My brother (6)

 I could not understand why the lawyers used the fact that according to them I was a prolific litigator.  I thought at first both of them were going to the bottom of the barrel to discredit me.  No it was far more strategic than that.  It was on purpose in their quest to win.  Win what, the right for my sister to be the administrator, a woman who was not qualified.  A woman who told me that she was forced to become the administrator. When I read it, I thought how stupid to mention my prolific history of being a unlawful litigator.  However, it was strategic, as court documents mentioned, since my brother signed an affidavit based on his belief that I had an improper motive for bringing the action.  The improper motive being that I hated my brother and I would do anything to make sure he never saw his inheritance. How that had anything to do with Jenny being the administrator is beyond me. My brother is 78 years old.  I am 80.  Statistically I am going to be dead before him, so I won't get the benefit of the inheritance as well. If it wasn't important so I thought why would the hearing judge mention that I was a prolific litigator in his judgment.  There is a court case Pintea that has established that a self representative has to be given consideration.  Both Leah and Candace and their cohort of lawyers must be proud because the hearing judge did not give me much consideration. He just said that whatever happens is my fault as I choose to be a fool and self-litigate as I started the litigation.  He missed the point, it is legal to self-representat yourself in Canada. My application was dismissed because of a procedural error: I did not fill out the application property and an improper motive.. At the very least I expected the judge to have a sidebar chat with Leah and Candace and tell them that Jenny should not be the administrator. In my submission at the hearing I did tell the judge that I wanted an independent person that did not have conflicts to be appointed. And because I had improper motive I was punished by having the court decide that I should pay special costs which is a humiliation considering what my pure motive was.  My pure motive was to remove Jenny from being administrator because she was not qualified.  Both Candace and Leah should be applauded for their giganteous legal research to win at any cost. Both of the missed the point as both of them are officers of the court and playing such games insults the rule of law and leads to disrespect of the law.  By mentioning my prolific litigation records therefore the hearing judge should not give me any consideration.  I knew what I was doing, he said.  And that is exactly what happened. I can only compare my experience to Bigley the hanging judge in 1800s British Columbia. I can't blame my brother as he was only wanting the probate over with.  And he did not understand what he was doing.  They set me up and I am not happy. My sister also said improper motive was to delay the estate and prevent my brother from getting his inheritance.  Although she is the administrator, she does not know what she is doing, she just does what her lawyer tells her to do. Sign here and she does. What do you expect from a woman with a grade 3 education and being a former rodeo beauty queen.  She is into rodeos and her home full of animals, and nothing else.  Not only does she have a limited education she also has conflicts of interests which has not concerned anyone.  Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Besides the conflicts of interests what are they and how long have they existed. There is a want of honesty on the part of my sister which she has not fostered.

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.  

Can Estates be fast tracked for a fast buck.

 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.   

D. Triump June 24 2025 Isreal Iran war

"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.

My brother (6)

 From searching the internet.  

Why False Affidavits in Probate Go Unpunished — and Why That Should Concern Us All

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.

My brother (5)

 In my brother's affidavit he swore that I was a prolific litigator.  He cites a number of court files I had (46). I do not recognize most of them, maybe actions were started and never served on me.  Or maybe there are more than one Audrey Laferriere in Vancouver.  One was a bankruptcy.  I was never bankrupt. Leah filed a  document re this estate (dispute notice) and it was never served on me. Later after I discovered it six months later I asked Ron about it and he said he did not know anything about it. So it happens. Same with Jenny, her lawyers signed documents which she did not know about.

When I read the paragraph about me being a prolific litigator, I was dumbfounded.  How low can Leah get.  For what reason I do not know.  I suspect it was to tell the court that since I was such a prolific litigator, I would know what I waa doing to make sure that Ron did not get his inheritance as I knew how to delay the probate. Therefore it was planned that I pay special costs. And who is to pay for this stupidity, of course, me, as my application was dismissed because I did not follow court rules.

I remembering asking for an adjournment and I was given two days, not enough time to counter Ron's and Jenny's affidavits. But when Candace wanted an adjournment, a one month adjournment was given. Jenny's affidavit was 56 pages long and Ron's 9 pages. I also was terribly ill during this time and had to travel by bus from Vancouver to Kamloops and from Kamloops to Vancouver and then from Vancouver to Kamloops.. There was no way I could have done what had to be done within two days. The learning curve would take me at least two months. I would also have had to produce a binder that was 151 pages long 4 copies with a cover page, 11 tabs, index. Try to do that when you do not even have a proper printer/photocopy machine.  A binder for the court contains all documents that have to be in a three-ring binder and must be delivered two days before the hearing. I am in Vancouver and the registry is in Kamloops. Impossible.

I note on the first page (the style of cause) I never cited Rockey's name. I do not know how the probate  registry could have filed it.  The most important party is not mentioned. If I really knew what I was doing I would have included Rockey's name in the style of cause.

All this over three assets.  A fee simple property, a customized van, and monies in a trust account.