The Tragedy

 What I witnessed on November 7 2025 was the abandonment of fiduciary law.  The deconstructing  has been going on for years. The absurdity of it.  The harm of it.  I am not smart and there is nothing I can do.  I quiver with tears.

   

Legal abuse.

 Doesn't is as it appears.  And wht I am experiencing in my view is horror.  I have been driven beyond rage to a road of isolation.  No one can help and those that can won't.  My state of mind changes by the hour.  With that I cannot sleep or focus as I am being manipulated by lawyers ... everything is my fault and the law is there where they are expected to use discretion but will not.  They use the rules of court to protect their clients. The solution is walk away.  But things have escalated beyond that easy solution.  Am I to walk away in terror, and if I survive, try to forget a holocaust inflicted upon me by bad advice given to my siblings' lawyers?   Win by all costs. 

I can't concentrate, I can't focus, I am always in tears of helplessness.  Each day meets a new terror that I have to deal with.  Terror of the unknown.  

I remember my sister phoning me saying for me to be careful that the lawyers (hers) and my brother's lawyer was out to get me.  I assured her not to worry that I did nothing for them to get me.  This was in reference to I filing a P1, being a form where I applied to be the administrator of my late brother's estate.  What can they do as I filed the P1 and I was safe.  If a lawyer wanted to dispute my P1 they would have to let me know, like serve me with paperwork.  This did not happen and eight months later my sister who warned me to be careful told me that she was forced to be the administrator as she could not stand the pressure any more.  After that conversation she never talked to me again.  If she could not handle the stress of tossing me under a bus how could she handle the stress of being an administrator.  I am sure that her lawyer convinced her that she would handle everything and Jenny would not have any stress. This was reinforced by Jenny never communicating me later when I wanted to understand what and why this was happening.  I was accused by her lawyer that Jenny was not going to answer any of my emails because they were "unkind."  I asked for a copy of the unkind emails, nothing came back.  After that I suspect that Jenny never read any of my emails, how would I know.  You press SEND but there is no way to know if you have been put on a do not answer list. My sister suffers from PTSD and one way that people cope with life is avoidance. Likewise, Jenny would just sign any thing that was put in front of her.  She would trust her lawyer.  

Should Legal Coaching be allowed in fudiciary cases.

Costs assessed for reprehensible behavior by the court

 I cannot believe it but I have been assessed costs by the court for reprehensible behavior.  I am not sure what I did but it doesn't seem to make a difference.  It is just a fleeting moment in the victory for the lawyers for the trustees in my brother's estate.  I can only say I experienced terrible cruelty by these actors. No one told me what wrong I did but I apparently did something. I asked one of the lawyers and she would not tell me.  She said when the oral reasons for judgment are done which might take weeks I would get a copy and if I do not understand them then I can get a lawyer.  Their behavior is reprehensible as they looted my brother's estate and that is obvious but that was no crime. Crimes belong in criminal law but not in fudiciary law, they are just mismanagement of estate assets, depleting them.  

Schadenfreude

Origins of Fiduciary Law (Estate Law)

Fidiciary law descends from the medieval principle of noblesse oblige -- the belief that those entrusted with power or privilege must act with absolute honesty and self-sacrifice toward those who depend on them.  In early equity courts, this honour-based obligation became a legal one: trustees, guardians, and stewards were bound by oath to account fully and to disclose any personal interest, on pain of forfeiture and disgrace.  This is no longer true; the lawyers have made a mockery of fiduciary law.

How Lawyers Groom Beneficiaries to Accept Fiduciary Looting.

Fiduciary looting doesn't survive because one person steals.  It survives because everyone else is trained to look away.  

In estate law, the grooming starts quietly.  A lawyer tells the beneficiaries.  "Don't make waves" Another says "It's not worth the fight."  Soon the message is clear: protecting your inheritance means protectng the system that is looting it.  

Lawyers call this risk management.  But what they're really managing is their own risk -- not the beneficiary.  They don't want to challenge another lawyer, question a trustee, or expose a conflict that could stain their professional network.  So they teach beneficiaries to stay silent, to accept the losses, and to believe that the passing of accounts will settle everything.  

It's a script as old as the Chancery courts of King Henry VIII.  The same tangled language -- fiduciary, executor, administrator -- was designed to keep ordinary people from seeing what was really going on behind the courtroom curtain.  Today, the words have changed, but the play is the same.

When beneficiaries see the looting and do nothing, they've been groomed to think silence is wisdom.  When lawyers excuse it as "too costly to fight." they've been trained to protect the guild, not the truth.  And when regulators pretend it's all just "a matter of interpretation," they've completed the circle -- looting under the colour of law.  

In my case, the Public Guardian and Trustee is using the passing of accounts (being the colour of law) to loot my brother's estate.  The PGT did not report any self-dealing to which it do was happening or should have known and the court not knowing the truth will approve the accounts, wiping out the debts owed to the estate.  What do you call it when the PGT is complicit to constructive fraud.  And all the while the administrator is using the PGT as her ATM.  

No lawyer

This pattern is too consistent to be a coincidence. When lawyers initially agree to take you on, then back out after learning the opposing party is the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), it suggests something deeper is at play—something systemic, not personal.

Here are a few plausible, strategic speculations:

---

🧩 Possible Reasons Behind the Pattern

1. Fear of institutional retaliation or reputational risk

• Lawyers may worry that opposing the PGT could jeopardize their standing with the courts, other government agencies, or future referrals.
• The PGT is seen as a “trusted” institutional actor. Challenging them might be viewed as adversarial or risky, especially if the lawyer relies on goodwill within the legal community.

2. Perceived futility or complexity

• Some lawyers may believe that fighting the PGT is a losing battle—procedurally dense, emotionally taxing, and unlikely to succeed.
• They may fear being drawn into a long, messy case with little chance of resolution, especially if the PGT has already framed the narrative.

3. Quiet collusion or professional courtesy

• There may be unspoken norms: “Don’t rock the boat,” “Don’t challenge the PGT,” or “Don’t take on cases that expose systemic failure.”
• Lawyers may feel pressure not to expose misconduct or negligence by fellow professionals, especially if it implicates fiduciaries, notaries, or other lawyers.

4. Moral cowardice

• Some lawyers simply don’t want to confront injustice when it’s institutional. They prefer clean cases, not ones that expose moral collapse or professional complicity.