Susanne Marie ThompsonPO Box 1146Hayes, Virginia 23072-1146Phone: (424)-268-0188

Date: November 19th, 2013

Regarding; Charges of perceived fraud

Statement Attachment A to Rule 506 of PA Law, Private Criminal Complaint Form;

To Whom It May Concern;

On July 22nd, 2013, I received a letter from Attorney, Stephen R Gibble, with a request for permission to sell a Trust asset known as the real estate located at 920 Perry Road, Lititz, PA 17543 in the township of Warwick, Lancaster, PA. Said letter being 3 pages long. Said letter requested permission to sell a Trust asset, described above, from 3 Trustees. A copy of this letter is attached as exhibit 1, subsection exhibit B.

The letter requests permission to sell the Trust asset in question and fails to show consent by any of the Trustees being asked for said consent and is the request coming from attorney, Stephen R Gibble.I, Susanne Marie Thompson did not consent. Permission to even sell said Trust asset had never been requested of me, Susanne Marie Thompson and according to the Trust instrument known as the Sharp Trust, a request must be made in writing by Arthur E Sharp and Virginia M Sharp in advance for consideration.

That Thomas E Sharp, Trustee, had contracted with one Kevin Kohl of Hauenstein Agency, Inc. known as Hauenstein Realty and the address known as 321 East Main Street, New Holland, PA 17557, and their phone number being (757)-733-9194. That said contract was for the sale of the house known as 920 Perry Road, Lititz, PA 17543 and in the township of Warwick. That said contract was signed by Thomas E Sharp in place of Arthur E Sharp and Virginia M Sharp with legal right to sign under such as Plenary Guardian of Arthur E Sharp and as legal power of attorney for Virginia M Sharp , but fails to show consent of Virginia M Sharp to do so. That said contract to sell said asset is dated May, 31st, 2013 and equally signed by one Kevin Kohl on behalf of the above mentioned real estate company. Please see exhibit 2. That said contract was and is in violation of the Sharp Trust agreement. Please see exhibit 3.

Said agency did find a buyer for said Trust asset which triggered the letter with urgency stated by attorney Stephen R Gibble as it was discovered that Thomas E Sharp did not have the legal right to contract said Trust asset to the above mentioned agency and that to proceed with the sale of said Trust asset, all three Trustees must agree to said sale. That said letter now known as exhibit 1 subsection exhibit B: fails to show consent of any Trustees to proceed, but instead only requests permission of all Trustees to proceed. That said Trust instrument requires that Trustees ask for permission, in writing, to sell said Trust asset, in advance.

That attorney, Stephen R Gibble, in a vexatious manner, proceeded to file a petition with Orphan's Court, in Lancaster County, PA, to have me, Susanne Marie Thompson, removed as a Trustee from said Sharp Trust, for not agreeing to said sale in violation of the stated Trust agreement, with said filing notices dated August 7th,

1.2013 and another dated August 8th, 2013 for so called breach of trust. Please see exhibit letters attached as exhibit 4. Again, consent to proceed along these lines fails to be shown by attorney, Stephen R Gibble, on behalf of the other Trustees.

That attorney, Stephen R Gibble, upon realization of the failure of having other Trustees request permission in writing as stated on the Sharp Trust Agreement, Dated September 7th, 2001, and known as; FIRST ADDENDUM TO THE TRUST AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 2001 IRREVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT WITH ARTHUR E SHARP AND VIRGINIA M SHARP TO BE KNOWN AS ARTHUR E SHARP AND VIRGINIA M SHARP LIVING TRUST, and previously stated as exhibit 1 subsection A, Stephen R Gibble had Thomas E Sharp send a letter of request for permission to sell said Trust asset. Letter dated August 20th, 2013 but not mailed until September 11th, 2013. A further letter from Trustee, Virginia M Sharp was dated October 10th, 2013 and states a reiteration for request to sell, was created by attorney, Stephen R Gibble's office, signed by one Virginia M Sharp, and was the first request made by Trustee Virginia M Sharp despite the statement in the letter. Copies of both of these letters along with their envelopes are attached and known as exhibit 1 subsection exhibit A.

That said petition, based on my own opinion, is based on fraud. That said petition is before Orphan's court and is known as 2013-1813 and under the review of Judge Hoberg. That an answer was filed to said petition before one of the letters in exhibit 1 subsection exhibit A, were sent and known as; Answer, to said petition and accepted under pro se representation. That a court date for November 20th, 2013 had been set and a pro se filing of a Preliminary Objections to said petition filed by Attorney, Stephen R Gibble, have been sent to the Orphan's Court. That a person from Judge Hoberg's office called November 19th, 2013 denying said Preliminary Objections without stating reasons as to why and may be due to legal technicalities. That said Preliminary Objections did bring up these concerns and a letter to Judge Hoberg to consider these matters have been expressed. That said denial did not show reason for said denial. Said Preliminary Objections and a copy of the letter sent to Judge Hoberg are attached and known as exhibit 1 for Preliminary Objections and exhibit 5 for the letter to Judge Hoberg.

I seek an investigation as to fraud based on the above information and presentation of facts.

Respectfully;

Susanne Marie Thompson

November, 19th, 2013

2.

Exhibit 1with Subsections

Exhibit A and Exhibit B

3.

Susanne Marie Thompson, TrusteePO Box 1146Hayes, Virginia 23072-1146(424)-268-0188Respondent

In The Court of Common PleasOrphans Court Division

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Virginia M Sharp and )Thomas E Sharp, Trustees )And Beneficiaries of the )Arthur E Sharp and Virginia )M Sharp Irrevocable Trust of )September 7, 2001, as Amended )Petitioners ) ) ) No. 2013-1813VS ) ) )Susanne Marie Thompson )Respondent )

Preliminary Objections

Comes Now the respondent, Susanne Marie Thompson in arguing Preliminary Objections to the Petitioners, case no, 2013-1813 as follows:

1. Improper Venue exists. Under Forum Non Conveniens; vexation exists in the areas of travel and expenses that are required to defend the position of Trustee in that travel alone is out of state of present residency and approximately 300 miles from said residency and that no compensation has been provided for said expected expenditures which would also require overnight accommodations and meals and is therefore a substantial burden to respondent. Also, under the Sharp Trust agreement, page 8, section 7 states as follows; Governing Law. The construction

and validity of all trusts created by this agreement shall be governed by Pennsylvania law. Administration shall be governed by Pennsylvania law, or if there is a Trustee with a principal office in another state, by the law of that state. I, the respondent am in the state of Virginia and as such, am not subject to the laws of Pennsylvania, but instead, the laws of Virginia for the purposes of administration and that any form of request to remove me, the respondent, from the office of Trustee, requires filing of such in said state of Virginia.

1

2. Insufficiency Exists (Demurrer) in multiple areas as follows;a.) Petitioner's claim that said Trust instrument, First Addendum To The Trust Agreement Dated September 7, 2001 Irrevocable Trust Agreement With Arthur E Sharp And Virginia M Sharp To Be Known As Arthur E Sharp And Virginia M Sharp Living Trust, is the only asset of said trust which Petitioner's legal council states that a copy of the original Trust can not be located. That said document is only an instrument for creating and holding assets for and or to and or on behalf of said Trust and would not hold any other assets along with said individual instrument. The Trust instrument holding the real estate was set up as Irrevocable to ensure that it would pass to heirs with the least amount of tax obligations as possible and was not meant to serve as a holding to pull income from at a later date.

b.) Petitioner's have failed to show that no other assets to the Trust exist and that upon numerous requests to see the financial status of the Trust, Petitioner's and or council have either ignored or blocked said access creating reasonable doubt to said claims. A Preponderance of Evidence test has not been forthcoming and fails to show cause for said Petition.

c.) Petitioner's never requested permission to sell the asset in question known as the real estate located at 920 Perry Road, Lititz, PA 17543 in the township of Warwick, until after the filing of said Petition. Please see exhibit A. Requests in writing were not presented by any Trustee until after September 11th, 2013. Request dated October 10th, 2013 by legal council and signed by Virginia M Sharp is not a reiteration as stated on said document, but instead a first request in writing that has come from Trustee Virginia M Sharp and through legal council, Stephen R Gibble. Please see exhibit B for initial request to sell the asset in question. It comes from the Petitioner's council only and fails to show consent by other Trustees or requests made by other Trustees. In Petitioner's legal complaint, it states that Trustees, Thomas E Sharp and Virginia M Sharp had requested from Susanne Marie Thompson, permission to sell said Trust asset, paragraph 16 through 24 of said Petition, yet it is clear from the letter sent by legal council, Stephen R Gibble, PC, that it was he who sought permission from all the Trustees to sell the asset and request was being made to all Trustees for permission to sell. A representation is fraudulently uttered if the maker knows of its falsity when uttering it, or, in other words, knows the matter to be otherwise than as represented. Neuman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co., 356 Pa. 442, 51 A.2d 759 (1947); Woodward v. Dietrich, 378 Pa. Super. 111, 548 A.2d 301 (1988). The reckless assertion of a fact in conscious ignorance of its truth or falsity amounts to actionable fraud. Rodgers v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 803 F. Supp. 1025 (M.D. Pa. 1992), aff’d 998 F.2d 1004 (3d Cir. 1993); In re Berringer, 125 B.R. 444 (W.D. Pa. 1991); Cashdollar v. Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, 406 Pa. Super. ,606, 595 A.2d ,70 (1991); Adams v. Euliano, 299 Pa. Super. 348, 445 A.2d 788 (1982). Fraud may be established even where there is an innocently made misrepresentation so long as it relates to a matter material to the transaction involved. LaCourse v. Kiesel, 366 Pa. 385, 77 A.2d 877 (1951); Boyle v. Odell, 413 Pa. Super. 562, 605 A.2d 1260 (1992).

d.) Petitioner's wishes to avoid filing for state assistance creates reasonable doubt as to the existence of other Trust assets and or personal assets that may exist for paying for the continued care of Arthur E Sharp and or Virginia M Sharp and avoids the Preponderance of Evidence test.

e.) Legal council for the Petitioner's has failed the Preponderance of Evidence test in showing that Virginia M Sharp is capable of bringing forth said actions.

2

f.) Said Petition be considered a frivolous suit with vexatious intent.

Wherefore, Respondent prays that the Plaintiff's take nothing and the respondent have judgment against the Plaintiff's and recover costs of suit herein and such other relief the court may deem proper.

Susanne Marie Thompson, Respondent/Trustee

Date:

3

Exhibit A

4

5

6

7

8

Exhibit B

9

10

11

12

Exhibit 2

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Exhibit 3

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

Exhibit 4

38.

39.

40.

Exhibit 5

41.

Susanne Marie Thompson, TrusteePO Box 1146Hayes, Virginia 23072-1146(424)-268-0188Respondent

To: The Honorable Judge Jay HobergCourt of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, PAOrphan's CourtCounty of LancasterRegister of Wills50 n Duke StreetPO Box 83480Lancaster, PA 17608-3480

Reference: Case 2013-1813, Sharp Trust Petition

Dear Honorable Judge Hoberg;

Law is the presentation of facts and the interpretation of said facts which is what you already know and understand very well. The tricky part as you also well know is the proper interpretation of said facts. In regards to the above referenced case, I am of the opinion and of my present interpretation, that the case is fraught with fraudulent activity. Enclosed is a Preliminary Objections brief. Section 2, subsection c.) outlines what I believe to be fraudulent activity perpetrated not only against myself, but also against this court. Case law has been included for further considerations.

The Preliminary Objections brief was finished days ago until I ran across this one section. The more I looked at it the more I had to dig and research my findings. I ask that you look over this section very carefully. My own interpretations are just that. The final decision is not mine to make. I thank you for your time and considerations in this matter in advance.

Respectfully;

Susanne Marie Thompson, Respondent/Trustee

Date:

42.

Please note: The victim in this case is one Susanne Marie ThompsonHer PO Box address listed on this document is no longer

valid.

Other personal information has been removed to protect her.