Baker and Baker Law Firm put False Evidence Before the Court and Won the Case by Fraud
The law firm of Baker and Baker, a family law firm in Toronto, put false evidence before the court and suborned perjury. In doing so they aided and abetted their client Wendi Laski and BMO Nesbitt Burns in defrauding her father’s estate, the government of Canada, and her brother Wayne.
The case revolved around allegations that Wendi Laski, the deceased’s daughter had used fraud and undue influence to change all her father’s accounts into joint accounts with survivorship to her, thereby leaving nothing for her brother Wayne. This was all done while Harold Laski was under palliative care in the last three months of his life under unusual and suspicious circumstances. Prior to that, all the money in question was in Harold’s name alone.
There was ample evidence of undue influence with suspicious dealings and transfers out of the ordinary course: large transfers ( the entire estate) of funds near the death of Harold Laski
All contacts with the banks and Mr. Yu were initiated by Wendi not Mr. Laski. There were serious suspicious transfers and dealings far outside of the normal course of business
There were few if any of the factors the Supreme Court of Canada would consider evidence of meeting the burden of rebutting the presumption of undue influence. The circumstances surrounding the signing of the documents both with the TD Bank and BMO was very suspicious and unclear. There was no independent legal advice, despite evidence that Ms. Hamilton, the lawyer who had drafted the will had told Harold Laski in writing to seek legal advice before he made any further transfers
Wendi had lied to Wayne on a consent recording, about what was happening with the accounts. She clearly led Wayne to believe that he would get what he was expecting from the will. This is clearly a lie as she had already arranged to keep all the money for herself. She further indicated that we should not touch the bank accounts. She said we didn’t know what needed to be paid and she hadn’t “taken a penny”. This of course was a lie as she had cleared out most if not all of the bank accounts from the TD on the morning of her father’s funeral and deposited the bulk of those immediately in her own name at the BM0
She lied in her testimony under oath about her conversations with Harold about his intentions. In one examination she swore under oath that she had not discussed these issues of her father’s intentions with him prior to his death. She only became aware of the money was hers after he died and she went to the bank and to BMO. The very next day, still under oath she denied that she had said it. When reminded she had said that, she continued to deny saying it. She then went on to give a completely different diametrically opposed and totally inconsistent with her previous testimony, now indicating she had talked with her father before his death and knew that the money was to be hers.
These two completely contradictory and opposite statements under oath with no correction or choice or explanation between the two by Wendi or her counsel. dealing with Harold’s intentions, were the central issue of the case. There was no evidence that Harold had changed his mind save and except for the false evidence of one Norman Yu and BMO described below
The first problem was that the details of this crucial evidence were concealed by Mr. Yu, his employer, BMO Nesbitt Burns, and Wendi Laski for almost four (4) years after the death of Mr. Laski. It did not come out until they chose to divulge it only one month before the trial. Norman Yu and Wendi Laski refused to answer questions about how this evidence came about nor give any explanation for the four-year delay in bringing it forward in these unusual and suspicious circumstances . This and the meetings between Wendi, her lawyers, BMO and Norman Yu to discuss this evidence secretly, were ignored by the judge.
The real problem with this evidence was that it was not true. Norman Yu testified that Wendi was in the room with him when her father said he wanted to disinherit Wayne, because he was abusing him, and leave everything to Wendi.
Wendi and her lawyers, never raised this evidence during the four years of litigation. She never relayed confirmed or corroborated that meeting. Not once, in any form, did Wendi claim, that she had been in the room with Norman Yu when Harold Laski expressed his intentions or that she even knew what the reasoning for those intentions were.
Is it believable or reasonably possible in these circumstances that Wendi would have had this crucial information before the litigation commenced and never revealed it?
Given those facts, it is not within the balance of probabilities that Mr. Yu’s evidence was true.
Further significant indicator that Norman Yu’s evidence was not true, occurred in August 2012 when the parties were before Justice Nordheimer to freeze the funds, which he did. Would this not had been the time, if it was true, to bring up this evidence that Wendi and Norman heard from Harold on January 10 2012 as to his intentions to give the money to Wendi because Wayne was bullying him. That was not true. They did not bring it up because it was not true. Donald Baker told me and my counsel that he had heard this (what Norman Yu had to say) in July 2012 but had “promised not to tell”
When being cross-examined, Wendi was asked about the evidence of Norman Yu that she would rely on. Andrea Di Battista would not let her answer claiming it was privileged as it resulted from of purportedly without prejudice meeting where Norman Yu in January 2013 gave some but not all of his story. Had Norman Yu’s evidence been true, Andrea Di Battista would have known it from Wendi and would be required to answer questions on that evidence. This is a further indication that Norman Yu had lied.
A further example of their dishonesty revolved around Wayne’s allegation that the money was in Harold’s account in his name alone at the time of his death, and was transferred after he died. There were phone calls and other evidence to support this. Wendi swore in an affidavit that the money was not transferred before but after Harold died. He had passed March 13 2012.
“48 The Direction was accepted by BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. on February 29, 2012. Although the securities were not deposited into BMO Joint Account # 4551381314 in advance of March 13, 2012. the Direction was irrevocable and therefore the instruction could not be changed once BMO Nesbitt Burns accepted the Direction.”
Despite this specific sworn evidence and the admitted highly, suspicious sloppy and out of the ordinary course of business handling of the transfer documents, and in light of no credible evidence to the contrary, in essence saying that Wendi’s sworn statement was not credible. Baker and Baker who had drafted the affidavit and had it sworn by Wendi in essence by not challenging the judge, by implication, now denied Wendi’s sworn statement
For me, this was devastating. For someone who entered law and fought all my life because of my deep commitment to justice. I could not believe that with all Wendi, BMO and their lawyers lies and inconsistent and suspicious evidence that evil could triumph so easily. All that is left is to complete my fight against injustice and dirty stains of perjury.
Beyond the personal injustice and damage, the result of the disgraceful actions of Baker and Baker through Donald Baker and Andrea Di Battista was to bring the Administration of Justice into disrepute.
Wendi Laski with the help of her friend Norman Yu and BMO, got away with committing fraud. The victims were the Estate, Wayne, and The Government.
Wendi, her lawyers, Norman Yu, BMO and their lawyers got away with putting false and perjured evidence before the court.
This conduct not only brings the Administration of Justice into disrepute, but cuts to the very heart of our judicial system. In my view lawyers who knowingly put false evidence before the court should be disbarred.
This kind of sleazy behavior by lawyers brings the profession into disrepute and supports the negative opinion of lawyers as dishonest and dishonorable held by a lot of the public.
Another sad example of conduct which in my view was improper was a the distribution, all to Wendi, a relatively small amounts monies, I believe were left her in the will.
When they first contacted me and asked me to consent to this distribution, I responded that I don’t think it had anything to do with me, nor did they need anything from me to do the distribution.
Most notably, when Wendi with Brian’s knowledge and consent, gave all the monies in the bank accounts and investment accounts to herself, Brian indicated that they did it because that’s what the will said. I was not consulted or advised of the actions they were taking. Why now for a rather small amount of money did they need my consent. I wrote them advising that given the fact that their client had committed fraud and lied under oath, and that the Baker firm knowingly put false evidence before the court, I did not trust any of them and would not deal with them.
While they harassed me, I was served with motion material to release the money. Again they had cleared the bulk of the estate and given it to Wendi without any knowledge or involvement on my part. It was not necessary to involve me.
I have been in deteriorating health for many years. The corrupt judgement, clients and lawyers putting false evidence before the court, caused me to break down. I lost my law practice, and house. I have had previous medical certificates, as I had been ill for some time. I had a medical certificate from my doctor indicating that I could not work for several months. I had not been well enough to prepare materials and certainly was not well enough to argue the motion. I was asking for an adjournment on that basis.
I participated by telephone in this motion. I advised the judge that they had done this kind of transfer without me for a large amount of money before and it didn’t require me. I have also advised the court that regardless of the fact that they didn’t need me to transfer that money. Further, I advised the court that Wendi, Brian, Donald Baker, and Andrea Di Batista had lied to me and lied to the court and for that reason I did not want to deal with them.
The matter came before Mme. Justice Dietrich in Superior Court on Wednesday the 17th day of July. As I was not physically able to attend I had contacted a company called CourtCall which the Ontario Court uses when lawyers are unable to appear. CourtCall connects counsel, opposing counsel, and the judge by video and audio. I made the necessary arrangements. The day before the hearing, CourtCall, notified me that they would not be able to provide the service as the court had moved the hearing two floors down.
I participated by telephone. I advised the judge that Wendi and Brian had done distributions together, without me, for a large amount of money before and it didn’t require me. I have also advised the court that regardless of the fact that they didn’t need me to transfer that money. Further, I advised the court that Wendi, Brian, Donald Baker, and Andrea Di Batista had lied to me and lied to the court and for that reason I did not want to deal with them.
I also advised the court as Dietrich continued, that as a result of my health, I did not feel comfortable or capable of arguing the motion at this time. Despite the above she went ahead and granted the order for the transfer, which I had never opposed, and then went on to order costs of $7500 against me. It’s bad enough to have your family rip you off. It’s bad enough when you’re dealing with unethical lawyers. It’s bad enough when a judge conducts herself corruptly as I set out in my blog, “Justice Perverted, Corrupted, and Denied by Judge Barbara Conway” on truthlikewater on WordPress.com but then a succession of judges decided that I had to pay for being defrauded by Wendi, her lawyers, BMO and their lawyer
As to the truth of this, I invite Baker and Baker, Donald Baker, and Andrea di Battista to sue me. They won’t, just as BMO threatened but did not follow through on a lawsuit for defamation for the blog posts BMO DEFRAUDS INVESTOR CLIENT’S ESTATE and BMO NESBIT BURNS COMMITS CRIMES. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ? to be found in my blog truthlikewater on WordPress.com. I would be pleased if any of Baker and Baker, and Andrea Di Battista, Donald Baker, BMO or their lawyers sued me for defamation. There is ample evidence to prove the contents of these blogs. The Truth is a defense.
All Above is the opinion and experience of the author as litigant and victim and to provide some comfort to other victims who are not alone and to hope this does not happen to others.
Kim Whaley Estate Lawyer, Nightmare Continues and Expands
An update on my experience with estate lawyer Kim Whaley as detailed in my blog, “Kim Whaley Estate Lawyer Nightmare. Terrible Service, Predatory Billing” Published below on May 14, 2017.
Ms. Whaley has added to the costs and complexity of the litigation by suing me for defamation as a result of the article. Ms. Whaley seems to miss the point that the article is my opinion based on my experience of dealing with her. Truth is a defence.
The facts in that article are all subject of the original litigation between us and could have been presented in one forum and resolved. To me, it is further indication of her attitude toward dealing with me.
More telling, is the dishonourable dishonest vindictive and abusive attitudes she displayed towards me by filing a complaint against me with my Professional Body, The Law Society of Ontario. This in light of the fact that I never dealt with Ms. Whaley in my capacity as a lawyer. At all times I was her client.
The reason this is so disturbing is because the complaint is the same as her lawsuit against me for defamation. It includes her complaint about the conversation I recorded as a client, when I first spoke to her about my case.
When I advised her that I had made this recording, she threatened me in writing, to report me to the Law Society of Ontario if I used the recording.
I replied in writing, that even though I felt I had done nothing wrong as a client in recording the conversation in which she made representations she later backtraced upon, as a result of her threat, I agreed in writing not to use them.
I then received the letter from her then lawyer, Deborah Stephens, (Who I understand now works for her firm), asking for the recordings and agreeing that if I provided them, Ms. Whaley would not report me to the Law Society.
Well true to her treatment of me, after I provided a copy of the conversation, she reported me to the Law Society with respect to the recording. Exactly what she had agreed in writing not to do. Strangely enough, she identified her lawyer on the complaint to the Law Society as Valerie Edwards-LawPro lawyer. I was always under the impression that the organization that provides insurance to lawyers does so in defensive claims, not in prosecution of them. Although the lawyer being defended can retain the LawPro lawyer privately to act on their behalf, it somehow appears that her LawPro lawyer is acting in that capacity, other than in the defensive role with respect to her Law Society complaint.
This is further evidence of her dealings with me. Dishonest, dishonourable, vindictive, and unprofessional.
The above is the opinion and experience of the author as a litigant and a victim.
BMO DEFRAUDS INVESTOR CLIENT’S ESTATE
BMO DEFRAUDS INVESTOR CLIENT’S ESTATE
POSTED ON JUNE 20, 2017 UPDATED ON AUGUST 9, 2017
the contents of this article are the opinions of the BMO DEFRAUDS INVESTOR CLIENT’S ESTATE author as victim and litigant.
BMO Nesbitt Burns conspired with one sibling to defraud a client’s estate and another sibling out of their inheritance. Their efforts included fabricating and concealing alleged evidence. It culminated in providing false testimony under oath, in my view, and caused extensive damage.
The case of Laski v. Laski revolved around allegations that Wendi Laski, the deceased’s daughter had used fraud and undue influence to change all his accounts from Harold alone, into joint accounts with survivorship to her, thereby defrauding the estate and leaving nothing for her brother Wayne. This was all done while Harold Laski was under palliative care in the last three months of his life. There was no credible evidence that he knew of the changes. The evidence was quite the opposite.
Harold Laski, at 88, was proud of the fact that he was completely self-sufficient. In mid-December 2011, he fell to his knees and could not get up. From that moment until he passed away on March 13, 2012 he was under 24-hour palliative care. That day he fell to his knees, his life as he knew it was over. He would live the next three months under 24-hour palliative care at the hospital and then later sent home to die. That day he fell to his knees, the bulk of his estate was in his name alone. Over those next three months, his daughter Wendi Laski arranged to have all those accounts made joint with right of survivorship to her. This was done under suspicious and unusual circumstances outside of the normal course of business.
Harold Laski left a will dividing the bulk of his estate 60% to his daughter Wendi, and 40% to his son Wayne. Another sibling had received his share by getting his parents house 20 years earlier. Harold had advised both Wayne and Wendi of his wishes and shown them a copy of the will.
At the time of his death, Harold had his investment accounts with BM0 Nesbitt Burns (also referred to as BMO which includes the employees and management of BMO Nesbitt Burns). The account representative was a man named Norman Yu. The week following Harold’s passing, Wayne phoned Norman Yu to discuss the accounts. Contrary to what he’d been expecting, he was advised by Norman that “all of the accounts were in Wendi’s name alone”.
Wayne was totally shocked. He advised Norman that he was an executor of the estate as well as a beneficiary. He asked Norman directly whether he had any information relating to how this happened. Did Harold say anything to him about this? Norman refused to answer. This was the beginning of an almost four-year fight with BMO Nesbitt Burns to get that information. They refused and stonewalled. They made it clear they would not provide any information and would vigourously oppose any attempt to get information from them or Norman Yu.
Wayne realized that something was clearly wrong and he could get no explanation, cooperation or information from his sister and BMO. He had no choice but to turn to the courts. Anyone who has ever been in fight over an estate can tell you what a nightmare the entire experience becomes. That is another story for another day. The focus here, is the shocking and illegal conduct of BMO Nesbitt Burns in helping one sibling steal from another.
Norman Yu is a central character. He committed most of the fraudulent acts in dealing with Harold Laski’s estate. I want to make it clear that I place most of the blame on BMO Nesbitt Burns. That includes any of the employees and management who were involved. They were clearly being, or should have been, aware of it. BMO immediately hired some very expensive lawyers to deal with the matter. The fact is that they circled the wagons and didn’t appear to ask the obvious questions about the suspicious circumstances outside of the normal course of business. They did that knowing that they were causing damage, but did not care. Ultimately it seems clear to me that they allowed Norman Yu to lie under oath and allow that evidence to go before a court.
The evidence of the involvement and conduct of BMO Nesbitt Burns, will in my view, show improper conduct by an employee which was arrogantly and aggressively backed up by management with more impropriety. All this time they were aware, or should have been aware, of what was being done in their name and the harm and damage it was causing.
The nightmare began, March 19, 2012, when Norman Yu told Wayne Laski that the accounts were all in the name of Wendi alone. That would prove to be not true at the time. They were still in the process of being stolen and were still in a joint account with Wendi and Harold Laski. The transfer from Harold Laski alone to Wendi and Harold was according to the evidence, not done before Harold had died but after. When Harold died, the money was in his name alone and should have been divided in accordance with his will.
There followed, an expensive legal battle to get any kind of record of disclosure and financial information from BMO and Wendi. All this time, Wayne was asking BMO, their lawyers and Wendi’s lawyers for any information or evidence they had with respect to Harold’s intentions or any explanation as to how the money ended up in Wendi’s name alone.
Despite constant efforts, both verbally and in writing, to find out what Norman or BMO had to say, they aggressively continued to stonewall for almost 4 years.
A mediation, required by the Court, had been scheduled for May 2013. In January 2013, Wayne’s lawyer at the time, arranged with counsel for BMO, to have a without prejudice meeting with Norman Yu. This over the objections of Wayne, who wanted this evidence under oath. BMO insisted that this was the only way they would produce Norman Yu without a vigourous fight. The stated purpose of this meeting was for the lawyers for Wendy and Wayne to hear from Norman Yu, for the first time. This turned out to be a false premise. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Donald Baker, Wendi’s lawyer, announced to Wayne and his lawyer, to their shock and surprise, that he had heard all this before. This had occurred at a secret meeting with BMO and Norman Yu in July 2012 where they made him “promise not to tell”.
In the January 2013, without prejudice, meeting, Norman Yu stated the following:
Up until the time Harold Laski went into the hospital, he had nothing but nice things to say about his son Wayne and was very proud of him. When he went to see Harold at the hospital he said he did not want Wayne to have any of his assets and wanted to leave everything to Wendi. As the litigation proceeded Wayne discovered other evidence about their dealings that had been obstructed or concealed by Wendi and BMO.
Given that the meeting was without prejudice, nothing said in the meeting could be used. Throughout the rest of the course of the litigation BMO and Wendi refused to even acknowledge the meeting, confirm or provide any information, or answer any questions about BMO’s dealings with Harold or Wendi. BMO refused to explain the significant delay in bringing this information forward. They continued to conceal this evidence for almost three more years until December 2015 when they arranged with Wendi’s lawyers to produce Norman Yu to be examined under oath. This was a little more than a month before the case went to court in January 2016.
In his December 2015 examination, Norman gave evidence that he had not said in the without prejudice meeting three years before.
Wendi had contacted Norman Yu while Harold was in the hospital following which Norman came to see Harold in the hospital. Harold had not called Norman Yu. On January 10, 2012, immediately after Harold was released from the hospital and sent home under 24-hour palliative care to die, Norman came to visit Harold. Again, Harold had not called Norman. It was Wendi who continued to call Norman. He brought with him the papers he had prepared to direct the transfer of Harold’s investment account from his name alone into an account joint with Wendi with right of survivorship.
The dealings with those documents by BMO were suspicious and outside of the normal course of business. To begin with, it would be normal and prudent to affect the transfer right away. This was even more urgent, because Harold was clearly dying.
The trail of this paper and the transaction it represented is very unusual and troubling in the circumstances. Despite Harold’s quickly failing health, and the apparent urgency, as evidenced by Norman’s visit January 10, as soon as Harold got home from the hospital, the transfer did not take place for over two months. The transfer papers remained in Norman Yu’s briefcase until late February. It was at that time on February 29, that the transfer direction document was supposedly acknowledged and accepted by BMO. Not only was the handling of this document, to this point, outside of the ordinary course of business, it was a tremendous risk for Norman and BMO. If Harold died before the transfer was done then the account would be in his name alone at the time.
This is not the end of the curious and unusual path of this document and the transfer. After being approved the document would be sent immediately to the department where the transfer would be done. The actual transfer, I believe the evidence clearly shows, was not done until after Harold Laski had died. This is supported by a sworn statement by Wendi Laski:
48 The Direction was accepted by BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. on February 29, 2012. Although the securities were not deposited into BIM Joint Account # 4551381314 in advance of March 13, 2012. the Direction was irrevocable and therefore the instruction could not be changed once BMO Nesbitt Burns accepted the Direction.
According to BMO records, the transfer was dated March 12, 2012. This was conveniently the day before Harold died. This was in direct contradiction to Wendi’s clear and detailed statement on the issue. Wendi’s statement is consistent with the evidence that Wendi knew this because immediately after she was informed of her father’s passing, one of her first calls, if not the first, was to her father’s financial advisor Norman Yu. Wouldn’t that be the first person any of us would call after hearing their father died? Wendi says this was to tell him Harold had died. Why would he have to know so quickly? Why was he the first person she called. It is consistent with the evidence that the call was to let Norman know that he should make the transfer happen. They didn’t know how long Harold would live. If they had affected the transfer before Harold died, he might have received a statement showing a joint account. They did not want and could not let that to happen. They had to wait until Harold died and backdated the transfer to the day before. That would explain the odd course of this document very much outside of the normal course of business. In the normal course of business any similar type of transaction at most financial institutions would be done right away, or if the circumstances required, within a few days. It would also explain and is consistent with Wendi Laski’s sworn statement on the timing of the transfer.
In little over a week, the account had been transferred into Wendi’s name alone. The evidence on how this was done is contradictory and suspicious.
I am trying to limit myself to BMO’s involvement in the case. To put BMO’s involvement in context, it is helpful to provide a brief overview of the rest of the case. A review of Wendi’s conduct combined and interwoven with BMO’s, shows how frighteningly easy it was for a criminal like Wendi Laski to take advantage of BMO’s corporate culture to aid and abet her in committing the fraud.
There is a lot of evidence to show Wendi’s conversion of the entire estate. The case is filled with evidence of Wendi’s fraudulent conduct. She lies in her examinations under oath, she lies in a conversation, recorded with her knowledge and consent, to her brother Wayne about the estate.
Her actions also speak volumes. Wendi lived in Los Angeles. On the advice of the medical staff, she came to Toronto when Harold went into the hospital.
Most of her involvement in the transfer of Harold’s BMO investment account was detailed above. She did the same thing with the Toronto Dominion Bank where Harold kept his accounts. She contacted them. Harold did not. She had them prepare documents for the transfer of the accounts jointly with Harold with right of survivorship to her. An employee of the TD Bank came, at Wendi’s request, to the hospital where Harold signed the documents.
The circumstances surrounding the signing of these financial transfers documents are filled with confusing and contradictory evidence from Wendi and the financial people in attendance. There is no evidence that the documents were properly explained to Harold, or that he even knew what he was signing.
There was other evidence which demonstrates the kind of person BMO was conspiring with, assisting and enabling to commit fraud. One further example was that at her first opportunity, which was the morning of her father’s funeral, Wendi attended at the TD Bank and transferred all the accounts into her name alone at Bank of Montréal.
This is where the case takes its strangest twist. This is where BMO’s fraudulent and abusive conduct is seriously egregious. At Yu’s examination, Mr. Parley, tried to argue that Yu no longer works for BMO and therefore his evidence would not bind them. Norman Yu has always and continues to be represented by BMO’s lawyers. At all material times, he was employed by and acted on behalf of BMO who gave their stamp of approval to and vigourously defended his actions.
In his December 2015 examination, Norman Yu provided details he had not mentioned in the without prejudice meeting. This was under oath. He gave the only direct evidence, that was relied upon, by a Judge, who was misled, of Harold Laski’s intentions. His evidence was that Harold was upset because Wayne was bullying him. He wanted to leave everything to Wendi.
The other new and significant disclosure was that Wendi was in the room with Norman when Harold gave reasons to disinherit Wayne and give everything to Wendi.
Forgetting for a moment that Wayne had no opportunity to examine Wendy about this, it is very problematic on its face.
If Norman Yu was telling the truth, Wendi would’ve heard the same evidence he heard from Harold directly regarding his intentions. Wendi never raised this evidence on her own. Not once, did Wendy or her lawyers corroborate or provide any evidence of her meeting with Harold and Norman. Not once, did she mention that she had heard her father express his intentions.
One would have to ask why this is so. If Wendi had this evidence, is it believable within the balance of probabilities, that Wendi and her lawyers would not have provided this evidence at the beginning of the litigation
The answer is that Norman Yu was not telling the truth. This evidence when combined with his actions and his dealing with the January 10 transfer direction lead to the conclusion that Wendi and BMO conspired to transfer Harold Laski’s account into Wendi’s name alone thereby defeating Harold’s will. Why he did it one may never know. It appears most likely, that the story was concocted by Norman Yu with some assistance, to cover up Norman and BMO’s suspicious and unusual handling of the documents outside of the normal course of business. It is certainly consistent with his evidence that he wanted to keep the account. There are many other reasons one can think of that would motivate Norman Norman to commit fraud with Wendi. Whether Norman received money or some other consideration will most probably stay between them. The fact remains that the evidence shows what they did which was clearly a fraud on the estate and on Wayne.
One thing is clear. Norman Yu’s conduct in conjunction with Wendi’s was suspicious and outside the normal course of business. The evidence as it stands leads to the conclusion that Norman Yu lied under oath. This, combined with BMO, adopting the actions of, and, protecting Norman Yu knowingly caused serious damage to Wayne Laski
BMO may try to argue that these were mostly the acts of Norman Yu, a rogue employee. The problem is BMO knew or should have known what was going on. Wayne Laski made it clear to BMO that there was a problem and he was concerned about their conduct. Through their lawyer’s, they stonewalled and allowed the expensive litigation to continue involving the estate of one of their clients and a current client against an executor and beneficiary to the estate. Knowing this, forgetting for a moment its obligations to the estate of its deceased client, they withheld evidence, which would have, and ultimately did end the litigation. This while all the parties, including their current client were expending large sums of money engaged in an estate battle.
Even if you assume (contrary to his own evidence) for a moment that Norman Yu was alone with Harold when he expressed the intentions, that Norman Yu claims. Is it believable that Norman Yu would have this information and not tell his client, Wendi Laski, about his conversation with Harold at the first opportunity he spoke with her after Harold’s death? Why would he not tell her that she didn’t have to fight with Wayne? He had evidence that Harold wanted to disinherit Wayne and for her to have all the money.
BMO has even argued that they would not provide the information to Wayne, because he was questioning their conduct. Given their attitude, he had indicated that he might have to bring an action against them if they continued their conduct. They had an obligation to share the information regarding the estate of their client with his executors. If, as it turned out, their conduct was improper and damaging, it was no excuse not to provide the information to Wayne as an executor of the estate.
Wayne eventually had to sue BMO to try and get the concealed information. BMO changed their lawyers, retaining the high powered elite boutique litigation firm of Lenczner Slaght. Wayne also sued the directors of BMO Nesbitt Burns. This was done, first and foremost because Wayne felt that the management was responsible for the frauds of BMO and its employees, particularly when the details are available to them. I believe that the people who run these companies are responsible and should do all they can to ensure that this kind of conduct is not done in their name. The second reason to sue the directors personally was so that they would be able to read what had happened and was happening and be given the opportunity to consider it and do something. They could no longer deny knowledge of the facts. The third reason that the directors were included, was to get BMO’s attention. That it did. Their lawyers wanted the directors to be released and were nice to Wayne until he let the directors out. He did so as not to complicate and slow the progress of the lawsuit. I believe that directors of companies should be held responsible for frauds committed by employees. They should have responsibility for the corporate culture that allows this kind of thing, to occur, without proper oversight. They should be held accountable for the failure to punish offenders and take remedial action to ensure that it does not happen.
They continued the position taken by their client’s previous lawyers that they would not discuss the evidence of Norman Yu nor provide any information. It was this firm, most particularly Andrew Parley, who represented Norman Yu and the BMO in the examinations.
Mr. Parley refused to let Norman Yu answer questions explaining the almost four-year delay in bringing this information forward in the circumstances. He confirmed the irrelevance and insignificance of the information provided by Mr. Yu at the January 2013 without prejudice meeting when he stated for the record that this information was coming out for the first time now.
Continuing the obstructionist policy of BMO and their lawyers, Parley initially refused to let Mr. Yu answer questions involving the July 2012 meeting with Wendi’s lawyer Donald Baker. He eventually acknowledged the meeting but would not provide further detail. I see these as very relevant questions relating to the origin and development of this definitive evidence. It was relevant to this evidence to find out about its evolution, why it took almost four years to come out and why the vigourous efforts to conceal it.
Wendi never raised this evidence of her meeting with Harold and Norman Yu in the entire course of the litigation. Why?
The answer is simple and strongly supported by the evidence. It is not true. Harold Laski did not say those things to Norman Yu. Norman, probably with help, made the story up after the fact to protect himself and BMO for his actions with Wendi and his conduct in mishandling the documents outside of the normal course of business under suspicious circumstances Most of this information only came into the hands of Wayne Laski over time through persistent efforts in the face of vigourous obstruction by Wendi and BMO.
For those questions left unanswered about the content, development, presentation, and four-year delay in revealing this crucial evidence, one must wonder where were BMO’s lawyers? Why did they not ask the obvious questions? Wilful blindness? Perhaps because there are no reasonable believable answers.
There is another issue, related to BMO’s disgusting, fraudulent, callous and abusive conduct, not yet raised. This is the worst thing that BMO did. On top of improper dealings with Wendi to assist her in defrauding the estate and her brother. In addition to making up a story to protect themselves which they allowed to be repeated under oath. Further to allowing that evidence, which they did or should have known was false and would be damaging to Wayne financially to be put before a court in the hearing. They sat Wayne in the room and tried to tell him that his father had lied to him. They told him his father deceived him. That Harold had lied when he confirmed to Wayne and his grand children, his desire and his intentions with respect to his estate. Considering the above, this was not true. It was most cruel and hurtful. Those involved on BMO’s side seemed to have no conscience or concern.
By their own evidence, this information about Harold Laski’s intentions had been intentionally and vigourously concealed by be BMO for almost for four years. According to their evidence it had be concealed by Wendi and her lawyers for the same period as she would’ve heard it with Norman Yu on January 10, 2012. The truth, supported by Donald Baker’s admission, is that he had heard it, for the first time, in a secret meeting in July 2012. It was only revealed to Wayne just one month before the case was heard. It was not tested by thorough cross-examination in front of a fair and knowledgeable judge where these frivolous obstructive objections would not be upheld and these relevant questions would have to be answered. In almost 40 years of experience as a litigator, it is hard to imagine, given its suspicious history, contradictions, and unexplained four-year delay in bringing it forward, evidence like Norman and BMO’s being given any weight.
The damage done by their egregious fraudulent conduct was explosively devastating financially and emotionally. Wayne fought back. As a lawyer, he could do so. One can only imagine what abusive, self interested conduct they get away with inflicting on people who are not able to challenge them. Given the corporate culture at BMO exposed and encouraged here one can only shudder at the thought of trusting them with your retirement.
In this case, BMO’s defiant arrogance during concealing and covering up their criminal conduct speaks volumes of how they see themselves and their place in society. They demonstrated here that they feel they have right to cheat, lie, and abuse their clients and the public with impunity. They will put those lies before the courts to protect their own interests even when they are wrong. This sense of entitlement is entrenched in their corporate culture where honesty, truth, and good faith are sacrificed to their own financial interests. They do it because they can. They do it because they have the money and power to crush almost anyone who challenges them.
There is another reason for the arrogance of BMO and other large institutions. They are often shown undue deference by the courts. Why would BMO lie? That is a question, in my experience, that is asked by judges as rhetorical. They often don’t seek an answer. It is not the institution that lies. it is the human beings that are their employees. Norman Yu made a point of the importance to him of new business. The constant pressure, in the accepted corporate culture, to produce and make money for themselves and their employers is sadly the norm. What lengths will some people go to succeed? It is limited only by the scope of human nature and the ethics of the individual involved. I do not think it is difficult to imagine what some people would do if they made a mistake or did something improper. What would they do to cover it up in the kind of culture BMO has demonstrated in this case?
If BMO, or any other institution, seriously encourages ethical behaviour and, takes proper steps when it is breached to demonstrate that it will not be tolerated, then, although financially responsible for the wrongdoing of their employees maintains their own ethical reputation and does the right thing to make it part of their corporate culture.
Sadly, that is not my experience generally with large institutions. They are arrogant and difficult to deal with.
In this case, BMO is more culpable than Norman Yu. That’s not to say that Norman Yu’s conduct did not demonstrate a complete lack of moral and ethical character. He is certainly someone I would never want to deal with and feel badly for anyone who does. BMO circled the wagons around Norman Yu and whoever at BMO helped and supported him. They embarked on a calculated, fraudulent, harmful course of action. They not only adopted and defended Norman’s conduct, but knowingly pursued of course of conduct which continued to cause compounding damage to Wayne. They continue to defend their conduct to this day. They have learned nothing. They have just become more emboldened. Norman’s conduct must reflect the corporate culture created at BMO. Their strenuous defence of his conduct, as well as their own, made their lack of a moral compass or conscience a clear reflection of that culture. From the top down.
This is the case that cries out for punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded by courts, in addition to the actual damages, to punish and discourage especially egregious conduct. In Canada, the amount of punitive damages is tied to, and generally is not to exceed the actual damages. It will be argued that this approach is woefully inappropriate in dealing with this kind of conduct by large rich institutions like BMO. There are circumstances where the damage is relatively modest but the conduct clearly requires a punitive award. For a rich institution, this would be insignificant and would not serve to discourage them or in any way encourage them to amend their behaviour and corporate culture. It would amount to no more than a mere license fee when they got caught. To be true to the intent of punitive damages, in such circumstances, the punitive damages should be significant enough to accomplish their stated purpose. In this case, in the event of a significant punitive damages award, a fund will be set up to assist others who are the victims of BMO and similar institutions.
If you or your parents have your investments with BMO, in my opinion, I would move them. I do not believe that this is by any means an isolated incident. This is just one where they got caught by someone willing to challenge them and follow through. The case continues. All of this will go before a jury who will be able to assess the evidence presented and pass judgement on the conduct of BMO and consequences of their actions.
The only issue that is left between BMO and myself is the issue of whether they owed me a duty, as an executor of the estate, to advise me of this alleged evidence. The law is clear that an executor stands in the shoes of the deceased and is entitled to any information the deceased would be entitled to. I can find no case that says otherwise. It is a well-established a principle
From the beginning, the week after my father passed away, and I discovered that things were not as they should have been, I asked BMO for any information they had on my father’s intention or explanation for the circumstances.
For four years they resisted vigourously sharing that information with me. My argument is that if they told me at the time and were honest and transparent about their handling of the matter that may have avoided the litigation, as their evidence was the determinative factor for the trial judge.
BMO has brought a motion to have my claim struck based on the fact that all of these issues are res judicata having been decided by Conway at the original motion. Conway did not rule on the issue of whether they breached their duty to advise me. In reality they didn’t advise me because it didn’t happen. Had it been true with Wendi in the room, she and her lawyers would’ve had that information before the litigation began. Yet they never once as I have pointed out raised it all in any form other than putting forward the evidence of Norman Yu which they had to know in the circumstances was false.
But even excepting for the sake of argument Conway’s decision, the issue of their obligation to provide me with the information is an important one. If they are allowed to get away with not honoring their fiduciary duty it is a further blot on the judicial system.
The motion itself has had an interesting history with several judges making bias and faulty orders.
When the matter first came up before Judge Chiapata, she made an unusual order, not raised by either of the Counsel, on her own volition to order that there would be no cross examinations on the affidavits. This in a case where credibility is a huge issue. This where affidavits were being sworn by Andrew Parley, who I have accused of improper conduct during the estate summary motion. This certainly would not appear to any reasonable person that being denied the right of cross-examination as I had been denied in the motion certainly would not give one confidence that there was procedural fairness.
I appeared by video Court call for those appearances, as I’m in poor health and have been for some time. I mean treated by several doctors who felt that given the medical issues and treatments that I could not work at all.
The matter came before Justice Wilson. There wasn’t solicitor of 40 years, officer of the court, and a certified medical professional who had provided a note indicating that I would not be able to work for three months. With her superior medical knowledge, Wilson ignored both me and the doctor in essence saying we were lying. She set the motion well within the three months, and made it peremptory on me. That meant I could not seek another adjournment. This order was without factual or legal basis. No one had suggested that the matter was delayed. No one had suggested that I had delayed it. It was sloppy Judgitis clearly demonstrated bias. Given my medical condition, this improper order caused serious health issues to relapse.
The matter was then set by I believe Judge Nishikawa who indicated that the matter would go ahead unless I brought further medical documentation. Just prior to the date for attendance, I was hospitalized For more than a week. I was released Thursday night before Good Friday. I made every attempt to get someone to appear or to set up Court call appearance. None of this was possible Easter weekend.
I sent an email to opposing counsel setting out the details above. I was just out of the hospital and the most recent medical report were not ready. Perhaps Nishikawa should realize that I don’t prepare them.
Nishikawa proceeded in my absence dismissing my claim and ordering me to pay $20,000 in costs. Another decision that certainly does not seem to be judicial.
His decision is now under appeal.
There have been a lot of odd things that have happened in the Estate Case and in my case against BMO.
I have no choice but to pursue BMO and judge Conway. I am an officer of the court. I believe in justice.
The result of the BMO’s actions and Conway’s corruption resulted in:
- fraud committed by BMO and my sister
- false and perjured evidence completely contradictory on the central issue is the case
- false evidence which had been concealed for four years was knowingly put before the court by lawyers for Wendi. It would be hard for me to believe that BMO’s lawyers did not or could easily have known that this evidence was false
- costs were awarded that had nothing to do with the laws costs in the circumstances
That brings such disrepute to the legal system that I must do everything I can to bring it to light and seek justice.
The above is the opinion and experience of the author as a litigant and a victim.
Kim Whaley Estate Lawyer Nightmare. Terrible Service, Predatory Billing
My sister used undue influence on my dying father to steal his estate in 2012. Although a lawyer myself, I decided to retain counsel. Kimberly Whaley. Whaley Estate Litigation was recommended to me as being one of the best for Estate disputes. My experience was quite the contrary. I personally found her to be dishonest, unprofessional, aggressive towards me, and vindictive. This was in addition to her predatory billing.
During the initial call (I call it the sales call) Kim Whaley made several representations which she later backtracked on. Fortunately I had recorded the call. As a client I have every right to do so and there is no requirement that I advise the other party to the conversation. Ms. Whaley went ballistic when she found this out. She threatened to report me to the Law Society if I used them. The Law Society does not allow lawyers to record each other without being advised that they are being recorded. I was not dealing with Kim Whaley as a lawyer, I was dealing with her as a paying client. I would advise any client to record their lawyer when they are making representations about their case. In any event I am lucky that I did so.
The things that were stressed in the initial conversation were the timing of the drafting of the application( two weeks) and getting to court (six weeks but maybe a bit more). The importance of getting evidence or at least pinning down the story of my brother Brian and my father’s financial advisor Norman Yu. Neither of these were properly handled. This allowed my brother and Norman Yu to make up stories later which were damaging to my case. I was also promised that Kim Whaley would make all court appearances. This never happened.
There are two things one initially needs to prepare at this stage. One is the Application and the other a detailed affidavit in support. When I retained Whaley I had almost finished drafting the affidavit.
Ms. Whaley represents that the estimated cost to prepare an application and get an order for directions is approximately $20,000.
Ms. Whaley charged me $35,000 and we had not yet proceeded to the order for directions. I was shocked in October 2012 when the bill doubled as a result of charges they allegedly forgot to put on the original bill. I was now being charged $10,000 per month on a case where the junior lawyer was churning the account and accomplishing little. Because of her failure to meet the initial timetable, I was sued independently by my sister. This would not have happened had the application been drafted and served in accordance with her representations. She had the audacity to charge me for the preparation of the statement of defence which would not have been needed had she done her job.
As a result of her failure to get us a court date in a reasonable time she was forced to bring an emergency motion for preservation of the assets. I specifically instructed her to ask that if any monies had been removed from the estate they be repatriated. I also instructed her to ask for costs. She refused to follow instructions. As it turned out my sister had removed all of the funds and put them in her own name.
She drastically underestimated my sister’s counsel despite my warnings as to his lack of bona fides in providing disclosure. This caused delay and prejudiced my case.
Further adding insult to injury she tried to tie up all of the money from my father’s condominium which was not part of the estate. She tried to rely on a term in her retainer, which I did not agree with or sign, and which she claimed allowed her to secure a claim for her fees against the this property
At most she had a right to claim the $35,000 that we were disputing. All of her correspondence to the real estate lawyer made it clear she was not to disperse any monies. Despite numerous letters attempting to enforce that position, when she was finally called on it, she tried to deny it and suggest that I had misunderstood.
Her letters to me dealing with the fee dispute were threatening, aggressive and vindictive in tone.
She accomplished next to nothing, obscenely overcharged me, and abused me in her attempts to collect her account.
In my years of practice I cannot remember a time that I ran into a lawyer who, in my opinion, so embodied all the worst perceptions of the legal profession.
The above is the opinion and experience of the author as a litigant and a victim.
A Lesson in Democracy
What began as a joke, probably even to Trump himself, has turned into a nightmare, not just for America but for the world. He has exploited the fragility of democracy in a way no one thought possible anymore. He is a classic despot. It fits his history and his personality.
At first, people were upset. Despite being in shock, they questioned how much damage he could do before being removed from office.
The problem was that given a world political climate of anger and frustration with government and the failure of the governing class, Trump’s message and methods have worked in a perverse and disturbing way.
He has bullied, Congress, the press, the judiciary, his own staff, the intelligence community all with a measure of success. No one stands up to him. They are afraid of him. He likes it that way. He has successfully silenced or thwarted those he perceives as detractors.
He has appointed to the cabinet, individuals who are opposed to the mandate and scope of the departments they run. They are deconstructing the social, economic, cultural, and political gains that made the US, a shining example to the rest of the world.
Internationally he is seen as an egocentric idiot. He has recklessly and carelessly disrupted and damaged the world’s economy. I fear that this damage is not so easily repaired. The negative effects and suffering as a result of his economic incompetence
But the truth like water is finding its own level. The Wizard of Trump continues his slow train wreck. The little man behind the curtain is being exposed.
He has been abandoned by the few talented and qualified people who apparently reluctantly, and unsuccessfully, as the adults in the room, attempted to bring some sanity to the Trump Administration. He is having trouble filling senior positions including Cabinet Members. Most of the people who have left have been unqualified or worse opponents of the mandates of their Departments. I don’t think he’ll be able to replace these people.
He will be fighting for his political life. It’s a losing battle. The Democrats have taken over the House, and he and the Republicans will have to answer for their crimes.
I don’t believe the Democrats wanted
to impeach Trump. They this will spend the next two years letting Trump and the Republicans twist in the wind.
Either way, this desecration of democracy will end. America will get out a bunch of mops and clean up the mess.
STATUES IN THE MIST
I have noticed over the past several years that we look to the past and impose today’s morality and standards on people and actions of the past. This is obviously fraught with serious and dangerous consequences.
I am certainly not proposing that we do not look back at conduct that although acceptable and common in their times be ignored today. We cannot however just apply today’s standards to yesterday’s actions. People must be accountable. Even people from the past.
I think however that we should look carefully at the conduct of the times, and the motivations of the individuals involved.
The Me Too movement looked at the truly offensive conduct of those privileged people who abused their position. There are those who complained that that was the way Hollywood and society worked. It had operated that way long before the establishment of the Motion Picture Industry. The imposition of their power in taking advantage of women is as morally and ethically wrong today as it has been throughout history. The only problem that I have with it is that there are cases where women sought advantages using sex. That is just as wrong as men using their advantage to coerce women. It often comes down to one person’s word against the other. I have however noticed that in the instances where powerful men have been punished, their conduct was not just a one-off, but a pattern of conduct.
Another area of judgment where we apply today’s standards to yesterday’s actions is political. This is more complicated. We are judging people who acted with the true belief that they were right in that they were fighting and the actions they took. One such area is slavery. Those who owned slaves at a time when it was legal and common are being pursued through history to be held accountable. Men of great stature who accomplished admirable achievements in business, education, government and other areas of society are being attacked today for their historical positions. They were just conforming to accepted norms in society. Civil War statues and other symbols of the South and slavery are being torn down because slavery was always wrong.
All across the world, people are being judged by today’s standards for yesterday’s conduct. Their names adorn schools and institutions of higher learning as well as well-known long-standing corporations or institutions that do many positive things for society. If they were involved in conduct that should have been known to be wrong and against human rights, they must be accountable.
One reason to make sure they are accountable is to telegraph to the rest of the world that they must look at the things they’re doing today and question them to determine if they are right and if so realize the risk they take in being on the wrong side of history.
At the same time, we must be careful not to tarnish a life’s work for actions taken with good intentions and without malice.
Like all Canadians, I am horrified and disgusted by the recent revelations of abuse and murder in Indigenous Residential Schools. I am however concerned about how quickly Sir John A. McDonald was tared with this brush. And his statues were removed.
There is no doubt that he and his government were instrumental in the establishment of the Residential Schools System. At the time it certainly seemed like a good idea and a reasonable option to educate indigenous children and help them assimilate into Canadian society. The belief was that this would offer their opportunity and success in life. I have seen no evidence that Sir John A. McDonald had any knowledge of the atrocities being committed by the Catholic Church in the schools. This was at a time when Americans were waging war on the American Indians. The US was on the wrong side of history in that endeavor as were Canadians who were also committing violence on Indians as well as trampling on the civil rights of most minorities.
Every Prime Minister since has dealt with the residential schools issue and done little or nothing even as the knowledge of what was happening and what went on there was coming to light evermore.
I feel that Sir John A. McDonald is being overly maligned. His statue was removed in Victoria and in Prince Edward Island. He was not a perfect man. He had personal social and ethical challenges during his years in office.
I can’t help but think that he is being unjustly treated. He was a Father of Confederation and became Canada’s first Prime Minister. He had a vision for Canada from Sea to Sea and made it happen by building the railroad which brought the country together and The West from becoming part of America.
I have to note that if not for him, most of us would probably be Americans now. There would be no universal healthcare, sane gun laws, and relatively simple political discourse. I for one, am glad I was born and grew up in a country John A. McDonald helped establish
The Kim Whaley Nightmare Continues
An update on my ongoing battle with Kim Whaley.
We will be proceeding with the initial case of negligence against her, and her claim for fees.
They served me with an appointment for discoveries which I attended. Due to my health, I was unable to complete the undertakings. I had done most of them and was completing the last few when she took me to court to get an order for the rest of the undertakings and got costs of $1500 against me.
Recently I received, from the court, an Administrative dismissal of my case as it had not been set down for trial within five years. I will be moving to set this aside.
There are a number of reasons that it was not set down within five years.
My health has not been good for the last several years. It forced me to close my office and give up the active practice of law. I was under doctor’s orders to rest and not work.
While this was going on she brought another claim against me for libel and slander. It will be interesting because what I wrote is the truth as I experienced it.
At the same time, I was concentrating on the Estate Case.
To significantly add to the length of the case was the decision by Whaley to take advantage of a rarely used rule to delay my ability to examine her until my discoveries were completely finished. This is most unusual as most discoveries between the parties are carried on over the same period of time. This decision caused significant delays. I advised them in writing and reminded them of my health, suggesting that delaying my discovery of Whaley could be impacted by my health causing further unnecessary delays.
Before this Whaley brought a Summary Judgement Motion. These are relatively new procedures where appropriate matters are disposed of when the facts are not seriously in dispute if the moving party can show that there is no issue for trial. These are generally not appropriate for Solicitor’s Negligence cases.
it is even more inappropriate in these circumstances where I have not examined Ms. Whaley on my allegations of negligence.
Somehow in her arrogance, she claims to have followed my instructions and behaved professionally and competently.
I will not get into all of the questions I have to show how poorly she served me and how she overcharged me. I will save that for my examination of her.
Here are just a few of my complaints about her negligence:
- She served an offer to settle which left out all of the bank accounts that I was claiming. The other counsel brought this up many times in suggesting that I was not originally seeking the bank accounts.
- in my first conversation with her, we discussed the importance of pinning down the evidence of Norman Yu my father’s broker. There were several instances in the correspondence where I instruct them to do this, urge them to do this, and they did not. As a result, Norman Yu had four years to make up evidence that was false. Had Whaley done her job, that false evidence would not have cost me the case.
- When in August 2012 we brought a motion before Justice Nordheimer to freeze the funds. The evidence of Norman Yu, which was that Harold Laski made it clear that all of the money was to go to Wendi somehow wasn’t raised in this hearing. Because it wasn’t true. And we really never pinned down the evidence of Norman Yu.
- Before the same hearing, I instructed Whaley’s office to seek repatriation of any funds that were missing and costs. She refused to follow these instructions to my detriment,
- Although she originally estimated $20,000 to bring an application and get an order for directions. I had paid her approximately $35,000. In October she presented me with another bill in the same range, telling me that these were legitimate charges from June which were “missed.”
- She went ahead and lied saying that I promised to pay the balance. when I saw I was paying almost $10,000 a month and seeing little or no result, I had no intention of continuing with her never mind paying her for this new predatory bill.
There are many other issues relating to her poor handling of my case, the predatory fees, and the lack of professionalism in dealing with me as a client.
Even if she gets to proceed with the Summary Judgement Motion, I will be appealing in arguing that it was not the appropriate forum for a Solicitor’s negligence case.
On top of that, resolving that case will not resolve the slander and defamation case she brought. The facts of that case will be very similar to the one for which she has sought Summary Judgement. The article over which she is suing me, is true because it’s based on and framed in terms of my opinion and experience of her.
Then there’s the complaint to the Law Society. It is primarily a complaint that repeats the libel and slander claim. The only difference is that she has included a claim against me for recording our initial conversation. She takes the position that lawyers are not supposed to record other lawyers. I never dealt with her as a lawyer. I dealt with her as a client. I am glad I recorded the call because she made a number of representations that she did not fulfill.
The other aspect of that complaint that shows the ethics of Whaley and her lawyers is that originally when I told Whaley about the recording, she threatened me professionally if I ever use them. Subsequently, her lawyer, wanted the recording, and in writing represented that if I gave them copies, she would not report me to the Law Society. True to her ethics she did report me.
Interestingly enough, on the complaint itself that was sent to the Law Society, Whaley lists her lawyer as Valery Edwards, Law Pro lawyer.
Law Pro is the insurance provider for lawyers in Ontario. They provide defenses when lawyers are sued. How dare they file a complaint to my professional governing body suggesting that Law Pro is behind the complaint. I have written to Law Pro to inquire and complain about what I consider to be improper conduct. I have twice written to the head of Law Pro and have not received an answer.
The issues surrounding the estate Case were troubling enough. To find myself still fighting this arrogant and vindictive lawyer means I can’t let go of this case yet.
As I’ve said before, if she had pursued my case as viciously as she has pursued me, we might not be in this position.
The above is the opinion and experience of the author as a litigant and a victim.
Trump and Nixon
Given the current occupant of the Oval Office, and the investigations as being carried on by special counsel and others, Richard Nixon’s name is resurrected in the call for impeachment. This is unfair to Richard Nixon who is one of the most over-maligned and underrated presidents.
Both men apparently obstructed justice by interfering in investigations about their unlawful or improper conduct. Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor, and caused a political firestorm. It eventually ended in his resignation before he could be impeached. Trump is mounting a PR campaign to discredit special prosecutor Muller. There has been talk of firing Muller, but as of yet, his investigation continues.
That is where the similarity and comparison between these two men end abruptly.
Nixon’s cover-up was to protect others initially.
Donald Trump is all about Trump. His constant lies, always and about everything, are to protect him. The Special Counsel’s investigation and what appears to be a number of other investigations into all aspects of his and his family’s lives and business cover almost all aspects of his life. As you know
Richard Nixon spent the bulk of his adult life serving the United States of America. First in the military and then in politics. He was not rich, although he could have been. Except when in private practice briefly, he made and lived on his government salary. Richard Nixon was a smart politician and statesman. He understood the government process, having served in, the House, the Senate, the Vice Presidency, and the Presidency. Without for a moment passing judgment on his conduct that led to him being driven from office, he was a patriotic man dedicated to public service. He was the last of only three Republican progressive presidents. The others being Lincoln and TR. He created the EPA. The very Environmental Protection Agency that Trump wants to destroy and dismantle along with most of the other departments of government.
There are numerous examples of him choosing country over self. He was a flawed character, not a personality particularly suited to politics. I won’t list Nixon’s accomplishments here, but suffice it to say there are many. He was an international statesman and a visionary. He made the world a safer place to live. Domestically, he was actively interested in promoting civil rights and healthcare .
Trump, regardless of what he may accomplish is not now and never will be half the man and half the president that was Richard Nixon. He is a pathological liar, corrupt, self-absorbed and self-interested, egocentric, incompetent, unqualified in every aspect, misogynist sexual predator.
Other than being involved in attempting to interfere with an investigation that involved him personally, Trump’s personality disorders make Richard Nixon look like Mother Teresa. It is a grave insult to Richard Nixon to mention his name in the same breath as Donald Trump.
VICTORIA BC. IF YOU DON’T LIKE SIR JOHN A, GO JOIN TRUMP
When it comes to removing any statue there must be some balance between the judgement motives and action and accomplishments of the subject and any negative reaction based upon today’s standards alone.
The Egyptian God Anubis, guarding the afterlife, weighed the heart of a person against the feather of Ma’at, the goddess of truth, which was depicted as an ostrich feather to determine whether a soul would be allowed to enter the realm of the dead. You entered if your heart was lighter than the feather.
Recently, Victoria BC, removed a statue of Canada’s first Prime Minister and founding father, Sir John A. McDonald. The excuse was McDonald’s part in the creation of the Residential School System which eventually became the source of suffering and pain to the indigenous children who attended.
The system had its origins pre-Confederation but was formalized by Sir John A McDonald’s government in the Indian Act of 1876 and amended in 1884. The purpose was to help provide practical education and assimilation into Canadian society. The intentions were good. The execution by the Catholic Church and others who controlled the schools was horrific. It was not done by Sir John A. with malicious intent.
Sir John A McDonald was Canada’s foremost founding father. He was the first Prime Minister. He had a vision of Canada stretching from sea to sea. He built the railroad and made Canada a reality. If not for him it is unlikely that BC, and much of the West would Canadian.
When you balance Sir John A’s accomplishments against his transgressions he more than passes the test.
The people of Victoria should be kissing the feet of McDonald’s’s statue. They should thank him and God that they are not part of the United States. There would be no universal healthcare, no sane gun laws, and dysfunctional political chaos.
Victoria. Get with the program and be proud and grateful for John A. McDonald and Canada
OLD STATUES NEVER DIE, THEY JUST GET CARRIED AWAY.
Tattoos, and Statues have always been permanent reminders of temporary feelings. A statue however is slightly easier to remove. As a symbol, statues have themselves become a much larger issue. What do we do about our troubling history? How do we judge yesterday’s conduct by today’s standards? What is the purpose and effect of what we include or exclude in the telling of the story of humanity?
A professor of mine, the great historian Gabriel Kolko, taught me that history was perception. Winston Churchill famously said that he was sure that history would treat him kindly because he planned to write it himself. As a general rule, history is written by the winners.
In the United States the issue of statues and symbols, especially relating to the American Civil War, have become a divisive issue. It took until the 21st century for the Confederate flag to be removed from state capitals. Disputes have erupted over the removal of statues of southern Civil War leaders and Generals. These statues and symbols represent the defense of slavery. This was an evil so great that it is understandable that it would be offensive.
There are those who argue that to remove these statues is to deny history. There is no shortage of written materials, records and other reminders of history. There are museums where these statues can join the other mementos of the best and worst humankind.
Statues of the losers and tyrants are symbolically torn down to mark their fall. There are no public statues of Adolf Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, Saddam, Gaddafi, Idi Amin, and a legion of other tyrants and losers in the progress of humanity.
Truth like water find its own level. Statues rise and fall with the march of history and the values and sensitivities of the people who raise and live with them.
truthlikewater 