l
2f -2
I. CORE ACCUSATION
Part 2 documents a multi-decade pattern of inequity, manipulation, and consolidation of power carried out by the Peters II branch—originating from Leo Peters’ actions and perpetuated through estate management, control of family properties, and the systematic marginalization of the Peters I branch.
The evidence shows a consistent trajectory:
Peters II gained everything; Peters I lost everything.
This was not accidental. It was the predictable outcome of decisions made by individuals who controlled access, information, and legal machinery.
The record establishes that Peters I was structurally disinherited—not formally by decree, but functionally through coercion, pressure, concealment, and intentional consolidation of assets.
II. THE ORIGINAL WRONG: SUBVERSION OF HELEN MILLS PETERS’ WILL
Helen’s will was clear, balanced, and protective.
Her daughters were guaranteed inheritance, safeguards, and equitable treatment.
What happened?
The will was reconfigured, dismantled, and exploited under the leadership of Leo Peters.
Assets meant for daughters were diverted into structures controlled by Leo and later appropriated by Peters II.
Decision-making power was centralized in a way that erased Helen’s intentions and eliminated the daughters’ protections.
This is textbook breach of fiduciary duty.
It is also the root of every subsequent injustice.
III. LEO PETERS’ ACTIONS: MANIPULATION, CONTROL, AND POWER ACCUMULATION
The narrative shows that Leo:
pressured the daughters to comply with actions they did not understand,
demanded signatures under emotional obligation,
used the rhetoric of family loyalty to obtain legal advantage,
concealed financial interests and leveraged crisis to eliminate oversight.
The result:
he took assets that did not belong solely to him, then passed them to Peters II as if they were uncontested property.
This was not a misunderstanding.
It was constructive fraud, abuse of influence, and intentional domination of weaker parties.
IV. THE PETERS II BRANCH BENEFITED FROM EVERY MISDEED
By the time the estate reached Peters II:
They held the homes.
They held the cottage.
They held the trust.
They controlled the foundation.
They controlled access.
They controlled legacy.
In prosecutorial terms:
Peters II became the unlawful beneficiaries of a chain of inequitable actions—even if they did not personally engineer the original wrongdoing.
V. ONGOING DAMAGE: A SYSTEM OF DEPENDENCY & EXCLUSION
Peters I continues to experience:
restricted access,
exclusion from decision-making,
dependency on Peters II approval,
generational harm.
Meanwhile, Peters II enjoys authority without accountability.
This injustice never ended.
X. FINAL INDICTMENT
The conclusion is unmistakable:
The estate imbalance was created through deception, sustained through power, and preserved through silence.
Peters II now holds what was not rightfully theirs.
Peters I bears the cost.
Justice—long delayed—remains the only credible path to restoration.
