Hidden Anarchy: Bad behavior becomes acceptable

 An essay.

An Ancient Problem: When Harm Is Allowed to Repeat Itself

There is nothing new about this problem. It is as old as human society.

Human beings have always struggled with what happens when power is exercised without accountability. When wrongdoing is ignored, hidden, excused, or treated with indifference, the danger is that it becomes easier for the same kind of wrongdoing to happen again.

We see this throughout human history. Abuse can remain hidden for years because people are silent, because those affected are afraid to speak, or because institutions find it easier not to look too closely. Silence does not necessarily cause the original wrong, but it can create the conditions in which wrongdoing continues.

The same principle applies to money and fiduciary power.

If a person entrusted with another person’s property learns that questionable spending will not be seriously examined, the lesson is not that the law is strong. The lesson is that nobody is watching.

And other people watching the system may learn the same lesson.

That is how standards deteriorate. One shortcut becomes accepted practice. Accepted practice becomes tradition. Tradition eventually becomes something nobody thinks to question.

The law may still be written in the books, but human behaviour has moved around it. Fiduciary trust has drifted to catch me if you can and if you do catch me what are you going to do about it. Appealing is an oxymoron. And those that do wrong and scarcastically tell you to appeal know you never will so bad behavior is sweeped under the carpet or flouted. These options are insidious and insulting.  

This is why accountability matters. It is not simply about punishing somebody after something has gone wrong. Accountability tells everyone else where the boundary is.

Without that boundary, society risks entering a cycle in which harm produces more harm, silence protects the wrongdoing, and indifference allows it to become normal.

That is the ancient danger behind what is hidden anarchy:

Wrongdoing does not have to be openly permitted. It only has to become something nobody is willing or able to stop. And it can repeat over and over so its appears to be normal.  

  

A Second System of Law

 The paradox I am involved.  Committees can apportion funds for their own use and the cost to force them to account is too expensive. I was just talking to a woman and the same thing happened to her mother's estate. The committee drained the estate. So I am not an outlier.  The most insideous of this behavior is most beneficiaries do not even know they were fleeced.  

From an essay off the internet.

When Justice Becomes a Business Calculation: A second system of law

There is an uncomfortable question that the legal profession needs to confront.

Lawyers did not merely enter a justice system created by somebody else. Lawyers have played a central role in drafting legislation, designing court procedures, interpreting those procedures, and determining how the system operates.

Yet the same profession largely delivers access to that system through a private business model.

That creates a conflict.

A law firm must consider cost, time, profitability, staffing, and risk. Those are understandable concerns for any business. But justice is not an ordinary product.

When the cost-benefit calculation of providing legal services determines whether a legal right can realistically be enforced, the economics of the legal profession begin to shape the meaning of the law itself.

A fiduciary duty may exist on paper. A beneficiary may have the right to demand an accounting. A vulnerable person's property may supposedly be protected.

But what happens when enforcing those rights costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The law has not technically disappeared.

It has simply been priced beyond the reach of the person it was supposed to protect.

That is the paradox.

The legal profession speaks of access to justice while operating a system in which access is frequently sold by the hour.

There is nothing improper about lawyers earning a living. The problem begins when the business model becomes so dominant that economically inconvenient legal problems are effectively abandoned.

Then cost-benefit accounting quietly becomes a second system of law.

The written law asks: What are this person's rights?

The economic system asks: Is it worth enough money to enforce them?

When the second question consistently defeats the first, the rule of law begins to lose its meaning for the ordinary person.

When Justice Becomes a Business Calculation

There is an uncomfortable question that the legal profession needs to confront.

Lawyers did not merely enter a justice system created by somebody else. Lawyers have played a central role in drafting legislation, designing court procedures, interpreting those procedures, and determining how the system operates.

Yet the same profession largely delivers access to that system through a private business model.

That creates a conflict.

A law firm must consider cost, time, profitability, staffing, and risk. Those are understandable concerns for any business. But justice is not an ordinary product.

When the cost-benefit calculation of providing legal services determines whether a legal right can realistically be enforced, the economics of the legal profession begin to shape the meaning of the law itself.

A fiduciary duty may exist on paper. A beneficiary may have the right to demand an accounting. A vulnerable person's property may supposedly be protected.

But what happens when enforcing those rights costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The law has not technically disappeared.

It has simply been priced beyond the reach of the person it was supposed to protect.

That is the paradox.

The legal profession speaks of access to justice while operating a system in which access is frequently sold by the hour.

There is nothing improper about lawyers earning a living. The problem begins when the business model becomes so dominant that economically inconvenient legal problems are effectively abandoned.

Then cost-benefit accounting quietly becomes a second system of law.

The written law asks: What are this person's rights?

The economic system asks: Is it worth enough money to enforce them?

When the second question consistently defeats the first, the rule of law begins to lose its meaning for the ordinary person.

Losing its meaning for the ordincary person, is losing respect for the law, losing respect for the law means stealth anarchy.

I love the word "stealth." It means corruption under the radar.  Corruption does not have to mean criminal, it also means civil corruption: doing something you should not do.  

  

 

Why.

 This whole scenario is over the PGT allowing my sister who was my brother's caregiver while he was alive the ability to use my brother's money as a ATM.  

Initially Jenny was the committee of estate to my brother estate but was removed by the PGT for questionable expenses so the PGT became the committee of estate but Jenny continued as my brother's caregiver with an open cheque book as long as expenses were for the direct care of my brother.  Direct does not mean that she could mix use a $100,000 transport van.  Under strict fiduciary law apportionment of assets are not allowed. And the PGT allowed invoices to pass without proper vetting or no invoices at all.  Jenny was a good person so she would never do anything untoward to the estate.  

BCCA Oral Reassons June 24 2026 CA51193

 These Reaons do not dispute the fact that the PGT cannot pass its accounts using the PPA Patient's Property Act to pass the PGT's accounts.  The accounts have to be passed under Probate laws, after the Patient is dead. The Reasons agreed with what Justice Crerar decided in November 7 2025 wherein the PPA was the correct pathway to pass the PGT's accounts.  But Supreme Rule 25.13 says it is the only mandatgory pathway where accounts of committees can pass.  See 24(2).  The PGT was wrong, Justice Greer was wrong. The BCCA was wrong. And nothing in the Reasons speculated otherwise.   

The PGT wanted its accounts hidden within the PPA so it (the PGT) would be void of any liability for it allowing unfiduciary accounts to be paid.  Since there were 597 pages of items/expenses X 10 items a page, that is 5970 accounts that had to be scrutined but not one was. It is statisically impossible for all the items to pass inspection. They were summarized in a computer transaction spreadsheet only for the eyes of the administrator.  The administrator took no position and later she declined her authority to test the accounts.  Exactly what the PGT wanted.  Now all the PGT had to do was rush an application for summarily approval to a supreme court judge who would rubber stamp the 5976 entries. Such approvals are routine when the PGT is the committee as Courts defer to government actors. The PGT had finality, an Order that no one could touch. 

All the parties are free from surcharges except the beneficiaries who pay for the errors as their inheritences have to eat the losses.

   

the Sickos

 On Monday I attended at the courthouse to do some research and I walked the hall on the third floor and looked in on all the courtrooms.  I was looking for security presence.  There was none.  I asked a security guard why weren't there guards in any of the courtrooms.  He said they only attend if they are requested by counsel. 

Three times on three different hearings there were security guards when I had to attend a hearing. 

I am fed up with Heather Matheson and Candace Cates. They are sickos.  Considering how unprofessionally I have been treated by them, they did it deliberately as it would say to the judges indirectly that there are big problems as these woke lawyers were fearful for their person.  I do not know how else to describe their behavior except as SICKO.

I can understand Candace doing that because she is from the sticks. But the other one works for the Public Guardian and Trustee ... but then maybe that is how the PGT gets parties to consent to what the PGT wants using such intimination to get consent for relocating vulnerable seniors who do not want to be relocated.   

to launder or not to launder

 I was told not to say that the PGT used the Patient's Property Act to administratively laundry its accounts.  The correct wording is the PGT used a "closed accounting route" to pass its accounts.

It is about as dumb as saying that a shoplifter is not a thief but rather an "opportunist."

Lawyers follow the law rather than think the law.

 I had a short nap and upon waking, this was in my head:  lawyers follow the law, they do not think the law.  That is what they do they do not think the law, they do not think how it should be, they just follow what the past said.  It is like they are on autopilot.  It has been done like that for years or decades, and that is the law.  But following the law, is only one part of the law, it has to be tempered with what the intent of the law is. For example, I was perplexed when I found out the form P2 was not served on me or any interested party containing the materials for the appointment of my sister to be the administrator of my brother's estate.  A form P1 was served on the beneficiaries, but it was only a Notice saying my sister was wanting to be the applicant.  At that time I really did not understand what was going on but it seemed to be that she jumped the line. And she did.  What happened her lawyer filed the P2 without serving it on any of the beneficiaries, those that should know what is going on, and my sister became the administrator.  The only problem with that was that she was heavily conflicted and she was totally uneducated to know what is expected of an administrator. Her conflict was that she owed at that time 1.5 years of rent to the estate, so she was a debtor to the estate. Now, she still owes 2.5 years of rent. How her lawyer got around this conflict was to send an estate settlement agreement to all the beneficiaries in the hope that the beneficiaaries would be stupid enough to sign an ESA that had no market value of the rent in it. That did not work and then her  lawyer said it would be discussed at the passing of accounts.  With "cost intimidation" hanging over the beneficiaries. Jenny will claim that she was the caretaker of the property and to go to court to have the court say it is nonsense would cost more legal fees, the beneficiaries would just sign off to make sure that they get what is their "sure" inheritance: the money that is in the bank.  So she gets a windfall of 2.5 free rent plus her share of the estate.  That doesn't seem fair to the rest of the beneficiaries.  And it is not fair, and it is not legal under estate law. In addition to her share of the inheritence, free rent for 2.5 years, she also gets 5% remuneration for being the administrator. Jenny's prime goal was to communicate with the beneficiaries and as far as I can tell, she never communicated with anyone because she never communicated with me.  Candace was running the estate.  And Candace is making sure her fee includes every single paperclip she used. One of the disbursements she included in her invoice of October was $800 for photocopies.  What photocopies, everything is done paperlessly.  Maybe it was for legal research, researching what. Doing research is not necessary as that is her job to know how best to administer an esate.  It is a simple estate, one piece of property, one vehicle, and a monies in a trust account.  

The problem is when an unqualifed administrator gets the Grant to be administrator, it is extremely difficult to have that person removed unless that person resigns.  But that is not going to happen when the lawyer for the adminisrator is looking at the long road, the continuous fee for creating a situation that should not have happened in the first place.  Candace should have told Jenny that since there is a whisper of conflict that Jenny should resign.  And an independent person who has no conflicts be appointed. Lawyers are not supposed to create litigation but she did.