Chapter 5: The Death of Buck Black - The Estate Awakens

[LEGAL ADMIN]

Chapter 5:
The Death of Buck Black
The Estate Awakens

Introduction
Awakening of Things

Death has a peculiar way of awakening things that should have remained asleep. Old grievances, forgotten debts, unspoken resentments - they all come crawling out of the shadows when a person passes, especially when they die without a will. The death of a loved one should be a time for mourning, for reflection, for the quiet settling of affairs. But in the world of intestate estates, it can also become a battlefield - a contest for assets, a scramble for advantage, and sometimes, a vehicle for deception. Greed can creep in.

Buck Black died intestate in 2022. He left no will, no written instructions, no clear expression of his wishes. This is not uncommon - many people die without a will, leaving their families to navigate the complex and often confusing process of estate administration. But what happened next was anything but common.

Within one week of Buck Black's death, seven days in fact, his widow, Vicky Black, arrived at the property in question. After preforming a Land Titles search and upon seeing Buck Black's name on the land titles Registration, she went to find out why. The widow was gently informed, in plain English that her husband Buck, had simply never owned the property, he never bought it. He was a Trustee, holding 'Bare Legal Title', facilitating a mortgage years, ago now, nothing more.

Also, Vicky was informed that, Buck Black had lent money to Mark Striker, but that debt was stale, unenforceable, and effectively dead. There was no inheritance to claim. No fifty percent share of a farm. No windfall.

In an act generosity, Marc offered to pay the $150,000 stale debt, that was no longer owed between Bark and Buck anyway, as an act of compassion, in this difficult time, as long as Vicky agreed to voluntarily remove Buck's name from the Title and Mortgage. Simple.

Yet Vicky Black did not accept this. She saw an opportunity - a name on a title, a technicality that could be exploited, a chance to extract money from a situation that, by all rights, should have been resolved with a simple transfer of title, as obligated by the law and morals. Was it loss, greed, or hubris fueling this reprehensible drive is unknown. Only God knows.

Vicky instead set in motion, a chain of events that would lead to extortionate demands, a deceptive petition to the Court, and a prolonged legal battle that would cost everyone involved - except, perhaps, the lawyers who saw the billable hours multiplying before their eyes. This pattern of deception would plague the property from now on. Vicky actually, lied about being the Estate Administrator, that was the first lie of many to come.

This chapter is about the birth of that legal nightmare. It is about the appointment of an Estate Administrator, the hiring of a law firm, the issuance of an extortionate demand letter, and the filing of a Petition that was built on a foundation of falsehoods. It is about the Duty of Candour that was ignored, the sharp practice that was employed, and the abuse of process that would follow. And it is about the moment when a self-represented litigant realized that the legal system, for all its promise of justice, could be weaponized against the innocent.

The law provides rules for these situations. The Partition of Property Act (RSBC 1996, c 347) sets out the legal requirements, prerequisites for forcing a sale of property. The Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia imposes a Duty of Candour on lawyers. The Supreme Court Civil Rules require full disclosure in petition proceedings. But rules are only as good as the people who enforce them - and in this case, the rules were bent, twisted, and selectively ignored. One would think it could not happen, but it did.

The Intestate Estate
A Legal Vacuum

When a person dies without a will, they are said to have died intestate. The law then steps in to fill the vacuum. In British Columbia, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (SBC 2009, c 13) governs the distribution of an intestate's property. It provides that the estate is to be administered by a person appointed by the Court - the Administrator.

But before that appointment can be made, someone must apply to the Court for a Grant of Administration. This is a formal legal process that requires notice to all interested parties, an inventory of assets, and a declaration of the deceased's property. Seems straightforward enough.

In the case of Buck Black, the process was not followed. Or rather, it was followed in a manner that was calculated to deceive.

Within one week of Buck's death, his widow, Vicky Black, began asserting that she was the Administrator of his estate. She made this claim to Mark Striker and Sam Bailey, demanding compliance with her instructions. She presented herself as a legal authority, wielding the power of the probate Court, the apparent legitimacy of the state.

But here is the critical fact: she had not yet been appointed. She would not be appointed for another 10 months. She was not the Administrator. She had no legal authority to make demands. She was, in the eyes of the law, a private citizen with no power over the Black Estate. The closest parallel concept for this is called “stolen Valor”.

Stolen valor is the act of lying about military service, claiming military awards or badges that were not earned, or wearing a military uniform without authorization, usually for personal or financial gain. While lying about military service alone is generally protected as free speech under the First Amendment, it becomes illegal federal fraud, the moment someone uses that lie, to secure a financial advantage, employment, or government benefits.

Legal Maxim: "Qui facit per alium facit per se" - translation - “He who acts through another acts himself.”

This maxim is relevant because Vicky Black, acting through her lawyers, would later claim that her actions as Administrator were lawful. But they were not. She was not the Administrator when she made her initial demands. She was not the Administrator when she threatened legal action. She was not the Administrator when she began the process of claiming ownership of the property. She was a widow who saw an opportunity and seized it - without legal authority, without a court order, and without regard for the truth.

The Wills, Estates and Succession Act is clear: no one can act as an Administrator until they have been appointed by the court. To do so before that appointment is to act without legal authority. It is to misrepresent one's status. And it is to engage in conduct that undermines the integrity of the Estate Administration Process.

Legal Maxim: "Nemo est haeres viventis" - translation - “No one is the heir of a living person.”

This maxim underscores a fundamental principle: a person cannot inherit from someone who is still alive, and an Administrator cannot act before they are appointed. Vicky Black's premature assertion of legal authority, was a violation of this principle. It was an attempt to create a “fait accompli”, to present herself as a legal authority so that no one would question her claims.

Another very important note here. When someone dies Intestate, which means without a will, the survivors are in a legal position, of having to prove their claims against any competing interest. If there is a question to settle at law regarding property ownership, or asset dispersion or settle of debts, the Estate must actually prove their claims. The onus of proof is on the Estate. The Estate would repeatedly, illegitimately and deceptively, claim the reverse of the onus of proof, to gain position.

We will explore this important concept now. The Architecture of Estate Defense: From the Threat of “In Terrorem” to the actual burden of Intestacy

The intersection of property law, mortality, and human nature often creates a volatile legal environment. When a person passes away, the distribution of their lifelong accumulation of wealth becomes a focal point for potential conflict among survivors, creditors, and competing claimants. To state it plainly, and almost with vulgarity, the pile of stuff, and who gets it, is fought over.

To navigate these waters, the legal system relies on a foundational framework of maxims, principles, and rules regarding the burden of proof. Two distinct legal realities highlight how an estate defends its integrity: the aggressive defensive mechanism of the “In Terrorem” clause in a valid will, and the vulnerable, evidence-bound position of an estate navigating intestacy.

The Mechanics of Fear: The “In Terrorem” Clause - To understand how an estate defends itself when a written plan exists, by way of “Last Will and Testament”, one must look at the legal maxim “In Terrorem”, which translates from Latin to "in terror" or "by way of threat." In the realm of estate planning, an in terrorem clause - often called a no-contest clause - is a provision placed within a will or trust designed to terrify a beneficiary into compliance. It explicitly states that if a beneficiary challenges the validity of the will and loses, they will forfeit whatever inheritance they were granted under the document.

The psychological and legal strategy behind in terrorem is pure deterrence. The testator utilizes the threat of total financial loss to maintain peace, prevent costly litigation, and ensure their final wishes are respected without interference. However, the law balances this intimidation with fairness. Under modern legal principles, Courts often refuse to enforce an in terrorem clause, if the challenger can show "probable cause" or good faith - such as credible evidence of fraud, forgery, or undue influence. The clause serves as a private, contractual shield, relying on the fear of loss to protect the estate from internal fracture.

The Naked State: The Vulnerability of Intestacy - When a person dies intestate - meaning without a valid will - the shield of the in terrorem clause does not exist. There is no customized document to terrify challengers, no hand-picked executor, and no explicit distribution of assets. Instead, the estate enters a state of legal vulnerability governed entirely by default state statutes.

In an intestate estate, situation, the survivors and the Court-appointed administrator find themselves, in a profoundly demanding position. Because the deceased left no instructions, the law assumes nothing. Every claim to a piece of property, every assertion of familial relationship, and every demand for debt collection must be fully litigated or legally verified. Here, the estate cannot rely on deterrence; it must rely entirely on absolute proof.

The Onus of Proof: “Ei Incumbit Probatio” - The defining feature of managing an intestate estate, is the immediate shifting of the burden of proof. This is governed by the ancient legal maxim: “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” - "The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies." A closely related maxim, “Actori incumbit onus probandi”, further establishes that the burden of proof rests firmly upon the claimant.

In the context of intestacy, the Black Estate itself acts as the primary claimant. The Administrator of the Black Estate, is now the party making the affirmative claim that certain assets belonged to the deceased and must now be gathered under the Balck Estate's umbrella. If a bank account, a parcel of land, or a physical asset is contested by a third party, the Black Estate cannot simply demand it by virtue of the deceased's passing. The Black Estate must prove, through clear and convincing evidence, that the deceased held valid title to that asset. The onus of proof is an uphill battle born entirely by the Black Estate.

Settling Claims and the Rule of “Nemo Dat” - This burden becomes even heavier when the Estate must resolve competing interests, such as managing lines of succession or settling debts. Without a will to cleanly dictate who the legal heirs are, survivors must legally prove their relationship to the deceased. They must produce birth certificates, marriage licenses, or adoption decrees to satisfy the statutory requirements of intestate succession.

Simultaneously, the Estate must defend itself against creditors. Before a single dollar can be passed down to an heir, the Estate must satisfy all legitimate debts, taxes, and funeral expenses. If a creditor steps forward claiming the deceased owed them money, the creditor must prove the debt. Conversely, if the Black Estate claims it holds an asset free and clear of any external liens, it must prove that status.

This environment is governed by the principle “Nemo dat quod non habet” - "No one gives what they do not have." The Estate cannot legally transfer clear ownership of an asset, to a surviving family member, if that asset is legally encumbered by a debt, a mortgage, or a competing ownership claim. The Administrator must actively clear the title of every asset, mathematically balancing the ledger of the deceased.

Ultimately, the contrast between an in terrorem clause and the realities of intestacy reflects the dual nature of estate law. An in terrorem clause represents a proactive, private attempt to control the future through the threat of forfeiture, using fear to prevent legal battles before they start. Intestacy, by contrast, is a reactive process stripped of all protective threats. It forces the Estate, into the open arena of the Probate Court, where every asset, relationship, and liability is subject to intense scrutiny. In this arena, the Estate holds no magical shields. It must bear the heavy weight of the onus probandi, methodically proving its claims against all competing interests to ensure a lawful and orderly transition of property.

The situation is very different when there is an actually bonafide Will, because when a 'Last Will and Testament' is left, the gravitas of the surviving document has a lot of legal weight in persuasion, but even that may be challenged. One cannot simple leave the kingdom of England, or the British Crown Jewels, to their survivors in their will and it be enforced. The Crown of England, would be able to challenge such an assertion, and evidence of bonafides (the legitimacy of the claim) would need to be produced to prove the claim.

To help explain this concept, in a legal or formal claim, “bonafides” (pronounced 'bona fides' meaning "good faith" in Latin) refers to the sincere intention to act honestly, fairly, and without any intent to deceive or take unfair advantage. When establishing your bonafides in a claim, you are proving that your claim is genuine and brought forward in good faith. This typically involves two main components:

1. Honesty in Fact: You sincerely believe that your claim is true, accurate, and justified based on the information you have.

2. Absence of Malice or Deceit: The claim is not being made to harass, defraud, or maliciously nuisance the other party.

In practice, you demonstrate your bonafides by providing solid supporting evidence, maintaining a consistent and truthful narrative, and cooperating transparently throughout the claims process.

Back to our situation, Vicky Black was using the appearance of being the Administrator of the Black Estate, to make demands, pretending she had the legitimacy and legal obligations to do so, as Administrator of the Estate which was false. She demanded an appraisal of the Property, claiming the Court wanted it. Vicky did not reveal her true intentions, she deceptively mislead Marc and Sam, into cooperating with a deceptive premise. This was to acquire an appraisal of the property, claiming the Court Process demanded it and all the while, simply deceptively seeking the appraisal amount to launch her new rounds of demands and attack.

The very process of Probate Court was warped, to favor the desired outcome of the Administrator. Vicky Black had an obligation to inform the Court, when making the application be granted Administrator, of anyone who may be effected by the Estates claims. Vicky did not name, Marc or Sam, in that paperwork. Only herself and her children were named. Deceptively making it appear to the Probate Court, as if no controversy was occurring at all.

The deception was compounded by the fact, that Vicky Black was not merely overstepping her authority - she was also misrepresenting the facts. 10 months after Buck Black died, Vicky actually became appointed Administrator, of the Black Estate, the first thing she did, was apparently hire a lawyer to begin threatening Same and Marc.

Vicky Black now started claiming that Buck, had purchased the property. She claimed that a contract of sale existed. She claimed that consideration had been paid. All of these claims were false. And yet, armed with nothing more than a name on a title and a willingness to deceive, she set out to claim what was not hers. The path of destruction was set.

This is the foundation of the case: a claim of ownership based on nothing but a name. No contract, no consideration, no evidence, no eyewitnesses. Just a name on a title and a widow's determination to extract what she could from a situation that should have been resolved with a simple conversation.

It is important, to zoom into the problem here. The widow, rejected the $150,000 cash offer, she was not entitled to at all, offered simply and generously, to set the Buck Black matter to rest and move in life. No actual obligation prompted this offer, it was simply a good faith generous settlement, opportunity to clear this shadow on title, with finality. She rejected that, instead trail blazed as train-wreck of a case, seeking to be paid out $850,000, with no entitlement to that either. What drives people to do things is a mystery.

The Extortion Letter
A Lawyer's Demand

At some point, Vicky Black retained the services of a law firm, we will call 'Agrolegal' Law Firm. And at some point, a lawyer named Chuck Norwin, took charge of her file. It was Chuck Norwin who would write the letter that changed everything.

The first extortion letter, of three, arrived in the mail, addressed only to Sam Bailey. It would be the first incoming ammunition round, that would have to be endured. It was formal, typed, and bore the letterhead of an apparently respected law firm.

The letter, was also, in substance, a demand for money - $850,000 to be precise. The letter stated that unless this sum was paid to the Estate of Buck Black, the law firm would file an application for a forced sale of the property under the Partition of Property Act (RSBC 1996, c 347), and would seek vacant possession to facilitate the sale. It was, by any reasonable measure, an extortionate demand.

Legal Maxim: "Mala fides" - translation - Bad faith.

'Mala fides' is a Latin legal term that translates directly to "bad faith." It refers to a state of mind where someone acts with dishonest, deceptive, or fraudulent intent. In legal disputes, proving that a party acted in 'mala fides' can significantly damage their case, void contracts, or lead to penalties.

An act is considered to be in 'mala fides' if a person enters an agreement, makes a claim, or takes an action knowing they are doing something wrong, misleading the other party, or violating a duty. It is the exact opposite of bona fides (good faith), which assumes honest intentions.

Common Applications in Law - Contract Law: If someone enters a contract with no intention of fulfilling their end of the deal, or intentionally hides crucial information to deceive the other party, they are acting in bad faith. The court can void the contract and award damages to the victim.

Proving Mala Fides - Because mala fides deals with a person's inner intentions, it can be difficult to prove. Courts look for objective evidence of dishonesty, such as: Clear misrepresentations or lies; Concealing important facts; Actions that directly contradict what was agreed upon.

The letter we are talking about here, I claim was written in bad faith. How could it not be? It was based on false premises. It claimed that Buck Black owned fifty percent of the property. It claimed that the Estate had a right to force a sale. It claimed that if the money was not paid, Mark Striker and Sam Bailey would lose their home. All of these claims were false. And yet, the letter was sent, and the threat was made. The letter being sent, was the only thing that was actually true.

This threat was laughable, except, it came from a lawyer, threatening to use the Court to make good on the threat. How Could this be possible. Surely a Court would not conspire to do grave injustice. This seemed an unimaginable impossibility. If the lawyer only knew the truth, then he would stop. We informed him of the truth, but his extortionate claims did not change. Not one bit.

Ii is important to bring your attention to a illuminating fact. A revealing date point, added to the over all fact pattern here. The use of $850,000 as the demanded sum is noteworthy. It is just below the $1,000,000 threshold at which criminal fraud could be invoked, and the sender potentially charged with criminal fraud. This is not a coincidence. It is a deliberate choice - a careful calibration designed to maximize pressure while minimizing legal risk.

What the letter did not say was equally telling. It did not mention that Buck Black had never purchased the property. It did not mention that there was no contract of sale. It did not mention that the debt was stale and unenforceable. It did not mention that the Statute of Frauds required a written contract for the sale of land, and that no such contract existed. It did not mention that the Estate had no eyewitnesses. It presented only the Estate's version of events - a version that was carefully curated to exclude any facts that might undermine the claim.

I ask the reader, would you pay someone, who is threatening to take your property by force, to simply avoid the hassle of the harassment, so you may keep your property. Or would you say no. On principle. This is wrong. This is my property, you have no right to take it and I will not pay you for what is rightfully mine. Theft is theft, weather fraudulently draped in the wrapping of law or wrapped in the hood of an obvious highway robber villain.

The letter was not merely a demand for money. It was a warning. It was a threat. It was an attempt to intimidate Mark Striker and Sam Bailey into paying a sum that they did not owe, for a claim that had no legal merit. Mark and Sam know for a fact the Buck never bought the property, Mark would know if Buck paid Mark $500,000, it did not happen. It is hard to describe the logical paradox here. In essence Mark would be buying his own property, from a stranger, under threat and duress. Not buying back, because he already had it, just paying to not be made homeless. It was an absurd situation. But the threat was real.

Legal Maxim: "In terrorem" – translation - “As a warning or threat.”

The flesh this concept out, “In terrorem” is a Latin legal term meaning "in terror" or "by way of threat." In legal contexts, it refers to a clause or provision inserted into a legal document, designed to scare someone into doing something, or deter someone from taking a specific action by threatening them with a severe penalty.

This maxim describes the effect of the letter. It was designed to create fear - the fear of losing one's home, the fear of being dragged through the Courts, the fear of having to move all of ones possession to a new place, the fear of an uncertain and expensive legal battle. It was a classic example of sharp practice: using the threat of litigation to extract a settlement, even when the underlying claim has no merit. We already covered “In terrorem” in the context of the will and now in the context of a threatening letter. Both are important.

The letter also represented a failure of the lawyer's professional obligations. The binding Rules of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia imposes a Duty of Candour on lawyers. This is not a suggestion, it is a statutory requirement, negotiation with the State, who grants the law Society a monopoly to govern legal licenses in the Province.

The quid pro quo, is that there is no competition, in the offering of legal services, because all lawyers are allegedly bound to the same code of professional conduct, therefor there would be not point is having competition. This is the logic presented by the State.

Because of the Law, specifically the Law Society Act, a lawyer allegedly must be honest with the Court, with opposing parties, and with their own clients. They allegedly must not make claims that they know, or ought to know, are false. They allegedly must not threaten litigation without a reasonable basis. And yet, Chuck Norwin sent the letter anyway.

When we tried to hold these lawyers accountable, we went in circles of absurdity. We were told complaining to the law society was the appropriate thing to do. We complained to the Law Society, and they said the claims were beyond their Jurisdiction, so a Court had to hold them accountable. When we tried to sue the lawyers personally, this law suit was rejected, because, astonishingly, no lawyer has ever been sued by someone who is not their client in all of Canada ever. How is this possible. But it is.

What is astounding is that no rule exists anywhere, no black letter law, that specifically states you can never sue a lawyer who is not your lawyer. That would be too obviously, unjust. Instead there is an unwritten rule, explained by judicial precedent, that make this iron clad position by default.

We tried to set a new legal president, because we had no other option, and Justice demanded it, and because this situation was outrageous, but we soon learned an expensive lesson.

Any bad behavior done by a lawyer, blows back on their client. The only options legally available, are to ask that a judgment obtain by fraud be overturned, Cost awards against the client of the lawyer, and finally Contempt of Court. This will be detailed later in this book.

The Duty of Candour -
A Lawyer's Obligation

The 'Duty of Candour' is one of the most important obligations of a lawyer. It is enshrined in the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, Chapter 2, Rule 2.1-2(a), which states: "A lawyer's conduct should at all times be characterized by candour and fairness. The lawyer should maintain toward a court or tribunal a courteous and respectful attitude and insist on similar conduct on the part of clients...."

This duty is not optional. It is not a suggestion. It is a mandatory obligation that applies to every lawyer in every case. It means that a lawyer must be honest with the Court. They must not misrepresent the facts. They must not omit material information. They must not make claims that they know, or ought to know, are false. And they must not pursue litigation for an improper purpose.

Legal Maxim: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" - translation - “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.”

This maxim captures the essence of the Duty of Candour. Justice is the primary objective of the legal system. Everything else - including the client's desire for a favourable outcome - is secondary. A lawyer must be willing to put justice above their client's interests, even if it means losing the case.

In our case, the Duty of Candour was repeatedly violated.

First, Chuck Norwin made claims in the demand letter that he knew, or ought to have known, were false. He claimed that Buck Black had purchased the property. He claimed that a contract of sale existed. He claimed that consideration had been paid. He had no evidence to support these claims. He had not investigated the facts. He had not spoken to the witnesses. He had simply accepted his client's version of events - a version that was contradicted by the very facts of the case.

Second, Chuck Norwin threatened litigation without a reasonable basis. The Partition of Property Act only applies if the party seeking the sale is the beneficial owner of the property and holds fifty percent or more of the ownership interest. This is a two part test, failing either part, the Partition of Property Act does not apply, no sale may be enforced. Chuck Norwin knew, or ought to have known, that the Estate could not meet these requirements. He had no evidence of ownership. He had no evidence of purchase. He had no evidence of consideration. No eyewitnesses. And yet, he threatened to use the Act to force a sale anyway.

Third, Chuck Norwin pursued a strategy of maximum pressure. He sought to force a settlement by threatening eviction. He sought to create fear and uncertainty. He sought to overwhelm Mark Striker and Sam Bailey with the threat of legal action. This is not a legitimate litigation strategy - it is an abuse of process.

The duty of candour is not merely a rule of professional conduct. It is a fundamental principle of the legal system. When lawyers violate it, they undermine the integrity of the courts. They cause harm to the opposing parties. And they bring the profession into disrepute.

The Petition
A Strategic Deception

The next step in the Estate's campaign was the filing of a Petition with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Petition was filed in April 15 2024. It was signed by Chuck Norwin, the lawyer for the Estate. It was a strategic document - calculated to achieve a specific outcome through a careful combination of omissions and misrepresentations.

Interestingly the Petition was filed, after the expected deadline of the 2 year anniversary of Buck Black's death. Buck Black died April 7, 2022. One would expect every legal claim to settle the Black Estate to be filed within 2 years from that date, so there could be no argument that the claim was bared by the Limitations Act of B.C. The Statute states clearly that a claim must be brought under 2 years. 2 years from Buck Black's death would be April 7, 2022.

What is interesting is that April 15, 2024, was two years from the date that Sam informed the widow, that the Black Estate had not claim on the farm. Both the professional lawyer and the widow, apparently thought the meeting with Sam, on week after Buck Black's passing, started the clock. One would think that the claim against the farm was over before it began. Why not just file a week earlier and remove the possibility of the claim nullification? It is odd. More on that later.

Buck Black dies, April 7, 2022. Vicky Black, waited one week before visiting the farm, to be told the name on Title was Bare Legal Title, not ownership interest. 10 months later Vicky become the actual legal Administrator for the Black Estate, immediately direct her unscrupulous lawyer to send the first demand letter. Then they filed the Petition on April 15, 2024.

The Petition named only one respondent: Sam Bailey. It did not name Mark Striker. I believe this was not an oversight. It was a deliberate tactic. By omitting Mark Striker, the Estate's lawyers sought to remove the star witness from the proceedings. They knew that Mark Striker was the one person who could testify to the true nature of the arrangement - that Buck Black had never purchased the property, that he had never paid for it, that his name was on the title solely in his capacity as Trustee holding Bare Legal Title. By keeping Mark Striker out of the proceedings, they hoped to present their case without contradiction.

Legal Maxim: "Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi" - translation - “Suppression of truth is suggestion of falsehood.”

This maxim captures the essence of the Estate's strategy. By omitting Mark Striker from the Petition, they suppressed the truth. By claiming that Buck Black was the owner of the property, they suggested a falsehood. The Petition was a document built on deception.

The Petition claimed that Buck Black was the beneficial owner of fifty percent of the property. It claimed that the Estate was entitled to a forced sale under the Partition of Property Act. It claimed that the Court had jurisdiction to order the sale. All of these claims were false. And yet, they were presented to the Court as facts, supported by nothing more than the assertion of the Estate's lawyers.

Section 2 of the Partition of Property Act provides that: "All joint tenants, tenants in common, coparceners, mortgagees or other creditors who have liens on, and all parties interested in any land may be compelled to partition or sell the land, or a part of it as provided in this Act."

The critical phrase is "parties interested in any land." This requires a beneficial interest - not merely a name on a title. The Estate had no evidence of a beneficial interest. They had no contract. They had no evidence of Valuable Consideration being exchanged. They had nothing but a name on a title and a presumption that they hoped the Court would accept without question. It was absurd.

Basic questions that ask themselves in this situation is: If Buck Black actually purchased the property, where is the contract?; How much money did he pay for how much land?; Where did the sale occur?; When did the sale occur?; When did the sale close?; Where did the transaction happen?; Are there any witness to an event of $500,000 changing hands?; What form of payment was the funds in?

The Black Estate is claiming, that because Buck Black allegedly invest $500,000 into the property, to buy 50 percent ownership, that investment has doubled in 10 years and the Estate is entitled to just under a million dollar return on that investment.

Mark is denying that a sale occurred, because no sale occurred. It never happened.

What you have to know, or remember is that one cannot prove a negative in law

The principle that one cannot prove a negative is a cornerstone of both logical reasoning and legal theory. While often treated as a casual truism in everyday conversation, within a court of law, this concept translates into a sophisticated framework of maxims, axioms, and evidentiary rules.

The legal system is fundamentally a pragmatic institution designed to resolve disputes fairly, predictably, and efficiently. Because tracking down proof of a non-occurrence is a logical impossibility in most circumstances, the architecture of jurisprudence is explicitly engineered to prevent parties from being saddled with the insurmountable task of proving a negative. To fully expand upon this foundational statement, one must examine the ancient Latin roots, the structural mechanics of evidentiary burdens, and the specific rules that Courts deploy to maintain fairness.

The philosophical and legal origins of this principle trace directly back to Roman law, preserved through centuries of jurisprudence via classic Latin maxims. The most prominent axiom grounding this concept is “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”, which dictates that the burden of proof lies upon the party who affirms a fact, not upon the one who denies it.
This maxim recognizes that the natural state of existence requires an assertive act to leave a trace, whereas an omission or a non-event leaves no footprint.

A closely related Roman Code axiom states “negantis autem per rerum naturam nulla est probatio”, which translates to the idea that by the very nature of things, there is no proof for one who denies. These ancient doctrines establish that forcing a litigant to establish a universal negative is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of nature and logic.

The law reflects reality, and since you cannot produce a physical artifact or a witness to testify to an absolute void, the law refuses to demand it.

In modern legal systems, these philosophical axioms are operationalized through the allocation of the burden of proof, governed by the rule “onus probandi actori incumbit”, meaning the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. When a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit or a prosecutor brings criminal charges, they are attempting to disrupt the existing status quo. They are asserting that an event occurred, an injury was inflicted, or a contract was breached. Because they are making the affirmative allegation, the law places the weight of persuasion and evidence production entirely on their shoulders. The opposing party is not required to walk into court and prove they did not commit a wrong; instead, they simply wait to see if the moving party can successfully prove that they did.

This structural safeguard finds its ultimate expression in criminal law through the presumption of innocence. A criminal defendant is never required to prove their innocence, which would require the impossible task of proving the negative statement that they did not commit the crime. Instead, the law adopts innocence as the baseline null hypothesis. The prosecution must overcome this presumption by proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

While the general rule strictly forbids forcing a party to prove a negative, modern evidentiary frameworks do account for nuance through the affirmative averment rule and the concept of specific knowledge.

Sometimes, a party’s claim or defense inherently relies on a negative proposition, such as proving that a company failed to provide adequate safety equipment. In these scenarios, courts look at whether the allegation is a negative pregnant, which is a denial that implies an affirmative fact, or if the evidence required to settle the matter is uniquely held by one party. If a plaintiff alleges a negative, the court may look to see if the defendant possesses the exclusive documentation to easily disprove it.

Furthermore, the legal system distinguishes between a pure logical negative and an indirect positive proof. While a litigant cannot easily prove a negative in isolation, they can prove a negative by establishing an incompatible positive fact. This is the exact mechanism of an alibi defense. A defendant does not prove the negative assertion that they were not at the crime scene by looking for missing evidence; rather, they prove the positive assertion that they were in a completely different city at the time of the offense. By proving a positive fact that is physically incompatible with the accusation, the negative is proven by proxy.

Ultimately, the rule that one cannot prove a negative ensures that legal battles remain grounded in tangible, verifiable evidence rather than speculation and impossible standards. By anchoring trials to the rule that the affirming party must provide the proof, the legal system protects individuals from arbitrary accusations and ensures that judicial outcomes are based on what can be demonstrated to have happened, rather than what cannot be proven to have missed.

Section 6 of the Partition of Property Act provides that: "If the party or parties interested, individually or collectively, to the extent of 1/2 or upwards in the property involved request the court to direct a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds instead of a division of the property, the court must, unless it sees good reason to the contrary, order a sale of the property."

Again, the critical requirement is a beneficial interest of fifty percent or more. This is a two part test of (1) Beneficial Interest and (2) 50 percent of more Beneficial Interest. The Estate had no such interest. They had no evidence of any interest. And yet, they presented the Petition as if the requirements had been met.

The Petition was not merely a legal document. It was a weapon. It was designed to pressure Mark Striker and Sam Bailey into settling. It was designed to create the impression that the Estate had a valid claim, when in fact it had none. It was, in short, an abuse of process.

The Consequences
of Misrepresentation

The misrepresentations in the demand letter and the Petition had real consequences. They caused financial damage, in law this is called pecuniary damages, because you can easily put a dollar number to the amount on damages. They also caused emotional distress, in law this is called non-pecuniary damages, damages that are difficult to put a dollar number on. They caused the loss of time, energy, and opportunity. And they forced Mark Striker and Sam Bailey to defend themselves against a claim that had no legal merit.

The first consequence was the damage to the property's perceived value. The filing of the Petition created a "cloud on title" - a legal uncertainty that made investment prospects impossible. Lenders and investors were reluctant to provide financing, in a property who's future was not only uncertain, but appeared to be under threat of forced sale. How can one offer secured collateral, when they are uncertain of the legal outcome of the property dispute.

The property's value was diminished, not by any defect in the property itself, but by the threat of litigation and the subsequent publishing of a property sale value, below the appraised amount, contrary to the Court Order that was acquired by way of Fraud Upon the Court. Prospective buyers were deterred.

Buck Black refusing to remove his name from Title to property, he did not own, and his name on a Mortgage he never paid, already created a "cloud on title" that had interfered with investment opportunities on the property the whole time Buck Black's name was on the title and mortgage. But this was a new level of offense.

The second consequence was the financial cost of defending the Petition. Mark Striker and Sam Bailey tried defending the baseless claims with the absolute truth, that was not enough, so they were forced to hire lawyers. They were forced to file responses. They were forced to attend hearings. They were forced to spend money that they could not afford, on a claim that should never have been brought. The legal fees mounted. The stress mounted. And the outcome was uncertain. This was not just an accounting dispute, they were being threatened with being thrown out on the street and their home stolen if they did not succeed. The stakes were high.

The third consequence was the emotional toll. The threat of eviction is a terrifying thing. The thought of losing one's home - a place where memories are made, where life is lived, where roots are planted - is almost unbearable. Mark Striker had lived on the property since 2000. He had built his life there. And now, a widow and her lawyers were trying to take it away. Legally sanctioned theft, by way of Fraud Upon the Court.

Legal Maxim: "Damnum sine injuria" - translation - “Damage without legal injury.”

This maxim describes a situation where harm is caused, but no legal wrong has been committed. In our case, however, the harm was caused by legal wrongs - by misrepresentation, by abuse of process, by violations of the Duty of Candour, by Fraud Upon the Court. The damage was real. The injury was real. And the law provides remedies for such injuries.

The misrepresentations in the demand letter and the Petition were not mere mistakes. They were deliberate falsehoods, calculated to achieve an improper purpose. They were violations of the Duty of Candour, violations of the Code of Professional Conduct, and violations of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. They were, in short, misconduct that demanded a remedy.

The question is whether the Courts would provide that remedy. And as we shall see in subsequent chapters, the answer was not always encouraging. Injustice happens quick, but resolving matters to achieve Justice, is an uphill battle the whole time.

The Abuse of Process
A Pattern of Conduct

The demand letter and the Petition were not isolated incidents. They were part of a pattern of conduct - a deliberate strategy of maximum pressure, designed to force a settlement in favour of the Black Estate or achieve a favourable outcome through deception and intimidation. Justice be damned. The message was simple and clear, if you want the abuse to stop simply pay, and the Estate will go away.

The pattern was evident from the beginning:

1. Misrepresentation of authority: Vicky Black claimed to be the Administrator of the Estate 10 months before she had been appointed, creating the false impression that she had legal authority to make demands.

2. Extortionate demand: Chuck Norwin sent a letter demanding $850,000, based on false claims of ownership and falsely threatening the use of the Partition of Property Act, to force a sale of the property, after vacant possession is acquired. Homelessness was implied in that threat, that is what vacant possession means. Being thrown onto the street is traumatizing fro anyone.

3. Omission of key parties: The Petition named only Sam Bailey as a respondent, omitting Mark Striker, the star witness, to apparently prevent him from potentially testifying at the Petition Hearing. Two people would be part of a two party contract for an alleged sale of the property, one of those two parties would have to be Marc Striker. The other, Buck Black, is now dead, and never wrote down anywhere that he claimed to have bought the property. Do you see the deceptive strategic move here?

4. Misrepresentation of ownership: The Petition falsely claimed that Buck Black had purchased the property, that a contract of sale existed, and that consideration had been paid. All falsehoods.

5. Reversal of the onus of proof: The Estate's lawyers sought to shift the burden of proof, requiring Mark Striker and Sam Bailey to prove their ownership, rather than requiring the Estate to prove its claim. No one questions that Mark Striker fully owned the property from the year 2000 to 2014. For that beneficial ownership to transfer, requires proof of claim. The Estate just claimed to reverse the legal onus pf proof, to avoid the obvious and deceive the Court.

6. Threat of eviction: The Estate's lawyers threatened vacant possession, creating the fear of losing one's home - a fear that was used, to pressure the opposing parties into settlement. This threat of homelessness element, creates an emotional layer, an air of impending dread that clouds judgment, and turns a simple math equation into a direct personal threat of harm.

7. Failure to provide evidence: The Estate's lawyers filed the Petition without any evidence - no contracts, no receipts, no eyewitnesses - relying instead on mere assertions and the assumption of the Court.

Legal Maxim: "Fraus est celare fraudem" - translation - “It is fraud to conceal fraud.”

This maxim applies to the Estate's conduct. They concealed the true nature of the arrangement - that Buck Black was a Trustee, not an owner. They concealed the true state of the debt - that it was stale and unenforceable. They concealed the true facts of the case, while presenting a false narrative to the Court. This is fraud in its most insidious form. They committed Fraud Upon the Court, to subvert an instrument of Justice, instead into an Instrument of oppression and real active threat. This is no small thing.

The pattern of conduct also violated the rules of professional conduct. The Lawyer's Code of Professional Conduct, requires that a lawyer's conduct be "characterized by candour and fairness." The Estate's lawyers were anything but fair. They used deception, omission, and intimidation to achieve their goals. They brought a claim that they knew, or ought to have known, was without merit. And they did so for an improper purpose - to pressure the opposing parties into settlement.

Legal Maxim: "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" – translation - “No one should be twice vexed for the same cause.”

This maxim captures the injustice of the Estate's conduct. The property was in dispute. The debt was stale. The claim was baseless. And yet, the opposing parties were forced to defend themselves, not once, but repeatedly - in the Petition, in the demand letter, and the subsequent series of Court actions dragging on for years, that required Mark and Sam, to fend off continuous threats of a forced sale and eviction. An impossible situation. Actively defend or lose everything. This was a vexatious use of the legal process, and it was a violation of the lawyer's Duty of Candour.

Conclusion
Should have been the End

The death of Buck Black should have been the end of a chapter - a quiet resolution to a decade of informal arrangements and unspoken understandings and constant interference with potential investment in the property. Instead, it was the beginning of a protracted legal nightmare. Within one week of his death, his widow, Vicky Black, began asserting claims that had no basis in fact or law. She fraudulently claimed to be the Administrator of his Estate 10 months, before she had been appointed. She fraudulently used this claim to force Mark and Sam to consent to an appraisal of the property, falsely claiming legal authority to do so. Then she claimed that Buck had owned the property, when he had done nothing of the sort. She claimed that the Estate was entitled to force a sale of the property, when there was no evidence to support such a claim and the actual law did not in fact allow for it.

And then she brought in the lawyers.

Chuck Norwin, a lawyer with the firm Agrolegal, wrote an extortionate demand letter, threatening a forced sale unless $850,000 was paid to the Black Estate. He filed a Petition that was strategically deceptive, omitting the key witness and falsely claiming ownership. He violated the Duty of Candour, the rules of professional conduct, and the basic principles of justice. And he did so for a simple reason: to pressure Mark Striker and Sam Bailey into settlement.

This is the sad reality of the legal system. It can be weaponized. It can be used to intimidate. It can be used to extract money from the innocent. But it is also a system that provides remedies. The Duty of Candour is enforceable. The Code of Professional Conduct is binding. The Courts have the power to sanction misconduct.

As a self-represented litigant, I have learned that the law is not a mystery. It is a set of rules, principles, and procedures that can be understood and applied by anyone willing to put in the work. The Black Estate's lawyers relied on the assumption that Mark Striker and Sam Bailey would not know the law, would not challenge the false claims, and would be forced to accept an unfair settlement. They were wrong.

Legal Maxim: "Ubi jus, ibi remedium" - translation - “Where there is a right, there must be a remedy.”

The right to own property. The right to defend one's home. The right to be protected from false claims and abuse of process. These are fundamental rights, and the law provides remedies for their violation. The Black Estate's lawyers may have thought they could get away with their misconduct, but they were mistaken. Justice may be delayed, but it is not denied.

In the chapters that follow, we will see how the pattern of misconduct continued - how the Estate's lawyers pursued their strategy of deception and pressure, how the courts sometimes failed to protect the innocent, and how the self-represented litigants fought back against the Abuse of Process. The journey is long. The lessons are hard. But the truth, when it is finally spoken, has the power to set the innocent free.

If you are moved to help, please follow this link to donate or share the link with your network - Thank You:
https://fundrazr.com/e2kop8?ref=ab_7hBZ ... hBZzeG046q