and admit that on December 7, 2009, the Sykes probate (pirate) court lost all its jurisdiction. This will include Guardian ad Lietem Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmeidel, Harvey Waller, Deborah Jo Soehlig and Amanda Byrens.
THEY ALL KNOW THAT THE COURT HAS BEEN ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE DECEMBER 7, 2012 when Carolyn Toerpe failed to serve any notice of the December 7, 2009 hearing upon the adult sisters and other daughter of Mary.
No dispute. All on the record and all well established fact. The declarations are published here. There is no filing of the notice together with a timely Certificate of Service.
No matter what Judge Stuart says, the issue is clear and just–THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED NON-SUITED and Mary allowed to return freely to her home and her other daughter who care for her lovingly for 10 years!
PS–Ken, if they are not in court at the start of the hearing, ask the Hearing Panel to get them on the phone. Tell their receptionist just who is calling them to ask about jurisdiction in the case that is starting against you.
Now for my comments on Ken’s emails
so far the Probate court (and I was thinking Pirate court when Mary’s other daughter made that typo! –that was assuredly an LOL/Freudian slip– makes all the family coming forward to report abuse and theft “shush” up so it never gets on a transcript. the court reporters only record the judge and miscreant attys then.
none if it then is on the record. Not only do the miscreants use the Prob/pirate court to clean the transcript record, they then cleanse the court file, an a list of the 80% missing files in the Probate court is also a crucial issue in your trial and argument, so don’t miss that one. Perhaps you should ask your tribunal to kindly step across the street and ask Judge Stuart to show them the file cart that has about 80% of the file missing. No orders are left from 2009. 13 large heavy volumes of appellate record. Professional cleansing. And don’t let them blame the other daughter or the other Sykes family–we’re putting everything we have on the internet and they can just pop open a laptop and see that too!
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 2, 2012 9:10 AMA Court speaks only through its written orders, thus, if there is no written order your sister acted ultra vires.However, if there is no jurisdiction even the written orders are void.Now tie in the Jerman case and apply the presumption that “lawyers and Judges are presumed to know the law” The GALs, Carolyn’s lawyer and the Judge all know that the order is void and when they act upon it they act illegally under color of statute. The de facto officers of the Court act in violation of 42 USCA 1983. Let us go one step further. The venue section of the statute also uses the word ‘shall.’ That means the venue is mandatory and In re: Sykes 09 P _____ is even in the wrong County!Ken DitkowskyFrom: the other daughter, summary
Missing assets:1) the Beneficial annuity now worth about $1000, maybe more2) GE stock worth quite a lot– I was also a beneficiary.3) Toerpe had mothers name removed off of the pension checks and4)Toerpe emptied all if the accounts at the Pullman Bank (Pullman is now US Bank in Norwood Park) and so mother no longer has any accounts in her name.5) Two if the three accounts I know of at Pullman bank had my name listed as joint owner was also removed. The three accounts had at least $20,000 at the time Toerpe kidnapped mother. Toerpe wrote mom only had six thousand (in an inventory?).The crimes are too great to even care about any more because Attorney Schmiedel teaches how to determine financial exploitation to other attorneys: obviously he knows how to cover up and churn assets with a holy veil of the permission of the Prirate (sp) court.From Me: I laughed when I saw the misspelling of Probate court and she’s right, tho it might be a freudian slip, the miscreants are operating in nothing but a Pirate Court!Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 1, 2012, at 11:45 PM, email@example.com wrote:
In re McCormack’s Estate, 50 NYS 2d 274 – 1944
Although a court-ordered withdrawal of funds from the Totten trust to be used for the depositor’s support amounts to a revocation to that extent, a committee or guardian cannot exercise the depositor’s right to revoke
– in Successor Trustees of Tentative Trusts: Trust Law Phantoms and one similar citation
Without a court order, the committee was without authority to terminate the trust by withdrawal of the entire fund on deposit with the bank
– in Gorfinkel v. FIRST NAT’L BANK IN YONKERS, 1963 and one similar citation
Should the depositor become incompetent, may his guardian reach the funds and if so, for what purpose?
– in Trusts
The above quoted statement, as well as the one by Bogert, apparently has its genesis in a few early New York cases.
– in Community Property-Management of Special Community of Incapacitated Spouse
—holding committee, upon appointment, has neither the power nor duty to close a Totten trust account under the guise of collecting the incompetent’s assets, may not change the registration by restoring it to the ward’s sole name, nor withdraw the funds and place them in a new account in the committee’s name as fiduciary
– in Successor Trustees of Tentative Trusts: Trust Law Phantoms
This case was treated as a tentative trust even though there was a trust agreement In the signature card of Hlbernla Savings and Loan Society which held the account.
– in Legal bulletin