Form 66 (Rules 16-1 (2) and 21-5 (14) )

No. ...... 95677 .......KELOWNA Registry

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Between

Ernst John Krass3929 Woodell RoadWESTBANK BC V4T 1E1 , Petitioner

and

The Province of British Columbia

The Honourable Christy ClarkPremier of British ColumbiaBox 9041 Station PROV GOVTVICTORIA BC V8W 9E1

Minister of Justice and Attorney GeneralHonourable Shirley BondPO BOX 9044 Stn Prov GovtVICTORIA BC V8W 9E2 , Respondent(s)

PETITION TO THE COURT (AMENDED)(Rule 8-1 (3))

[Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to all forms.]

ON NOTICE TO:

The Province of British Columbia

The Honourable Christy ClarkPremier of British ColumbiaBox 9041 Station PROV GOVTVICTORIA BC V8W 9E1

Minister of Justice and Attorney GeneralHonourable Shirley BondPO BOX 9044 Stn Prov GovtVICTORIA BC V8W 9E2 , Respondent(s)

This proceeding has been started by the petitioner for the relief set out in Part 1 below.

If you intend to respond to this petition, you or your lawyer must

(a) file a response to petition in Form 67 in the above-named registry of this courtwithin the time for response to petition described below, and(b) serve on the petitioner(s)

(i) 2 copies of the filed response to petition, and(ii) 2 copies of each filed affidavit on which you intend to rely at thehearing.

Orders, including orders granting the relief claimed, may be made against you, without anyfurther notice to you, if you fail to file the response to petition within the time for response.

Time for response to petition

A response to petition must be filed and served on the petitioner(s),

(a) if you were served with the petition anywhere in Canada, within 21 days afterthat service,(b) if you were served with the petition anywhere in the United States of America,within 35 days after that service,(c) if you were served with the petition anywhere else, within 49 days after thatservice, or(d) if the time for response has been set by order of the court, within that time.

(1) The address of the registry is:

1355 Water StreetKELOWNA BC V1Y 9R3

(2) The ADDRESS FOR SERVICE of the petitioner(s) is:

Ernst John Krass3929 Woodell RoadWESTBANK BC V4T 1E1

E-mail address for service (if any) of the petitioner(s): ejk-soh@hotmail.com

Claim of the Petitioner

Part 1: ORDER(S) SOUGHT

1 The wording of s. 4 (b) and (c) of the 1996 through today Wills Act of British Columbia are foundto be a DENIAL of THE FREE Society and its standards for wills which makes the formal 2 witnessstandard for wills PATENTLY UNREASONABLE.

2 The current laws affirm that the provincial legislatures of British Columbia, Alberta,Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labradorhave dismissed completely Everyone’s concept of a will and simple inheritance through theapplication of enacted “technical” provisions like that of the Wills Act of British Columbia, theEstate Administration Act and the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia that show exactly howthe provincial legislatures have dismissed a Deceased’s ability to will his residual assets as they seefit.

3 The simplest and quickest correction to this matter is the reinstatement of the proper wording forRule 21-5 (1) of the Supreme Court Act to the following:

Interpretation

(1) The interpretation section of the Estate Administration Act applies to this rule IF AND ONLYIF the Deceased died without having left ANY will, codicil or testamentary document that mustbe used by the court in the dispensing of the assets: a will is effective if the court is satisfied that thewill embodies the intentions of the Deceased.

4 With this rewording of The Supreme Court Act of British Columbia that also has to apply to theSuperior Court across Canada in every jurisdiction, the provincial legislatures lose forever the “right”to void wills to impose their Estate Administration Acts or whatever name of the enactment thatperforms the same function as the Estate Administration Act in British Columbia.

5 The loss of the right of the Deceased to will their assets as they see fit by provincial slight of handand lawyers wrongly claiming that the provincial governments have “the right” to void legitimatesingle witnessed wills is truly “cruel and unusual treatment” that only bullies would do while theCourt, being prohibited its right to see the informal will/“testamentary document” and accept thewill of the Deceased, has brought the administration of justice through the Superior Court intodisrepute - s. 24 (2) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms!

6 As the wording of s. 4 (b) and (c) of the current Wills Act of British Columbia combined withEXTRAORDINARY BAD FAITH were the only impediment to accepting the Will of Rudi Krassand the aforementioned sections of the Wills Act of British Columbia are to be reversed or outrightdismissed, the September 13, 2011 of the late Rudi Krass is accepted as legitimate and of fullforce on all courts and all government agents forthwith.

7 As the wording of s. 4 (b) and (c) of the current Wills Act of British Columbia combined withEXTRAORDINARY BAD FAITH were the only impediment to accepting the Will of Rudi Krass

and these aforementioned sections are to be reversed or outright dismissed, the entire Estate of RudiHeinz Krass is to be transferred forthwith and without any other consideration to Ernst John Krassas stipulated to by Rudi Heinz Krass in his September 13, 2011 will which means that all probateand other governmental fees are waived by order of this Form 66, Petition to the Court for aFundamental Justice Order is evidence that “devil’s advocacy” (outright DENIAL of a person’ssimple right to will their assets on their death as they see fit) demanded the production of thisPetition on behalf of all persons across British Columbia - see s. 28 of the neutral citation of 2003SCC 54 and paragraph 2 on page 3 of this same neutral citation.

8 As Quintin D. Davidson has attested in writing in affidavit form to the fact that he did witness thegood will signing of the September 13, 2011 will of Rudi Krass and he knew Rudi Krass and hisfamily for close to 50 years, it is affirmed that the September 13, 2011 will of Rudi Heinz Krass isa valid “testamentary document”/informal will that is binding on the court especially since itcomplies with Rule 21-5 (9) of The Supreme Court Act while s. 2 of Form 92 of The Supreme Courtof British Columbia confirms that “intestate” or a “person dies intestate” ONLY applies to theDeceased not having left ANY will, codicil or “testamentary document”.

9 As EXTRAORDINARY BAD FAITH demanded the production of this Form 66, Petition to theCourt, all court fees will be returned to Ernst John Krass forthwith! Also, Ernst Krass is oweda very significant “out of court settlement” and, if necessary, Ernst Krass only needs to bring the “outof court process” in-court and the Superior Court is obligated to sign off on this settlement as ErnstKrass is the only person across Canada to be able to assail this level of enterprise corruption as wellas advice as to the correction to the corruption.

10 The legal advisors have repetitively refused to acknowledge Rule 21-5 (9) of The Supreme CourtAct of British Columbia when advising Ernst John Krass which reads as follows and which allowsall single witnessed wills to be either probated when more than one surviving sibling exists orrecognized as an outright inheritance for those left as the last surviving member of a family unit -mother, father, brothers and sisters:

Proof of execution if no attestation clause

(9) If there is no attestation clause to a will or codicil, or if the attestation clause is insufficient,a registrar must require an affidavit from at least one of the subscribing witnesses, if they or eitherof them are living, to prove that the requirements of the Wills Act as to execution were, in fact,complied with.

11 The repetitive corrupt intent to impose The Estate Administration Act on the inheritance of ErnstJohn Krass by the legal profession constituted an outright attempt at extortion and at Ernst Krass’most vulnerable time of his life ESPECIALLY SINCE Rule 21-5 (1) of The Supreme Court Act ofBritish Columbia acknowledges the possibility of EXCEPTIONS to the rule for applying theEstate Administration Act and, when encountered, all legal professionals are ethically honourbound to instruct the inheritor of his inheritance without taxes and transfer feesFORTHWITH rather than impose “reverse onus” when s. 2 of Form 92 is encountered andcannot be affirmed to nor sworn to by ALL.

12 The legal advice given to the clients with single witness wills not only constitutes EXTORTIONbecause the only way it appears to the clients to get the estate probated in their vulnerable state ofmind is to accept the voiding of their Deceased’s single witness will in DENIAL of the definition ofa will and The Principles of Fundamental Justice but also this corruption of the legal advice hasbrought the administration of justice through the law court into DISREPUTE!

13 Also, in Truth, the current Wills Act, s. 4 (b) and (c) and their demanding 2 witnesses to make abinding will, is formally found to be of no effect (unconstitutional) and unenforceable. Therefore,the wording of s. 4 (b) and (c) of the current Wills Act must either be reversed or dismissed inaccordance with s. 24 (1) and s. 1 of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the words ofthe neutral citation 2003 SCC 54 and its correlation to s. 52 (1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights andFreedoms. The corrupt wording of the current since 1996 Wills Act of British Columbia and the factthat the government knew that it was imposing its will ILLEGALLY on all wills across BritishColumbia and across time - BAD FAITH - always indicates consent as what was done was wrongand it having been done SOLELY to challenge Everyone To Petition The Court and requisitionthe formal dismissal of the offending provision of the law, i.e. s. 4 of the Wills Act and its 2witness standard, in accordance with s. 2-1 (c) of the current Supreme Court Act of BritishColumbia that reads as follows:

(c) the sole or principal question at issue is (alleged to be) one of construction of anenactment, will, deed, oral or written contract or other document (it has been provenin the matter of the will of Rudi Heinz Krass);

14 Refusing to advise - disclose fully to - anyone as to the true reality of the rule of law and itsapplication in the circumstances is unethical, immoral and constitutes a “criminal act” and isunacceptable in today’s society or any legitimate society.

15 As the elected bodies could not eliminate wills outright without being caught dismissingEveryone’s right to pass on their inheritance in a simple expedited manner, the elected body ofBritish Columbia in 1996 and since then did an end run around this problem and introduced astandard that DENIES the very concept of wills thereby eliminating all simple wills in BritishColumbia, i.e. it made formal wills 100% inconsistent with the definition of a will or the concept of

wills (see Exhibit “AA” to learn about inconsistency);

16 No government nor its agents have the legitimate authority TO OPPOSE those who get caughtby the government’s BAD FAITH actions and must strike down formally corruptstatutes/provisions/policies with the most expedited means that, according to s. 52 (1) of Canada’sCharter of Rights and Freedoms, should never have been produced except for defying Everyone’sGod Given LEGAL Rights and THE FREE Society of Equals and its Truth based standards: suchopposition to the people, hurt by the corrupt provisions, to dismiss formally or INFORMALLY theenacted provisions is defined as “devil’s advocacy”/BAD FAITH/mala fides historically.

17 S. 2 of the Estate Administration Act is struck down entirely forthwith because it dismissesentirely the will of the Deceased and squarely places the administration of all estates and inheritancesunder the authority of the provincial governments which violates the very definition of a will and is

wrong.

18 the Supreme Court Act Rule 21-5 is utterly misleading and wrong which is clear from itsreading:

Interpretation

(1) Unless a contrary intention appears, the interpretation section of the Estate Administration Actapplies to this rule.

This law is not only vague but it is a clear “reverse onus” statement where the victims of thecombined corruption of the Wills Act, the Estate Administration Act and the Supreme Court ActMUST have the wherewithal to dismiss the entire corruption and in their most vulnerable state whilefew actually know of s. 52 (1), s. 24 (1) and s. 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms as

well as their combined power which has burdened Ernst Krass, the only one in Canadawith this combined knowledge, to complete this Form 66, Petition to the Court. Thewording of the supreme court act of british columbia, Rule21-5 (1), wrongly presents the impressionthat the Estate Administration Act automatically applies to all estates and inheritances when the WillsAct’s definition of a will makes is clear that Everyone has the right to dispense of their assets in a(formal or informal) will, codicil or “testamentary document” and that right dispenses with theEstate Administration Act summarily in matters where a single witness will exists and people aretrusted to be honest first and treated as BAD beings who are liars right from the start.

19 In the case of the corruption of not just s. 4 of the Wills Act of British Columbia and s. 2 of theEstate Administration Act but also Rule 21-5 (1) of the Supreme Court Act, the legal and electedbody systems have acted in utter disrespect of and DENIAL of The Principles of Fundamental Justiceand s. 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as in DENIAL of the authority of s.52 (1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 28 of the neutral citation 2003 SCC 54which reads as follows:

28 First, and most importantly, the Constitution is, under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act,1982, "the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisionsof the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect". Theinvalidity of a legislative provision inconsistent with the Charter does not arise from thefact of its being declared unconstitutional by a court, but from the operation of s. 52(1).Thus, in principle, such a provision is invalid from the moment it is enacted, and ajudicial declaration to this effect is but one remedy amongst others to protect those whomit adversely affects. In that sense, by virtue of s. 52(1), the question of constitutional validityinheres in every legislative enactment. Courts may not apply invalid laws (or provisions oflaws), and the same obligation applies to every level and branch of government, includingthe administrative organs of the state. (And now lawyers)

20 As The Office of The Assistant Deputy Attorney General, defense council for the government andits agents, has already reviewed pretty much this whole document, it is demanded that this matter

be concluded with their findings and with the “out of court settlement” put to the government byErnst John Krass which was also reviewed by The Office of The Assistant Deputy Attorney Generaland The Judge Advocate General and found to be acceptable in the circumstances.

Part 2: FACTUAL BASIS

1 Quintin Donald Davidson has affirmed in his June 21, 2012 affidavit that the single witness willof Rudi Heinz Krass is valid as it was signed in GOOD FAITH by Rudi Heinz Krass. Thus, therequirement of Rule 21-5 (9) of The Supreme Court Act of British Columbia has been met as havethe “reverse onus” standards of Rule 21-5 (1) of The Supreme Court Act of British Columbia.

2 Following the passing of Rudi Heinz Krass in January 2012, I was consistently given illegitimatelegal advice concerning the validity of the single witnessed will of my dad as the Wills Act since1996 imposed a double witness attestation created by governments attempting to invalidate throughtrickery all old standard wills while also “extending” Estate status to all wills in defiance of thedefinition of wills.

3 I am the sole surviving child of Rudi Heinz Krass and Eleanor Alberta Krass who died inNovember 1995. As such, Rudi Heinz Krass insured that I was to receive the remaining residual ofhis possessions as defined by the proper definition of a will as presented in the Wills Act of BritishColumbia. A single witness will is common knowledge because, prior to 1996 in British Columbia,the Estate Administration Act did not illegitimately apply to all wills which is consistent with TheSupremacy of God and the person passing on having the right to will his residuals as he saw fit.

4 On January 26, 2012, I was left with the entire residual of Rudi Heinz Krass as determined bysimply reading the September 13, 2011 will of Rudi Heinz Krass and, according to the Rules ofInheritance, my name is/was to stand in the place of Rudi Heinz Krass on his residual possessions. In short, it is as if I became Rudi Krass for the world.

5 Inheritance is established under The Principle of The Supremacy of God because Christians aretaught that Jesus Christ and Heaven are returning to reclaim this planet and all those who believe inThe Covenant that is the resurrection of Jesus Christ between God and mankind will return whenJesus Christ and Heaven return. Consequently, the inheritors are expected to do honour to theirancestors by maintaining the residuals for when the ancestors return.

6 In spite of the historical rules of inheritance, I was repetitively and wrongly advised by all legalprofessionals that all single witness wills are invalid (without disclosing how to validate the“testamentary document”) which, according to Rule 21-5 (9) of The Supreme Court Act of BritishColumbia, only one witness swearing in an affidavit as to the execution of the will is sufficient tovalidate all single witness wills contrary to the legal advice which is misleading the generalpopulation.

7 My circumstances make me the perfect example of contrary intentions to the application of theEstate Administration Act. In January 2012, I was made an orphan and I am not child orphan, so

there is no need for any estate principles as my name under the principles of inheritance was to standin the place of Rudi Krass on all his assets and secured debt including a line of credit on the housein Westbank with a potential of $60,000.00 available for use to defray all costs until this legal hotbedof lies, duplicity and deceit was completed.

8 In spite of all the rules of inheritance, I was repetitively and wrongly told “to get advice from alawyer” who consistently refused to inform me - disclose fully - how to validate the September 13,2011 Will/testamentary document of Rudi Heinz Krass.

9 According to The Preamble to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada is foundedupon principles that recognize The Supremacy of God and the rule of law. Nowhere does ThePreamble dictate that our decisions are to be based upon the advice of all lawyers rather thanthe hidden rule of law that is Rule 21-5 (9) of The Supreme Court Act of British Columbia.

10 In Truth, the originating entity for this corruption, though, is The Province of British Columbiaand its administrative policies which have created a shell game/FRAUD scheme to swindle all singlewitnessed will inheritors out of their inheritances as well as establish all residuals as an estate whosevaluation is all that is meaningful for the inheritors due to the illegitimate and illegal extending ofprobate fees to all estates/inheritances against the standard of Canada not having any inheritance taxBECAUSE Canada’s taxation policies are based upon the standard of “pay as you go”. So, a personpays income tax on everything they earn and, then, we pay our mortgages out of the remaining fundsand, unlike the United States, there is no writing off the mortgage payments ever. Thus, the residualsare free and clear of further taxation as that would constitute “double taxation” on the income whichis not really permitted in Canada especially on a large scale item like inheritances.

11 I followed the legal advice for as long as I could until I was presented with Form 92, Affidavit forthe seeking of Letters of Administration. S. 2 of this form reads as follows:

“2 I have searched carefully and I believe that the Deceased died without having left any will,codicil or ‘testamentary document.’”

This statement in the Form 92 immediately terminated the association between Porrelli Law and me:

see the reading material designated Exhibit “C” in the 3 Affidavit of Ernst John Krass on thisrd

Petition to the Court no. 95677 - I fired them immediately after reviewing the 3 card Monteenactments, the Wills Act and Probate Acts across Canada and Rule 21-5 (9) of the Supreme CourtAct of British Columbia. That is how an honest man responds to extortion/enterprise corruption soas to learn just how things became corrupted.

12 According to s. 2 of Form 92, Affidavit for the seeking of Letters of Administration, NOBODYwith a single witness will can get letters of administration without being forced to swear to oraffirm it in the affidavit by the legal profession and also concerning Rudi Heinz Krass. So, I thenknew that the lawyers, Benson Law and Porelli Law and ALL OTHERS, were not fully disclosingthe rule of law as the court only needs to know that the September 13, 2011 will of Rudi Heinz Krasswas executed properly by one witness or the person that affirmed that they saw the signing and thatit was signed willing and in Good Faith as Rudi Krass himself asked Quintin D. Davidson on

September 13, 2011 to witness the will signing when he just happened along by chance that day.

13 Due to the demand that I lie in Form 92, I knew that the legal profession was attempting to extortprobate fees and legal fees from me and that they were doing it to everyone else as well which waswrong because it is a sin to bear false witness and it is not only completely unethical for aCommissioner for the taking of Affidavits across Canada to demand that all single witness willedinheritors affirm to a known lie but also a criminal act as that is creates perjury and then the lawcourts system is forced to suborn perjury as it is not getting the full story at the start. Thisunderstanding is why Nova Scotia’s Probate Enactment specifically states that the burden is uponthe court and not the legal professions to be satisfied that the will embodies the intentions of theDeceased - there is no corrupt 2 witness will provision here.

14 After being presented with a copy of Form 92 at my insistence by Porrelli Law, I then researchedRule 21-5 of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia, the Wills Act and the Estate AdministrationAct of British Columbia as well as the Probate and Wills Acts of all 9 other provinces who signedCanada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

15 At this point, I notice that the administration of justice in British Columbia was being pervertedbecause single witnessed wills are easily validated, according to Rule 21-5 (9) of the Supreme CourtAct of British Columbia, against the provisions of s. 4 of the Wills Act of British Columbia while s.2 of the Estate Administration Act was a violation of the English Language as only persons havingdied without having left any will, codicil or “testamentary document” are defined as having diedintestate AND, therefore, probate fees only applied or should apply to these persons because theinheritors were given explicit instructions usually in the will of the deceased. Under intestacy, anadministrator was usually appointed to deal with the matter and the fees for this were defined as“probate fees.” ( If one of the inheritors did or does not like the terms of the will, they have Rule 21-4of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia to amend the will, if possible, to their way ofthinking.)

16 Now a refusal to disclose fully is defined as a lie and, when this lie is uniform, the system isdefined as enterprise corruption. As single witnessed wills are still easily validated, this means thatthe wills system and perversion of justice through the law court system has been ongoing since 1996according to the Wills Act of British Columbia and its sudden willingness to invalidate all simple andinformal single witness wills under provision or section 4 of the Will Act of British Columbia andits standards being labeled “formal wills”.

17 As the Estate Administration Act of British Columbia has been wrongfully and illegitimately

“extended” to all wills and inheritors either by corrupt legal advice before the person dies or,afterwards, when the system attempts to extort probate fees and legal fees for seeking letters ofadministration rather than having the will easily validated and the process going from there wherethe inheritors deal with things according to the Estate Administration Act - government enforcedthinking and standards, “reverse onus” is imposed upon the persons writing the wills or attemptingto get the single witnessed wills accepted without probate fees and going through Letters ofAdministration or Form 91 or Form 93 and their respective legal fees.

18 In the current fraud scheme/shell game that is wills in British Columbia and other namedprovinces, probate fees and irrelevant legal fees are being demanded by the legal profession whichconstitutes extortion because the inheritors are being told that, if we want our legitimateinheritance, we still have to pay legal fees and probate fees when neither of these are necessaryespecially when affidavits seeking Letters of Administration in British Columbia which were createdby the government demand that the legal profession demand of their clients that they affirm orswear to a lie in order to gain access to their inheritance: that is the definition of extortion andunethical practices.

19 According to my personal experiences, it is clear/patently obvious that I encountered extortion,an attempt to have me swear to a lie, an attempt to mislead the law courts and all while I wasgrieving the wrongful death of my dad and fighting with the government over its corrupt actions inthose circumstances. It was little wonder that I felt completely abused as I was indeed which onlymakes me stronger and more under the authority of the power of God.

20 British Common Law is based upon the standards of: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duckand talks like a duck,” everyone knows then that we are looking at “a duck.” But, the factualevidence affirms that there is FRAUD scheme in place before a person dies and prepares their willunder the advice of a lawyer in British Columbia and the other sited provinces and, worse still, upondeath, these single witness will inheritors are then told that their easily validated will is “invalid” andtherefore the Deceased died “intestate” and, thus, the inheritors must pay probate fees and legal feesin order to get their inheritance accessed and, in the process, the lawyers have the inheritors affirmor swear to a lie thereby perverting justice and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute!

21 The cited laws and the evidence of this section of this Form 66, Petition to The Court make itabundantly clear that Ernst John Krass has been bullied, browbeaten and had the very people, whomhe trusted to insure Right in his inheritance matters and to advice him properly for having his singlewitnessed will presented before the Superior Court and accepted quickly as valid, actually weredoing and imposing great harm at his most vulnerable of time in his life especially when being madea sudden orphan due to a wrongful death.

22 The Office of The Assistant Deputy Attorney General reviewed for 3 weeks this advice betweenMarch 4 and April 2, 2012 and were unable to find any grounds for defense of the indefensible as“reverse onus” was the only impediment keeping Ernst John Krass from inheriting hisfamily’s possessions.

23 As Ernst John Krass has already won this matter before The Office of The Assistant DeputyAttorney General based upon the facts and the real rule of law, there can be no other outcome asstipulated by Ernst John Krass otherwise the standard of “reverse onus” and assailing it does notexist and the rule of law or provisions of the rule of law are beyond reproach in spite of s. 52(1) of

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Exhibit “AA”: The Supreme Court of Canada’sDissertation on the functioning of s. 52 (1) where, in s. 28 2003 SCC 54, it is acknowledged thatthere is more than one remedy in situations where the rule of law is found to be a violation of thecriminal code, morals, ethics and actual wording of s. 24 (1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights andFreedoms.

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS

1 In this fraudulent shell game imposed by The Province of British Columbia that hasillegitimately and illegally dismissed the right to inheritance without taxation, one must start witha pea that gets palmed or removed from play unbeknownst to most: this pea in this fraud schemeperpetrated by the elected bodies is the accepted standard of The Supremacy of God where Everyone,in reality, has the God Given right to will, in writing or now by video or a voice recording, theresidual of their possessions upon their passing from this realm. This standard is accepted in thedefinition of a will in the Wills Act of British Columbia and other such enactments across allprovinces.

2 But, now comes the removal of this standard or “the pea” in the shell game, where 2witnesses are required on all wills all of a sudden so that single witness wills can wrongly be claimedto be invalid. In British Columbia, the government calls this a “formal” will while others simplydon’t have a label for this but place this standard in their version of the wills or probate acts orwhatever they are called across Canada.

3 To further befuddle the inheritors of the possessions of the deceased, s. 2 of The EstateAdministration Act reads as follows:

Application of Act2 This Act extends to all persons entitled or acting under a will, codicil or other testamentaryinstrument whenever executed.

4 This begs the question, when did the government get the right to take over the operation of

all inheritances and extend “intestate” to include all those who did not have a lawyer draw upthe will?

5 Now, we have 2 shells in place of this government shell swindle that are known: thedesignation of “formal” wills in the Wills Act beyond the typical single witnessed will that everyoneknows about and more than likely will produce; and beside it is s. 2 of the Estate Administration Actthat makes all persons and wills the domain of the government and not the deceased person andtheir inheritors. So, the right to will your residual possessions is dismissed outright and nobodyeven thought to look thinks over to determine if this constitutes a FRAUD “shell style” scheme thatmost encounter in the streets.

6 To further hammer home the GOVERNMENTAL FRAUD scheme is Rule 21-5 (1) of TheSupreme Court Act of British Columbia which reads as follows:

Interpretation

(1) Unless a contrary intention appears, the interpretation section of the Estate Administration Actapplies to this rule.

7 The first section before the coma announces that THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS to theapplication of the Estate Administration Act and, now, the 3 shell of the shell fraud game isrd

exposed.

8 But, for a person dealing with the loss of their loved one, this is all too much and they signForm 92, Application for Seeking Letters of Administration for an Estate from the Supreme Courtof British Columbia that is presented to them by a lawyer - agent of the provincial government -knowing that he or she is outright lying to the bereaved and demanding the swearing to oraffirming of a lie in an affidavit which is illegal (criminal code), immoral - thou shall not bearfalse witness - and unethical as the affidavit and following court process is disreputablebecause the will is being withheld from the court therefore the orders from the court reallyhave no validity.

9 S. 2 of Form 92, Application for Administration of an Estate stipulates the following:

2. I have searched carefully and I believe that the Deceased died without having left ANY WILL,CODICIL or “testamentary document”.

10 These are interesting words as they show that the term “estate” really is meant only to applyto those having died without having left any will, codicil or “testamentary document” and NOT tosingle witnessed wills.

11 In Truth, Rule 21-5 (9) of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia applies to having asingle witnessed will validated and reads as follows:

Proof of execution if no attestation clause

(9) If there is no attestation clause to a will or codicil, or if the attestation clause is insufficient,

a registrar must require an affidavit from at least one of the subscribing witnesses, if they or eitherof them are living, to prove that the requirements of the Wills Act as to execution were, in fact,complied with.

12 Thus, the 3 shell - Rule 21-5 (1) of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia - used in therd

governments’ fraudulent shell game is fully exposed and where the pea is the right of all personsto will simply their residual possessions as they see fit - the definition of a will.

13 So, since 1996, many single witnessed wills were dismissed through legal trickery and therewas a motive for doing so: MONEY!

14 In Canada, there is no such thing as inheritance tax and to keep true to this standard, theprovincial governments quietly eliminated single witnessed wills so that all residuals NOW fallunder the term “estate” and the Estate Administration Act but only if the inheritor(s) does/do notcatch this fact as “reverse onus” is in play in Rule 21-5 (1) of the Supreme Court Act of BritishColumbia as well as Rule 21-5 (9) of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia. The net result isthat many inheritances were placed under estate guidelines and millions of dollars of probate feesand legal fees were illegally collected and which were unnecessary other than to increase provincialrevenues.

15 The term, “Unless contrary intentions appear...” really means that Rule 21-5 (9) of theSupreme Court Act of British Columbia applies and DISMISSES the application of the EstateAdministration Act because everyone has the right to will their residual possessions as they see fitwithout governmental interference through its enacted web of 3 differing enactments fraud scheme/3 card Monte scheme taking this God Given Right away after death or, prior to the death, by orderingthat the will comply to fixed governmental standards as put forth by the elected bodies as if they arethe replacement to The Creator/The Supremacy of God.

16 “Reverse onus” means that the governments and their lawyers knowingly defied The Truthand put in place this complex but easily discovered FRAUD scheme as a test for determining theperseverance of one of the wronged/disenfranchised from their outright inheritance where he or shewill get to The Truth and use it to make known the fraudulent shell game to all others and how tobreak free from the web of lies, deceit and deception that was undertaken.

17 Ruling through the letter of the laws is a brutal civilization, often referred to asLegalism/secularism/Nazism/Stalinism/etc., because it defies reality and those touched by the crueland unusual treatment under the law and its order for the civilization must then do as Shakespearestated hundreds of years ago in Hamlet:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them.

18 Mankind has been fighting our own concept of rulership and administration beyond theRoman Empire to the Jews and King David - see I Samuel 9:7-22. But, if we look at The 10Commandments (“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of thehouse of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.” and mankind has many names for TheCreator, God Almighty, Allah, The Great Spirit, The Mandate of Heaven but the brashness ofmankind still does not allow mankind to reconcile the words of God in whatever language and seethat administration then becomes the devil fighting reality/anecdotal evidence) and the parable ofAdam and Eve, where Adam and Eve turned from the bounty and wonder of God before them andnow we only see that what exists on the physical or corporeal level and it is what mankind haswrought whilst what existed before still exists awaiting the fall of the civilization. (If mankindceases its struggle in its civilization push against the manifestation of God which is this world, whatwe wrought under the civilization ceases to exist and is replaced with what existed there before: e.g.Machu Picchu was overrun with vegetation before we stumbled back across the relics just as muchof Stonehenge has been washed away and only from satellite photos and high pictures are wediscovering what nature almost completely erased.) You have now been educated to the Alphaand The Omega Law where the interim is just a defiance of The Truth.

19 In The Preamble to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is stipulated:

Whereas, Canada is founded upon principles that recognize The Supremacy of Godand the rule of law.

20 So, Canada does recognize “creation” and a Creator along with The Mandate of Heaven orself evident Truth or its other name, The Holy Spirit, which imposes reality in all thought becausethe world was always round but our thoughts were wrong for millennia where administrators taughtthat the world was flat.

21 Currently, Canada has gone with the rule of law WITHOUT CORRECTION or TheSupremacy of God dismissing all that exists now as created by followers of the rule of law withoutGod.

22 The current rule of law concerning 2 witness wills is an utter violation of The Supremacy ofGod—the rule of law WITH CORRECTION—and inheritance without taxation and just to imposeprobate fees on all residuals of the Deceased, as a new form of taxation, thereby making thenumerical valuation of the residual all that matters rather than honour our ancestors and awaiting thereturn of Jesus Christ and Heaven in one sudden shift in the cosmos: the universe exists in 2differing standards at all time, the corporeal and the ethereal and a unique unification of these 2planes of existence; science has recently referred to this reality and a relationship between matter andlight or properly put out—E=mc (for some strange reason, scientists are living in denial of the3

reality that energy leaves its source in 3 dimensions equally rather than 2 which is affirmed by whathappens when the earth goes around the sun as the same amount of energy hitting the northernhemisphere is the same amount of energy that hits the southern hemisphere in its summer 6 monthor so later as well as the path of electrons around the atoms core of neutrons and protons or also,when the atom’s energy is removed, the entire surface of the atom freezes and not just one side orat some point of the atom).

23 By choosing not to see the wrong in its decision making, governments have enactedlegislation that clearly constitutes a FRAUD shell style scam or swindle of legal fees before anyonewith a single witnessed will dies. After that point, by demanding that all inheritors swear to oraffirm a lie in the Affidavit for seeking Letters of Administration as well as seeking illegitimateprobate and legal fees, not only is the legal profession complying with an EXTORTION schemewhere those who have an easily validated will are outright being lied to by their legal council but arealso told that they will not get access to the residual of their deceased family memberFORTHWITH as to their orders in the will because the will is simply unacceptable under the rule

of law but also and, consequently, the administration of justice is in disrepute because thelegal profession is keeping The Truth from the courts so no judge nor decision of a judge for overa decade can be viewed as legitimate because they are not being allowed access to the wills of theDeceased.

24 Exhibit “AA” also known as neutral citation 2003 SCC 54 or the dissertation on thefunctioning of S. 52(1) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it is disclosed thatCourts may not apply invalid laws (or provisions of the laws especially when these laws orprovisions of the law bring the administration of justice into disrepute - s. 24 (2) of Canada’s

Charter of Rights and Freedoms! (I am only using the exact words of Canada’s Charter of Rightsand Freedoms and there is no “Charter Challenge” direct or indirect as the words of the documentsaffirm the conclusion of judicial corruption.)

25 Rule 21-5 (9) of The Supreme Court Act of British Columbia which reads as follows:

Proof of execution if no attestation clause

(9) If there is no attestation clause to a will or codicil, or if the attestation clause is insufficient,

a registrar must require an affidavit from at least one of the subscribing witnesses, if they oreither of them are living, to prove that the requirements of the Wills Act as to execution were, infact, complied with.

26 The “reverse onus” standard improperly embedded in the wording of the current Rule 21-5(1) of The Supreme Court of British Columbia which is now dismissed and replaced as per theOrders Section of this Petition to The Court and which demanded that Ernst John Krass “go it alone”against the legal machine:

Interpretation

(1) Unless a contrary intention appears, the interpretation section of the Estate Administration Actapplies to this rule.

(See Order 18 to understand the imposition of fighting for right against the legal machine!)

27 Nobody not even I, Ernst John Krass, can swear to or affirm any of Form 91, 92 and 93 ofthe Supreme Court of British Columbia because there was an easily validated will that has nowbeen sworn to/affirmed before an agent for the taking of Affidavits and it is attached to this Petitionto The Court plus there is no need for an executor of any sort because there is only one survivingKrass Family member - my dad and my mother and my brothers are dead which left everything tome with the informal demands of trying to keep things together due to ancestral obligations.

28 Hence, the application of the Estate Administration Act in this instance is negated simplyand outright thereby making me a “contrary intention” that was acknowledged in Rule 21-5 (1) ofThe Supreme Court Act of British Columbia and which gives me the authority to reform the systemdue to the hardship it imposed upon me for no reason except to try and bring this exception into linewith the rule of law that does NOT apply to this exception according to the wording of Rule 21-5(1) of The Supreme Court Act of British Columbia as well as Rule 21-5 (9) of The Supreme CourtAct of British Columbia.

29 The legal basis then has to be the criminal code sections dealing with FRAUD/3 cardMonte/shell style swindles before a person dies and, after the person dies, the inheritor becomes thetarget of EXTORTION by the provinces and the legal profession because, in order to get access tothe inheritance, the single witness will inheritors MUST swear to or affirm a lie in Form 92,

Affidavit for Seeking Letters of Administration OR go it alone which means: read Rule 21-4 and 21-5 of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia; have the witness to the testamentary documentswear to or affirm its execution was consistent with Good Faith and mental acuity before “Acommissioner for the taking of affidavits within British Columbia”; and then Petition the Court toget The Truth recognized by “the Honourable Court.” The latter is a tall task but, Everyone can nowsay that it was done by the except to the application of the Estate Administration Act which makesme a very special individual who MUST reside beyond the rule of law principle and thatautomatically makes me part of The Supremacy of God.

(30 S. 17-23 of this section were added on the morning of Saturday, July 14, 2012 on order fromthe universe as I got up, it was impressed upon me that I had to add something to this document andthe words flowed out in less that 45 minutes.

31 I am an honest individual who was indoctrinated in my youth to the false reality that thesystem is honest and would never assume the role of the devil and employ “devil’s advocacy” thatis the rule of law principle WITHOUT CORRECTION all over again as the aristocracy and the RoyalCourts did over a century ago. So, I am quite frustrated trying to understand the “rules” of yourgame and playing a game that, in my mind and generation, was never supposed to re-occur becauseit was a lesson taught by 2 World Wars and the history of Legalism and dictatorship through the ruleof law under Emperor Qin, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to name but a few dictators. I am stillbefuddled by this situation and the discovery of The Judge Advocate General: everything and everyday seems to be a new discovery of rules and protocol that are NOT SUPPOSED to exist but do.

32 When you study Doing Right and only Doing Right, all you really know about Doing isDoing Right. Now, I am suddenly confronted with The Devil and “devil’s advocacy” and thingsbecame weird instantly. I had to state this because all of your rules and protocols are down rightillogical to me. Fortunately, God stepped in and gave me the strength that I need over the next fewweeks to finish this mess off and follows the Way of God meant for me.)

33 As the wording of s. 4 (b) and (c) of the current Wills Act of British Columbia combined withEXTRAORDINARY BAD FAITH: the creation of an elaborate shell game that resulted in theextending of the Estate Administration Act to all wills rather than just persons dying intestate andthe legal profession refusing to bring up Rule 21-5 (9) of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbiato expose the easy validation process for single witness/informal wills: were the only impedimentsto accepting the Will of Rudi Krass, the September 13, 2011 of the late Rudi Krass is acceptedas legitimate and of full force on all courts and all government agents forthwith.

34 As the wording of s. 4 (b) and (c) of the current Wills Act of British Columbia combined withEXTRAORDINARY BAD FAITH: the creation of an elaborate shell game that resulted in theextending of the Estate Administration Act to all wills rather than just persons dying intestate andthe legal profession refusing to bring up Rule 21-5 (9) of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbiato expose the easy validation process for single witness/informal wills: the entire Estate of RudiHeinz Krass is to be transferred forthwith and without any other consideration to Ernst John Krassas stipulated to by Rudi Heinz Krass in his September 13, 2011 will which means that all probateand other governmental fees are waived by order of this Form 66, Petition to the Court for

Fundamental Justice Orders .

Part 4z MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON

1 Affidavit #1 of Quintin Donald Davidson made hne2l,20l2

2T\e Will of Rudi Krass September l3,20ll

3 Emails from April 2,2012 from The Office of The Assistant Deputy Attorney General and TheMagch 9, 2012 emul from The Premier referring this matter and its evidence to The Judge AdvocateGeneral and The Office of The Assistant Deputy Attorney General for review

The petitioner(s) estimate(s) that the hearing of the petition will take .......amount of time as it takesto say "So Ordered!" as the matters have already been consented to by way ofNO LO CONTENDOon the p.art of The Offrce of The Assistant Deputy Attorney General based upon the fact that lfteadminktration ofiustice is CONFIRMED to be in disrepute as. since 1996 inBntishCohttrtbiaalone. counttess court orders for leffers o./,4dzir?isfrarion and probate fees and legal fees wereEXTORTED from the inheritors of countless sinele witness wills that could havg been easilvvalidated and presented to the courts witholrt any of these tares/fees.

Date: 17, Zotz

To be completed by the cou{t only:

Order made

{ ,18Signature of Petitioner

,,.

Ernst John Krass

[ ] in the terms requested in paragraphs ...................... of Part 1 of this petition

[ ] with the following variations and additional terms:

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................

Date: .......[dd/mmm/yyyy]........ ....................................................

Signature of [ ] Judge [ ] Master

Form 92 (Rule 21-5 (4) )

This is the .....[1st/2nd/3rd/etc.]..... affidavitof .............[name]............. in this case

and was made on .......[dd/mmm/yyyy].........

[Style of Proceeding]

AFFIDAVIT OF ADMINISTRATOR

[Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to all forms.]

I, ................[name]................, of ................[address]................, ................[occupation]................,SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT:

1 .............[name of deceased]............., late of .............[address].............,.............[occupation]............., died on ........[dd/mmm/yyyy]........ at ........................, in theProvince of British Columbia.

2 I have made a careful search and believe the deceased died withouthaving left any will, codicil or testamentary document.

3 The deceased was survived by ........[Identify the applicant and any other person entitledto inherit under sections 82 to 89 of the Estate Administration Act, clear off any person who hasa prior or equal right to apply for the grant and refer to all renunciations or consents filed.]........ .

4 I have made a diligent search and inquiry to ascertain the assets and liabilities of thedeceased.

5 The statement marked Exhibit A to this affidavit discloses the assets and liabilities of thedeceased, irrespective of their nature, location or value, that pass to the deceased's personalrepresentative, together with the names and addresses of the beneficiaries, their relationship tothe deceased and the property passing to them.

6 I believe there are no debts or liabilities for which the estate is or may be liable except asdisclosed in Exhibit A, all of which have been paid [except ........[state whether any consent inwriting has been given]........].

7 I will promptly disclose to the court the existence of any asset or liability that has notbeen disclosed in Exhibit A to this affidavit when I learn of the same.

8 I will administer according to law all the estate that by law devolves to and vests in thepersonal representative of the deceased and I will exhibit a true and perfect inventory of theestate and render a just and true account thereof whenever required by law to do so.

SWORN (OR AFFIRMED) BEFORE ME ) at ...................................., British Columbia ) on ..............[dd/mmm/yyyy].............. . )........................................................................ )

....................................................................................) .......................................................... A commissioner for taking affidavits ) Name of person making the affidavitfor British Columbia )

.....[print name or affix stamp of commissioner].....

HOLD ON HERE!

S. 2 of this form constitutes SUBORNATION OF PERJURY which is a CRIMINALCODE OFFENCE for all single witnessed wills especially when that witness,according to Rule 21-5 (9) of the Supreme Court Act of British Columbia has the rightto swear to or affirm in an affidavit that the will he/she witnessed being signed wasexecuted properly.

In short, since 1996, the wills act of british columbia has imposed a known FRAUD scheme entitledFormal Wills in order to indoctrinate people into accepting that “estates” are for all wills when,according to the English Language, the term “estate” applies solely to the residuals from personshaving died without having left a will. Ergo, “estates” as we have come to known them is WRONGaccording to the English Language and law in the past!

However, by imposing the “estates” label on all wills, the provinces knowingly suborned perjuryby placing s. 2 of Form 92, Affidavit for Seeking Letters of Administration as well as imposedEXTORTION on all inheritors of single witness wills after the death of their beloved and theinheritors are NOT being allowed to have the court review the will nor have the witness attest to itsvalidity but instead are being forced to apply for Letters of Administration and swear to and affirma lie just to get access to the assets of their loved one which constitutes PROVINCE SANCTIONEDEXTORTION just as in olden days where wills were also used by the unsavory stealing the land andhaving an “X” placed on the paper and their people saying that the witnessed the signing of theextorted will of the dead victim.

The June 21, 2012 Affidavit of Quintin D. Davidson affirms that the September 13, 2012 will ofRudi Heinz Krass was easily validated against the legal council to the contrary as imposed by TheProvince of British Columbia which constitutes attempted EXTORTION AND SUBORNATIONOF PERJURY BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENTS THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

:ilmQsrsrRy

Form 109 (Rule 22-2 (2) and (7) )

This is the l st affidavit of QUINTINDONALD Davidson in this case andwas made on June 21 ,2012

No. P e5 677KELOWNA Registry

IN TT{E SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

RE: TFIE INHERITANCE OF ERNST JOHN KRASS

AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESSING WILL SIGNING OF'RUDI HEINZ KRASS

[Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to allforms.J

I, Quintin

Vl4 6Kl, retired, SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT:

I on September 13, 2011, I witnessed Rudi Heinz Krass sign his informal

will/'testamentary document" in GOOD FAITH and the witness signature is that of me, Quintin D.

Davidson. In fact, it was Rudi Krass who asked me to witness his signature on September 13, 2011.

2 I knew Rudi and his family from the 1960's when he worked for my company,

Davidson Brothers Construction, in the Peace River Country.

if you have any further questions concerning the matter of the informal

"ilV"testamentary documenf' of Rudi Heinz Krasso designated Exhibit ,rArr,I can be contacted

as follows:

home:

telephone no.:

301 955 Leon AvenueKELOWNA BC VI4 6KI

250 861 -9344

'r o r r r... r... ....... ..... a.)

swoRN (ORAFFTRMED) BEFORE ME )at . ...fu.........., British Columbia )o1r ......$r:**- ....?..(... ..*'.4..1..?*.o.......... )

aaaaaaaaDalllrTraoaaaa

A commissi 6r-for taking affi davitswithin Briti Columbia

nOBERT J'BI*Y^PHUN.13:,T;friff''8+n

T3:fiL4ffi,$r#'-l^:b:U

E rhl;t OL

Last Will and Testimony

I, Rudi Heinz Krass, being of sound mind leave all my worldly possessions to the sole remainingsurvivor of our family, Ernst John Krass, to do with as he wills.

There are no previous wills and there is no need for any other wills.

Date: theffdayor 1?t ,zotl

witness ff^rr^ fl'l'ff;*,^r Tr

^l J D'qtl I P^sD^(

" referred to ik*Lf N-

&:;;ll*e+-+.'*- ---'*-J'-

ROBERT J. BRYSHUNBarrister & Solicitor

2OO - 1455 ELLIS STREET_KELOWN& ts$, v1Y 2[C

Thls is Exhibir " Athe affidavit ofsworn before rne at

Province of ritish Cof urnbiaday of

n &nitisfr Colurmbialor the Province of British Columbia