skip to main | skip to sidebar

A FATHER'S WORST NIGHTMARE-HIS WIFE SECRETLY ABDUCTED THEIR TWO YOUNG CHILDREN AND EMPTIED ALL HIS BANK ACCOUNTS INCLUDING HIS BUSINESS TAKING ABOUT $500,000+

A FATHER’S WORST NIGHTMARE-HIS CHILDREN WERE ABDUCTED AND ALL OF HIS MONEY WAS TAKEN-HIS WIFE WAS THE CRIMINAL!

READ ABOUT A FASCINATING CASE THAT I WON VERY RECENTLY-A CASE INVOLVING THE ILLEGAL ABDUCTION OF TWO YOUNG CHILDREN AND 100s OF $1000 DOLLARS! SCROLL DOWN TO READ IT!

Irving Solnik, Arguably The Best Toronto Lawyer PC, Practices and Excels At Numerous Areas of Law As You Will Read-He Is Brilliant and Awesome!

Arguably The Best Toronto Lawyer Is Irving Solnik. (click on the links below to navigate through all pages:

IRVING SOLNIK IS DIPLOMATIC, TOUGH AND ONE OF THE PREMIER TORONTO LAWYERS WHO AGGRESSIVELY PRACTICES LAW.

WHEN YOU NEED A NO NONSENSE FEARLESS AND ARGUABLY ONE OF THE BEST TORONTO LAWYERS FOR ANY LEGAL MATTER OR PROBLEM, CALL (416) 932-8509 AND TALK TO IRVING SOLNIK PERSONALLY AT NO COST OR OBLIGATION!

IRVING SOLNIK IS DIPLOMATIC, TOUGH AND ONE OF THE PREMIER TORONTO LAWYERS WHO AGGRESSIVELY PRACTICES LAW.

WHEN YOU NEED A NO NONSENSE FEARLESS AND ARGUABLY ONE OF THE BEST TORONTO LAWYERS FOR ANY LEGAL MATTER OR PROBLEM, CALL (416) 932-8509 AND TALK TO IRVING SOLNIK PERSONALLY AT NO COST OR OBLIGATION!

THERE ARE FEW LAWYERS LIKE IRVING SOLNIK. HE IS ON CALL UNTIL 10PM EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS TOO AT (416) 932-8509 AND FOR EMERGENCIES CALL (416) 854-7059 24/7. HOW MANY OTHERS DO LIKEWISE?

NOW TO A CASE I WON VERY RECENTLY INVOLVING THE ILLEGAL ABDUCTION OF TWO YOUNG CHILDREN AND 100s OF $1000 DOLLARS!

HAROLD’S WIFE SAID NOTHING TO HIM AND SECRETLY ABDUCTED THEIR TWO KIDS AND TOOK ALL HIS MONEY WITH HER TO WHERE HE DID NOT KNOW.

SHE TOTALLY EMPTIED HIS BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALL HE HAD (HE FOOLISHLY HAD GIVEN HER FULL AUTHORITY TO SIGN EVEN ON HIS BUSINESS ACCOUNTS).

THE NEXT DAY SHE FLED VERY QUICKLY WITHOUT A NOTE OR SOUND WHILE HE WAS AT WORK- WITH OVER 500,000.00 THAT HE KNOWS OF AND LEFT HIM NOTHING-NO WIFE, NO KIDS, NO MONEY-WHAT WOULD YOU DO? READ WHAT HARRY DID!

WE THEN FOUND THAT SHE HAD CARFULLY PLANNED WHAT SHE HAD DONE, OVER A NUMBER OF MONTHS.

HARRY WAS MARRIED FOR ABOUT 11 YEARS TO MARRY AND THEY HAVE TWO LOVELY CHILDREN, AGES 11 AND 5.

ONE DAY HE CAME HOME FROM WORK AND FOUND THAT NEITHER HIS WIFE NOR CHILDREN WERE THERE.

IT TOOK HIM TWO DAYS TO FIND THAT HIS WIFE HAD FLED TO CALIFORNIA WITH THE TWO CHILDREN SHE ABDUCTED AND HAD ALSO TAKEN ALL THE MONEY HE HAD IN THIS WORLD-OVER $500,000 IN CASH FROM THE SALE OF THEIR HOME AND ALL THE MONEY IN HIS BUSINESS ACCOUNTS!

AT FIRST HE COULD NOT BELIEVE IT AND WAS IN A STATE OF DENIAL BUT BY THE NEXT DAY HE AWOKE TO REALITY-NO WIFE, NO KIDS AND NO MONEY-WHAT TO DO? HE CALLED ME AFTER READING MY WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET. YOU CAN TOO-SIMPLY CLICK ON OR COPY AND PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO YOUR ADDRESS BAR:

www.irvingsolnik.blogster.com and

www.irvingsolniktorontolawyer.com

LET ME EXPLAIN!

I AM A TORONTO LAWYER WITH MANY YEARS EXPERIENCE IN NUMEROUS AREAS OF LAW AND ESPECIALLY IN ILLEGAL ABDUCTION OF CHIDREN-YOU CAN READ ABOUT IT IN THE FOLLOWING BLOG: http://myabductedsons.blogspot.com

My client became my client on December 31, 2007 when he called and asked if he could see me me about an emergency. Of course I agreed.

In two days my client and I were in court on an emergency motion asking the court to sign an order that would freeze the money in her bank accounts, to return the money and the children as well as all the documents she took with her including the children’s passports.

The Judge modified the order significantly and insisted it be served on her and to return to court several days later with proof that she was served. She was also ordered to come to the court but did not.

Through contacts we were able to find out where she was staying in California and served the court documents on her and the court order her at a fax number we found she used and a process server in California was sent by FedEx the court order and other documents to be served personally on Mary.

Two days later she was personally served with all the documents and the order that ordered her to return to Toronto with the kids and all else within five days. On the fifth day the court reconvened and a lawyer appeared for Mary-she did not attend- and he tried to create excuses for her but the Judge did not buy them and tongue lashed the lawyer.

The Judge then signed another order somewhat stronger than the first and ordered that it also be served on her and it was, within three days-ordering her again to return with the children, all else and appear in the court six days later.

We attended at the court at the specified time but she did not show up and the Judge again modified the order to one even stronger but she ignored it. She was served personally again in California and the next night she called her husband and apologized stating she wanted to return to Toronto-using the excuse that she needed some time to be alone-the reason she left.

In several days we found she was staying with her mother who lived in California some distance from LA-in a very dangerous area where drugs were constantly being sold and it was so dangerous that even when the police cruised the area they always did so with at least three officers.

My client asked me if he should accept her offer to return and I told him it was a decision that only he could make. However I warned him that in my opinion she was trying to stall for time, possibly to totally disappear.

He agreed with me, called her and said no. She then said she would return the children the following weekend if he let her keep all the money. Again I advised not to accept and offer her $50,000 which she refused.

Time was passing and it was essential that we obtain at least the children quickly lest they all disappear. I then decided to draft the strongest order I could conceive of and within two days we were in court again but with a different Judge.

Some four hours passed because the court was busy and we then were in front of the Judge. I strongly argued that the order I had prepared, a copy of which was given to the Judge be endorsed by the Judge who slowly and carefully read the entire file and then the order.

With barely a word the Judge signed it and I filed it with the court.

The next day the latest documents and court order was FedExed to California for service by the process server Harold used, a copy was also sent by FedEx to the house she lived in and another copy was sent to her by Purolator so that she could never claim she did not receive it.

It was necessary that the California Court endorse the order and then turn it over to the police and the Sheriff for service, to arrest her, obtain the children and hopefully the money she took and return all to Toronto.

My client decided to fly to California, obtain possession of his car that she had also taken and drove to California. Also with him were the court documents and orders I prepared, all now endorsed by the Judge and official.

When my client first came to me on December 31, 2007 I felt that I need at least several weeks to do all that was necessary, yet in about 20 days I obtained the necessary court orders to obtain a return of the children and the money Mary had taken.
It was far from easy and necessitated that I appear in court before three different Judges to finally get the order I carefully and especially prepared and signed by the last Judge.

Frankly it was a gargantuan task for me to obtain all three court orders with international ramifications so quickly but it was finally accomplished.

My arguments before the Judges were superb (I thought) and all three Judges were convinced. I had accomplished what many said I could not do so quickly. I devoted a good part of my time to so doing and did not forget I had other clients as well.

Court orders were sent to all the banks to provide information about the money taken from the various accounts.

The childrens’ school was contacted to explain their absence.
Process servers were obtained in California to serve all the documents on Mary and numerous other matters needed being looked after before Harold could go to California, find the children and bring them home and hopefully the money too.

He then decided to fly to California, pick up his car she had also taken and with which she, the money possibly and most important the children who hopefully would soon be returned to their father and then to Toronto. He was to leave for California on the 20th or 21st of January, 2008 and return as soon as possible thereafter.

What problems he will encounter in California are unknown. Based on the law in both California and Ontario the children should be given to him and all else that could be located.

However she could totally disappear, hire a lawyer and again stall for time-at least six months to establish residence there according to California law.

If she is able to succeed my client would need to retain a California lawyer as his only hope they could be returned before six months had passed-June 15, 2008.

Furthermore Mary had become friendly again with her first husband even though they were divorced. Her husband had previously been jailed for manufacturing and selling drugs.

Apparently he was jailed shortly after she arrived for narcotic offenses and it stand to reason that he is closely connected with the criminal element in California in the drug trade.

What would and could such criminals do to my client especially since his wife had some $500,000? I advised my client to be most careful for obvious reasons. Over the next several days I hope to know the final results and will than write another blog describing what happened in California.

Continue to follow and my blog to find out what happened. The following are copies of the three court orders with names and addresses and other matters being deleted to protect the children and their Father.

The following are the court orders, January 2, 2008, January 9, 2008 and January 16,2008. Names, addresses, and other material in the orders have been deleted or altered to protect the Applicant and his children.

Court Order January 2, 2008

ONTARIO Court File Number at Form 25: Order (General)
(Court office address) Temporary
Applicant(s) Final

(Full legal name & address for service: street, number, municipality, postal code telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any). Lawyer’s name & address: street, number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any).

The Honourable Irving Solnik
LAW OFFICES OF IRVING SOLNIK
100 Upper Madison Ave
Suite 1907
North York, Ontario M2N 6M4
Tel: 416 222 8509
Fax: 416 222 8501

Respondent(s)
Judge (Print or type name) Full legal name & address for service: street, number, municipality, postal code telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any). Lawyer’s name & address: street, number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any).
January 2, 2208

Date of order xxxxxxxx

The court heard an application/motion made by (name of person or persons)

The Applicant, xxxxxx

The following persons were in court (names of parties and lawyers in court)

Applicant: Irving Solnik (lawyer)
Respondent: Not Present (in California)

The court received evidence and heard submissions on behalf of (name or names)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The funds in the Bank of Nova Scotia shall be frozen.

2. All bank accounts of xxxxxx at the Bank of Nova Scotia shall be frozen.
3. All documents belonging to Applicant be returned to him forthwith by Respondent.

4. All documents belonging to any business owned solely by Applicant to be returned by Respondent.

5. All documents belonging to any business owned by to be copied and copies sent to Applicant. by Respondent.

6. Adjourned to January 9, 2008, at 9:30 am for argument re: jurisdiction of children.

7. Respondent to file material forthwith.

8. If the Court finds jurisdiction, argument shall be made re: return of children on January 9, 2008.

Put a line through any blank space left on this page.

January 2, 2008
Date of signature Signature of judge or clerk of the court

COURT ORDER JANUARY 9, 2008

ONTARIO Court File Number at Form 25: Order (General)
(Court office address) Temporary
Applicant(s) Final

(Full legal name & address for service: street, number, municipality, postal code telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any). Lawyer’s name & address: street, number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any).

The Honourable Irving Solnik
LAW OFFICES OF IRVING SOLNIK
100 Upper Madison Ave
Suite 1907
North York, Ontario M2N 6M4
Tel: 416 222 8509
Fax: 416 222 8501
. Respondent(s)

Judge (Print or type name) Full legal name & address for service: street, number, municipality, postal code telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any). Lawyer’s name & address: street, number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any).

Jan 9, 2008
Date of order

The court heard an application/motion made by (name of person or persons)

Applicant

The following persons were in court (names of parties and lawyers in court)

Applicant Father:
Respondent Mother: not present/

The court received evidence and heard submissions on behalf of (name or names)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. This matter will be adjourned for one week (to be heard on Wednesday, January 16, 2008, at 9:30 am) to enable the Respondent (mother) to file responding material and is pre-emptory on the Respondent.

2. The freezing order made by Justice xxxx, on January 2, 2008, will remain in effect and will be extended to and includes any and all bank accounts the Respondent has with the Bank of Montreal.

3. The Respondent will provide any and all documentation and information relating to any and all of the Bank of Montreal accounts held by the Respondent.

4. The Respondent has not complied with Justice xxxxx order regarding the return of documents and must do so forthwith.

5. This matter is adjourned for one week and will be heard on Wednesday, January 16, 2008, at 9:30 am.

Put a line through any blank space left on this page.

January 11, 2008
Date of signature Signature of judge or clerk of the court

COURT ORDER JANUARY 16, 2008

ONTARIO Court File Number (Name of Court)at Form 25: Order(General)

Temporary
Applicant(s) Final

(Full legal name & address for service: street, number, municipality, postal code telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any). Lawyer’s name & address: street, number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any).

The Honourable Irving Solnik
LAW OFFICES OF IRVING SOLNIK
100 Upper Madison Ave
Suite 1907
North York, Ontario M2N 6M4
Tel: 416 222 8509
Fax: 416 222 8501
Respondent(s)

Judge (Print or type name) Full legal name & address for service: street, number, municipality, postal code telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any). Lawyer’s name & address: street, number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers & e-mail address (if any).

January 16, 2008
Date of order

The court heard an application/motion made by (name of person or persons)

The Applicant,

The following persons were in court (names of parties and lawyers in court)

The court received evidence and heard submissions on behalf of (name or names)

The Applicant,

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Respondent shall within five days of the January 16, 2008 date herein pay the sum of $246,000.00 into the court.

2. The Respondent shall be restrained from depleting, transferring or otherwise dissipating her property or property in her possession or direct or indirect control, whether such property is held in her name alone or with a third party, and shall preserve same, including, but not limited to, all property held with the following financial institutions:

A) Bank of Montreal, including but not limited to the Bank of Montreal CIBC;
B) TD Canada Trust and/or Canada Trust;
C) Royal Bank of Canada and/or RBC;
D) Bank of Nova Scotia and/or ScotiaBank;
E) All financial institutions in which the Respondent holds an account in her name alone or with a third party, and including accounts in which the
Respondent has listed her name xxxxx

3. The Applicant is permitted to obtain from the financial institutions in which the Respondent has an account, any and all documentation and information relating to any accounts, loans, investments or other assets and debts that the Respondent has or had in the past, either solely, jointly, beneficially or otherwise, including any accounts held in the names listed in paragraph 2f) above.

4. The Respondent (mother) shall file responding material and is pre-emptory on the Respondent January 16, 2006, at 10:00 am.

5. The freezing order made by Justice xxx on January 2, 2008, will remain in effect and will be extended to and includes any and all bank accounts the Respondent has with the Bank of Montreal.

6. The Respondent is to provide any and all documentation and information relating to any and all of the Bank of Montreal accounts held by the Respondent.

7. The Respondent is to comply with Justice xxxxxx order regarding the return of documents and must do so forthwith. The banks hereinbefore referred to are to obtain and provide to the Applicant any and all documentation and information relating to any accounts including the disposition of funds in said accounts, loans, investments, other assets and debts that the Respondent has or had in the past either solely, jointly, beneficially or otherwise, any other accounts held in the names of the Respondent, namely xxxxxxx

8. The Province of Ontario, Canada and particularly the Superior Court of Justice xxxx has sole jurisdiction over the children.

9. The children, are habitually and ordinarily resident and have been habitually and ordinarily resident in the City of xxxxx Province of Ontario, Canada

10. The Respondent, x xxxxxxx (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent, has wrongfully removed the children,

11. The removal of the children, xxxxxxx is an unlawful removal as defined by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction.

12. This Court finds that:
a) The children, are ordinarily and habitually resident in the Province of Ontario, Canada;

b) No allegations were made to this Court that the children, would experience physical or psychological harm in the care of the Applicant, ( hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”); and

c) The wishes of the children, so far as they can be reasonably determined, are to be in the care of the Applicant, and to reside in the Province of Ontario, Canada.

13. The Applicant., shall have sole custody and daily care and control of the children,.

14. The Respondent, shall immediately return the children, to the Province of Ontario, Canada and to the care of the Applicant,.

15. As a term of the custody order, the Respondent shall not on her own or with the assistance of any other person, remove the children, from the Province of Ontario, Canada, without further order of this Court.

16. The Respondent, shall not change the ordinary or habitual residence of the children, the Province of Ontario, Canada, without further order of this Court or the written and notarized consent of the Applicant

17. The Respondent, xxxxxx shall immediately surrender to the Applicant, all passports, immigration and travel documents, original or certified copies of birth certificates, health cards and health records of the children, xxxxx from any government authority in or for Canada, the United States of America, the State of California or any other country or state in the United States of America.

18. The Respondent, is not permitted to apply for a passport, passport renewal or other travel document or birth certificate, from any government authority in or for Canada, the United States of America, or any other country and shall at no time be in possession of any such document.

19. The Respondent, shall have no access to the children until further order of this Court.

20. All federal, provincial and local police forces in Canada and in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the City of xxxxx Regional Police and the RCMP, hereby are directed and authorized , pursuant to section 36 of the Children Law Reform Act:

a) To do all things reasonably able to be done to locate and apprehend the children, and deliver them in to the care of the Applicant

b) To enter and search any place, at any time of day or night, where he or she has been reasonable and probable grounds to believe the children may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances.

21. All federal, state, and local police forces in the State of California or the United States of America are hereby requested to do all things reasonably necessary to locate and apprehend the children, , and deliver them to the Applicant.

22. The school and medical records of the children, shall not be directly or indirectly released to the Respondent, without the written and notarized consent of the Applicant or further order of this Court.

23. The time for the service of this Notice of Motion is abridged.

24. Costs of Motion shall be on an indemnity basis to the Applicant fixed in the amount of $2,000.00 payable forthwith.

25. Other costs as this honourable court deems just.

Put a line through any blank space left on this page.

Date of signature Signature of judge or clerk of the court

Irving Solnik Is Arguably The Best Toronto Lawyer
1907-100 Madison Avenue
Toronto, ON M2N 6M4

CALL 416.222.8509 - until 10 pm
416.854.7059 - for emergencies 24/7
416.222.8501 - fax

email: solniklaw@lawyer.com

When you need one of the best Toronto lawyers for any reason, call Irving Solnik at 416-222-8509 until 10pm evenings and weekends too!

Posted by Irving Solnik Barrister at 5:35 PM 0 comments