We have no idea why this should be difficult. We can explain why it is difficult. The situation takes a bit of unravelling. (We venture to suggest that the whole subject is a bit of a mess; and this doesn't take into account the unknowns of the criminal trial even when you've mastered both the subject and the case.)
Most fundamentally, MHNA's determination to thrust inheritance crime into the criminal justice system comes up against resistance from the four communities principally involved. Each community behaves dysfunctionally.
In soliciting victim heir customers, civil lawyers selling civil law services commit a multitude of false representations concerning themselves, their practices, civil and criminal law and practice, etc.
In rebuffing complainant victims, law enforcement commit a multitude of false representations concerning themselves. their expertise, the scope of their jobs, civil and criminal law etc. in order to evade practising criminal law.
The victim heir is in the middle. Confusing, ain't it?
More precisely:-
Civil lawyers:-
generally favor civil law and practice
especially like probate court 'probate litigation' (which often has nothing to do with probate), and chance'ry litigation: it pays better than prosecuting (if we're in a jurisdiction in which the civil lawyer or his firm can do that directly or indirectly)
don't give the uninformed victim heir holistic information or advice about the most elementary fundamentals of the civil and criminal justice systems (they are separate, must be considered separately, are never synonymous and almost never overlap), or any directly or indirectly relevant criminal-law contacts
have little or no expertise or experience in criminal law practice and for all their advertised implicit prowess specifically in invented crime and invented hybrid crime and invented actionable hybrid crime are not inclined to diversify into it, including the invented hybrid crimes featured in their own advertising
invent crimes. The insinuation in your advertising is that 'inheritance theft' is a crime. By what law, exactly? Ditto 'inheritance hijacking'. What is 'inheritance hijacking' exactly, and what law criminalises it?
invent hybrid crimes. A civil lawyer advertising his prowess in handling by civil means the (invented) criminal offense of 'inheritance theft' is insinuating that that specific offense exists (unless it exists, it doesn't exist) and can and should be dealt with — even though a crime, perhaps dealt with only — civilly (not unless the offense exists and the criminalising law says so). Except in the case of a statutorily expressly hybrid offense that does exist, whoever heard of suing anyone for theft?
represent that it is appropriate to not prosecute a non-existent offense that is also a non-existent hybrid offense but to sue on it
represent to the multiple victim — of inheritance crime and now the civil lawyer's misconduct, with more to come —that they will sue on a non-existent offense that is also a non-existent hybrid offense. How exactly do you propose doing that?
misrepresent their practice and intentions. You know, but your mark does not know, that your practice does not extend to either prosecuting or litigating any crime, real or invented, hybrid or not. Maybe you'll eventually confess that what you're doing or proposing to do has absolutely nothing to do with any crime, criminality or criminal law process — that you propose to deal with this invented crime and its invented hybridness not by prosecuting or litigating it but only by using as yet undisclosed not-criminal not-hybrid civil law (conversion, deceit, trespass to goods, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, civil fraud etc.): "It's called something else technically, and it has nothing to do with any crime, and it's all civil, and the policeman was absolutely right about it all being a civil matter, but for us it's really inheritance theft, I assure you." Or you might choose to never disclose to him the exact not-criminal not-hybrid cause(s) of action. Maybe you'll let him go on thinking that you are indeed suing on a fabricated-hybrid fabricated crime called 'inheritance theft'. Which is it, so far? (Five or six deceptions so far on the victim heir by his own lawyer, in addition to the inheritance crime, with lots more to come because everyone is now in a hole.)
Prosecution-side criminal lawyers:-
don't know enough about relevant inheritance-related factual events, incidents, episodes and sagas to be credible or effective in cases of intricate multi-jurisdictional multi-succession multi-million-dollar inheritance crime, especially when being committed right under your nose but undetectable unless you know exactly what you're looking at (especially true of inheritance crime by estate managers and their lawyers, and by the victim heir's own lawyers). Inheritance is not an ingredient in a particular crime unless the criminalising statute explicitly says otherwise. But inheritance facts are very relevant to how, when, where, by whom and against whom a relevant crime is committed. You risk missing them every time
will tend to miss inheritance criminality's relevant civil law: we are not saying that civil law is irrelevant
knowing that they are not fully equipped intellectually, will take the case or decline it. How does this dysfunction assist the victim heir?
Victim heirs:-
don't understand the most elementary differences between prosecuting and suing, between crimes and actionable misconduct, or between the civil and criminal justice systems generally and how they (don't) interact
are systematically misinformed about both the civil and the criminal systems by both civil lawyers and law enforcement, each dragooning the victim away from the criminal system by claiming, each for their own improper reasons, that patently obvious genuine real inheritance crime (averred one way or another by the civil lawyer in his advertising, disavowed by law enforcement when deigning to talk to the victim complaint) is not criminal, or cannot or should not be prosecuted
think that there is such a crime as 'inheritance theft' and 'inheritance hijacking' and that they are actionable and must be dealt with in the civil system, not in the criminal system
are particularly dismayed and disoriented by civil lawyers' unexplained, deliberate, confusingly incongruous, irrelevant marketing averments of multiply irrelevant imaginary hybrid and not-hybrid criminality: the civil lawyer invents the law…
are particularly dismayed and disoriented by law enforcement's unexplained, deliberate, confusingly incongruous, irrelevant marketing averments of concocted multiply irrelevant hybrid or not-hybrid actionability: law enforcement invent the law…
don't bother to inform themselves of their concurrent, consecutive and alternative civil and criminal process options
are not intellectually capable of constructing or presenting an irresistible irrefutable brief for law enforcement
are uninformed, misinformed, bewildered, cowed and dumbfounded comprehensively to the point of being unable to make rational decisions and unfit to manage their own affairs
are likely to end up in civil court — highly gratifyingly to both opportunist civil lawyers and dysopportunist law enforcement, neither of whom wants the criminal case
are certainly in for what they do deserve: not their inheritance but a big bill from the civil lawyer
maybe do understand that by going to a civil lawyer, especially in a jurisdiction where private prosecutions are not known and where law enforcement has already given him the heave-ho, he's in for litigation, not prosecution. Maybe it really is clear to you that 'inheritance theft' is the civil lawyer's improper, inappropriate, unprofessional, misleading, deliberately confusing euphemism for a bunch of torts and that you'll never see the right side of the inside of a criminal court, and that all of that is just swell. MHNA begs to suggest that such moral and intellectual dysfunction is not the correct way to go to law (and anyway we're off to criminal court so none of this really matters).
Police and public prosecutors (private prosecutors are motivated entirely differently) have their own explaining to do:-
there's no culture of treating or even recognising intricate inheritance crime as either crime or criminal. You're supposed to treat this particular species of crime as criminal, go after it and prosecute the criminals, especially lawyers
there's no specialty of doing any of that. You're supposed to meet the relevant standard of specialist professional competence specifically in the field of inheritance crime
you have a thing about making trenchant dishonest grandiose irrelevant pronouncements of irrelevant expertise (which you have invented) in irrelevant law that doesn't exist and irrelevant civil process that doesn't exist. "It's a civil matter" — concerning the same misconduct that the civil lawyer avers is criminal 'inheritance theft', possibly hybrid — is not only irrelevant, inaccurate, disingenuous, discourteous and dishonest (however much it gets you off the hook and assists civil lawyers). It annoys us and distresses the victim heir. You declare and or opine that patently obvious genuine real criminality is not crime at all (cf. the civil lawyer's invention of crime that really isn't crime) and can only be dealt with civilly, or that it is a peculiar type of hybrid crime that can, should and must be dealt with only civilly. All this is monstrous. We'd be pleased if you would do your job, without pretense, invention or evasion, in a way that squares with your sworn public duty. No more "It's a civil matter" when presented with genuine inheritance crime.
