Palonek Complaint - Canadian Court System

82 views
Skip to first unread message

a

unread,
Dec 29, 2010, 10:41:33 AM12/29/10
to
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.
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.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages