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.  

Sharp Practice

 In my dealing with the lawyers on the estate, I knew they were doing "sharp practice" but I did not know that it is not allowed and I could lodge a complaint with the Law Society of BC.  

I am fed up with the thinking that the lawyers can psychologically harm you and I can't do anything about it.  Now I can.

The LSBC's Code of Professinal Conduct prohibits "sharp practice" -- tactics that take unfair advantage of another party's ignorance, mistake, or procedural vulnerability."  

What they did to me in October 2025 was calculated harm.  And when I asked for an adjournment as I was not prepared for the November 7 2025 hearing as I did not know I had to be prepared, they refused adding to my harm.  All of them were using a process where the outcome came without any accountability for use of a better word "mismanagement" of thousands and thousands of dollars, to protect their clients from scutiny but not to protect the beneficiaries who lost the benefit of those thousands and thousands of dollars  To reverse the wrong they did, would require an appeal. Who is going to pay $100,000 to a lawyer to make the PGT accountable for its mismanagement.  I am not sure what this is called maybe slight of hand but in their vocabulary I think they call it strategy.  I will never forget the horror of it. My belief in due process shattered.   

cc to Candace Cates

cc to Heather Mathison

cc to Leah Card

cc to PGT

I hate this double talk.  In estates stealing is never referred to as theft but rather misappropriation of funds.  In our culture of "no shame" misappropriation of estate funds is normal.  Why is it normal because there is no real enforcement. It is a fait complete. And the rot can be seen in every probated estate if you look for it.  

Ghosted

 This is what I said in an affidavit January 10 2025.  

I told the beneficiaries that if they want to gift Jenny the rents due and owing to the estate they could do it  from their share of their inheritances  Again, I was ghosted.  For me this isn't only about the money, it is about the unethical stealth way, the probate was being done.  I expected honesty from the beneficiaries and due process from the lawyers.  What I got was uncertainty, stress, and betrayal, distrust of the legal process, and the lost of all hope of any meangful reunion with family members going forward.  

Note: The rent covered 2.5 years.  It was for a 4,000 square foot home on 20 acres of land outstide of Kamloops (Dallas), a ranch (with a pool) that would keep horses.  There was an estate settlement agreement and the estate lawyer wanted all the beneficiaries to sign off as there was some urgency, a red flag. The estate settlement agreement was designed so the administrator did not have to pay rent.  The beneficiaries who signed the agreement thought it was okay because they just wanted their inheritance, even at a steep discount. And they did not even inquire what the rent should have been.  Buyer beware. The estate was being looted in plain sight. And the beneficiaries were duped.