Dishonest
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.
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.
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.
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.
truthlikewater 