Miss Snowflake

To Miss Snowflake.

I am reading 6k of the affidavit you wrote for Jenny.  I am 70 years old and I have not been diagnosed with any medical condition, physical or mental that impair my ability to perform my legal duties as the administrator of the Estate.  What clever use of words.  You miss the point.  What are her qualifications.  Does she know how to spell?  Jenny told me often that she was ill and did not want to be the administrator of the estate.  Now that Candace told her that she could rip off the estate and not pay any rent, then all of a sudden Jenny is in good physical and mental health.  Prior to Candace there never was mention that she and Sandford and her adult daughter and her adult husband and her adult  grandchildren could live on the property for free.  Jenny was not coerced that she could rip off the estate, she agreed because her lawyer said she could.  Dear Miss Snowflack, what clever wording.  

I also want to know why did you include the two letters from my lawyer in the affidavit.  My lawyer had nothing to do with what happened.  In fact nothing happened and that is why he is no longer my lawyer. He was told that my sister was not qualified to be the administrator and for him to make sure it did not happen  He did nothing and on June 27 2024 Jenny was made administrator, You got nothing else to do except pad affidavits with nonsense. This case is a perfect example of the probate industrial complex. 

Rents in Canada

 

A three bedroom home in Vancouver rents for $4,380 before utilities.  

Another bader Day

 I find it very hard to deal with each day.

It seems I am always having difficulties with my computers.

My husband used to say that the internet was going to be the death of us all.

I believe him.  All the time I spend trying to do computer work is always with its problems.

Like right now there is a line between each sentence.  I do not know what I did to get the computer to do 

that.

Now, I have a bottle of apple juice and I can't twist the cap.  Getting old.  It takes strength to open bottles.

Earlier my screen was black and I couldn't do anything;

And then after a few hours I noticed the screen was live.

Another Bad Day

Another bad day.  I spent most of today and yesterday trying to make my computer workable.  No such luck.  I had to send my computer in for repair.  Last time it was in repair for three weeks.  It worked for a month and then it was in again.  Computers are so stressful.  I was wanting to type out a document and I do not think I will be able to do it as all my comments are lost and it will take me forever to reconstruct the information.   

the Pyrrhic effect in probate .

Serving documents.

While a lawyer might consider the strategic implications of serving documents at a later stage, they are bound by ethical standards and professional conduct rules. Deliberately delaying service to create a pyrrhic effect and deter interested parties from engaging in the administration of the estate could be seen as unethical and potentially harmful.

In the estate I am witnessing, the probate lawyer served the P2 package for the Estate Grant five months after the registrar signed the probate grant. This stealthy behaviour is concerning. The P2 package should have been served on the interested parties before it was filed in the probate registry. The probate lawyer might say that you, as an interested party, can still voice your displeasure, but it may fall on deaf ears. Bringing this matter to court would be a Pyrrhic victory—not worth the trouble.

At one point, I was threatened by the lawyers that they were going to get me, and it appears they have succeeded. I was never told why they wanted to get me. Maybe being old is the reason.  I do not know. I am going to have to spend my modest inheritance to prove they engaged in stealthy behavior, even though it would probably result in a Pyrrhic victory. It would be up to me to apply at my own cost to the court. While I would likely win, at what cost? Improper service could be addressed after the estate grant was sealed, but to what purpose? The court would probably instruct the parties to re-serve the information, which feels akin to shooting the messenger.

What a way to bring disrepute to the legal process—using the system to get someone. But then no one would know about it except me, and the lawyers, as I would not do anything about it because of the Pyrrhic effect.  

 

WESA: purpose. Wills Estates Succession Act (BC)

 WESA was designed with the intention of encouraging informal resolution of conflicts.  This to reduce the time, cost, and emotional strain associated with formal legal proceedings.  Court intervention is the last resort when informal methods do not work. Lawyers are expected to resolve disputes, not the courts.  How is that possible as lawyers are not independent decision makers.   

This isn't what is happening.  WESA was legislated in 2014, enough time for creative lawyers to circumvent the intent of the law.  As soon as one lawyer circumvents the intent, others follow as soon as they see how easy it is.  Lawyers bully clients all the time and clients are easily intimidated.  I wonder how many millions of dollars have been diverted since 2014 as it is economically wise to allow fraud to happen than to deal with it.  Relative to the value of the estate, what is a few hundred dollars, or a few thousand dollars, or a few million dollars.  Once an executor/administrator is appointed by way of the P1 form, they can fleece the estate, with the help of their lawyers.  Lawyer fees will stop most (everyone) from making anyone accountable. It is legal extortion.  

When a lawyer tells you to allow a wrong as to remedy it would cost more than the wrong, my anger will not go away, nor will the nausea that I am feeling.

Ethical v. Ethics

 It always amazes how infallible people think they are.

Especially lawyers.  

I had the occasion to attend a hearing this morning and it was adjourned.

The lawyers involved knew of the hearing and yet would not tell me that they were seeking an adjournment.  They could have told me up to yesterday.  But instead I had to travel from Vancouver to Kamloops to be told that the matter was adjourned. There is such a thing as a phone or an email. A phone call costs nothing, a court appearance to ask for an adjournment cost $600.  

I call this unethical behavior.  If I had a lawyer they would never have done this.

And they are notable citizens of Kamloops, both are partners in law firms.