What is wrong (2)

 I am still concrned over the fact that conflicts of interests were not dealt with when known or as they happened.  

All total there were twenty-five professionals who knew of the conflicts and not a whisper from any of them.  At the moment there is only one lawyer (the estate lawyer) who is active and one lawyer for one of the beneficiaries who is silent.  It is a simple estate: four assets.  As soon as the professionals realized that the estate was modest, they ran.

Even my lawyer that I had did not pursue my concerns about conflicts.  He said it would be dealt with at the passing of accounts. I fired him.  According to WESA and the Trustee Act conflicts have to be dealt with when they happen.  So I do not know what these lawyers are doing or not doing.  

There must be a stealth reason that no lawyer challenged the conflict.  

__________________________________________________________________________________

A fiduciary must manage property only for the benefit of the patient; avoid conflicts of interest, keep proper accounts and be prepared to justify all expenditures.

The fiduciary standard is strict: even the appearance of self-dealing can be actionable Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co. (1977) 2 SCR 302. 

Where a fiduciary misapplies funds, the remedy is surcharge -- repayment into the estate of the amounts misspent.

When silence about conflicts are widespread, it becomes indistinguishable from corruption. Familes lose trust, estates lose value, and justice (what is fair and equitable) is eroded. But those that have conflicts and their lawyers benefit, are illegally enriched.  

Are Estate Lawyers bottom feeders.

 Are Estate Lawyers bottomfeeders.  

Estates delayed, Profits made.  

What is Wrong.

 I am rather perplexed.  I have never had a problem with the legal process before I become involved in an estate.  From the very beginning of the estate, there were conflicts of interest and of the seven lawyers that were involved not a whisper of conflicts, as if they were not of any importance.  Even the suggestion that a P1applicant wanting to be an administrator who had a conflict should have dismissed her from being considered in a fiduciary capacity.  How is it that a person can become an administrator when seven lawyers knew of conflicts.  It blows my mind.  If someone can explain, please let me know.  Maybe it is a modest estate and the lawyers take it upon themselves to manager their clients. I find that terribly disturbing especially when the retainer says that the lawyer can terminate the retainer at any time with no reason .In other words, the lawyers can do what they want and the clients are prisoners. There is something terrible amiss and I want to know what it is.  I see that due process and the rule of law does not seem to exist.  There is something very wrong when lawyers control the narrative.    

Criminal Fraud v. Civil Fraud (estate fraud)

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.

Who pays for criminal prosecutor :  the State, i.e. Canada, the government

Who pays for civil prosecutor:  you do, the beneficiary

Therefore, estate fraudsters usually get away with their fraud.

The rule of law is seriously compromised.  

In the Matter of the Patients Property Act and Joelie Audra Jones.

If there is no money to pay back the money defrauded, do bankruptcy.

Affidavit of June 30 2025.

 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 and the Probate

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.  

How probate works

 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.