Criminal fraud means, you pay back the money, and go to jail.
Civil (estate) fraud means, you pay back the money, and you do not go to jail.
Gone ballistic scenarios. Activist by default. audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com phone: 604-321-2276,do not leave voice mail http://voiceofgoneballistic.blogspot.com 207-5524 Cambie Street, Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 3A2 Everything posted I believe to be true. If not, please let me know.
Criminal fraud means, you pay back the money, and go to jail.
Civil (estate) fraud means, you pay back the money, and you do not go to jail.
I just do not understand if I am not happy with a purchase from Amazon, I do not have to pay, but if I am not happy with what a lawyer does, I still have to pay.
Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
The law says that due process and accountability matter. But in my case, the probate system did not work; it wasn't intuitive. There seems to be two routes: one the legislature piecemeals together and the other what the lawyers do. Unfortunately, in BC, lawyers have to do probate at a great disservice to the public. It is like a deep hole with cascading footnotes. There are nuances and then there are more nuances. For example, the law says where there is no will and only siblings surviving, the majority decides who should be the administrator. It does not say the majority has to chose the best qualified so it becomes a popularity contest which is not the intent of the legislation. It is implicit that the beneficiaries should choose the best qualified. But what happens if they don't. It can be the one who has a grade 3 education and for whom an attorney can manipulate that might be. Lawyers need clients, and it is best that they have clients who lack knowledge. If a lawyer makes a mistake who would know. And lawyers make mistakes often. Ask any person who served as an executor what a fiduciary is, and they would not know.
I have been reviewing the research I have been doing and I am shocked at how the process can be compromised. I have been reading a book authored by Wes Mussio, Fair Inheritance. Although he tired to make the information easy to understand, I have a great deal of questions I could ask. I even found videos he did on YouTube explaining in short videos different segments of the process. An estate can, even a simple/modest one, be complex.
Can Estates be fast tracked by lawyers for a fast buck
When you hired a lawyer, his fees are paid first, even before taxes are paid. They have priority. It can happen that after a lawyers gets paid, there is nothing left. Lawyers might ask for a retainer at the beginning and wait for the rest at the end because they know they will get their money.
When you do not understand something, you follow the money.
"They do not know what the f,, ,they are doing."
The normalization of "f... you" by The Donald, the President of the United States of America, being the defacto authority for acceptable use of "f..." language.
From searching the internet.
In Canadian law, swearing a false affidavit is supposed to be a serious offence — it’s called perjury, and it’s a crime under section 131 of the Criminal Code. But if you’ve ever been involved in an estate dispute, you may have noticed something strange: even when someone lies under oath, nothing happens.
This isn’t a rare occurrence. In probate litigation — where family members are often battling things perceived or real. — false affidavits have become commonplace. People swear statements that are knowingly misleading or outright untrue, often to tilt the court process in their favour. And yet, no one is ever charged.
That’s not because the law doesn't apply. Perjury technically applies in civil cases, including estate matters. But in practice, the system turns a blind eye. Prosecutors don’t lay charges. Judges don’t refer matters for investigation. Lawyers may raise an eyebrow, but few take formal steps. The lie gets absorbed into the process, like a stain no one bothers to clean. And the lie is believed.
The result? A quiet but dangerous message is being sent:
If you’re in probate court, and you think lying might help — go ahead, especially if your lawyer present the lie in an affidavit, so you rationalize it must be okay.
This is devastating if you have your own lawyer or not. Without the resources to have your lawyer prove it, hire investigators or cross-examine professionally, the lie becomes nonconsequential. Even when the falsehood is obvious, the court will call it a “credibility issue” or a “misunderstanding” rather than what it really is: a calculated abuse of the system.
This isn’t just a problem of legal technicality. It’s a problem of principle. When people can lie in sworn affidavits without consequence, as it is a civil lie rather than a criminal lie, the very idea of justice starts to erode. Truth becomes optional. The courtroom turns into a battleground where strategy beats honesty — and that’s not a justice system. That’s a game.
Probate litigation is already emotionally and financially exhausting. But when the courts tolerate false sworn statements — especially from those in positions of advantage — it deepens the unfairness. And it tells the public that the law doesn’t apply equally, even when it should.
It’s time to name this problem for what it is. If perjury isn’t enforced in probate, then let’s be honest and say so. But if we still believe in the importance of truth in the courtroom, then the justice system must prove it — not with words, but with action.