Question from Scott Evans:
That was an excellent recap of the first few months of the case. It is chilling to read.
It begs the question, something Tim said a year ago, about going back to the beginning.
Are there Court actions that can be entered into given the string of not just technically wrong, but completely incorrect actions by the opposing lawyers?
I bring it up because of all the emphasis on the Sodini aspect of the relatives not being properly noticed, events which followed the ones you just wrote about by only several months. To me, they appear to be more provable, more serious, more compelling, more powerful than Sodini. Do these glaring gaffs that you refer to have a name, a case law background?
Since Sodini can be brought up almost 3 years after the fact, can’t these other issues?
I did a REPLY ALL on this in order to garner wider responses and ideas. ~Scott
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:35:48 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sykes Case Jurisdiction
To: scottcevans@hotmail.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com
CC: elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; k_bakken@att.net; timlahrman@aol.com
The significance of Sodini is jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction
everything done in the Sykes case is void. The guardian ad litem are
‘de facto’ and therefore as there is no guardianship their actions are
unauthorized. As there is no jurisdiction their is no guardian ship.
No guardianship means that the drilling of the safety deposit box was
not authorized and was a garden variety larceny by trick. Citatons to
discover assets are also ‘ultra vires’ and therefore all this nonsense
of questioning Gloria as to her assets, seizing her assets is just
garden variety common law fraud, theft, false imprisonment and criminal
contempt of court.
Similarly the non-inventory of the assets removed from the safety
deposit box is theft! In addition as the mails were used to commit the
fraud our friends are guilty of 18 USCA 1341 (mail fraud). There are
least two predicate action and therefore the government can charge each
with RICO. Of course, theft as well as breach of fiduciary
relationship are taxable events. All of our friends are guilty of
conspiracy to evade the United States Income taxes Carolyn is guilty
of tax fraud.
Keeping Mary against her will is kidnapping on the criminal side and false imprisonment on the civil side.
On the other hand, had the Sodini notices been given the guardians
have 100% absolute immunity. Farenga and Stern have discretion as to
what they report to the Court, and the Court can issue ‘wrong and unjust
orders’ until the cows come home. Sodini is the lynch pin!
With two of the three necessary close relatives filing affidavits
that they did not receive the 14 day notices required to obtain
jurisdiction over Mary and her estate any judge who takes his/her duties
seriously would order an investigation. Most judges do not like to
enter orders that are beyond their jurisdiction.
What makes this case the ‘son of greylord’ is the fact that every
judge has had the jurisdictional issue raised and each avoided the issue
liket he plague. The lawyers who are presumed to know the law admit
that the Sondini protections were not afforded to Mary and ‘no one
cares.’ An honest investigation would find out why the Judges are
reluctant to determine if they had jurisdiction! An honest
investigation would require Carolyn to produce the inventory that Mary
kept in the safety deposit box. An honest investigation would find out
why Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al. are so afraid to participate in
the investigation and why they mislead the Court on a regular
basis. An honest investigation would look into Judge Connors dates in
December 2009.
Sodini goes back to Day One. If Sodini was not complied with each
of the guardians (including the GALs) is guilty of theft etc.from Atty Ken Ditkowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment