing these cases before juries—so routinely denied in Equity Probate courts– so that this horrendous situation can swiftly come to an end.

The State Judicial systems must stop treating the elderly and disabled in such a horrendous manner. These are precious human beings who should be treated with the utmost of dignity, care and respect at the end of their lives. It is crime against humanity to treat them with such indifference and callousness in the pursuit of their assets and rights.

I respectfully ask that you return this case to the N.D.Illinois district court for a trial by jury.

Sincerely,

Electronic signature

Sam J Sugar MD, FACP
Founder AAAPG
EXHIBIT B

JUSTICE 4 EVERY1, NFP
5330 W. Devon Ave. #6 JoAnne Denison, Executive Director*
Chicago, IL 60646 Cell Phone 773-255-7608
ph 312-553-1300 http://www.justice4every1.com

December 5, 2018

Re: Scully v. Goldenson, et al. 17, 2486, 7th Cir. C.A. Fed.

Dear Honorable Justices Rovner, Brennan and St Eve;

I have reviewed the Complaints and Brief in the above captioned case.

It is my understanding that Mary Jane Teichert was an elderly woman who suffered from slight memory loss. She was hospitalized at St. Francis for a routine check up and subsequently was held hostage there, surreptitiously transferred to a series of nursing homes against her will, forced into hospice against her will and eventually murdered by means egregious overmedication and withholding food and water. Her long time residence in an apartment building was neglected and ruined by the OPG (Office of Public Guardian) and their coconspirators and then sold for pennies on the dollar by a controversial realtor to a crooked crony purchaser.

I have details on over 50+ cases nationally where this is a common tactic to gain control of an elderly person’s assets and basically hand it off to attorneys and by underhanded fraudulent means to judges via campaign contributions. There is also a growing body evidence to show that money laundering and mortgage fraud occur in this courts.

I currently run a Social Justice organization that assists the public with problems in the court system with cases such as these where our nation’s elderly are targeted, isolated, dugged into a stupor, the assets are destroyed or stolen, POAs are quashed without any notice or due process, the victim is never served with a Summons or Complaint, the family members are never provided with 14 days advance notice of the time, date and place of hearing, and then assets are quickly depleted by the lawyers with a rubber stamp from the court.

I believe our nation must urgently correct a horrendous situation where the elderly are targeted, drugged with illegal psychotropic medications and then placed in a string of nursing homes against their will and when the money runs out, they are quickly dispatched with powerful, inappropriate psychoactive atypical antipsychotics drugs and denied food and water. This is nothing but professional slow assisted suicide and elder cleansing for profit. It should never happen in the US.

I understand that Mary Jane had 3 children who loved her and who were caring for her at home. She did not want to leave her home, she wanted to live in her home until her natural demise with her three children Linda, Mark and Harold caring for her there.

I believe that this is an exceptional case and that you should review it carefully and allow the Plaintiffs to proceed with their case to a jury trial.

This is not about the money, it is about bringing these cases before juries—so routinely denied in Equity Probate courts– so that this horrendous situation can swiftly come to an end.

The State Judicial systems must stop treating the elderly and disabled in such a horrendous manner. These are precious human beings who should be treated with the utmost of dignity, care and respect at the end of their lives. It is crime against humanity to treat them with such indifference and callousness in the pursuit of their assets and rights.

I respectfully ask that you return this case to the N.D.Illinois district court for a trial by jury.

Very Truly Yours,
Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFPTable of Contents for Appendix

Date Filer Description Page
Docket Sheet 5
2/21/17 Complaint 10
2/21/17 Cover Sheet 43
2/21/17 MS IFP Petn 44
2/21/17 LS IFP Petn 48
2/21/17 HS IFP Petn 52
2/21/17 LS Mot 2 appt atty 58
2/21/17 MS Mot 2 appt atty 60
2/21/17 HS Mot 2 appt atty 62
3/3/17 CO Motions 2 file IFP and appoint atty denied w/o prejudice; Pltffs need to answer all questions for IFP 64
3/10/17 LS IFP Petn 68
3/10/17 MS IFP Petn 72
3/10/17 HS IFP Petn 76
4/18/17 CO Motns 2 file IFP denied w/o prejudice and dismisses Complaint w/o prejudice. Pltffs allowed 30 days to file Amended Complaint. Pltffs to seek assistance from Pro Se program 80
5/17/17 HS IFP Petn 84
5/17/17 MS IFPPetn 88
5/17/17 LS IFP Petn 92
5/17/17 Pltffs Amended Complaint 97
5/17/17 Pltffs Motn 4 court to appoint atty as lit rep for Mary Jane Teichert 129
6/21/17 CO Dismiss Amnded Complaint; IFP’s deemed moot and motion to appt rep for Mary Jane Teichert. Case Terminated. 133
7/21/17 LS IFP Petn 138
7/21/17 MS IFP Petn 143
7/21/17 HS IFP Petn 147
7/21/17 Pltffs 2nd Amended Complaint 161
7/21/17 Pltffs Mot 2 Reconsider 151
7/21/17 Pltffs Brief in support of MTR 212
9/25/17 CO Mot 2 Recon denied.; Complaint dismissed, IFP denied 154
Sherrif No service civil process records for Linda, Harold and Mark and Mary 222
10/1/18 CO 7th Cir. App. Decision and Order 254
Abbreviations: LS-Linda Scully; MS- Mark Scully; HS – Harold Scully; CO – Court Order; IFP – In Forma Pauperis Petition

Advertisements

From GG: Great case on discharge of student loans in BK–court discharges all interest

http://www.ncbrc.org/blog/2019/05/03/accrued-interest-on-student-loan-discharged-as-undue-hardship/#more-6196

Accrued Interest on Student Loan Discharged as Undue Hardship

Posted by NCBRC – May 3, 2019

A Kansas bankruptcy court did not err in granting the debtor a discharge of the accrued interest on her student loans where she met the Tenth Circuit’s flexible version of the Brunner test, and the court has equitable power to grant less than a complete discharge. ECMC v. Metz, No. 18-1281 (May 2, 2019).

The debtor, age 59, was never in default on her student loans. Though she was continuously employed over the repayment period, the amount she owed grew over time from the original loan amount of $16,613.73, to $67,277.88. Beginning in 2001, she filed three chapter 13 bankruptcies and made all payments under her plans, receiving a discharge in the first two. In the third and current bankruptcy the debtor sought to discharge her consolidated student loan. The bankruptcy court found undue hardship but discharged only the accrued interest on the debt. The student loan creditor, ECMC, appealed. The debtor filed a cross-appeal seeking to have the entire debt discharged. NCBRC filed an amicus brief on behalf of the NACBA membership in support of the debtor.

The Tenth Circuit applies a flexible version of the Brunner test under which all the facts and circumstances surrounding the debtor’s financial situation be considered to determine whether paying off the student loans would in fact constitute undue hardship. With this in mind, the court walked through the three prongs of the test: 1) the debtor cannot maintain a minimal standard of living while repaying the loan, 2) those circumstances are likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period, and 3) the debtor has made a good faith effort to repay the loan.

On appeal, ECMC argued that the debtor could not meet the first prong of the Brunner test because she could avail herself of an income-based-repayment plan (IBRP) which she could afford but which would not pay down principal. The district court found that the Tenth Circuit looks to whether a debtor can maintain her minimal standard of living while repaying the loan, not while participating in an IBRP that does not result in loan repayment. The court agreed with the bankruptcy court’s finding that the debtor did not have sufficient income, even after trimming expenses, to maintain that standard of living while repaying the loan. The court cautioned that this finding was based on the facts and circumstances of this case, leaving open the possibility that the availability of an IBRP that paid down the principal might be a relevant consideration when addressing the first Brunner prong. [As an aside, the court noted that ECMC’s assurance that the debtor would have no tax consequences at the end of the IBRP repayment period depended upon her remaining impoverished until she reached her eighties—“what a pleasant system.”]

ECMC next argued that there were no exceptional circumstances, such as illness or disability, to justify the bankruptcy court’s finding that the debtor’s inability to repay the loan would persist over a significant portion of the repayment period. The court rejected the notion that there had to be such conditions. Rather, the court looked to the debtor’s age and employment and income history and found it unlikely that, even with regular merit raises, she would ever be able to repay the loans.

ECMC next contended that because the debtor had not applied for an IBRP, had not minimized her expenses as much as possible, and was motivated to file a previous chapter 13 bankruptcies because of her student loans, she failed to show good faith. Though the Tenth Circuit permits consideration of IBRPs when looking at a debtor’s good faith, the court found that the evidence supported the debtor’s assertion that she could not afford to pay into a plan sufficient amounts to reduce her debt. For that reason, failure to apply was not evidence of bad faith. The fact that she filed for prior bankruptcies in part due to her student loans was also not dispositive of bad faith, particularly where, as here, the debtor made all payments under her plans in those bankruptcies.

The court turned to the debtor’s argument on cross-appeal that the bankruptcy court erred in granting only a partial discharge instead of discharging the entire loan. The court disagreed, finding that the bankruptcy court’s equitable powers under section 105(a) permit it to grant a partial discharge under section 523(a)(8) where undue hardship is found.

In conclusion, the court agreed with the bankruptcy court’s findings and affirmed the discharge of the interest on the debtor’s student loans.

Metz D Kans May 2019

From FB: Mentally ill woman gives birth alone in isolated jail cell despite cries for help

Stuff you cannot just make up.

Now the inmate is said to be mentally ill, but she managed a delivery alone and she and baby survived. Seems to me the jail staff are the mentally ill ones. No concept of reality for sure there.

A jailed and pregnant mentally ill woman was forced to deliver her child alone in an “isolation cell” last month as corrections officers ignored her cries for help, Broward County’s public defender charged on Friday.

In a letter to Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony, Public Defender Howard Finkelstein wrote that North Broward Bureau jail inmate Tammy Jackson began complaining to staffers of contractions at 3:16 a.m. on April 10. By 10 a.m., he said she was lying in her cell by herself holding her newborn daughter.

“She was forced to deliver her baby alone,” Finkelstein wrote in a two-page letter that also demanded a review of detention policies.

 

The Broward Sheriff’s Office says it learned of the incident two days later and immediately launched an internal affairs investigation.

In an email, BSO spokeswoman Gina Carter said “a Well Path medical team, including a physician and two nurses, attended to the mother and child. Child Protective Investigations Section was notified, and the baby was placed with an appropriate caregiver.”

According to Finkelstein, jail and medical personnel knew Jackson was at full-term and near giving birth when she was booked on March 27. The staffers at the jail, described by BSO’s website as “a minimum to medium security, special needs detention facility,” were also aware of her mental illness.

Finkelstein said two weeks later, just after 3 a.m., she began complaining of contractions and asked for help. Yet, according to Finkelstein, instead of transporting her to a hospital, staff tried reaching an on-call physician. At 7:22 a.m. that morning, Finkelstein said, the doctor said he was on his way. Then at 9 a.m., about an hour before she gave birth, the woman said she was bleeding and still alone in her cell.

Jackson remains in the custody of the Broward Sheriff’s Office, but is currently in the hospital recovering, said Chief Assistant Public Defender Gordon Weekes, who also signed the letter to Sheriff Tony. Weekes could not provide details on the baby’s condition.

“Just imagine going through the trauma of delivering a baby, screaming for help, people are within earshot, and no one comes to your aid from 4 a.m., when the contractions start, until 10 a.m.,” said Weekes. “All the while knowing people are in earshot.”

Jackson, 34, was arrested by BSO in late March. According to records from the Broward County Clerk of Court, she’d been arrested in January on cocaine possession charges and released, but failed to report for pretrial services so a warrant was issued for her arrest. She was also charged with trespassing, sleeping on a public street and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Since the day she was arrested, Finkelstein said, the Broward Sheriff’s Office was aware of her pregnancy. She was placed in an infirmary so her medical issues could be monitored, according to the public defender. “Not only was Ms. Jackson’s health callously ignored, the life of her child was also put at grave risk,” Finkelstein wrote.

Jackson underwent a competency evaluation late last month, according to the court docket in her case. Weekes declined to detail Jackson’s mental illness, but described it as “significant.”

In his letter Finkelstein demanded an immediate review of medical and isolation practices at all Broward County detention facilities.

“It is unconscionable that any woman, particularly a mentally ill woman, would be abandoned in her cell to deliver her own baby,” the public defender wrote. “Your staff did not protect either Ms. Jackson or her child. Despite their neglect and callous indifference, both Ms. Jackson and her child survived. It remains to be seen how this gross negligence will affect Ms. Jackson’s already fragile mental health.”

 

 

From FB: Medical Kidnap in Conn. Evil and Vindictive

worst story of medical kidnap ever.  absolutely harrowing.
May 2, 2019

Pregnant Mom Traveling Through Connecticut with Husband Stops at Hospital Where They Forcibly Drug her and Perform Cesarean Surgery to Kidnap Baby

40

 

5

 

1

Share

1

Share

3

 

8

 

1

Share

0

 

parents with baby 5

by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com staff

In a story so horrendous that it reads like a Hollywood script to a movie that could only be fiction, Tennessee parents Suzy and Peter Saad have decided to go public with their story of alleged medical abuse and medical kidnapping in Connecticut.

suzy and peter medical school

Peter and Suzy both have master’s degrees and were former medical school students, which is where they met. However, they put their plans for medical school on hold to start their family.

Suzy pregnant two children with dad

After delivering two boys by cesarean birth, mom’s dreams were finally realized when she became pregnant for the third time, and this time it was a baby girl in answer to her prayers.

Suzy wanted the best for the new daughter growing in her womb, so she sought medical help to try and have a natural birth, uncommon but not impossible when the first pregnancies end in cesarean births.

The family was living in Tennessee, and Suzy was not happy with the prenatal care she was receiving. Peter’s family is from New Jersey, and after one of his family members died and they traveled to New Jersey to attend the funeral, they found a birthing center there that Suzy felt comfortable with in terms of trying a natural birth.

At 38 weeks of pregnancy with her daughter, Suzy was experiencing some anxiety and suffering from bad nights of sleep. Family and friends suggested she take a few days off with her husband, while family members watched the two boys.

They knew about a lovely place in Maine they had been wanting to visit, and decided that the 6-hour trip would do them some good.

As they drove from New Jersey to Maine, Suzy experienced some pain, and to be on the safe side, they decided to stop at a hospital in Connecticut.

This is when the real nightmares began. Her husband’s family is originally from Egypt, although Peter grew up in the United States and has been a U.S. citizen since he was a child. His family in Egypt are Coptic Christians, a minority group in a country that is predominately Muslim.

Before they fully understood what was happening, Peter was allegedly being accused of being a Muslim terrorist and fleeing the law, and Suzy was being accused of being a drug addict, simply because she had some prescription medications with her to treat her high blood pressure and diabetes.

She was allegedly drugged and forced to have cesarean surgery, and hospital staff then allegedly worked together with social service workers to take custody of her baby.

After 6 months of trying to comply with everything the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) was requiring of the parents in order to get their baby daughter back, they have now decided to go public with their story.

Parents Falsely Accused and Never Arrested

Since going public, the parents have published over 38,000 words describing their ordeal, on Facebook and a GoFundMe page, and they claim that they have multiple recordings as well to back up everything they say.

Suzy writes:

Please help us!! My husband is African-Egyptian- American, we have two beautiful healthy children together and live in Davidson county, Nashville TN.

We were driving through Middletown Connecticut while I was pregnant with my 3rd child after visiting family in New Jersey when I felt some pain in my back so we decided to stop at a nearby hospital (Middlesex).

Once inside they started making all of these accusations against us saying that because we are a mixed race couple, that we “look like criminals.”

They started accusing my husband of being a “muslim terrorist” and me of being a “drug addict.” None of it is true! My tox screens were all negative and my husband and I are both Christian!!

They told us it is just “too suspicious” that we were driving through their state while pregnant and accused us of having “no prenatal care, of being from crummy low-life families, being criminals running from the law, of being Muslim terrorists, drug addicts, drug lords or both, gypsies living out of our car, and international baby sellers” among other things.

Each and every time we would disprove one accusation, they would accuse us of something else and say “ok, now prove us wrong.”

Charges were never filed against the parents.

Allegedly Drugged and Forced Surgery to Get Access to the Baby

baby in hospital

Suzy writes that after medical staff examined her, it was determined that she was not in labor yet. She was allegedly forced to undress in front of male interns, and then she was allegedly drugged and forced to have a cesarean surgery, after informing them that she was leaving the hospital because she did not like the way they were treating her.

Two nurses then pulled off my pants and underwear right in front of a whole room of nursing staff whom I have never met, including male staff. Before they had even given me anything to cover up with, they ordered me to further remove the rest of my clothes.

I asked them to ask the male nurses to please leave while I was undressing, they refused. As I was taking off my bra, one of the male nurses turned his head and smirked.

After I was forced to take off my clothes and was sitting there for at least a few minutes completely naked, a nurse tossed a fabric gown at me, giggled and said “ here honey, cover those things up.”

It was completely dehumanizing and humiliating.

I was then forced to urinate in a cup in front of 2 hospital staff who called me a “drug addict.” (My toxicology screen was negative, as was the baby’s!)

After that I went to get my clothes to put them back on to leave. Another nurse asked me what I was doing. I told her that I didn’t like the way I was being treated and that I was leaving.

She apologized for what the other staff had done and said that they just get a lot of “junkies” in there and that I should at least stay long enough to get an IV and let them check my cervix to make sure the baby was ok.

I agreed to stay only to get my cervix checked and get an IV in case anything was wrong.

After they put the IV in, the nurse injected clear fluid into my IV but wouldn’t say what it was and I started to get really dizzy. The doctor came in and checked my cervix and said that I was barely 1 cm dilated, if that.

She asked me if I had any medical records (but never once asked for a release for anything).

I told her I thought I had my ultrasound report in my email and started looking through my phone.

She finally said its fine we’ll just get it after the c-section.

I told her no, I wanted to be allowed to leave to go back to New Jersey to have the baby where we were staying with family. She told me that they had me scheduled for a repeat c-section.

I told her no, that I did not want to have another c-section and that I wanted to birth my daughter naturally this time and that I wanted to leave.

I told her if they didn’t let me leave, we were going to call the police and report them for holding us as hostages in the hospital against our will.

She said “go ahead, the law is on OUR SIDE IN CONNECTICUT and if you don’t stop resisting we are going to call the police and have you arrested for child endangerment and they will come in and chain you to the bed and force you to have the surgery anyway.”

[The nurse] even wrote in her report to the DCF that the C-section was to be done on “short order” meaning that it was to be “done very quickly.”

She also admitted that we asked to leave the hospital before the c-section was performed and that they refused to let us leave and held us there against our will, saying we were a “flight risk.”

What excuse did they have to have done the c-section so quickly, and against my will, even though there was no medical need to do so?

I was not in any distress, I never even felt a single contraction, the baby was not in any distress and her heart rate was fine.

There was absolutely NO MEDICAL NEED for them to have forced this C-section on me.

The reason was because they wanted to take my daughter out of my body as quickly as possible JUST SO THEY COULD STEAL HER FROM US!

We had been at the hospital no more than an hour and they were already wheeling me back to have the c-section. I was NEVER given the opportunity to labor and birth my child naturally and I NEVER ever gave them permission to do the c-section or signed anything giving them permission to do so.

It was as if my body was not my own. I was not allowed to make any of the decisions regarding the birth of my daughter.

What they did to me at that hospital completely violated my rights as a person, as a parent and as a human.

They wanted the baby inside me and drugged me to cut her out against my will, just to get her away from us so they could keep her.

They never, ever intended to allow us to leave the hospital with our child.

Baby Sofia Suffers in Hospital as Mother is Allegedly Harassed

mother crying with baby

Once the baby was born, the parents were allegedly continued to be treated as criminals, preventing the mother from properly nursing and bonding with her newborn daughter.

The following heart-wrenching video was captured where you can hear the frantic cries of the baby, and how the baby stops crying as soon as she is held in her mother’s arms, in spite of the fact that the mother is very stressed and crying herself.

Suzy writes:

That first day I cried all day as I held my newborn daughter in my arms. I kept falling in and out of sleep but I made sure to hold her close to me to keep her warm.

I also made sure to hold her in a specific way so as not smother her if I fell asleep and I continued to feed her and try to nurse her even though I knew my milk had not come it yet.

As I was holding my daughter and crying from all the emotional and physical stress I was going through, my evening nurse kept coming in and asking me about Peter my husband.

He was asleep at this point and she kept asking me what he was running and hiding from and who was he really?

I told her that he really was my husband and that we were not “running from anything or anyone.”

She continued to harass me saying that if she had a daughter who came home with some “Saudi Arabian muslim guy” who was “running from the law,” that she would disown that daughter and never let her in the house again.”

She told me that as far as she was concerned, an “A-RAB” was no better than a “Mexican behind a wall” and that in her opinion and the “opinion of the other hospital staff,” that I needed to just “turn him in” for whatever he is “running from the law for.”

Then she asked if he was really the father of my other children and if we really did have custody of them.

I told her yes and then asked her to please leave my room.

She eventually left but continued to come back in and kept taking my infant from me while I was trying to nurse her, making up different excuses each time, but mainly kept telling me that she was “too tired to nurse.”

I asked her to please stop harassing me and leave me to bond with my child but she refused.

Mom Denied Medical Care and Baby Taken Away From Parents – No Charges Ever Filed Against Parents

parents with baby 4

While in the hospital, Suzy was allegedly denied permission to leave her hospital room to get the prescription medications she needed for her blood pressure and diabetes.

As the hours went by I could feel my blood pressure getting higher and higher. I asked my husband to go get my blood pressure medicine out of the car.

The nurse came in and said he was not “allowed” to give me any outside medicine. I told them I needed to take my blood pressure medicine.

The nurse told me that the doctor had “discontinued” all of my medications.

I told them they could not discontinue a medicine they did not prescribe.

She told me I could “take it up with the doctor in the morning.” I told her “no you don’t understand, I have to have the medicine to control my heart rate and my blood pressure.”

She told me she didn’t care and that I could take it up with the doctor in the morning. I begged and pleaded for them to let me have my blood pressure and diabetes medicine, they all told me they didn’t care.

I was crying about how we had been treated and that my heart rate by then was nearly 200 and my blood pressure was 180/120.

After I continued to complain about it and as it continued to climb, they finally gave me my beta blocker but still refused to give me my diabetes medicine.

After that Peter and I were exhausted and both slept for around 8 hours straight.

The next morning when we awoke, my blood sugar was also very high and they finally gave me the Metformin I was prescribed by my general practitioner.

Then a neonatologist came in our room and started telling us that he “knew” we did not care about our baby because if we did, we would have been in the nursery for EVERY FEEDING and that if he wanted to, he could have us prosecuted for neglecting her just because we didn’t show up for 2 of her feedings!!

We explained to him everything that had happened and that I was made to go the entire previous day without any of my medications, that I had been in excruciating pain and that we were both exhausted and just needed some sleep.

He said he didn’t care and that we “should have been there.”

We asked him isn’t the nursery there to give the parents some rest?

He said no, that this was a “baby friendly hospital” and that we, as the parents were supposed to do all the feedings.

We told him that we didn’t send our daughter there willingly.

He changed the subject and started saying that he “knew” we did not even have custody of our other children and that we would not be allowed to keep Sofia anyway so there was no need for us to see her anymore.

I started crying as Peter was telling him it wasn’t true, that we do have custody of our other children. He accused us of “kidnapping” our other two children (that he said he “knew” we did not actually have custody of) and trying to make a break for the Canadian border and refused to tell us who told him that we didn’t actually “have custody of our other children.” (not true in any way)

We asked him how could we be trying to “run for the border” if we didn’t even have our children with us at the time? He didn’t have an answer.

We begged and pleaded with him to please let us see our baby.

He told us that we would be allowed to see her only for feedings and that if we missed even one more single feeding, that we would not be allowed to see her anymore.

He told us that the DCF would be there to take custody of her on Tuesday and that he was going to testify against us about how we “neglected” her by sleeping during her scheduled feeding times and about how I “refused” to sign a medical release for my prenatal records.

I told him that wasn’t true and that I never refused to sign anything. I asked him if I signed the medical releases and we make her an appointment with a pediatrician in CT, would we be allowed to keep our daughter and take her home?

He laughed and said no, that if we thought we would be going home with our daughter, we were dead wrong and that we would not be going home with her “for a very long time, if EVER.”

Suzy writes that they already have the court date set to terminate their parental rights in November of 2019, allowing them to adopt out the baby.

Even though they do not even have a guilty judgement against us yet, they are so confident they will win that they have another court date set for us for November of this year to have our parental rights terminated! And for what???? What was our crime???

Our only crime was to drive through CT, walk into the hospital to make sure everything was ok with my pregnancy and the baby and that was it!

By the time we realized how hateful they were being attacking us and we asked to leave, it was too late. They held us captive inside the hospital until they had illegally cut my daughter out of my body and never had any intention of letting us go home with her.

What they are doing is not only WRONG, it is ILLEGAL in so many ways!! Please is there anyone out there who can help us???!!! Please don’t let these people steal our daughter’s life from her!

Parents Forced to Travel Between Tennessee and Connecticut – Lose Home and Treated Like Criminals

father with baby 2

The parents eventually left the hospital and the baby was placed into foster care. For a while, they stayed with Peter’s family in New Jersey, only 3 hours away.

But eventually Peter had to return to work, and they were forced to go back to Tennessee, 20 hours away. So it was a 40-hour round trip dive to see their baby daughter for a 2-hour supervised visit.

Their problems were just getting started, unfortunately, as they faced persecution in Tennessee also based on the events in Connecticut.

Then a couple days after Thanksgiving, 3 Nashville detectives came to our door yelling and screaming through the door that they were “the police,” and to “let them in.”

It was really scary at first. We opened the door and let them in. They came in and looked around. They looked at both of our children and asked us what happened.

We told them what happened and how the hospital told us if we signed over our medical records to prove we had prenatal care, they would give us our child back (because initially that is what they told us, now 6 months later and we still don’t have our baby back, we realized it was never true.)

After hearing what we had to say, they were really very nice to us and we really appreciated their kindness.

Apparently while we were gone, the CT DCF had called the police in TN (both in Brentwood at my parent’s home and at our home in Nashville) and told them that we were being “investigated” for some terrible crimes and that our children were in “danger.”

They had the police go to all of our neighbors at both homes and tell them that we were being investigated for terrible crimes and that if we were spotted at either of these places, that they should call the police “immediately.”

One of our neighbors at our home in Nashville told us that he had been told that we were being investigated for “beating our children and terrorism.”

Now none of the rest of them will even speak to us.

People that we used to go to neighborhood bar-b-que’s with, and attend Christmas events and 4th of July gatherings together, now jeer at us as we walk our dogs and children down the street.

It was humiliating, completely unnecessary and we never did anything to deserve it.

Then the CT DCF told us we had to prove that we were not “gypsies living out of our car,” by giving them a copy of the lease to our house, so we sent them a copy of the lease at the house we were renting.

Then they called up, lobbied and harassed our landlord and got them to kick us out.

They asked us to “vacate” by the end of that month and then we had to spend tons of time and thousands of dollars moving our family and all of our furniture from the 2000 square foot house into another home.

The hospital allegedly then did the unthinkable, and sent them a huge bill for the time they were confined there:

Now this Middlesex Hospital and the practice where the doctors work who forced the c-section on me (Crescent street OB-gyn) are saying that I owe them nearly $50,000 (it is out-of network for my insurance) for holding us hostage at their hospital, performing a major surgery on me against my will, abusing and torturing us, refusing to give me my diabetes and blood pressure medicine until I got very sick having to go without it and then stealing our child from us and kicking us out.

My stitches got very infected and started collecting puss while we were staying at a nearby hotel in Connecticut, waiting for them to release our daughter, and then started popping out of my skin.

Baby Sofia Allegedly Suffers in Foster Care

baby sofia

Suzy writes how the foster care family taking care of their baby girl is allegedly receiving $1000 a month, but also using public assistance to receive subsidized food, and preventing them from providing better resources for their daughter. They also put her into day care at only 8 weeks old, where she developed a very severe life-threatening infection.

These days every time we get to see her she is sick with respiratory illnesses, diarrhea, and terrible diaper rashes.

After being in daycare for two weeks, our poor little Sofia ended up in the hospital with RSV fighting for her life. She had a 104 fever and she would scream in pain as her airway passages had to be periodically suctioned.

Her chest was rattling so loud, I have never heard such a rasping noise come from such a small infant. It sounded like a vacuum cleaner or a lawn mower just listening to her breathe.

The hospital staff at the Connecticut children’s hospital were so extremely hateful to us because we did not “have custody of our baby,” they acted like we had tried to kill our child and that’s why she was in the hospital in the first place! (When in fact the reason she was there was because the FOSTER PARENTS AND THE DCF insisted on sending her to daycare at 8 weeks old!!!)

This foster family they have her with is poor and is essentially using our daughter as an extra income. They live in a tiny little house in Waterford, CT and have cheap used baby supplies they get for free from the state for the precious little girl we worked so hard to have.

Several of the car seats they have been using for her are expired (and we have pictures to prove it.)

In addition to the free healthcare, free childcare, free diapers, free wipes, free formula and free baby supplies they get from the state, this “foster family” is also getting paid $1000/month to hold our daughter as their legal hostage.

If they did care about our child, they wouldn’t keep insisting on sending her back to daycare after [she] nearly [died from] RSV.

They are uneducated, middle-aged and do shift work. One of them works during the day and the other one works at night. What kind of life could these people possibly give to our little girl?! When she is 10 years old, they will be in their 60’s!

What kind of life could she ever have, never getting to know her real family, never getting to know who she really is?!

These are the people they are trying to say she is better off growing up with?! These are the people they are trying have adopt her against our will!!! What kind of life can they possibly give her??!!! Our daughter deserves so much more! She deserves to be with her family! We love her so very much and just want to bring her home!!!

Plea For Help

parents with baby

DCF in Connecticut has reportedly tried to get the parents to bring their other two children into Connecticut to “visit their sister.”

But the parents are not listening, fearing that they will kidnap those two children also.

They have already spent a great deal of money on legal fees with no results, and it seems that attorneys in Connecticut are afraid to go up against the powerful child welfare system.

My husband and I both have terrible nightmares about them torturing us and stealing our baby. Our life will never be the same. Every night after I tuck my children, I cry myself to sleep, wondering where my little Sofie is and if she is ok.

I wake up everyday in my own home and open my eyes. I hug and kiss my husband as he leaves for work. I sit my little boys down at the table to feed them breakfast but as I look out the kitchen window, I realize I am still their prisoner.

We are in constant fear that we will never get our daughter back and that we will lose our other children as well. They made all of these claims about us that we “must be criminals” and we “must be terrorists,” but in reality, they are the criminals who unjustly stole our child and they are the ones terrorizing us.

They have told us that we have “no chance” of winning against them and that when they get their judgement against us, after they get their corrupt officials to find us guilty of whatever it is that they are saying we are guilty of (I am still not even sure), that they will send a referral to the DCF in Tennessee to take our other children from us based on this Connecticut judgement alone.

Then we will have to pay out another $10,000-15,000 to pay for ANOTHER attorney to try to fight to get our other children back!!!

Everyone who initially told us they would help us, has eventually abandoned us. They are threatening, lobbying and bribing everyone in our path to not help us!!!

We paid nearly $5000 to an attorney in CT who did nothing for our case and is now [wants] another $10000.

He was initially on our side but after he said he wrote some emails and that took up “a lot of his time” and then started saying he wanted thousands of dollars more, and we didn’t have it to give him, he started turning on us!!!

He won’t even speak to us anymore until we pay him the money and has basically told us we can’t win anyway!!!

Every other lawyer we have contacted in Connecticut that acts like they MIGHT be willing to take our case has told us they want $10000-$15000 UP FRONT!!!

We have spent all of our savings on lawyer fees and driving back and forth to CT to see our baby nearly 30 times so far!! They keep trying to con us to take our other 2 children into their state so they can kidnap them too!

PLEASE HELP US GET OUR POOR DAUGHTER AWAY FROM THESE TERRIBLE PEOPLE!!!!!

PLEASE HELP US FIND A GOOD LAWYER (in Tennessee or Connecticut) TO GET OUR CASE TRANSFERRED TO TENNESSEE WHERE WE LIVE!

PLEASE HELP US RAISE MONEY FOR A NEW ATTORNEY SO THAT WE CAN GET OUR DAUGHTER BACK!

IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE LISTENING, PLEASE HELP US!!!!

Sources

Mother’s Facebook Page

Father’s Facebook Page

GoFundMe Page

Disclaimer

Everything published here is based on public information. Health Impact News has had no contact with the family, and has not been asked to publish this story by any of the family members.

The information was obtained legally, and is protected under the Free Speech doctrine of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Health Impact News has not received any communication so far from hospital in question, nor the social services agencies, to get their comments. They are free to send us a response. In our previous experience with these stories, they almost never respond due to alleged privacy laws.

Health Impact News does not claim any copyrights, and any material reproduced from the three sources linked to above are done so under the Fair Use Act.

We encourage other publishers to reproduce this material as well.

From FB: Stunning Ill. Appellate court decision kicks out thousands of pro se executors from Illinois court rooms–and may invalidate hundreds of estates now pending

In re Carol Matteson

Two years ago Carol Matteson died intestate leaving a couple of trailers worth $40k each and numerous small bank accounts and a pension fund.  Her son Danny Houlihan went to open his mother’s estate because his sister had gained control over the trailers and emptied out the bank accounts–for herself.

Son Danny is elderly, indigent and disabled.  He could not find or afford an attorney to handle his mother’s estate.  So he filed to open up an estate before Judge Malone who told him to get an attorney several times, but no attorney would touch the estate because it was under a $100k and the legal fees to recover small amounts of money stolen would exceed the amounts recovered.

Only Justice Hyman showed any real sense in all of this and wrote a stinging dissent that closing the door to the courthouse for perhaps several thousand pro se clients opening up small estates and requiring attorneys is simply going down the wrong path to lawlessness and fomenting long standing feuds in families where one person is allowed to steal an estate with impunity.

It’s long pst the time when pro se litigants are treated as second class or even non citizens.  If the court determines that an executor is not doing his job, others have the right to remove him.  That is the right way to ensure the greatest amount of justice in Illinois courtrooms.

Joanne

for  the decision: (please excuse any OCR errors)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RLz_DtLcBJI9zoWUeMtxjaN5MZz1VZVM

OPINION
Second Division
~ I )  Daniel Houlihan, a non-attorney proceeding pro se, petitioned the circuit court to open an estate for his mother, Carol Mattson, and for issuance of letters of administration, appointing him as independent administrator of her estate. The circuit court denied his petition without prejudice because Daniel, as a non-attorney, could not represent the legal interests of lUl estate in a pro se capacity. Daniel now appeals.

lBACKGROUND
In February 2017, Daniel filed a petition for letters of administration in the probate
division of the circuit court, which stated that Carol Mattson (Decedent), died on May 4, 2016, leaving no will. According to the petition, Decedent’s heirs were her three surviving children, namely, Daniel Houlihan, Brian Houlibail2 and Deborah Soraghan. Initially, the circuit court struck Daniel’s petition when he failed to aPpear in court to present it. Daniel subsequently filed a pro se motion for “permission to proceed in [the] process for] opening the ESTATE OF CAROL JOAN MATTSON.” On three separate occasions thereafter, the court· advised Daniel
. .
that he could not represent the legal interests of an estate as a non-attorney and continued the case in order “for [an] attorney to appear.” Instead, Daniel filed a pro se motion to “Appoint Son Daniel Houlihan [ as] Independent Administrator” of Decedent’s estate. Despite its prior orders. the court nonetheless continued the case “for [an] attorney to appear.”
~ 4 Ultimately, the court denied Daniel’s petition without prejudice on March.l5. 2018,
because he failed to obtain counsel to represent Decedent’s estate and could not represent the legal interests ot’ her estate as a non-attorney pursuant to Ratcliffe v. Apantaku. 318 Ill. App. 3d 621 (2000). Daniel has not retained counsel and is representing Decedent’s interests in this matter pro se as he did below. For the reasons to follow, we strike his brief and dismiss the appeal.
~5 ANALYSIS
~ 6 An individual not duly authorized to practice law cannot represent another 41 a court of . We note that there is no respondent-appellee in this case. As such, we will consider the merits of this appeal based on the record and petitioner-appellant’s brief only. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 111. 2d 128, 133 {I 976).
.’We note that Daniel’s brief indicates Brian Houlihan died in February 2018.
-2-
No. 1-18-0805
law. 70SlLCS 20511 (West 2016); Ratcliffe, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 625 (citing Blue v. People, 223
JIJ. App. 3d 594, 596 (1992». Thus, although a pro se litigant is entitled to represent his own personal interests, a non-attorney cannot represent another’s legal interests on behalf of that in Qividual. Ratcliffe, 318 lll. App. 3d at 626; National Bank of Austin v. First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, 53 IlL App. 3d 482, 488-89 (1977). Moreover, this rule includes a nonattorney seeking to personally to represent the legal interests of an estate. See Ratcliffe” 318 Ill. App. 3d at 626 (citing Waite v. Carpenter, I Neb. App. 321, 328 (1992» (stating, ” ‘[t]his is not to say that personal representatives must be attorneys. but, rather, that one who seeks to represent the legal interests of the personal representative must be an’attorney’ “). In addition, where one not licensed to practice law has instituted legal proceedings on behalf of another, the suit should be dismissed. Blue, 223 Ill. App. 3d at 596; Lake Shore Management Co. l’. Blum,92 Ill. App. 2d 47.50 (1968). ,7 Based on the foregoing; Daniel cannot represent the legal interests of Decedent’s estate in a pro se capacity, either in this court or in the action below, since he is not a licensed attorney or
a party to this suit. See 70S !LCS 20511 (West’ 20 16); Ratcliffe, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 627; ,Blue, 223 Ill. App. 3d at 595-96. Additionally, the suit should be dismissed because Daniel, as a nonattorney, has impermissibly institUted legal proceedings on behalf of another, i.e., the estate of Carol Mattson. This occurred when he filed motions pro se for “permission to proceed in [the] process [of] opening the ESTATE OF CAROL JOAN MAITSON,” and to “Appoint Son Daniel Houlihan [as] Independent Administrator” of Decedents estate, in addition to filing the present pro se appeal We note the dissent relies in part on the “petitions for letters of administration forms” in arguing that the denial of Daniel’s petition was improper. Not only are these documents from other counties and thus, inapplicable, but the rationale quite literally elevates
-3-
No. 1-18-0805
“forms” over substance, as the statutory language directly contradicts the analysis. 705 ILCS 205/1 (West 2016). And from Daniel’s brief, it is apparent that he seeks not only to pursue his petition to appoint an independent administrator pro se, but also intends, as independent administration’, to pursue claims against his sister for allegedly dissipating estate assets. Even our dissenting colleague would agree that Daniel cannot pursue the latter course pro se. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
’18 CONCLUSION
119 For the” reasons set forth above, we strike Daniel’s brief and dismiss the appeal. See Bille, 223 Ill. App. 3d at 596·97 (striking the briefs by a non-attorney pro se filed on behalf of another).
1110 Appeal dismissed ; Circuit court judgment affirmed.
1111 JUSTICE HYMAN dissenting~
1112 This appeal involves a barrier to accessing the civil justice system that does not exist. ”
llt3 Daniel Houlihan filed a pro se petition in the trial court seeking appointment as
administrator of his, mother’s estate. The trial court dismissed the petition, without prejudice, finding Daniel “cannot represent the legal interest of an entity in a pro se capacity because he is not an attorney licensed to practice law.” At this preliminary stage, Daniel is not representing the legal interests of his mother’ estate, as he has not yet been appointed administrator. He represents his own interest in serving as administrator, and need not need to hire an attorney to file the petition.
Thus, I dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s order denying Daniel’s pro se petition for letters of administration and would remand for further proceedings. I also dissent from the decision to dismiss Daniel’s appeal and to strike his brief.
1114 The Majority’s Decision
-4·
No. 1-18-0805
‘II J 5 As the majority notes, a self-represented litigant can represent his or her own interests, but a non-attorney cannot represent the interests of another. Blue v. People, 223 Ill. App. 3d 594, 596 (1992». Under the “nullity rule,” a court may dismiss a case jf a person who is not licensed ‘to practice law attempts to represent another party in legal proceedings. Applebaum v, Rush University Medical Center, 231 lIi. 2d 429,435 (citing Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sperry, 214 Ill. 2d 371 (2005). As our supreme court explained, the purpose of the nullity or voidness rule” ‘is'” * *, to protect litigants against the mistakes of the ignorant and the schemes of the unscrupulous and to protect ‘the court itself in the administration of its proceedings from those lacking requisite skills.’ ” ld. (citing Sperry, 214 Ill. 2d at 389-90 (2005) (quoting Janiczek v. Dover Management Co., 134 Ill. App. 3d 543,546 (1985).
‘1116 Both the majority and trial court cite to RatclijJe v. Apantaku, 318 Dl. App. 3d 621
(2008). There, the appellate court applied the nullity rule to dismiss a pro se wrongful death complaint filed by a special administrator on behalf of her mother’s estate. The appellate court found that the daughter brought the claims for damages in a representative capacity for the benefit of the decedent’s estate. ld. at 626-27. And, because a non-attorney may not represent the legal interests of another, the court dismissed the self-represented litigant’s complaint. The court also found that medical malpractice and wrongful death actions cases are “complex cases that require the expertise of an attorney.” ld.
OJ!7 In reaching its decision, the Ratcliffe court relied on Blue v. People, 223 ill. App. 3d 594 (1992). In Blue, a self-represented litigant made a complaint for an order of habeas corpus in the name of his, minor child, alleging the child’s mother had custody in violation of due process of ‘law. The trial court dismissed the complaint under section 2-619(a) (3) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (7~5 ILCS 5/2-619(a) (3) (West 2016), because of a separate pending case
-5-
No. 1-18-0805
between the same parties for the same cause. The appellate oourt, however, dismissed the appeal and vacated the circuit court’s judgment. Blue, 223 m. App. 3d at 597.
18 Citing the nullity rule, the court stated that “[o ]ne not duly authorized to practice law may not represent another in a court of law.” ld. at 596. “Where one not licensed to practice law has instituted legal proceedings on behalf of another. the suit should be dismissed; if the suit has proceeded to judgment, the judgment is void and will be reversed. [Citation omitted].” ld The court concluded the self-represented father, who was not authorized to practice law, could not  represent the interests of his son. The court also reasoned that a minor, who lacks the capacity to represent himself, should have the protection and expertise of an attorney. ld
19 Ratcliffe and Blue, however, do not support dismissal of Daniel’s petition. In both
Ratcliffe and Blue, the plaintiffs sought to bring pro se claims on behalf of another. In Ratcliffe a daughter, who had not yet been appointed administrator, wanted to sue on behalf of her deceased mother. In Blue, a father wanted to file a claim on beha1f of his minor son. Conversely, Daniel is not representing his mother or her estate. Daniel filed his petition under section 9-4 of the Probate Act, which permits “[a lnyone desiring to have letters of administration issued on the estate of an intestate decedent shall file a petition therefor in the oourt of the proper county.” 75’5
ILeS 5/9-4 (West 2016). Daniel seeks only letters of administration, which, if granted, would then permit him to act on the behalf of his mother’s estate. But, until appointed, he represents himself alone.
~ 20 According to Daniel’s brief, he has a sister and two deceased brothers, one of whom has two children. Daniel’s sister and his brother’s children are entitled to notice and may appear to oppose his appointment as administrator. 755 ILCS 5/9-5 (West 2016) (copy of petition must be mailed with time and place of hearing to heirs entitled to administer or nominate a person to
. -6-
No. 1-18-0805
administer estate). If, after a hearing, the trial court grants Daniel’s petition, he may act on behalf of the estate. Until then, Daniel and his sister, if she too seeks letters of administration, act on behalf of themselves as potential administrators of the estate and nothing in the Probate Act requires the hiring of an attorney to pursue those interests.

21 Notably, circuit courts in other Illinois counties permit self-presented petitions for letters of administration, as evidenced by the forms made available to the public on county court websites. The petitions for letters of administration forms in in DuPage County, Kane County, Lake County, and elsewhere include a box labeled “pro se,” which plainly permit the petitioning party to file tJ:te petition without hiring a lawyer. See
https://www.dupageco.orgfCourtClerklCourtFormsl. (DuPage County),
http://www.cic.co.kane.i1.us/eForl.ns/Pl-PR-007-E.pdf (Kane Comity),
https:llwww.lakecountvcircuitclerkorgfdocsldefault-source!probate/petition-for-probate-and-forletters-
1?! p-30-(rev-12-l7 )0328bae006ca6cf291 ebfftJOOOdce829.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (Lake County).
Interestingly, the form on the Cook County circuit court website does not similarly provide for a pro se petitioner to sign the petition. See
http://www.cookcountvclerkofcourt,orgIF011l1s1pdf fileslCCPN302.pdf.
~ 22 Given the absence of caselaw to support its holding or a circuit court rule prohibiting a petitioner from filing a pro se petition for letters of administration, I can only surmise the trial court may have applied an informal rule applied in Cook County that prohibits pro se petitions for letters of administration, If so, the practice should be abandoned, as it has no basis in law.
Further, it would violate due process to permit petitioners in other counties to file petitions pro se, while petitioners in Cook County must hire an attorney to file the petition.
-7-
No.l-lS-OS0S
,23 Daniel well may want to hire an attorney if he successfully petitions for appointment as administrator. But, until then, he represents no interests of the estate and neither the nullity rule nor the, cases cited by ‘the majority support dismissing his petition. Thus, I would reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings on Daniel’s pro se petition for letters of administration.
,24 Striking Appellant’s Brief
~125 I also dissent from the majority’s decision to strike Daniel’s brief. The majority dismisses Daniel’s appeal and strikes his brief on the grounds that he cannot appear pro se in the trial court or before this court. As noted, I disagree with the conclusion that, at this stage, Daniel represents any interest other than his own in being appointed administrator. Thus, I would not dismiss his appeal or strike his brief.
,,26 Moreover, by striking the brief, the appellate court effectively closes the courthouse ,door to a pro se appellant, like Daniel, Who thinks the trial court got it wrong. This punishes Daniel twice, once for not having hired an attorney- first by the trial court, which dismissed his petition on the grounds, improperly I contend, and’then in this court Where he may not appear pro se to present his arguments, Thus, I would not strike his brief but permit Daniel to present his arguments and have the appeal decided on the merits.
-8-

From Joanne;

there is no reason why Daniel cannot be a pro se administrator of his mother’s estate.  In such a position he is just standing in his mother’s shoes to carry out what she put in her will, or if there is no will, then he will distribute the estate according to the statute on distribution with the assistance of the probate court. There is no reason to think that a son cannot do what his mother would have done if she were alive and had to give away all her assets.

This decision is an absolute travesty of justice and a slap in the face to indigent pro se litigants everywhere.

Now only the rich can keep an inheritance from being stolen.

Nice going.

 

From FB: 9th circuit revives court case where 3 little girls removed from mother for pictures taken in bathtub without warrant.

This is exactly why children should not be removed without a court order or warrant.

9th Circuit Revives Suit by Couple Whose Children Were Seized Over Bathtime Photos

9th Circuit Revives Suit by Couple Whose Children Were Seized Over Bathtime Photos

A social worker took three little girls from their home without a court order because she thought the pictures were “sexually explicit.”

| 

Brandon K. / Yelp

Yesterday a federal appeals court revivedan Arizona couple’s lawsuit against two social workers who removed their three daughters from their custody for a month based on innocuous bathtime photos that were deemed “sexually explicit.” The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which rejected a federal judge’s conclusion that the social workers were protected from liability by “qualified immunity,” should strike fear into the hearts of overzealous functionaries who kidnap children under the color of law.

The trouble began for A.J. and Lisa Demaree in August 2008, when A.J. dropped off a memory stick containing photos of a family trip to San Diego at a Walmart in Peoria, Arizona, for printing. Some of the photos showed the couple’s three daughters, who at the time were 5 years, 4 years, and 18 months old, without their clothes. In one picture, the three girls were lying on a towel after a bath, their buttocks visible. In another, they were wrapped in towels and had their arms around each other. “None of the photographs portrayed children engaged in sexual activity,” the 9th Circuit noted. “None portrayed the children’s genitalia frontally.” A hypervigilant Walmart employee nevertheless called the police, prompting a visit by Det. John Krause of the Peoria Police Department.

Krause and his partner interrogated the Demarees and took their children for “forensic and medical exams,” which found no evidence of sexual abuse. Neither did a search of the family’s home, during which police “seized all the evidence that might be relevant to a child pornography investigation,” including “computers, printers, photographs, cell phones, undeveloped film, floppy discs, DVDs, CDs, VHS tapes, and cameras.” The Demarees were never arrested or charged with a crime. Laura Pederson, an investigating officer with Child Protective Services, nevertheless took it upon herself to remove the three girls from their home.

Pederson had the approval of her supervisor, Amy Van Ness, but did not bother to obtain a court order. Her justification, listed on the “Temporary Custody Order” that she gave the Demarees: “Mother & father have taken sexually explicit pictures of all three children.” The girls were sent to foster homes for two days, then spent a month with their grandparents before being reunited with their parents.

A juvenile court never determined that any of the girls had been neglected or abused, and a judge concluded there was nothing nefarious about the photos. Under Arizona law, child pornography includes “any visual depiction in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition,” defined as “the actual or simulated exhibition of the genitals or pubic or rectal areas of any person for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer” (emphasis added). In the absence of a sexual intent, pictures of one’s own children in a state of undress do not qualify.

The Demarees initially sued Krause, Walmart, the city of Peoria, and the state attorney general as well as Pederson and Van Ness. They reached a settlement with Krause, and the other defendants were dismissed from the suit, leaving only the two social workers. In 2014 U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver dismissed the case after concluding that, even assuming the truth of the Demarees’ allegations, Pederson and Van Ness had not violated any clearly established constitutional rights. The 9th Circuit disagreed, sending the case back to the district court.

Families have a “well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference,” the appeals court noted, and the government may remove children from their parents’ custody without a court order only “when officials have reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant.” Since there was no such risk in this case, the court said, the removal of the Demarees’ daughters was unconstitutional, and Pedaree and Van Ness should have known that based on specific, directly applicable precedents.

“The clearly established case law requires articulable, imminent, and serious physical injury or physical abuse to children to justify removing them from their parents’ home without a judicial order,” the court noted. “There was no such injury identified here.” Although the juvenile court was closed for Labor Day weekend, “the defendants did not suggest that there was any possible harm of the requisite sort to the children before the juvenile courts would reopen after the holiday…Because the defendants did not identify any risk of physical injury or molestation to the children, they did not identify the requisite risk of imminent physical injury or abuse.”

In addition to the torment and humiliation caused by the investigation and the removal of the Demarees’ children, ABC News reported in 2009, “Lisa, who works at a school, was suspended from her job for a year while the investigation was under way, and the couple spent $75,000 on legal bills.” Assuming that the Demarees ultimately obtain damages from Pederson and Van Ness, the example should help counteract the incentives that social workers have to break up families based on the slightest hint of danger, even when it exists only in the minds of people who habitually see innocent acts in a sinister light. The fear of being blamed for leaving children in abusive homes must be balanced by a fear of real consequences for erring in the opposite direction as egregiously as Pederson and Van Ness did.

from KKD; 54 nursing home death due to neglect and abuse never investigated and no one fined or charged