'Estate manager' is my generic term. In my experience, the role brings out the very worst in some people. I was briefly an executor and found watching every penny and every cent the most onerous and disagreeable experience of my life. I want to know why lawyers turn bad in the role. I'll be giving some interesting examples from my personal and professional archives.
The insanity of appointing a lawyer as estate manager (testator-appointed will executor; court-appointed estate administrator, etc.). Why isn't there a law against it? What are you thinking, idiot? The milkman would do a better job.
1. "She's very good." She sure is! Very professional solicitor criminal and her gang (women lawyer criminals are the worst)
This is an ongoing multiply comprehensively criminal saga that has its place elsewhere (and is already alluded to at https://www.inheritancecrime.com/discussion), but I'll mention it here briefly to fill up space, not quite in the usual format, and I haven't had time to distill it or make it less repetitious, but I know the case so well that the facts just flow and every time I write about it I discover new angles and nuances and if you study it you'll get the idea.
It's a direct continuation, a peculiar, criminally manufactured criminal evolution, of #3.1 above. Its numerous procedural and substantive inner-office, back-office, front-office, recourse, public relations and support systems criminality re issues, incidents, episodes, relationships and transactions, and the various organised crime aspects, and the international and multi-jurisdictional aspects, are full of the deepest technical interest.
I'll try to keep it simple.
PM has died. He was a 25% heir of AN's residuary estate. As of PM's death, AN's estate had not been fully administered. PM leaves a will leaving his net residuary estate — including his 25% share in AN's estate — to eight heirs.
First, a few simple points, of perhaps only marginal relevance, of Swiss succession law (some points below have been the subject of prolonged extensive debate between me and a supposedly eminent local notaire and I think he is wrong wrong wrong on all points concerning PM's estate manager's rights and functions in relation to AN's estate and AN's estate's heirs and the Swiss case he cited is on a different point):-
On general principles, PM's estate (per his will's express stipulations, to be administered solely in accordance with English law unless another law applies) doesn't succeed to PM's 25% share of AN's estate (per her will's express stipulation, to be administered solely in accordance with Swiss law). It follows that PM's estate manager as such has no role in the affairs of PM's heirs once they have been properly transplanted into AN's estate. She has no right as such to chaperone PM's heirs or infiltrate AN's estate or infiltrate the affairs of AN's estate's heirs individually, in combination or collectively
Rather, PM's heirs succeed, individually and collectively, in their own right and in their own respective proportions, to PM's 25% share. They infiltrate AN's estate lawfully and without any chaperoning from PM's estate manager. They are on their own. Of course they can collectively appoint an executor, and each of them can appoint his her or its personal representative to deal with his her or its interest in AN's estate. But none of that has anything to do with PM's estate or PM's estate manager
Once their means of transport to AN's estate — PM's will — has been properly authenticated and approved (how (English full grant of probate), by whom (English court), when, where, in favor of whom (PM's estate manager) are all irrelevant if all is in order), and recognised by the Swiss whatever (certificat d'hérétiers from the juge de paix, in this case), PM's heirs individually and collectively achieve automatic admission to AN's estate regardless of who they are, whence they come and how they come. The fact is that they are now, in effect, in AN's will
Of course one has a primal hesitation about how PM's heirs were, have been and continue to be legitimated for purposes of their infiltration of AN's estate. PM's estate manager criminally applied for, obtained, retained and exercised her judicial appointments as PM's estate's interim administrator and ad col grantee; and ditto the full grant of probate of PM's will and thus her appointment as full administrator. How all this criminality affects the validity of the probate grant — whether to that extent PM's heirs ever lawfully succeeded to PM's interest in AN's estate — is an interesting question. I think there's no point in treating the grant as void, or trying to obtain a declaration from a genuinely fully informed English court judge that it and everything else is void, even if it is void, because, whatever all the criminal cedents and antecedents, probate (however void) of PM's will got PM's heirs where they needed to be — into AN's estate, including for purposes of them administering AN's estate — and it is impossible to do the unravelling necessary to effectuate the avoidance and anyway I don't see anyone litigating any of this (there has to be some English law doctrine somewhere that an English judicial decision obtained criminally is still valid if impossible to unravel its effects)
That still leaves the position and activities of PM's estate manager. However PM's estate's heirs infiltrate AN's estate, how PM's estate manager infiltrates AN's estate, or rather the affairs of AN's heirs, is another thing. Once her own pseudo-official and (if it be her criminal, wholly unfounded argument) pseudo-collective-personal-representative infiltration process has been initiated and as it proceeds, how she and her gang then behave in relation to AN's estate and the AN-related affairs, rights and functions of AN's heirs individually, in combination and collectively, is and continues to be monstrously criminal procedurally and substantively. However extensive you may think is the selective abbreviated summary below, it doesn't relate the procedural and or substantive criminality she and her gang perpetrated in relation to both AN's estate and the victim heir, which of course will fill volumes. Whether or not she really does have any chaperone or other legal right to do any of it, and what she actually does and doesn't do, is of course somewhat relevant to her criminality. But let's not forget that whatever her civil rights in relation to AN's estate and AN's heirs individually, in combination and or collectively, and however criminal her various infiltrations, such infiltration is not in principle necessarily of itself harmful, however cunning, calculated and preparatory, if she then repines, demurs, refrains and does nothing with it. Having infiltrated, her criminality is then in her acts and defaults of arrogation.
Trusted co-executor TR who promised the testator he would act as an executor reneges and disclaims because he's a greedy shit-headed coward. Remaining co-executor co-heir RA is removed as executor by the other heirs because their ringleader HN doesn't trust him to not go after HN's 'ordinary course of business' buddy FB, HN and HN's wife. RA is replaced by interim and then full administrator "She's very good" solicitor ('I must make my own decisions') CMG, who criminally obtains appointment as interim administrator by lying to the heirs and the court, barges in, and in an early criminal manoeuvre jettisons with highly indicative criminal timing data that would not be of any interest to any innocent administrator of PM's estate and would be of elemental importance to every innocent estate manager of AN's estate, and assembles a gang of five or six or more other solicitors from her firm and two or three barristers PR, MB and CE, and seven fully supportive heirs, and proceeds to comprehensively rampage over PM's estate and — without those all-important data — AN's estate. CMG or whoever is doing her work for her handles PM's plain vanilla estate so-so. It starts to get technically fascinating at the outset. PM's (English) estate includes PM's 25% interest in AN's (Swiss) estate. As I understand multiple multi-jurisdiction testamentary succession, PM's heirs succeeded to PM's 25% share of AN's estate as soon as PM's will had been probated. Criminal administrator CMG, having criminally conned PM's heirs (or at least all but one of them) into consenting to her becoming administrator; having criminally conned a Chance'ry Division judge into rubber-stamping her application to be interim administrator; having criminally applied for and criminally obtained an ad col grant and criminally misused it, then proceeds to multiply criminally apply for and obtain a full grant of probate of PM's will. We'll look elsewhere at the effect of that criminality. But did she ever utilise this full grant? When and in relation to what did she invoke it? Who else was comprehensively confused about where, how, why and in relation to what she fitted in to AN's estate and the affairs of AN's heirs? The technical legal position is that on a legitimate legal full grant of probate of PM's will, PM's heirs migrate to PM's interest in AN's estate, taking PM's share of AN's residue in accordance with their own respective shares of PM's residue, without being chaperoned in any way by PM's estate's criminal administrator, who, full grant or not, criminal or not, has no jurisidiction, function, power or interest whatever in anything to do with AN's estate (we'll leave aside her criminally applied for, obtained and utilised ad col grant, an important criminal sideshow); and once installed in AN's estate, they are entitled and required to make their own decisions about recovering AN's and AN's estate's stolen art and cash with no gratuitous interference from anyone, especially including this criminal administrator with or without her criminally obtained full grant. If you have a vivid imagination, you might be able to guess a tiny fraction of the full horror of what then happens to AN's estate, and its unfinished front-office business, and what has actually happened, and what continues to happen, continuing, continuum and continuosity style, including to the stolen pictures and cash, thanks to CMG, her firm, her criminal barristers, her criminal Swiss lawyer friend, eight heirs and various other connections and contacts. Absolutely nothing to do with CMG having any grant. Her English grant is worthless in Switzerland. And PM's estate has no assets or liabilities in Switzerland! And AN's estate is not PM's estate. and the migrating {PM estate to AN estate} heirs have not collectively given her, as a private citizen, permission to represent them personally collectively. Grant or no grant, she is not entitled to be anywhere near AN's estate or AN's heirs collectively. She and her gang have just barged in and criminalised the entire AN estate. Corruption, dishonesty, greed, criminal conflicts, false accounting, fraud, criminal infiltration, criminal arrogation, theft, embezzlement, perjury, extortion, coercion, sabotage, vandalism all round, on all relevant issues, in all relevant relationships and transactions, by around FIFTEEN specialist lawyer criminals, another Chance'ry Division judge who was obviously on the take, and eight criminal heirs. This barely conveys the full picture. And of course the villains now think they have got away with it (PM's estate might, as her firm puts it, well be 'closed' — there was never much there in the first place for CMG to mess up — but AN's estate and the extraordinary and extraordinarily timed, coordinated, calculated, executed, concealed plain-view and other criminality of CMG, her gangs, associates and accomplices, in various criminally obtained, fictitious and bogus capacities, and other principals and accessories — especially the lawyers and the criminal heirs — are another matter). And of couse FB has died. In this saga, there's FB's estate: a real class act of criminal infiltration, arrogation, deceit, deception, duplicity, fraud, concealment, etc. by CMG's firm, principally to take sole control of FB's estate's data — highly incriminating of FB and CMG and her firm, and HN, and others — and more. I wonder where FB's estate's papers are now. My forthcoming formal report on the case pixelates the story and astorises the evidence. It will make a good screenplay and your hair stand on end.