Defendants Answer to Complaint

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In the Estate of Joseph Ziarnik, Plaintiff,

v.

Tami Goldmann, Defendant.

No. 08 P 8140

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS

(JANNA DUTTON, JOSH MITZEN, RICHARD BLOCK AND SALLY GRIFFIN)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Defendant, Tami Goldmann, pro se, for her ANSWER and

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit is a sham and only being utilized so the Plaintiff's can profit and exhaust the

Estate of Mr. Ziarnik. The Defendant set up a website and blog describing, in detail, the abuse

she witnessed the Plaintiffs inflict on a wealthy elderly man. She explained how the Plaintiff,

Ms. Dutton utilizes her clients own funds to surround him with her paid employees only to profit

and promote herself. Ms. Dutton traps the elder in guardianship, writes his Trust to benefit her,

hires her colleagues to exploit him only to become sole heir by abusing the judicial process. This

lawsuit is an example of that abuse and further lends credibility to what Ms. Goldmann wrote

online.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Paragraph 1 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 1.

2. Paragraph 2 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 2.

3. Paragraph 3 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 3.

4. Paragraph 4 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 4.

5. Paragraph 5 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 5.

6. As to paragraph 6, the Defendant denies the first sentence. She lives at 3939 N.

Kostner Ave. Chicago, IL 60641. She agrees that she is unemployed and receives Social

Security Disability benefits. She denies that she met Mr. Ziarnik when she became his tenant.

She met him many times before he asked her to move in. She lived in his furnished apartment

reserved for family members.

7. As to paragraph 7, the Defendant admits she has a website and blog.

8. Paragraph 8 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 8.

9. As to paragraph 9, the first sentence contains no allegations against the Defendant

therefore, no response is required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in

the first sentence. The second sentence is true but only after Mr. Ziarnik discussed it with an

Elder Abuse Investigator. The Defendant denies the last sentence and demands strict proof she is

totally and permanently disabled.

10. As to paragraph 10, the Defendant denies the entire paragraph and demands strict

proof when Mr. Mitzen was hired and by whom.

2

11. As to paragraph 11, the Defendant denies the allegations in the first sentence. Before

August 2008, additional caregivers were already helping the Defendant. Mr. Mitzen only

recommended the change from LivHome to his colleague at Home Instead (See Def. Motion to

Dismiss Ex. F. In particular, Ms. Lucille Glickman page 13). She admits Mr. Ziarnik attended

adult daycare.

12. As to paragraph 12, the Defendant denies the entire paragraph. She demands strict

proof that Mr. Ziarnik's adult daycare staff complained to Mr. Mitzen about the care Ms.

Goldmann provided.1

13. As to paragraph 13, she denies the entire paragraph. She demands strict proof that

Mr. Ziarnik asked Mr. Mitzen to be his guardian. A court document that he was forced into

signing is not evidence of his wishes. Aside from asking his sister to fly in from Germany to

help him get away from Mr. Mitzen, he also mailed out Christmas cards that year. Ms.

Goldmann addressed the envelopes while Mr. Ziarnik wrote personal messages to his loved ones.

Mr. Mitzen must have something in writing from him and the Defendant demands strict proof

thereof or would like to call the entire staff at the Japanese American Service Committee as

witnesses.

14. Paragraph 14 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 14.

15. As to paragraph 15, the Defendant denies the entire paragraph.

16. As to paragraph 16, the Defendant denies the entire paragraph. Providing evidence

from employees they hired proves nothing. See also Def. Motion to Dismiss Exhibit F. Home

Instead Caregiving Agency made $500 a day and "allegedly" made more than $500,000 off one

1 The Plaintiffs did everything behind the back of Ms. Goldmann and Elder Protective Services by forcing Mr. Ziarnik in guardianship at his adult daycare. The Defendant only met or spoke with Mr. Mitzen a handful of times and thought he was a nice guy. Someone informed her otherwise aside from Mr. Ziarnik.

3

client. They also billed Mr. Ziarnik $500 daily. An organization on Ms. Dutton's payroll isn't

credible.

17. As to paragraph 17, the Defendant denies the entire paragraph and demands strict

proof thereof.

18. Paragraph 18 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 18.

COUNT I - DEFAMATION

19. As to paragraph 19, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies the allegations. This blog post is also dated January 7, 2011 and beyond

the one year statute of limitations.

20. As to paragraph 20, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies any allegation.

21. As to paragraph 21, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies any allegations. This statement

is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

22. As to paragraph 22, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies the allegations. They're all

also past the one year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

23. As to paragraph 23, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies the allegations. These

statements are also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

4

24. As to paragraph 24, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies the allegations. This is also

past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

25. As to paragraph 25, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies the allegation. This one is

titled, "Devon Bank Trust Scam" and Ms. Goldmann provided detailed information in regard to

this very scam. See Motion to Dismiss Ex. F. This is also past the one-year statute of

limitations. See Exhibit 1.

26. As to paragraph 26, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies the allegations. The Defendant

also removed this comment and a handful of others so her entire website, "A Story of Elder

Abuse" would be protected under the statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1

27. As to paragraph 27, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies the allegation. The statement,

"She [Janna Dutton] did nothing to protect her client from being financially exploited, abused

and neglected" is true. She's financially exploiting him through this lawsuit. She's admitting

guilt by filing under, "The Estate of Ziarnik" and forcing him not only to pay her to draft this

frivolous lawsuit but also to pick up the tab for her defense when she could have written the

Defendant a letter asking for its removal. Therefore, this is a true statement. This is also past the

one-year statute. See Exhibit 1.

28. As to paragraph 28, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

5

29. As to paragraph 29, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

30. As to paragraph 30, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

31. As to paragraph 31, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

32. As to paragraph 32, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This statement, "If Dutton has her way, Ludwig is going to be financially raped

until the day he dies." Obviously, if this lawsuit exists, she's getting her way. This is also past

the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

33. As to paragraph 33, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

34. As to paragraph 34, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

35. As to paragraph 35, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

6

36. As to paragraph 36, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

37. As to paragraph 37, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

38. As to paragraph 38, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

39. As to paragraph 39, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

40. As to paragraph 40, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

41. As to paragraph 41, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This is also past the one-year statute. See Def. Motion to Dismiss Ex.K

42. As to paragraph 42, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory.

7

43. As to paragraph 43, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory.

44. As to paragraph 44, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory.

45. As to paragraph 45, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory.

46. As to paragraph 46, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory.

47. As to paragraph 47, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context, denies allegations that they're defamatory

and this post has been removed.

48. As to paragraph 48, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory.

49. As to paragraph 49, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This post is dated December 9, 2010 and well beyond the one year statute of

limitations.

8

50. As to paragraph 50, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This post is clearly dated November 28, 2010 and well beyond the statute of

limitations.

51. As to paragraph 51, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory. This post is clearly dated October 5, 2010 and well beyond the statute.

52. As to paragraph 52, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true, admits they're being taken out of context and denies allegations that they're

defamatory.

53. As to paragraph 53, the Defendant denies the allegation and legal conclusion.

54. As to paragraph 54, the Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusion.

55. As to paragraph 55, the Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusion.

56. Paragraph 56 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 56.

57. As to paragraph 57, the Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusion.

58. As to paragraph 58, the Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusion.

59. As to paragraph 59, the Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusion.

COUNT 11 - INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

60. The Defendant reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 59 of this

complaint as though set fourth herein.

61. As to paragraph 61, the Defendant denies all allegations, legal conclusions and

demands strict proof that she interfered with future clients.

9

62. As to paragraph 62, the Defendant denies all allegations, legal conclusions and

demands strict proof that she interfered with the plaintiffs' prospective economic advantage.

63. Paragraph 63 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 63.

64. As to paragraph 64, the Defendant denies all allegations.

65. As to paragraph 65, the Defendant denies all allegations.

66. As to paragraph 66, the Defendant denies all allegations and demands strict proof she

interfered with future business of the Plaintiffs.

67. As to paragraph 67, the Defendant denies all allegations.

COUNT III - FALSE LIGHT

68. The Defendant reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 67 of this

complaint as though set forth herein.

69. As to paragraph 69, the Defendant denies the allegations and Plaintiff's fail to state a

claim under which relief can be granted.

70. Paragraph 70 contains no allegations against the Defendant therefore, no response is

required. If an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 70.

71. As to paragraph 71, the Defendant denies the allegations.

72. As to paragraph 72, the Defendant denies the allegations and Plaintiff's fail to state a

claim under which relief can be granted.

COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF WARDS PRIVACY

73. The Defendant reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 72 of this

complaint as though set forth herein.

74. As to paragraph 74, the Defendant denies the allegations.

10

75. As to paragraph 75, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and deny they violate the wards privacy. This is also past the one-year statute of

limitations. See Exhibit 1.

76. As to paragraph 76, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

77. As to paragraph 77, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

78. As to paragraph 78, the Defendant removed Mr. Ziarnik's photo.

79. As to paragraph 79, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

80. As to paragraph 80, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

81. As to paragraph 81, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

82. As to paragraph 82, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

11

83. As to paragraph 83, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

84. As to paragraph 84, the Defendant admits to publishing the statements, admits

they're true and denies they violate the wards privacy. This is also beyond the one-year statute

of limitations. See Exhibit 1.

85. As to paragraph 85, Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusions

86. As to paragraph 86, Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusions.

87. As to paragraph 87, Defendant denies the allegations and legal conclusions.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Truth. The Defendant asserts that all information written online is true and

insignificant details do not make a statement false. The content is true, substantially true or

protected opinion.

3. Constitutionally protected speech. Defendant's website and blog are protected speech

under the First Amendment of the United States. Her website and blog are also protected under

the Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article 1, Section 4.

All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a sufficient defense. Emphasis added.

4. Innocent construction. The Defendants statements are innocently construed when read

in proper context.

5. Non-actionable opinion. The Defendant expressed her personal opinion.

12

6. Statute of Limitations. Of the 43 paragraphs cited in the Complaint, 35 are beyond the

one-year statute. See Exhibit 1.

7. Lack of damage and failure to mitigate damages. No act on the part of the

Defendant caused or contributed to whatever injury (if any) Plaintiffs may have suffered.

8. No provable false assertions of fact. The Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of

proof that what's published online is defamatory. By filing suit, they lend the Defendants

website and blog more credibility.

9. Failure to prove malice. The Defendants statements were not false or made with a

reckless disregard for the truth.

10. SLAPP violation. The alleged defamatory statements of which the Plaintiffs

complain are related to a matter of public concern and protected under Act 110/15 of the Illinois

Civil Procedure or Citizen's Participation Act. The Defendant was SLAPPed. Four days after

the first court date in 2012, Ms. Dutton faxed the Defendant's former attorney a letter threatening

to add two counts and "once again" try to intimidate her with a Probate Judge. See Exhibit 2

11. Unclean hands. The Plaintiffs profit by filing this lawsuit under The Estate of

Ziarnik. Only 15 paragraphs are dedicated to him. The Plaintiffs are also using the Defendants

own inheritance to sue her then want her to pay them damages for warning the public and

exposing their crime. Ms. Goldmann also had no way of proving this until the Plaintiffs filed a

report on court record. They've never done this before and want the court to know that they've

2 This type of bullying and SLAPP suit needs to stop in this case and in Probate court. People are taking to the Internet accusing the Probate Court Judiciary of being biased because of these types of letters. Loved ones/family members are being threatened and become too frightened to fight Ms. Dutton for custody when she SLAPPs them with a guardianship hearing. See also Exhibit 3. She makes a mockery of the courthouse and judicial proceedings by insinuating the Judges are also on her payroll. The Defendant also stood before Judge Cesario and she didn't do anything Ms. Dutton threatened.

3 Submitting this on court record is inappropriate, unimportant and unprofessional. Utilizing Mr. Ziarnik's court case to submit their "first" assessment only to brag about exhausting his estate and talk of the Defendant is not only unethical but an admission of guilt. Mr. Mitzen should also consider taking a writing course.

13

accomplished their objective. They've succeeded in exhausting Mr. Ziarnik's estate through this

frivolous lawsuit therefore, they've proven financial misconduct. See Exhibit 4.

12. Single Publication Rule. Pippen v. NBC Universal Case 12-3294 Multiple lawsuits

and harassment of Defendants because they passively maintained a website or blog.

13. Violation of wards privacy, intrusion upon seclusion. Plaintiffs fail to prove Mr.

Ziarnik is embarrassed by what's published. He's demented.

14. Corporations can't sue for false light.4

15. Moral obligation. It's the Defendants moral obligation to report a crime, notify the

public and let the buyer beware. It's our civic duty to get involved to protect the less fortunate

especially in regard to those who are put in positions of trust.

16. Incompetence. The Defendant would like to discuss why she got involved in the

crime although, Mr. Mitzen summed things up perfectly in his report. Ms. Dutton had no

intention of allowing anyone to inherit and couldn't profit yearly by utilizing Probate Court since

she set up a Living Trust. A defamation lawsuit allows her to make money and open a new

office in Westchester. It's also easy for the Plaintiffs to submit lies on court record when the

financial records remain hidden.

17. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971) the United States Supreme Court found that

pro se pleadings should be held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys.

18. The Defendant would like to add things later if that's possible. She can prove Mr.

Mitzen perjured himself and everything he claims is false.

4 The Defendant doesn't know who's suing her? All attorneys consulted explain the names listed on the front cover of the lawsuit are the litigants. In this case, it's Devon Bank but Paragraph 3 indicates Richard Block and Sally Griffin. If it's the bank, they can't sue for false light. If it's the trustees, their names belong on the front cover.

14

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant prays this

Honorable Court grant the following relief:

A. Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice;

B. Suspend discovery for 90 days pending a ruling on this motion;

C. Award Defendant attorney fees in connection with this motion;

D. Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.

Tami Goldmann Pro Se 3939 N Kostner Ave Chicago, Illinois 60641 Telephone: (773) 416-2965 #99500

Respectfully submitted,

15

March 23, 2012

By Facsimile (773) 282-9811 and Regular Mail

Edwin J. Belz Attorney at Law 4407 North Elston Ave Chicago, IL 60630

Re: Advocacy Guardianship Services NFP et. al. vs. Tami Goldmann Case No. 08 P 8140

Dear Mr. Belz:

I note from your client's recent blog posting on March 21st, continuing the publication of her defamatory and libelous material, that she believes many of her defamatory postings are somehow protected by the statute of limitations. Unlike material published on paper, blog and web postings on sites that are frequently updated constitute republications. As any search engine optimization consultant will testify, when original publications are altered by adding new material to a website or blog, the publications reach a new audience as the sites are given a new and different rating in google's search algorithms. With each new posting, the entire blog and website will come up differently in a search, reaching a new audience. Had your client not continued to add on to her blog and webpage, it is likely that the plaintiffs may not have had to file suit against her as her blog and webpage would not have reached much of an audience. The republication of defamatory material constitutes a new cause of action if it is altered so as to reach a new audience. Blair vs. Nevada Landing Partnership, 369 Il. App. 3d 318 (2nd Dist. 2006). Goldmann's entire website and blog are republished each time she alters them with new material. In fact, it is the plaintiffs' position that Goldmann's posting of March 21st wherein she states everything that she has posted to date is true, is yet another republication of the defamatory material and a new cause of action.

Additionally, if this matter is not settled, the plaintiffs fully intend to amend their pleading to add a cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage which has a 5-year statute of limitations. The fact that interference with prospective economic advantage is caused through defamation does not affect that cause of action or its 5-year statute. Colucci v. Chicago Crime Commission 31 Ill. App. 3d 802 (1st Dist. 1975). Judge Cesario, the

Appointments Available in Skokie and Arlington Heights

guardianship Judge, has offered to issue an Order of Protection against Goldmann to protect the rights of her Ward. I hope that this will not be necessary and that Goldmann will remove all material which is a violation of Mr. Ziarnik's privacy lights.

In settlement of this matter, the plaintiffs demand the following:

1. Goldmann's immediate removal of both the referenced website and blog; 2. Goldmann's removal of any publications by Goldmann on any media of any

statements regarding plaintiffs, the plaintiff's businesses, the plaintiff's current or former employees, or Joseph Ziarnik;

3. Goldmann's agreement, evidenced by court order and enforceable by the court, chat she will never again publish anything in any media regarding any of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff's businesses, the plaintiff's current or former employees, or Joseph Ziarnik; and

4. Payment of $20,000 to plaintiffs.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Janna Dutton

February 16, 2009

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Tami Goldmann 3813 W. Montrose Ave. #2 Chicago, IL 60618

Re: Joseph Ziarnik

Dear Ms. Goldmann:

Enclosed please find copies of two Court orders entered on February 13,2009. Advocacy Guardianship Services (by Josh Mitzen) was appointed as Limited Guardian of Joseph Ziarnik, and the Guardian was specifically authorized to control the content of communication by third parties with Mr. Ziarnik.

Josh Mitzen and Advocacy Guardianship Services ("AGS'") should be contacted with all questions and concerns regarding Mr. Ziarnik and is the sole decision-maker with respect to Mr. Ziarnik's medical care and medical providers. You do not have authority to make medical decisions for Mr. Ziarnik or choose his physicians or medical care providers. The caregivers will be reporting to Mr. Mitzen and taking direction from him. You do not have authority to make appointments for Mr. Ziarnik, decide whether Mr. Ziarnik does or doesn't go out, or whether he goes to day care. You do not have authority to determine Mr. Ziarnik's care plan. As Guardian, AGS or their authorized representatives (which includes Wendy Katten) has these authorities.

Mr. Mitzen asked me to convey to you that he is directing you to refrain from discussing with Mr. Ziarnik his finances, the cost of services provided to him and any decisions regarding major purchases, including the purchase of a car. He is directing that you refrain from discussing with Mr. Ziarnik any issues relative to his caregivers and care plan, and that you refrain from discussing with Mr. Ziarnik any complaints you have regarding Mr. Mitzen or Advocacy Guardianship Services. Please discuss directly with Mr. Mitzen any concerns you may have relating to Mr. Ziarnik. If you have serious concerns that you have brought to Mr. Mitzen that you believe have not been adequately addressed, please communicate those concerns to me.

Mr. Mitzen will be contacting you to meet with you to discuss the specifics of your ongoing role with Mr. Ziarnik. I advised Mr. Mitzen that Mr. Ziarnik wants you to remain in his building and have a role in his care. AGS welcomes your opinion, and if there are any appointments or information you feel it should know, you can call Josh or Wendy anytime at 847-401-4460 or email him at josh@advocacy-services.com. Both Josh Mitzen and Devon Bank will be in contact with you to set up a meeting to discuss future plans.

Ms. Goldman February 16, 2009 Page 2

With respect to Mr. Ziarnik's finances, Mr, Mitzen will be receiving and reviewing with Mr. Ziarnik the statements of Devon Bank and will be communicating with Devon Bank on Mr. Ziarnik's behalf. He will be specifically inquiring about the collection of rent by Devon Bank and will discuss with Mr. Ziarnik and Devon Bank the issue of the purchase of a replacement vehicle for Mr. Ziarnik, As you have no authority and no role in Mr. Ziarnik's finances, Mr. Mitzen has asked that I relay to you that you are not authorized to open his mail or review his financial statements, are directed to refrain from discussing with Mr. Ziarnik the purchase of a car, are directed to refrain from making any statements to him alleging that Devon Bank is stealing his money and are directed to refrain from making any statements to him that will upset him.

Please note that Judge Coghlan specifically directed Mr. Mitzen to bring to her attention any interference with Ms decisions as Guardian of Mr. Ziarnik by you or any other caregiver.

Sincerely,

Janna Dutton

cc: Josh Mitzen w/encl. Sally Griffin

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

The Estate of

Joseph L. Ziarnik

A Disabled Person

No. 2008 P08140

REPORT OF THE LIMITED GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON

Pursuant to the Illinois Probate Act, Advocacy Guardianship Services (AGS), limited guardian of the person of Joseph L. Ziarnik, submits its report as follows:

AGS was appointed plenary guardian of the person on February 13, 2009, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Probate Division.

Mr. Ziarnik is now 88 years old. He still resides in his residence in Chicago and continues to have live-in caregivers through Home Instead Senior Care.

Mr, Ziarnik continues to suffer from numerous health ailments that limit him both physically and mentally. He has heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and limited mobility, requiring the live-in care he continues to receive from Home Instead Senior Care. He also has had prior mini-strokes and is incontinent.

He continues to reside in 3-flat building he owns, which used to house his insurance office. His apartment is right behind his former 1 s l floor office, which has been renovated to house the live-in caregivers. He has been enrolled with Rainbow Hospice since July, 2012 with a dementia and end stage heart disease diagnosis. They visit regularly and recertify him every 2 months to continue with their services. The hospice regularly reports to AGS that Mr. Ziarnik is still with us due to the excellent care he receives from his caregivers.

When we were appointed, Mr. Ziarnik allowed a woman, Tami Goldman, to continue to live upstairs from him rent free. She was very controlling of his situation and made it very hard for us to provide the needed care for the ward. But after many episodes of her interference, including her trying to physically prevent the workers from touching him, the ward decided to evict her from his property, doing so in May of 2009. However, Ms. Goldman has continued to post false statements about us and this case on the internet, and has even included private details and a picture of the ward without our permission. Her blogs are littered with false statements about this case and accusations of Elder Abuse against AGS, Devon Bank, and our attorney, Janna Dutton. Meanwhile, while she lived there, the local Elder Abuse agency was indeed involved, but was suspicious about the actions of Ms. Goldman, not about any of us.

Since Ms. Goldman was evicted, AGS has been better able to take care of him and he has thrived, surprising all his doctors. He has continued to have the same main caregiver who he adores and he benefits greatly from the one-on-one care he receives. He had told us his intention to always remain in his home and has strongly resisted

attempts to talk to him about moving him. And at this point, being so used to having so much attention, moving to a facility which would only have a 9 or 10 to 1 ratio of staff to residents, would be a big change for him and we think it would not be in his best interest.

His trust is managed by Devon Bank, and they have informed us that his assets are running down. They secured a reverse mortgage to help pay bills to keep him at home, but it is running out. Our plan has always been to keep him home as long as possible before having to place him at a facility.

AGS visits as needed and is in contact with the hospice and with Home Instead. Mr. Ziarnik's diagnosis remains unchanged, and a guardian continues to be appropriate for him.

Respectfully submitted,

Josh Mitzen Director, Advocacy Guardianship Services

Date