Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mother sues daughters in bid to seize control of children's trust

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mother sues daughters in bid to seize control of children's trust

    for thous who so sure that mother are angels and father are evil


    April 21, 2011 - Burlington, Ontario (PDF Version at end)
    Mother sues her own daughters in an effort to seize the children’s trust!
    Children forced out of their own home by their hostile-aggressive and abusive mother who then launches a court action to strip the children of their home held in trust.

    full article Mother sues daughters in bid to seize control of children's trust | Canada Court Watch

    I do not have words even to describe ..

    Married for three years and collecting support payments of $9,000 a month for the past 16 years sounds almost unbelievable but true in this case.
    Last edited by WorkingDAD; 05-09-2011, 11:25 AM.

  • #2
    Crazy, but crazy does happen.

    Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
    Married for three years and collecting support payments of $9,000 a month for the past 16 years sounds almost unbelievable but true in this case..
    I do see one thing that CCW did here, and does very well in other articles, is fail to clarify that the $9000 a month in "support" was child support. The way it is worded it is meant to mislead and confuse the reader to possibly mean spousal support (they just say "support" leaving it vague unless you read the whole article).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
      Crazy, but crazy does happen.



      I do see one thing that CCW did here, and does very well in other articles, is fail to clarify that the $9000 a month in "support" was child support. The way it is worded it is meant to mislead and confuse the reader to possibly mean spousal support (they just say "support" leaving it vague unless you read the whole article).
      I would say that does not really matter what kind of support of that... Dosen't it? Did you read whole article?

      That in spite of the mother receiving $9,000 a month in child and spousal support, the mother complained to the children that she wanted more money from their dad.
      Last edited by WorkingDAD; 05-09-2011, 12:20 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        And when will we hear what the judge said?

        I hope he literally threw a book at "mommy dearest".

        Comment


        • #5
          Here is a typical example of how the divorced Dads are being 'enslaved'
          to a corrupt system

          Children's names is replaced with XXXX and XX respectively to protect
          their identity

          Schedule 1
          This is a complaint regarding three (3) solicitors and a legal assistant

          The Parties:
          Applicant: Angela Sandra Palonek
          Applicant s Solicitor: Lorna M. Yates
          Respondent: Edward Palonek (self represented) / Complainant
          Respondent s Solicitor: N/A
          Court Appointed Arbitrator: Thomas G. Bastedo
          Legal Assistant to Court Appointed Arbitrator: Ruth Rocchetti
          Solicitor for Ruth Rocchetti: Philip M. Epstein
          (but in actual fact is the solicitor for the Court Appointed Arbitrator)
          Superior Court of Justice Court File: 13967/93
          Children of the Marriage:
          XXXX XXXX Palonek, born August 25, 1990
          XX XX Palonek, born July 9, 1993
          Background:
          1. The Applicant and I were married on September 8, 1989. We have lived
          separate and apart since November 1, 1992. We signed a Separation
          Agreement on September 30, 1993 ( Separation Agreement ).

          3. We have two children, Christine who is 20 years old and Samantha who
          is 17 years old.

          4. The Applicant and I were divorced by court Order dated July 16, 2001.

          5. After the Divorce Judgment was issued, the Applicant commenced an
          unmeritorious motion seeking to, amongest other things, to set aside the Divorce Judgment. Her motion was dismissed, as if heard on its merits
          by the Honourable Mr. Justice Langdon on January 8, 2003 ( Justice
          Langdon s Order ). As well, our date of separation and valuation date was confirmed as November 1, 1992 in the final Order of Justice Langdon.

          6. His Honour s Order provides that the Applicant and I shall have joint
          custody of the children. The children were kicked out of their home by
          their mother, the Applicant, over 2 years ago and are now deemed to
          reside with me.

          7. An arbitrator was appointed by the Court and his name is Thomas Bastedo.

          8. We executed an Arbitration Agreement on or about May 17, 2006, and
          agreed to binding arbitration, whereby Thomas Bastedo would be the
          Arbitrator. Attached is a copy of the Arbitration Agreement.

          Complaint

          9. Communications have recently come to my attention, which confirms,
          Thomas Bastedo, Lorna Yates, Philip Epstein and Ruth Rocchetti, have
          conspired, contrary to governing Acts, to defraud me and my children out
          of a large quantum of funds, as well as, my rights under the law.

          10. Thomas Basdeto is the Court Appointed Arbitrator acting between
          myself and my ex-wife (the Applicant), in a binding Family Law
          Arbitration scenario.

          11. I have remitted fees to Thomas Bastdeo to arbitrate various matters
          over the years.

          12. In the summer, I filed a motion for Leave to Appeal Thomas Bastedo's
          Awards 5 + 6.

          13. An endorsement in that matter was just rendered, December 17, 2010
          basically dismissing my right to appeal.

          14. Copies of communications may be made available, if deemed necessary,
          between Philip Epstein, Ruth Rocchetti and Lorna Yates, confirming the facts, herein.

          15. Copies of communications will clearly demonstrate, that Thomas
          Bastedo is, in actual fact, the client of Philip M. Epstein and NOT Ruth
          Rocchetti. The contrary arrangement has always been represented to
          myself, as well as, in open court before Justice Tulloch and in their materials filed in the matter, by Philip Epstein's, associate, Michael Zalev.

          16. In a communication from Lorna Yates, she states that Ruth has
          retained Phil (actually Tom has retained Phil) . This mere fact alone
          represents the irreconcilable conflict of interest on the part of my
          (supposedly) impartial and unbias Arbitrator, Thomas Bastedo, not to
          mention falsely representing information before the court. In his
          capacity as Judge how can he explain away his desire (or necessity) to
          attempt to conceal his alternate role.

          17. In communications from Ruth Rocchetti, she states that Tom wanted
          me to ask you one more time if he should file something you already
          advised US that he should not .

          18. Ruth further states that Tom asked her to ask you to phone Lorna
          Yates and ask her if she filed anything in response to these allegations
          against Tom. Tom will be phoning me tomorrow morning to find out what
          you think he should do and also to obtain Lorna s response .

          19. The Arbitrator, Thomas Bastedo is the client of Philip Epstein and
          not Ruth Rocchetti. As stated, Thomas Bastedo has managed to conceal
          this fact from the court and to myself and by doing so, is in Contempt
          of Court and is in violating the Law Society s code of ethics, together
          with other violations with other Acts and Statues.

          20. In letter that I sent to Philip Epstein, dated June 18, 2010, I
          requested various documents and I asked him specifically who had
          retained him, Ms Rocchetti or Thomas Bastedo. Mr. Epstein did NOT
          provide me with any documentation, nor did he provide me with an answer,
          as to who actually had retained him. Attached is a copy of my letter.

          21. Thomas Bastedo through his lawyer , Philip Epstein is constantly
          seeking direction and instructions from Lorna Yates. There is evidence
          that, Lorna Yates is providing said instruction and direction to the
          Arbitrator's council (Philip Epstein) on how he should proceed on our
          court appearance and Arbitration (that Tom (is actually presiding over)!

          22. In one sample exchange of communication, Lorna Yates informs Phil,
          NO thanks...I would prefer to keep Tom on as arbitrator, so I'd like to
          lay low in that regard . The context was that Philip Epstein was
          communicating with Lorna Yates, to determine, if Lorna would like Tom to
          resign (which I have been insisting on for a while). Lorna Yates s
          response to Phil was NO, I would like to keep him on, in case I need
          him for something else in the future .

          23. Lorna Yates freely admits in open communication, that the
          Arbitrator, Thomas Bastedo was (in fact) wrong (actually willfully
          mislead by Lorna) when it came to the critical fact of whether the
          children were actually residing in the Applicant's residence, during the
          time Tom deliberated quantum s against me in Awards 5 and 6. Lorna
          states that "even though Tom had Sam with you she is not- and on a boat
          and you've also changed her room, so I don't think that's a useful road
          to no down". The critical issue here, is that Lorna Yates knowingly and
          deliberately allowed her client and herself to commit perjury, in the
          Applicant's sworn statement(s) before the Arbitrator, causing BINDING
          highly punitive (incorrect, unjust) Award(s) to be levied against me.
          The force and effect is that since our Arbitration agreement is binding
          on the parties and can only be appealed, by way of an error in Law, it
          becomes highly unlikely that I will be able to remedy this extreme
          example of unlawful activity on the part of the Applicant and her
          council. The actions herein, have lead to an extreme miscarriage and
          abuse of Power and Justice. The Applicant and Lorna Yates cannot be
          allowed to succeed in their unlawful activities, as it would allow the
          administration of Justice to fall into complete disrepute.

          24. Lorna Yates further communicates that "'whether Sam's is actually
          living there or not, there Is the smell test when you are in litigation
          with her on a separate matter and she has not slept a night in your home
          since the end of August...". Once again, Lorna Yates is condoning and is
          consciously conspiring with her client Angie Palonek, in
          producing and promoting, knowingly false sworn statements, before the
          Arbitrator, in order to purposely compel him to make a more financially
          favourable Award(s) in favour of the Applicant, regardless of how;
          unjust, unfair, and untrue, it may be.

          Comment


          • #6
            25. Lorna Yates, communicated that she had spoken with Thomas Bastedo
            recently. She stated that "Tom and I chatted the other day and he asked
            what was going on and was lovely - he is not a fan of Edward". Their
            actions were highly unethical, not to mention bias for someone who is
            essentially acting, as a sitting Judge, according to Lorna Yates own
            email, attached herein, dated December 20th, 2010.

            26. In this email to me, sent by Lorna Yates on December 20th, 2010, she
            states that I am not OK with you (i.e. me) speaking with Tom privately
            only because a Judge would never speak to a party privately . Yet, as
            stated above Tom and Lorna feel quite comfortable speaking to each other
            about my file on a regular basis, without my knowledge or consent,
            although as she stated, Tom is a like a Judge, notwithstanding the
            disparaging and unethical nature of their comments about me. It is
            obvious from her own email that Lorna Yates and Thomas Bastedo are
            engaged in unethical, unprofessional and unlawful behavior. She freely
            admits that this type of behavior is wrong yet, both her and Thomas
            Bastedo, ignore the Rules and Ethics that do apply to them. Attached is
            a copy of her email.

            27. Lorna Yates further stated that "for as dumb as every lawyer tells
            me Justice Tulloch is I think he is just lazy enough not to want to give
            Edward leave, and I am going to prepare as if I am lecturing to a
            kindergarten class...". This is just another example of unethical and
            disparaging behavior towards a sitting Judge. Her comments are very
            unprofessional and her conduct is unbecoming of the profession. I am
            confident that The Honourable Justice Tulloch will have his own opinion,
            with respects to her contempt for the Bench.

            28. Lorna Yates would constantly communicate with Thomas Bastedo's legal
            assistant Ruth, without my knowledge or consent, for a variety of
            reasons, but not limited to; checking on the progress of things, unduly
            Influencing Ruth, present new evidence, and to request Ruth to ask the
            Arbitrator to speed up the release of his Awards. I truly do NOT want to
            believe, that Lorna is acting in a similar unethical and becoming manner
            with the personal legal assistants of other sitting Judges? I am seized
            to Thomas Bastedo in a binding Arbitration matter, which is only
            appealable, by way of an error of law, which in many ways has, in fact,
            given Mr. Bastedo elevated power and authority, than that of a regular
            Family Court Judge. Therefore, the heaviest imposition of his duty of
            care, as to bias, impartiality and unethical behavior, under the
            Arbitration Act (eg, Sec. 19.1) must apply. Thomas Bastedo must be held
            to the highest of Ethics and Standards.

            29. Lorna Yates communicates that she has a source and her source told
            her that "Tom's trial settled on Friday and he is now writing his reason
            on our motion..."

            30. Lorna Yates further communicates, that with respect to Award 5,
            "Tom's reasons came in. He waited on purpose because he must have had
            the inside track on the Court of Appeal decision - It only came out on
            September 11th. He is pretty amazing for doing that."

            31. In communications from Lorna Yates, she, acknowledges that the
            Applicant is co-habiting, which means pursuant to the terms of the final
            Order of Justice Langdon, that spousal support is no longer payable by
            me. Lorna has concealed and misrepresented this super critical fact to
            the Arbitrator and the Courts. In one communication with her client she
            says, "Angie are you insane? Your email to Edward practically
            acknowledges that you are cohabiting with Roy". This mere admission of
            the fact by Angie and acknowledgment by her council, Lorna Yates to
            consciously conceal, this fact, has the complete force and effect of
            rendering Tom Bastedo's Awards 5 and 6 completely without any foundation
            or merit, whatsoever.

            32. Lorna Yates further communicates " I hope that Tom is OK and one day
            soon we'll be done with this". I constrew this as a serious threat by
            Lorna Yates and Tom Bastedo. Tom Bastedo and Lorna Yates were
            instrumental in compelling me (through an Award) to perfect the
            paperwork on a $ 750,000 irrevocable life insurance policy, in favour of
            my ex-wife. Thomas Bastedo s Award also goes into detail about how my
            death certificate and other documents are to be given, on an expedited
            basis, to my ex-wife in order for her and her lawyer to collect on these
            proceeds.

            33. Lorna Yates freely communicates that she is involved in an active
            campaign to slander and discredit me. In one communication, Ms Yates
            states that "yep - I've already tainted his assistant Syliva and told
            her what a nutso Edward is", Sylvia is the legal assistant to the
            co-trustee to a piece of property, that I settled Into a trust, to which
            my children are beneficiaries The Applicant, Angie Palonek (mother of my
            two children) has commenced separate litigation against my two children,
            in order to unjustly take over their interest in this property. Angie
            Palonek physically attacked my older daughter and kicked her out of the
            (children's) house. Angie Palonek has done everything humanly possible
            to make my younger daughter NOT welcome in the house, as well.

            34. Both my children are having a very difficult time dealing with the
            extreme stress the Applicant is placing on them, through her litigation
            against her own children. I attempted, before Thomas Bastedo, to get
            counseling for my children, but both he and the Applicant were able to
            thwart my attempts to help the children, even though they were begging
            for it, and Thomas Bastedo refused to hear their pleas.

            35. Lorna Yates has also fraudulently re-invoiced her client, Angela
            Palonek, at the request of her, so as to assist her client in unlawfully
            deducting a substantially higher portion of her Counsel s fees, by
            reclassifying the nature of her counsel s services performed, contrary
            to the Income Tax Act and Criminal Code of Canada.

            36. As indicated, the above communications has come to my attention, as
            well as many others, that further demonstrate the depth of deceit and
            deception that these lawyers and my duty bound Arbitrator (under Section
            19.1 of the Arbitration Act) are willing to descend to, against me and
            the courts.

            37. As you can imagine, the scope of this deceit, unethical and
            fraudulent activity by these lawyers and assistants is highly sensitive,
            and time is of the essence. I believe that these lawyers will go to any
            lengths to possibly dispose of their incriminating evidence. As such, I
            am respectfully requesting, that the Law Society immediately notify the
            parties, named herein, not to delete, rename, re-classify, re-file in
            any other heading or name; all paper files, electronic files, email
            files or in any other format relating to the Palonek file or files or
            however else named.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by WorkingDAD View Post
              I would say that does not really matter what kind of support of that... Dosen't it? Did you read whole article?
              Yes, I read the whole article.

              I also read where the $9k was child support. And if it is c/s, it really doesn't matter what amount it is because it is based off of the NCP's income, which if c/s is $9k a month, would be in the neighbourhood of $600k + per year.

              Yeah, it is high to ppl like us and a form of wealth transfer. But we aren't making over 1/2 a million a year. It is just a proportionate amount given the guys income.

              All the issues re: support aside, she is a nut and likely will not succeed in her plans. If it were so easy, NCP's would have been doing this same thing years ago (having the child no long claimed as a child of marriage).

              Comment


              • #8
                umm you may want to edit. In point #3 you gave the kids names.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                  umm you may want to edit. In point #3 you gave the kids names.
                  that the way I found it on internet... I will try to find that link again. There is no way I could new names. I do not know thous people and ... I noticed it too. thinking hm - on the beginning it said XXX but later some names... I actually sought it some other names... But again I just copy it from some news group.

                  What is really funny (and I would say scary in our time) that just entering last name in Google and Google will give you suggestions...

                  EDIT:
                  here is link
                  http://groups.google.com/group/alt.e...42faa8361681be
                  Last edited by WorkingDAD; 05-10-2011, 09:29 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by resourceful View Post
                    Have a complaint about the misdeeds of Lorna M. Yates? Join a complaint to the Upper Canada Law Society and potentially a class action lawsuit at lornamyates | Just another WordPress.com site


                    Best of Luck Resourceful - I hope you find justice!! Good to see your not taking it lying down.

                    Complacency is Canada's cancer!

                    Comment

                    Our Divorce Forums
                    Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                    Working...
                    X