Battle Ground for Fraud

 I came across the Supreme Court Rules (Probate) 2005 and even then a probate is a battlefield.   The  person who is named executor or an administrator and the possibility for fraud exists.  Because he controls the information, it would be extremely difficult for a beneficiary to audit what an executor or administrator is doing. The executor only has to pay you your inheritance as set out in a will.  But if he doesn't what can you do.  Think.  Romance scam.  Think.  Catch me if you can. Of course you can go to court but it is prohibitive expensive for a modest estate.   Forget the lawyer thing, the executor can fire the lawyer at any time, liquidate all the assets. and run.  

Most of this confusion goes to privacy. All I get is everything is confidential.  If a person is dead why is privacy an issue. Not only is it up to the executor to share information it is also up to the interested parties in an estate to share information.  When a beneficiary won't even share her email address, then we are in trouble.  Privacy protects crooks. And everyone is a crook.  It is just the degree that can upset.  If you have an expense account you will abuse it. Maybe not at first but after a few times it becomes easier.  

A very bad day

 I woke up in seriour pain.  I never get back pains and this morning I could not move much.

It is now 8:10 pm and my back still hurts.

I am working (no thinking) on a project and I do not know how to present it, word it.  My back pain is interfering with my focus and construction.

The problem is when you live alone, there is no one to help you if you are immobile.  Since this has never happened before, maybe the pain will just go away.

My project has to be finished by Wednesday.  I hope tomorrow being Saturday, it will just go away.  

New tort.

 

Collaborataive Constructive Fraud to Thwart Due Process.

This is when multiple lawyers who are wilfully blind resolve a legal issue by bypassing due process, usually for the sake of efficiency.

If you have experience with this tort, please let me know.

778.689.2276

Witnessing a probate, absolutely shocking

 I am witnessing probate.  I am absolutely sick over the lack of transparency and the resulting confusion and misinformation.  I am mostly concerned over the discretion that lawyers can use to deny beneficiaries information and there isn't anything real you can do about it.  If they want to put a knife in your back, they can.  It is called abuse of discretion; constructive fraud.  As I age I see more and more things that I get angry over. And WESA is one of them.  There is no legal reasons to abuse WESA but given discretion (power) to anyone eventually the abuse will happen.  Human nature dictates it so. In history and now.   

Quebec Tells Doctors They Won't Prosecute Them For Murder -- A Lawyer Ex...

Judicial Review Cho v. Mavis McMullen Housing Society, a travesty of justice.

 The judicial review for Cho v Mavis McMullen Housing Society will be heard on Monday November 18 2024 at 9:30 am. Attend this interesting educational court hearing. Cho is being evicted by a charity because a visitor took a few empty soda cans that were on a patio common area property. Tenants are responsible for the behavior of their visitors. Market value .30 cents. Mavis McMullen decided to evict a 89 year old woman from her home. Good move. I demand that Dr. Brenda Hogan, psychologist, resign. Brenda is the President of the Board of Directors. Evictions should be approved by her and not by a janitor. Their web page is superior. If they can create a great web site, I am sure Brenda has the expertise of knowing how to handle a criminal who takes empty cans and a 89 year old tenant. Punishment does not fit the crime. Anyone associated with Mavis McMullen Housing should be ashamed. The hearing is at Supreme Court 800 Smythe Street (Robson Square) ask the information desk for the court room number. Action No. VLC S S 247593. Cho v. Mavis McMullen Housing.

Pharmaceutical Rep Turned Whistleblower Reveals the Shocking Truth About...

89 year old woman gets evicted because a visitor steals a soda can

 I wish I knew how to move among social medias.  In this case Vancouver Sun November 12 2024 reported that a 89 year old woman is facing eviction because a visitor of hers stold a pop can.  Our society has gone crazy by allowing idiot janitors who are given powerby BC Housing to inflict harm to others because they can and in this case I am sure the unions protect them.  Or worse yet a board of directors.  

I hope this causes an uproar over the abuses that BC Housing and non-profit housing providers do against tenants. Policing functions being downloaded to janitors is all too common. We are defunding the police and letting pricks run the world. No tenant should be subject to such cruelty by BC Housing, a government authority. In any event, punishment should fit the crime. A visitor steals a soda can, and the tenant gets evicted. If you steal a can of soda from London Drugs you do not get evicted from your home but maybe that is the next step in our evolution for law and order. This is not North Korea where one dissenter says something and his family for three generations gets imprisoned. Where the fuck are the housing advocates. They are all in the clear because this old woman took a soda can which clearly is a criminal offence and she should be sentenced to the streets. Security cameras caught her. Security cameras are for serious offences and only the police can use them as evidence. So how was this non-profit able to use them in a residential tenancy action? The Chos should be suing all the idiots involved. The stupidity is there. In fact a Me2 movement should start and a class action started to include all the tenants who have been evicted/blacklisted by housing authorities who cause emotional and financial harm to tenants no matter their age. This over a fucking soda can. The world is going crazy and I feel I am going crazy as well.

audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com 778 689 2276

7:12 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Visit to City HallEverything is

 Continuing from two weeks ago when I attended at Vancouver City Hall and was deterred from going to the third floor because there was now a policy that says you cannot do that. I was told it was only for Wednesday, the day of council meetings. However, I was given false information. Yesterday I wanted to deliver another letter to the third floor and I had to answer to a person at the gateway to the elevators as to what my purpose was. When I was there two weeks ago I left the first letter with security to deliver to the City Clerk's Office.

Yesterday I was told that the City Clerk never received it. So much for trusting security. The letter was to tell the City that I intended to sue them because for nine months I have been sending emails to the mayor, the city manager, non-market housing, and legal and no one answered one of them.

The other day I came across information that says that the City has slandered me and defamed me. It was all done internally so I suspect that is okay. It causes me to be fearful of going near City Hall as these vigilantes could then attack me without consequences.

The City has gone crazy under Sim and he should be defunded.

It took me awhile to figure out why I was upset over the pending police state of City Hall.

City Hall has already been a part of me in that it was my City Hall and years ago when I had or wanted to attend at City Hall it was like meeting a friend who was not judgmental each employee was someone who wanted to help/converse with me. Now it is nothing. Everything is behind locked doors, no person to person connection. So sad.

Another Regretful Day

 I was at Save One Foods and I noticed the person ahead of me going through the checkout.  He bill must have been $200.  I was watching her and a large bag of sugar under the grocery kart went through and it was not scanned.  This isn't the first time I have seen such behavior.  A store clerk asked her if she paid for the sugar and she said yes.  The clerk did not ask to see the receipt. The clerk was young and accepted the woman's statement.

Finding a lawyer

 I do not know why I even try.

I was referred to a lawyer.  She was working at a large law firm in Vancovuer. 

When I tried to contact her I was told that she no longer worked there.  And they would not give me her new address.  

Then reception said if I needed a lawyer to go and request on on their webpage.  I said why can't I leave my name with her for a lawyer to call me.  I told her what would happen if I did not have an email address.

She said that if I did not have an email address for me to find another law firm.

Why would this huge law firm only respond to their web page. 

Why.  Is it as soon as they receive a message they are checking your credit before they talk to you.