IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT - PROBATE DIVISION

ESTATE OF
JOSEPH L. ZIARNIK
A Disabled Person

)
)
)
)
)

No. 08 P 8140

_________________________________________
Advocacy Guardianship Services, NFP,
as Limited Guardian of the Person
of Joseph L. Ziarnik and individually, Josh Mitzen
as Director, Advocacy Guardianship Services NFP and
individually; Devon Bank, as agent for
Joseph L. Ziarnik under Power of Attorney
for Property dated April 1, 2008, as Trustee of the
Joseph Ziarnik Trust dated April 1, 2008
and individually, and Janna Dutton, as attorney
for the Estate of Joseph Ziarnik and individually,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Tami Goldmann
Defendant.
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2-615 AND 2-619 AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF UNDER
THE CITIZEN PARICIPATION ACT
Defendant Tami Goldmann respectfully move this Honorable court to Dismiss plaintiffs
amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to Sections 2-615 and 2-619 then for further relief
pursuant under Act 110, 15 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, titled the Citizen
Participation Act (CPA) which protects speech in the face of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation (SLAPPs).

INTRODUCTION
1. This case focuses on constitutionally protected speech expressed by Tami Goldmann on
her Internet blog and website. In an attempt to silence Ms. Goldmann, prevent her from
disseminating information and participate in government, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint January
9, 2012 alleging multiple counts of defamation and violating a wards privacy.
2. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege Ms. Goldmann defamed them after she published
online their inhumane treatment of the elderly. She witnessed the Plaintiffs abuse, drug, isolate
and financially exploit a helpless elderly man through the use of guardianship. She kept a
journal, medical records of Mr. Ziarniks dangerous blood sugar readings, took photographs,
video and confiscated other evidence then set up a website and blog. She also wrote a report in
regard to Devon Banks abusive guardianships, participated in a public event in Washington,
D.C., and counsels victims of probate court. She does all this for free.
3. The Plaintiffs are asking this court to restrict Ms. Goldmanns freedom of speech, which
is protected by the First Amendment. In her opinion, the Plaintiffs are trapping, abusing and
financially exploiting the elderly and disabled. In order to voice her concerns, she published her
personal experience then set up a blog where she could post commentary. The Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint should dismissed and further relief granted under the Citizens Participation
Act. In support of this motion, Defendant states as follows:
FACTUAL HISTORY
4. The subsequent facts are what prompted Tami Goldmann into publishing her personal
experience and opinions online. These facts also establish Ms. Goldmanns statements on her
website, blog and any other actions in this case constitute protected activity under the CPA.

Any reference to Plaintiff pertains to Devon Bank, Richard Block, Sally Griffin, Josh Mitzen
and Janna Dutton.
5. In 2004, Tami Goldmann became Mr. Ziarniks part-time caregiver and moved into his
family apartment. She called Catholic Charities, Elder Protective Services in 2007 because his
friends were putting him on a diabetic sugar high in order to financially exploit him. Elder
Protective Services insisted Mr. Ziarnik write a will.
6. Catholic Charities gave Mr. Ziarnik a list of attorneys. Tami Goldmann called Janna
Duttons office and spoke to her paralegal, Pat Vader explaining that Mr. Ziarnik was reluctant
to write a will. Ms. Vader told her they could send a doctor to his home, deem him incompetent
and force him into guardianship. Ms. Goldmann declined but six months later, Mr. Ziarnik was
being exploited again. Catholic Charities insisted he write a will. Ms. Goldmann made an
appointment with Janna Dutton completely forgetting about her conversation with her paralegal.
7. At Ms. Goldmanns request, Catholic Charities escorted Mr. Ziarnik and her to Janna
Duttons office at the end of January 2009 to write his will. Mr. Ziarnik requested that Tami
Goldmann be Power of Attorney over his health and Ms. Dutton refused to give her a copy, the
only proof is the attached letter. Ms. Dutton also set up a Living Trust at Devon Bank to manage
Mr. Ziarniks estate. See Exhibit A
8. In June 2008, Richard Block was bragging about having free reign over the old mans
half a million dollars no courts to go through then spoke of how many people he owed jobs to.
Two of those people were Josh Mitzen and C&J Contracting. Ms Goldmann reported Mr.
Blocks unprofessional behavior to Janna Dutton three days after he transferred Mr. Ziarniks
money to Devon Bank in June.

9. The day after Devon Bank transferred Mr. Ziarniks money in June 2008, Ms. Goldmann
reported the trustees to Elder Protective Services for abusing the elderly. She reported Devon
Bank abusive several times in 2008. Ms. Sherry, the elder abuse investigator, helped get money
for Mr. Ziarniks basic necessities the day after they became trustee, an ATM card issued and an
accounting of his assets three months after because Devon Bank refused to give him a copy. The
trustees liquidated all Mr. Ziarniks assets and hired a lot of people without asking. Ms. Sherry
also tried to get a copy of his will but it took another six months to get it mailed to his family in
Germany.
10. Mr. Ziarnik fired Josh Mitzen after his second visit in June 2008 when Mr. Mitzen was
overheard on the phone denying one of his clients food and water. He stated that he went to
court and got an order to put his client to death. Mr. Ziarnik dismissed his services, Devon Bank
was notified and Mr. Mitzen stopped visiting.
11. Home Instead Caregiving Agency was hired in August 2008 for Mr. Ziarniks weekend
care, which later became full-time. After their involvement, Mr. Ziarniks health immediately
declined and his diabetes got out of control. His dangerous blood sugar levels are well
documented by Mr. Ziarniks physicians nurse, Tami Goldmann then several months later by
the nurse at JASC (Japanese American Service Committee), Mr. Ziarniks adult daycare.
12. On September 17 2008, Janna Dutton went to Mr. Ziarniks daycare with several court
documents revoking his current Power of Attorney and assigning her colleague, Josh Mitzen
temporary and full guardian. She forced Mr. Ziarnik to sign then ordered him a competency test
while on a diabetic sugar high. Tami Goldmann spoke to the daycare director at JASC. Neither

the director nor her staff met Ms. Dutton or the Plaintiffs prior to this day and were unaware of
why Mr. Ziarnik was being forced into guardianship with a stranger. See Exhibit B
13. Mr. Ziarnik requested Ms. Goldmann take him to court in January 2009 in order to
postpone the guardianship hearing for his sister to fly in from Germany.
14. Mr. Ziarniks sister flew in February 2009. Janna Dutton stopped by Mr. Ziarniks
apartment and he asked her to assign Ms. Goldmann his guardian. She refused; stating that being
a guardian was a job for a paid professional and insisted on Josh Mitzen. Mr. Ziarniks sister and
translator also tried to talk to her about assigning a family member and Ms. Dutton became rude
and openly hostile.
15. Tami Goldmann reported Josh Mitzen and Home Instead Caregiving Agency to Elder
Protective Services for abuse and neglect of the elderly in March 2009. They ordered Mr.
Mitzen to take better care of his client, control his diet and monitor his blood sugar.
16. In April 2009, Tami Goldmann wrote Janna Dutton a letter describing the abusive
situation she set up for her client. Similar to whats written online in A Story of Elder Abuse
https://sites.google.com/site/jospehludwigziarnik/ Ms. Dutton visited Mr. Ziarnik at his daycare
shortly thereafter and told him that she was evicting Ms. Goldmann. See Exhibit C
17. In September 2009, a junkman threw out the contents of Mr. Ziarniks basement. His
rare Polish book collection, his correspondence between his sisters, mother and other family
members in Europe, old family photographs, the furniture Mr. Ziarnik was storing for friends,
etc.
18. On June 23, 2010, Tami Goldmann published a website A Story of Elder Abuse
describing her personal experience with the Plaintiffs. On or about the same date, she also

published her personal opinions on her Blog https://jospehludwigziarnik.blogspot.com. She is

attempting to warn others of the Plaintiffs use of guardianship in order to abuse and financially
exploit the elderly and disabled. See Exhibit D
19. July 6, 2010, Janna Dutton read her website. See Exhibit E
20. From November 2010 to February 2011 - Tami Goldmann conducted further research
into Devon Bank by copying eighteen of their guardianships at the Circuit Court of Cook County
Probate Division. She summarized each victim and wrote a report mailing that to State and
Federal Government in April 2011. See Exhibit F
21. Tami Goldmann was notified that Sally Griffin was no longer employed at Devon Bank
in May 2011. A press release issued September 19, 2011 by Associated Banc-Corp announced
hiring or promotion of seven senior leaders of which Ms. Griffin was mentioned. Evidently,
Ms. Griffin is unaffected by what Ms. Goldmann published online and her request of
compensatory and punitive damages should be dismissed with prejudice. See Exhibit G
22. In June 2011, Tami Goldmann flew to Washington, D.C. with NOTEGA (National
Organization To End Guardianship Abuse) where she met with 40-50 others from 17 states and
gave a speech at the Rayburn Building in front of Health and Human Services, The American
Bar Association Division on Aging, The National Council on Aging, an Aide from Senator
Mark Rubio, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator John Cornyn and Congressman Ted Poe, a 20/20
Producer, Hearst Publishing and several other organizations. Her speech addressed the Plaintiffs
abuse and financial exploitation of Mr. Ziarnik and the eighteen other victims she researched.
Ms. Goldmann described the Plaintiffs attempt to exhaust estates as quickly as possible using

excuses to bill their clients. Ms. Goldmann also met with Staffers from Senator Mark Kirk,
Senator Dick Durbin and Congressman Mike Quigleys offices. See Exhibit H
23. On the advice of Senator Mark Kirk, Tami Goldmann sent her report in regard to Devon
Banks abusive guardianships in July 2011 to Honorable Timothy C. Evans, Chief Judge and the
Cook County Probate Court Judiciary along with a lengthy letter describing how the Plaintiffs
use their courthouse to trap the elderly and disabled into guardianship only to profit.
See Exhibit F
24. Tami Goldmann spoke to Congressman Quigley about the Plaintiffs. The photo of her
talking to his staffer was in his September 2011 newsletter. See Exhibit I
25. Senator Klobuchar and Franken introduced new federal legislation in September 2011.
They left the hearing open for one week to allow others to submit testimony. Tami Goldmann
submitted hers along with the report she did on Devon Banks Guardianships.
See Exhibit J and B
26. On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs served Tami Goldmann with a lawsuit citing
multiple counts of both defamation and Violation of a Wards Privacy.
27. On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include Interference with
Prospective Economic Advantage and False Light.
DESCRIPTION OF TAMI GOLDMANNS WEBSITE AND BLOG
28. A Story of Elder Abuse has 56 pages; the Plaintiffs are pointing out sentences on twenty
and taking the meaning out of context. The Defendants blogspot has around 110 posts
https://jospehludwigziarnik.blogspot.com, about 25 are dedicated to the Plaintiffs, and theyre
mentioned in 12 others. In the past twenty-one months, the Defendant also reported other issues

of public concern in regard to the abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly and disabled.
More than 70 blog posts that have nothing directly to do with the Plaintiffs but everything to
do with how they conduct business. For example:
29. The Elder Justice Act which is designed to provide federal resources to prevent, detect,
treat, understand, intervene in and, where appropriate, prosecute elder abuse, neglect and
exploitation.
30. The Guardian Accountability Office which released reports of the lack of oversight in
regard to fiduciaries and court-appointed guardians, their estimates of elder abuse cases being
reported and their financial impact elder abuse has on state and federal government. Also, the
GAO used fictitious identities, one who was deceased, and the other with bad credit to prove the
ease of guardianship certification in Illinois.
31. New legislation, S.1744 Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act introduced
by Senator Klobuchar and Franken MN.
32. HALT Guardianship Abuse, written by Carlos-Ramos Mrosovsky of Harvard Law
School and HALT Citizens Legal Guide. HALT has published the most informative,
compelling and comprehensive articles describing abuse and financial exploitation by guardians
and their attorneys.
33. Mickey Rooneys own horrifying experience and testimony before Congress being held
captive, threatened, isolated and financially exploited by his stepson which is very similar, if not
identical to what Mr. Ziarnik is suffering and many others all over the country.
34. Various other posts in regard to elder and financial abuse.

ARGUMENT
35. Defendant seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in its entirety. The
Plaintiffs claims of defamation can be dismissed pursuant to Section 2-615 of the Illinois Code
of Civil Procedure because the allegations are legally insufficient. Also, pursuant to Section 2619(a)(9). Specifically, the Defendant contends the affirmative defenses of truth, opinion,
innocent construction and statute of limitations warrant dismissal of the Plaintiffs amended
complaint in its entirety.
36. The Defendant is unable to answer the complaint concisely because it encompasses
numerous courses of action or counts without setting forth each count individually and that is not
in accordance with 735 ILCS 5/2-603(a)(b).
37. A defamation claim can either be per se or per quod. Defamation per se statements are
ones that are thought to be so obviously and materially harmful to the plaintiff that injury to
[his] reputation may be presumed. Bryson v. News American Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 87
(1996). Illinois law recognizes five categories of defamatory per se statements: (1) those that
impute the commission of a criminal offense; (2) those that impute infection with a loathsome
communicable disease; (3) those that impute an inability to perform or want of integrity in the
discharge of duties of office or employment; (4) those that prejudice a party or impute lack of
ability in the partys profession or business; and (5) those that impute adultery or fornication. Id,
at 88-89.
38. Alternatively, a defamation per quod statement is a defamatory statement that does not fit
into a per se category, but can still be established to cause damage to the Plaintiffs reputation.
See Bryson at 103. Statements expressing mere opinions or commentary do not constitute

defamation. See id. Indeed, Illinois courts have repeatedly dismissed defamation claims at the
pleading stage to protect an individuals ability to express opinions, level criticism, and
participate in debate. See, e.g., Seith v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 371 Ill. App. 3d 124 (1st Dist.
2007) (affirming dismissal under Section 2-615). The statements made at issue in this case are
not defamatory and accordingly this case should be dismissed with prejudice.
39. The Defendant published her opinions in regard to Devon Bank and the Plaintiffs
mistreatment of the elderly. She uses rhetorical hyperbole and editorial speculation to express
her outrage. Because all of the allegedly defamatory statements in the Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint are non-actionable opinions, Defendant cannot, as a matter of law, be held liable for
the defamation. Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in its
entirety.
This Court Should Dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint because Defendants
Statements are merely Non-Actionable Opinions and are Not Stating Facts
40. The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that defendants in defamation suits receive First
Amendment protection for their statements if they cannot reasonably be construed to be stating
actual facts. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 19 (1990). Even statements that fall
into a per se libel category can be protected under the First Amendment. Barakat v. Matz, 208
Ill. App. 3d 662, 667 (1st Dist. 1995). To determine if an allegedly defamatory statement has a
factual implication, courts in Illinois review three considerations: (1) whether the statement has a
precise and readily understood meaning and is not overly loose, figurative, rhetorical, or
hyperbolic language, (2) whether the context or forum in which the statement is made lends
itself to the credibility of the statement, and (3) whether a fact finder would be able to objectively
determine the statements veracity. Hopewell v Vitullo, 299 Ill App. 3d 513, 518-519 (1st Dist.
10

1998). If the statement does not present or imply facts about the plaintiff, then it is a nonactionable opinion and cannot provide a basis for a defamation claim. See id. In this case,
consideration of these three factors shows that Defendants alleged defamatory statements are
merely non-actionable opinions.
a) Defendants statements are non-actionable opinions because they were
hyperbolic and amounted to mere ridicule.
41. First, the court must consider whether the allegedly defamatory statement has a precise
and readily understood meaning. Id. The use of exaggerative or hyperbolic language, or
language intended to be mere ridicule or abuse are not defamatory. Id. For instance, in Horowitz
v. Baker, the court found that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs purchase of bricks as
sleazy, cheap, secret, and ripped off amounted to non-actionable opinion. 168 Ill App.
3d 603, 606 (3rd Dist. 1988). The Appellate Court found that dismissal was proper, agreeing
with the lower court that the statements were no more than rhetorical hyperbole. Id. At 609.
42. Here, in the Defendants Internet publishings, she uses hyperbolic and figurative words
and phrases like crooked, scam, abusing their positions, ransacking estates and other
statements that are without the required precise and readily understood meaning[s]. See
Hopewell at 519. Her rhetorical speculation How can she possibly get up and look herself in
the mirror every morning knowing that shes cheating and abusing an elderly Senior Citizen? or
It might be in regard to the amount of money shes making at the expense of her clients, who
knows? cannot even be considered a statement of fact as well as the rest of the editorial on the
Defendants website and blog.
43. All of the statements listed in the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are either speculation or
rhetorical hyperbole. None of these statements can be considered as being a statement of fact
11

with a precise and readily understood meaning. As a result, the statements are non-actionable
opinion and this court should dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety.
b) Defendants statements are nonactionable opinions because they were made
in a context of a subjective forum and no reasonable person would trust them
to be assertions of fact.
44. Next, the statements must be considered in the context or forum in which they were made
to see if the context or forum lends to the credibility of the statement. Hopewell at 519. For a
defamation suit, either per se or per quod, a written statement is to be considered in its context,
with words and implications read with their most natural and obvious meaning. Chapski v.
Copley Press, 92 Ill 2d 344, 352 (1982).
45. The context of the publication itself will often play a role in determining if the average
reader will take the writing to be fact or opinion. Specifically, courts addressing defamation
cases based on online blogs have noted that blogs are known for their personal, subjective, and
mere opinion-based postings. In Doe v. Cahill, defendant posted derogatory comments on his
blog about plaintiffs mental state and incapacity in his current job. 884 A.2d 451, 454 (Del.
2005). In finding that no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being
anything but opinions, the court discussed how blogs and chat rooms are widely known to be
normally and inherently unreliable sources of information. Id. at 467. Other jurisdictions
investigating the link between blogs and defamation cases have interpreted blogs the same way.
See, e.g., Hagaman v. Angel, 2005 WL 1390360 at *6 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2005)
46. The material in the present case was posted on a personal website and blog which, as
noted in Cahill, are well-known subjective forums that are inherently unreliable as a source of
factual information. The blog and websites purpose was to report abuse, isolation and financial

12

exploitation of an elderly man which is well noted on both websites. The Defendant states, This
is my story as his caregiver. The entire website is built around Defendants personal experience
and is a clear representation of only one partys side of the story. Under Hopewell, courts must
consider whether, in the context of the statement, a reasonable person would find the published
statements credible. Here, a reasonable person is already likely to anticipate that they will be
reading a subjective and opinion-based website and blog, just as one would when reading the
political flyers in at issue in Arrington and the editorial letters in the Wampler case. The fact that
the website and blog have a singular purpose to be against private paid guardians and their
attorney abusing and financially exploiting the elderly through Cook County Probate Court
only lends itself further to the fact that both website and blog are not to be relied upon for
objective, factual information. As a result, the statements at issue should be considered nonactionable opinion and this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in its entirety.
c) Defendants statements are non-actionable opinions because they are not
objectively verifiable.
47. Finally, for an allegedly defamatory statement to be actionable, a fact-finder must be
able to objectively determine the statements veracity. Hopewell at 519. When a statement is
made with no reference to facts and is intended to be a pure demonstration of opinion with no
verifiable or quantifiable question of fact involved, it represents a non-actionable opinion and is
protected under the First Amendment. See Sullivan v. Conway, 157 F.3d 092, 1097 (7th Cir.
1998). In Sullivan, the defendant, in a public forum, stated that the plaintiff was a very poor
lawyer. Id. at 1094. Judge Posner, writing for the Seventh Circuit and applying Illinois law,
found that the words stated a pure opinion that could be evaluated neither by a judge nor jury,
and fell into the protected realm of non-actionable opinions. Id. at 1097.
13

48. Corresponding with Sullivan, whether or not Plaintiffs actions are crooked, criminal,
or abusive, and whether or not they ransack estates, showered Ludwigs money on their
employees, or abuse their positions are pure opinions that, as Judge Posner noted, are far
beyond the evaluation of judge or jury. Sullivan at 1094. Likewise, defendants allegedly
defamatory statement that She [Janna Dutton] did nothing to protect her client from being
financially exploited, abused and neglected is purely within the realm of speculation and cannot
be considered a statement of fact, much less a verifiable statement of fact. Finally, it would be
impossible for a fact-finder to determine how one measures whether a business wants to result
to criminal behavior, by abusing their positions, their patrons with their own money, hiring
their friends only to ransack estates and financially exploit you until the day you die much
less determine whose crooked, abusive or on the take. Of the alleged defamatory
statements listed in the Plaintiffs Complaint, none are verifiable statements.
49. Defendants blog and online website represent completely opinion-based publications. It
is obvious to any viewer that the site is subjective and biased, that the statements made are done
so with colorful and hyperbolic language, and that information contained in these statements is
not to be taken as credible. Under the laws of this jurisdiction, these statements fall into a
protected category of non-actionable opinions and Defendant cannot, as a matter of law, be
found liable for defamation per quod or per se.
50. Further, that Count I sets forth merely conclusions and not any facts so that the Defendant
is unable to plead thereto.
51. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for in that Plaintiffs can adequately be
compensated by money damages and not entitled to any equitable relief.

14

This Court Should Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for Failure to State
Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted
52. The Defendant adopts and realleges herein all the arguments previously set forth in Count
I and asserts and sets forth same as to Count II.
53. Plaintiffs fail to state claims in Count II in which Plaintiffs allege interference with
prospective economic advantage. To sufficiently state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege: (a) a
reasonable expectancy of entering into a valid business relationship; (b) the defendant's
knowledge of such expectancy; (c) an intentional and unjustifiable interference by defendant
with the third-party that induced or caused a breach or termination of the expectancy; (d) damage
to the plaintiff resulting from defendant's alleged interference. Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172
Ill.2d at 406-407. This includes an allegation that the defendant engaged in specific action
against the party with whom the plaintiffs expected to do business. Schuler v. Abbott
Laboratories, 265 Ill. App. 3d 991, 994 (Ill. App. 1993). Moreover, the plaintiffs must allege a
business expectancy with a specific third party and not merely allege a general expectation of
future business. Id. The plaintiffs must furthermore plead, and eventually prove, purposeful
interference that connotes impropriety. See Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill.2d 460, 485
(1998). Indeed, there will be no liability for interference with a prospective contractual relation
where the defendant merely conveys truthful information. Cromeens, Holloman, Sibert, Inc. v.
AB Volvo, 349 F.3d 376, 399 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Soderland Bros. v. Carrier Corp. 278 Ill.
App. 3d 606, 620 (Ill. App. 1995)).
54. Here, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any specific third parties with whom it expected
to enter a valid business relationship. Plaintiffs have further failed to allege Defendants
knowledge of any such expectancies. Id. Rather, the Plaintiffs merely state members of the
15

public who are considering entering into a business relationship. This is insufficient. See
Schuler, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 994; Anderson, 172 Ill.2d at 407-408. In addition, Plaintiffs have
failed to allege that the Defendant intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with any third party
that induced or caused a breach or termination of an expectant business relationship. Because of
this, the Plaintiffs cannot sufficiently allege that conduct caused damage arising from a specific
failed expectancy. Thus, nearly every element of this claim (if not all) has been insufficiently
plead. See id. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims for Interference with Prospective Economic
Advantage in Count II should be dismissed.
55. Further, that Count II sets forth merely conclusions and not any facts so that the
Defendant is unable to plead thereto.
56. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for in that Plaintiffs can adequately be
compensated by money damages and not entitled to any equitable relief.
This Court should Dismiss Count III of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for Failure to
meet Illinois Law Requirements
57. The Defendant adopts and realleges herein all the arguments previously set forth in Count
I and II and asserts and sets forth same as to Count III.
58. The Illinois First District Appellate Court held that to state a cause of action for false
light invasion of privacy, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the plaintiff was placed in a false light
before the public as a result of the defendant's actions; (2) the false light in which the plaintiff
was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (3) the defendant acted with
actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard
for whether the statements were true or false. Brennan v. Kadner, 351 Ill.App.3d 963, 971 (1st
Dist. 2004).
16

59. For purposes of establishing a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy, Illinois
courts have adopted the actual malice rule. Dubinsky v. United Airlines Master Executive
Council, 303 Ill.App.3d 317, 330 (1st Dist. 1999). Actual malice has been defined by the Illinois
Supreme Court as knowledge that the statements made by a defendant were false or that such
statements were made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. Poulos v. Lutheran
Social Services of Illinois, Inc., 312 Ill.App.3d 731, 741 (1st Dist. 2000). To sustain a cause of
action for false light, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
60. Its the Defendants belief that abusing wealthy elderly and disabled citizens through
guardianship in order to profit is cruel and she said as much on her personal website and blog.
Personal opinions are protected under the Constitution. Being offended by someones opinion is
not enough to be held liable for a false light claim and therefore, this Court should dismiss Count
III in its entirety.
61. Further, that Count III sets forth merely conclusions and not any facts so that the
Defendant is unable to plead thereto.
62. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for in that Plaintiffs can adequately be
compensated by money damages and not entitled to any equitable relief.
This Court Should Dismiss Count IV of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint because it does
not set forth a Cause of Action.
63. The Defendant adopts and realleges herein all the arguments previously set forth re:
Count I, Count II, Count III and asserts and sets forth same as to Count IV.
64. The Complaint does not set forth a cause of action of the wards privacy in that the ward
does not set forth elements necessary to plead a proper Complaint. (1) An authorized intrusion
or prying into the plaintiffs seclusion; (2) the intrusion must be offensive or objectionable to a
17

reasonable person; (3) the matter upon which the intrusion occurs must be private; and (4) the
intrusion causes anguish and suffering. Mucklow, 176 Ill.App.3d at 893-894. The Ward has not
complied in his pleadings within the necessary four elements. Specifically, the Ward has not
satisfied the first element thereby not complying with elements 2, 3 and 4.
65. Further, that Count IV sets forth merely conclusions and not any facts so that the
Defendant is unable to plead thereto.
66. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for in that Plaintiffs can adequately be
compensated by money damages and not entitled to any equitable relief.
This Court Should Dismiss the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in regard to A Story of
Elder Abuse for failure to bring actions within the Statute of Limitations
67. Illinois has a one-year statute of limitations for defamation. See 735 ILCS 5/13-201.
The Plaintiffs filed this case on January 9, 2012 challenging certain statements made on the
Defendants website and blog more than one year prior to the date of filing. In particular, A Story
of Elder Abuse website that the Defendant published on June 23, 2010 and finished publishing
the bulk of it on October 6, 2010. The Defendant also removed a few paragraphs written after
January 9, 2011 as a good faith gesture. Janna Dutton read her site on July 6, 2010. Illinois also
adopted the Single Publication Rule. See 740 ILCS 165/1 (2008). The statute of limitations for
libel begins to run when a defamatory statement is first published on the Internet. Not when new
content is added. The subsequent distribution of existing copies of an original publication
neither creates a new cause of action nor tolls the applicable statute. Founding Church of
Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. American Medical Assn, 60 Ill.App.3d at 479 (1978).

18

68. Consequently, the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in regard to defamation and violation of
a wards privacy must be dismissed in regard to Defendants website, A Story of Elder Abuse
because it was not commenced by the time limited by law. 740 ILCS 165/1 See Exhibit D and E
This Court should award Defendant further relief under the Citizens Participation Act
69. The Illinois anti-SLAPP statute, the Citizen Participation Act, allows a movant to swiftly
dispose of a claim in a judicial proceeding on the grounds that the claim is based on, relates to,
or is in response to any acts of the moving party in furtherance of the moving partys rights of
petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government. 735 ILCS 110/15 Acts
in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, or to otherwise
participate in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except
when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result or outcome. Id.
70. Any motion brought pursuant to the Illinois Citizen Participation Act must be ruled upon
within 90 days of filing. 735 ILCS 110/20(a). Upon filing a motion to dismiss under this Act,
the burden rests on the Plaintiffs to produce clear and convincing evidence the acts of the
Defendant are not immunized from, or are not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability
by this Act. 735 ILCS 110/20(c) The Act shall be construed liberally to effectuate its
purposes and intent fully. 735 ILCS 110/30(b)
71. There is no doubt that the Plaintiffs targeting the wealthy elderly and disabled then
abusing, trapping, isolating and financially exploiting them through the use of guardianship is a
governmental matter of public concern. To succeed on her CPA motion to dismiss, Defendant
needs to demonstrate that her blog and website were genuinely aimed at procuring favorable
government action. Even if the Defendant statements are defamatory, injure Plaintiffs business

19

or invade a wards privacy (claims which Ms. Goldmann vehemently denies), she is still entitled
to a broad statutory immunity for her actions. The Act disregards Defendants intent or purpose
as long as her main objective is to engage in a matter of public concern.
72. To the extent that the Defendants actions might constitute protected acts, the sham
exception applies and recently introduced in Illinois:
Applying the doctrine and its sham exception to the facts of this case requires the
court to first consider whether objective persons could have reasonably expected
to procure a favorable government outcome [] through a public campaign like
defendants' campaign against plaintiff. If the answer to that question is "yes," then
the court need not consider the subjective intent of defendants' conduct. If the
answer is "no," then the court would consider whether defendants' subjective
intent was not to achieve a government outcome that may interfere with plaintiff
but rather to interfere with plaintiff by using the governmental process itself.
Sandholm v. Kuecker, 405 Ill. App. 3d 835 (2 Dist. 2010).
73. Aside from whats previously stated, the Defendant is not profiting in any way by setting
up a website, blog, court watching, counseling victims of probate court, flying to Washington or
speaking at public events. More examples of why this is a SLAPP:
74. In June 2010, when the Defendant set up her blog, she provided a brief description of
herself on her Blogger Profile
I was forced into becoming an Elder Abuse advocate after watching the trustees
from Devon Bank (Richard Block and Sally Griffin) hire Josh Mitzen (paid
guardian) to drug a little old man in order to steal his entire estate and person. I
am now working on new legislation and reform. (Emphasis added.)
See Exhibit K
75. Typically, though not always, the Plaintiffs in SLAPPs have more substantial resources
at their disposal with which to prosecute their claims than the defendant have available to
counter them. Economically strong Plaintiffs are thus in a position to absorb the costs associated
with protracted litigation in a manner not usually available to the prospective defendants. This
20

effect is only exacerbated by the often exorbitant damages sought in SLAPP suits. See
SLAPPed at 564. The lawsuit against the Defendant primarily addresses the concerns of Devon
Bank, Richard Block, Sally Griffin, Josh Mitzen and Janna Dutton. The cost of their lawsuit is
being billed to the Estate of Joseph L. Ziarnik. Therefore, the Plaintiffs profit by filing suit. See
Exhibit L
76. The Plaintiffs intention in filing these types of suits is not necessarily to prevail on the
claim, but to silence speechoften on matters of public importancethrough the threat of
damages and litigation expenses. Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler, 405 Ill. App. 3d 113, 119 (2nd
Dist. 2010). The Plaintiffs state, Ms. Goldmann is unemployed, and, receives Social Security
benefits as her source of income (Def. Compl. 6) yet, theyre suing her for 100K each. Even if
the Plaintiffs won this lawsuit, they know the Defendant wouldnt be able to pay.
77. It is important to recognize that SLAPP filers are not all malicious, any more than
SLAPP targets are all well intentioned. The parties' subjective motives - bad faith, intent,
frivolousness, intimidation, or even rightness or wrongness on the merits - are irrelevant. The
only critical issue is whether protected expressive activity triggered the suit, and is therefore at
risk. (Emphasis added.) See firstamendment.org/slapp.html. July 6, 2010 was the first time
Janna Dutton was aware the Defendant published online. On December 8, 2011, the Defendant
wrote the blog post, Devon Bank Trust Department - Putting Them Out of Business where she
summarized other blog posts and described the full extent of her public participation and
government activity in three paragraphs. The first two from her post.
Ive been diligently working on letting the entire world know this bank is
financially exploiting their elderly and disabled clients through guardianships. I
Xeroxed their court files, wrote a 33-page report describing (in detail) financial
abuse to 19 of their clients (in seven years), mailed it to every State and Federal
agency I could think of, spoke to all those agencies (absolutely lovely people),
21

Senator Kirk ordered a Federal investigation (along with everyone else in DC), I
walked my adopted victims up Capitol Hill, spoke to all our legislators about the
problem, sent it to the probate court judges and Chief Judge (because Devon Bank
was hiding their 2011 court records from me) then I put it on Congressional record a
few months ago. Devon Bank, Janna Dutton and Josh Mitzen made history. I even
set up a blog on the victims behalf.
Last week, one of the probate court judges refused to approve
Devon Banks fees. She said they charged way too much to manage an estate. Id.
78. Janna Dutton started printing the Defendants website and blog for this lawsuit on
December 13, 2011. Five days after that post was published. This was one of two blog posts
Ms. Dutton printed out that day, the rest after. See Exhibit M and Preliminary Injunction Exhibit
C, Document 34.
__________
79. The custom and usage of the legal profession is such that filings of pleadings are printed
on one side of the page. Not both sides as the present complaint.
CONCLUSION
80. In this case, the Defendant was so traumatized by the Plaintiffs trapping a wealthy elderly
man that she set up a website and blog to describe her opinions and voice her outrage. It is her
contention and belief that the Plaintiffs business practices are dishonest and they take advantage
of our most vulnerable citizens though guardianship.
81. There is no doubt the Plaintiffs lawsuit is based on, relates to, or is in response to Ms.
Goldmanns government activism and online public participation. 735 ILCS 110/15 Her blog
and website are genuinely aimed at producing favorable decision by state and local government
with respect to abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly and disabled through guardianship.

22

Therefore, her Internet activities are immune from liability under the CPA, and the Plaintiffs
suit must be dismissed with prejudice.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court to:
I. Suspend discovery for 90 days pending a ruling on this motion;
II. Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with prejudice
III. Award Defendant her costs and attorneys fees in connection with this motion, and
IV. Grant additional relief this Court deems appropriate and just under the
circumstances.

May 17, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
Tami Goldmann

By:___________________
Her attorney
Edwin J. Belz
4407 N. Elston Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630
773.282.9129
773.282.9811 (fax)
Cook County Attorney # 25663

23

24