Laski

The Kim Whaley Nightmare Continues

Posted on Updated on

An update in 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, and 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 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 which was false. Had Whaley done her job, that false evidence would not have cost me the case.
  3. 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.
  4. 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,
  5. 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.”
  6. 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 which 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.

Update on the Criminals at BMO

Posted on Updated on

DO THE RIGHT THING

I thought I would provide an update on my continuing search for justice from the criminal actions of BMO.

I will set out the present status. A lot of it deals with the attendances at court and my health, a lot of it involves BMO, but more particularly some judges who regardless of my health and medical treatment have put pressure on me to disclose aspects of my health that are not being challenged, and then proceeding in my absence.

DO THE RIGHT THING

BMO’ s  failure to consider this approach confirms to me the existence of a criminal culture that I experienced in my dealings with BMO that promoted illegal activity, lying about it and putting that evidence to court, and spending excessive amounts of money to conceal and fight it. My question is just this. If I was wrong. If there was not the criminal culture I experienced, why did no one from BMO ever contact me, own and take responsibility for their action and deal with it properly. DO THE RIGHT THING.  The fact that they don’t seem to know what  THE RIGHT THING is ,nor have they made any effort to show that they are not the criminals that the evidence shows them to be. Instead they spent your money if you are a customer of BMO to fight the victim. All of their actions and the fact that they have not DONE THE RIGHT THING. Confirms that culture to me.

If they really believed it and practised the ethics of trust and honesty they profess, and what Canadians expect from them, you would think they would be anxious to clear up the matter and demonstrate that they will not tolerate fraud dishonesty or lying. Unfortunately here they not only tolerated but went to great lengths including criminal activity to defendant support it while apparently refusing to do a proper if any investigation. This is strong confirmation of a culture of dishonesty, fraud, arrogance, entitlement, and of an organization apparently devoid of ethics

After the Summary Judgement Motion, I brought an action against all of the parties who had committed perjury and fraud in obtaining the judgement.

It turns out that you can stand on the street corner lie about someone and do serious damage and be sued for libel and slander if it is not true. In our legal system in Ontario, you can go to court, commit perjury and lie, cause damage to the other party, and you are not liable for the damage that your lies under oath were responsible for.

BMO and the other parties brought a motion to dismiss this action and the previous action I brought against them in 2015, based on the argument that had been decided by Conway and was therefore res judicata in that it was already determined. I consented to dismissal of the action that I brought after the summary judgement motion.

I don’t disagree that most of the facts and law that Conway corruptly distorted, despite the breach of her obligations as a judge, are nonetheless final.

The one issue that was not decided by Conway was whether or not
BMO owed me a duty as an executor. They say they do not owe me a duty. I believe they are very wrong. An executor is entitled to any information’s that the deceased would be entitled to.

That breach of duty and the failure to disclose the evidence they allege was from Harold Laski was to cover up the fraud they committed.

I have been in ill health for several years. As a result of my health I had to give up practising law and my house. A great deal of my psychological illnesses are a direct result of the abuse I’ve suffered from a number of judges in this this matter.

The matter initially had come up in front of Justice Chiappetta on April 12, 2018. As a result of which and pursuing torpor instructions, I delivered a notice of discontinuance on the case that I had brought after the summary judgement motion. As far as the other action was concerned although most of the facts I was stuck with from Conway’s perverse judgement I made no argument. The only issue was their duty to tell me as an executor any information I asked for or requested that the deceased would be entitled to. The law is that an executor stands in the shoes of the deceased.

Justice Chiappetta made a very strange order. It is an order that I do not recall ever hearing in such circumstances. She ordered that there be no cross examinations on the affidavits. Neither counsel raised this issue. It was a surprising and unsolicited order from the court which restricted my ability to provide full answer and defense. There are issues in the affidavit of Andrew Parley which are inaccurate and require cross-examination. I was not well and was stunned at the lack of explanation from her and the lack of any response from counsel to this off hand order.

This was just one of the odd and unusual decisions from a number of judges who dealt with this case and made decisions which in my opinion do not appear to conform to my understanding of general judicial standards.

The next time the matter came up with September 10, 2018 before Justice Gloria Wilson. By this time my health was such that I had to appear by CourtCcall, a service used by a number of jurisdictions including Ontario, to provide audio and video connection to the court room.

I was now ill and unable to work.I had a number of medical certificates over the last few years when they were required. I had never had any problem. The note said that for health reasons I was not able to work and I would be reassessed in two months.

Wilson, with no evidence of any kind to suggest that my certified doctor and myself as a solicitor with 40 years experience were misleading the court.expressed dissatisfaction with the note finding that it did not give the reasons I couldn’t proceed.

I explained to her that I do not write the doctor’s notes, nor do I tell them what to put in. I had had a total break down as a result of the corrupt decision of Conway and being defrauded and lied to by BMO. My instructions from my five physicians was that I needed a complete rest and was not capable of working at all as the letter said.Wilson didn’t ask me for any clarification. Nor did she suggest we get further information from the doctor.

With what I view as a total lack of judicial integrity she granted the adjournment which was not being opposed. She ordered me to deliver materials which was clear I would not be well enough to do by that time. Then she went and ordered that the matter be peremptory on me. This means that I could not get it adjourned and had to go ahead on that date. Given my health that order did not seem to make sense. It seemed like a very inappropriate way to deal with the medical certificate. It was certainly not warranted in the circumstances and was inappropriate

The order had no basis in law or fact. That remedy is imposed by a court when one of the parties is delaying the matter unduly. In this case it was the first time up. There was no suggestion by the other party that I had in any way done anything improper or intentional to delay the matter. In my opinion a sad example of ego and judgeitis and was clearly contrary to the standards for judicial behaviour. it showed bias, a lack of impartiality and lack of fairness.

The worst part was that the pressure my doctors were trying to relieve me from so I could be treated was multiplied by the pressure of that decision. I had a relapse which severely affected my life. A further result of that mean-spirited decision was that future judges who dealt with the matter would put pressure on me and remind me that it was peremptory on me.

The next appearance was scheduled for Tuesday, 23 April 2019 before Justice Nishikawa. The Tuesday following the Easter Holiday long weekend

I had been taken by ambulance to Toronto General Hospital, then to Toronto Western Hospital, and back to Toronto General.I was there for 10 or 11 days. I was released late Thursday night right before the Easter Weekend. I was not able to arrange a Court call appearance in such a short time.

I sent the following email to BMO’s counsel Jonathan Chen:

From: Wayne <wlaski@wlaski.com>
Sent: April 22, 2019 10:00 AM
To: ‘Jonathan Chen’ <JChen@litigate.com>
Subject: RE: Laski – Motion

Hello Jonathan

This is further to your email below and our conversation of this morning.

As I advised you I was taken to the hospital April 10 at the Toronto Western where I spent a few days.

I was transferred to TGH I believe on the Friday the 12 and was released late Thursday the 18th.

The hospitalization was the result of my blood sugar being over 30 and my kidneys failing.

Given the Easter weekend, I was unable to get any of the documentation from the hospital.

Again given the holiday I was unable to set up court call even though I tried them several times.

I am not well enough to attend.

His honour had indicated that if I wanted an adjournment I would have to provide medical evidence.

As I say I have not had that opportunity.

Since we last appeared in court I have seen seven different doctors.

I was at my psychiatrist office to discuss a letter from him, when I fell ill and was admitted to the hospital.

I have not left my house save and except for medical appointments in the last several months.

I intend to provide documents from the hospital and my GP and Psychiatrist as evidence of my liabilities and limitations.

The only issue remaining between the parties is whether or not BMO owed to me as an executor a fiduciary duty to advise me with respect to the deceased dealing with his account.

BMO refused when my father died to give me any information. They stonewalled me for four years revealing the evidence one month before the motion. This evidence was used as determinative by judge Conway.

Their failure to provide it precipitated a very expensive four year estate battle causing approximately $400,000 in cost.

Your Honor this is an important issue. Besides their other conduct there should not be a precedent where a bank can deny an executor who stands in the shoes of the deceased.

I have asked Jonathan Chen to bring his cell phone tomorrow morning and if possible call me so that I can participate.

If not I would ask that you adjourn the matter to give me an opportunity to collect the medical evidence

Wayne S. Laski

416-229-1166 direct line

wlaski@wlaski.com                                                   

From: Jonathan Chen <JChen@litigate.com>
Sent: April 16, 2019 7:23 PM
To: Wayne <wlaski@wlaski.com>
Cc: Sophie Alexander <salexander@litigate.com>
Subject: RE: Laski – Motion

Hi Wayne,

I acknowledge receipt of your below email which appears to suggest that you will not be appearing on the motion scheduled for April 23, 2019.    

As you know, our motion to strike was originally scheduled on April 12, 2018 for a full day on September 19, 2018.  You took no issue with the hearing date at that time.

About a week before the hearing, we attended before Justice Wilson at Civil Practice Court wherein I requested an adjournment for health reasons but only provided the Court with a one-line medical note that provided no details as to why you could not proceed.  Justice Wilson ultimately adjourned the motion to February 11, 2019 on a peremptory basis and required that your responding materials be filed by November 2, 2018.  No materials were filed by that deadline.

On January 28, 2019, we appeared again at Civil Practice Court before Justice Nishikawa.  Although the hearing was marked peremptory by Justice Wilson, you demanded an adjournment for health reasons.  Justice Nishikawa adjourned the motion to April 23, 2019 and required that you file responding materials by March 22, 2019.  Justice Nishikawa also endorsed that there would be no further adjournments unless you provide specific information regarding your medical and health limitations from a qualified medical doctor.  To date, we have not received responding materials from you or the medical documentation required by Justice Nishikawa.   

In the circumstances, we intend to proceed with the motion scheduled for April 23, 2019.  In light of your e-mail below, however, we will consider an adjournment provided that you provide us with written confirmation that you have been admitted into a hospital.  Specifically, in line with the previous endorsements made to date, we require a medical note from your treating doctor indicating which hospital you have been admitted into, how long you will be admitted and for what reason you have been admitted.  If you cannot provide us with a medical note, please have your treating doctor call us.  We can be reached at (416) 865-3553 or (416) 865-3093.   

We look forward to hearing from you. If we do not hear from you, we will provide this correspondence to the judge hearing the motion next week and will ask that the motion proceed as scheduled.

Regards,

Jonathan

From: Wayne [mailto:wlaski@wlaski.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:42 AM
To: Jonathan Chen
Cc: Sophie Alexander
Subject: Re: Laski – Motion

Jonathan. I won’t get a chance to read the enclosure. I’m presently in the hospital since last Wednesday and they believe I will be here for a week or two. I will be in touch when I get out 

From: Jonathan Chen <jchen@litigate.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:03 AM
To: Wayne
Cc: Sophie Alexander
Subject: Laski – Motion

Hello Wayne,

We will be filing the attached motion confirmation form today (and before 2PM).  Please advise if you have comments.

If we do not hear from you in the next two hours or so, I will amend the form accordingly.

Thanks,

___________________________________________________________________________________

The rules of professional conduct state that Council should agree to a request for an adjournment unless it goes to the merits. It is interesting to note that the instructions from BMO, was to oppose the adjournment and proceed despite my circumstances.

Despite my request I was not connected to the hearing by cell phone. I cannot remember another time in my career where request to appear by phone was never denied unless there was a technical problem.

Nonetheless they continued in my absence. With the email handed to him, Nishikawa, knowing I had just been in the hospital went ahead and gave BMO the order dismissing my case. Even the one part which is definitely a triable issue, their obligation to provide me as an executor any information the deceased would be entitled to.

Also, without argument he awarded $20,000 in costs against me in favour of BMO. Here’s another example of them getting to commit fraud lie and put false evidence in the court, and I have to pay them for the privilege. 

I should also mention here in this discussion of judges who ignore Doctor’s certificates, fail to consider that there are issues of privacy in people’s health. If a doctor provides a letter which indicates somebody cannot work, what more are you entitled to unless there is some suggestion that the issue of the illness is not true. This was not the case for me. I had cancer operation in 2014, spinal surgery in 2015, and other ailments which I don’t feel are required knowledge for the court for the public. Any suggestion by any of those judges or counsel that there was some question as to my health, could certainly be documented by the trauma I suffered from Conway’s judgement.I lost total respect for the judicial system and the concept of Justice that I had spent 40 years of my life dedicated to. I lost my practice, I lost my home, I lost my health. Any suggestion that I did all that to avoid arguing the motion with BMO is ridiculous.

I am presently forced to appeal Nishikawa’s order. Personally, I do not see how denying an opportunity to be heard in such circumstances would be seen by anyone to be bias, lacked impartiality and fairness.

I personally don’t see, in the judgements above, the honouring of the principal, that not only should justice be done, it should be seen to be done. In those instances where judges ignored or criticized without basis the doctor’s writings, I do not think a reasonable person would say that there was not an element of bias and unfairness. Tough to be fair and reasonable when one of the parties is not there,

I became a lawyer because I believed in justice and to fight injustice. I will continue to pursue justice in this matter because people or corporations should not so blatantly and arrogantly commit frauds. be allowed to come to court and lie about it, and get away with it.  no faith now

This will not end if they’re lucky enough to defraud and defeat the legal system again. I shall warn as many as I can in any appropriate manner. I shall certainly be sending copies to most of Canada’s financial editors. I can prove my claims to them with existing sworn evidence. Hopefully at some point we can stop this kind of conduct from being carried on here or condoned by Canadian Courts.

I am somewhat amazed that no one in authority at BMO ever considered, that they had committed fraud and lied, and should discuss it with the victim now with sufficient evidence to show their wrongdoing. This could have been resolved quickly and relatively cheaply. Instead the criminal culture at BMO spent huge amounts of your money (if your client or customer of BMO’s) to fight it.

I will be pursuing BMO and the people who are the directing mind of the corporations, with evidence of crimes committed by the corporations and the employees they are responsible for.

I’ll be buying shares of BMO and will be at all of the shareholders meetings with my material and my questions. I will take all appropriate steps available to me as a shareholder to continue to get to the bottom of this. I will be doing further research on those individuals who are running this organization. I will not stop until I get an answer and explanation as to what went on, why they took the position they did. What they’re prepared to do to make the situation right. In some assurance, backed up by documentation, if they are taking steps to make sure this does not happen again.

If I or anyone in my family or my friends had money or investments or any business with BMO, given my experience I would withdraw it and place it in a safer institution. If I was a client of BMO , who did not remove their money, I would look very carefully at their paperwork and their reporting. Given my dealings with BMO and their lawyers I would have to say that they are completely untrustworthy. For an institution based on trust this is a complete failure. They have proven that there focus is to put their interests before the interests of the client

These companies have a protected trust and fiduciary duty to the public. I think it’s time they take it more seriously than they did in my case and recognize that they are not above the law.

The above is the opinion and experience of the author as a litigant and a victim.

OLD STATUES NEVER DIE, THEY JUST GET CARRIED AWAY.

Posted on Updated on

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.

Presidential Sex. Makin’ Presidential Woopee

Posted on Updated on

The news is filled with stories about Donald Trump’s sexual escapades with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to name but two. He is being judged and berated for cheating on his wife. I am no fan of Donald Trump. I recognize there may be some issues as to breach of campaign finance laws in the payments to women. No president has ever suffered lasting political damage just for adultery. Cover-up is a different story.

When looking at the 20th-century, the list of adulterous presidents is not short. There was Bill Clinton. Gerry Ford favoured young women while skiing out west. Lyndon Johnson, was notorious for pride in his genitalia. He held meetings with senior officials while he was on the toilet or otherwise and often was exposed. Lyndon Johnson was sexually active outside of his marriage. There was John Kennedy. From all accounts he was an unapologetic sexual predator of olympic appetites. He was preceded by FDR, like the others on this list, he had several mistresses both before and during their time in the White House. Before him, Warren Harding was involved with mistresses in the White House closets. Other than Clinton, and now Trump, the rest carried on with little or no public scrutiny or outcry.

In the 19th century Thomas Jefferson was sexually active with his slaves. Forty Nine year-old President Grover Cleveland married his 21-year-old ward, daughter of his deceased partner, whose estate he administered.

None of this activity seems to have prevented most of these men from accomplishing great things and being good leaders. It may have even helped. Those who did not succeed were not hindered by their extramarital activity.

People want bold and dynamic leaders. In order to succeed in politics you generally need to be an A-type personality. They are more often than not, best suited to deal with domestic and foreign enemies in dangerous and high-stakes games. That type of personality often brings with it some less than appealing personality traits manifesting in thought and action.

Had the behaviour of those leaders been public and judged based on standards of today’s political correctness and in the light of the internet, these men would be seen as the social and sexual transgressors that they were. I personally do not judge them, but then I can understand how a vast majority want their leaders to be role models.

There were many great presidents who were married and stayed faithful to their wives. Likewise there were failures as presidents who were faithful to their marriages. It may make a difference to those whose expectations of their presidents include high moral standards. There is no evidence that commitment to their marriages affected their success or failure anymore than it did the sexually aggressive and predatory presidents.

The problem with Trump is the lies and cover-up. He also is seen by many as sleazy given the attitude he expressed on the Billy Bush tape. He is crass and creepy. Trump’s public bragging of his sexual exploits and prowess cannot be compared to any other president. There are very few ways, if any, by which Trump could be compared to any other president.

When it comes to Presidential sex, whether Democrats, Republicans, Federalist, or Whigs, there is no evidence that it affects one’s ability to do the job.

 

Maybe America Should Have Stayed with Britain

Posted on Updated on

Those colonists loyal to King George III, left America to form my home, Canada.

I have always  admired much about the United States. Although democracy is never perfect, America flourished in their newly created country founded on freedom and liberty. I respected and appreciated America’s commitment to defend democracy and liberty around the world. They are the richest country on the planet.

Even before Trump polarized and focused America and the world’s attention on the strength or weakness of America’s democracy and social values, Trump has attacked the institutions and values that make America great. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the cornerstones of American democracy and liberty.

Trump aside, some have begun to question America’s place as a leader and beacon for truth, fairness, justice, freedom and liberty. I look to Canada, and most of the civilized world to find universal healthcare. The world’s richest country, U.S.A, is without universal healthcare, or even meaningful healthcare while arguing about less.

Here we have political discourse which is generally civil and productive. I haven’t seen that in the United States since before Gingrich became speaker. What has followed is a continual obstructionism by both parties.

In Canada, again like most of the civilized world, we have sane and effective gun laws. Americans have to recognize that the Second Amendment was drafted in the 18th century in a different reality. Countries with more restrictive gun laws have far fewer gun deaths.

I still love America and believe the spirit of the best of the U.S.A, is the envy of the world. I, however, have realized that Americans may have been better off had they remained part of Great Britain as a colony, Dominion, member of the Commonwealth and an independent country. Chances are good that our neighbors to the south would have universal healthcare, sane gun laws, and a degree of civil, respectful and productive political discourse, with a democracy that never sunk this low.

Impeachment ?

Posted on Updated on

Impeachment has been on many lips since election night. The specter of impeachment has only been raised and proceeded on three occasions. Congress is 0 and  2 with one default removing presidents in its entire history. No president has been successfully removed. Why? It is not a legal process, it is a political process.

The House impeaches and the Senate tries and acquits or removes the President.

What makes anybody think it’ll be so easy this time. There is no specific definition of the presidency or the scope of it. It’s changed throughout history

What is an impeachable offence? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Although many have weighed in with their opinions, there is no definition of impeachable offence better than,” it is whatever Congress says it is”.

Likewise there is no definition of presidential. Any president’s behavior is by default, presidential. What is acceptable presidential behavior is again up to Congress and certainly influenced by public opinion.

It is questionable whether the transgressions of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, constituted treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Johnson was impeached by the House for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and his policies towards reconstruction of the South. Nixon for obstruction of justice, of an irrelevant break in. While contrary to law, it may not have measured up to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for lying under oath about sexual conduct. Nixon resigned while Johnson and Clinton were impeached by the House and each acquited by one vote in the Senate.

It would seem to me that treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors should relate to the ability to govern and national security. Previous impeachment’s have only served to distract from the business of the American people. A waste of time over conduct which, save and except for the media’s focus, did not impair the president from carrying out his duties, but did impair Congress from doing theirs.

Trumps personal habits and behavior do not fall under my expectations of acceptable presidential behavior. Nonetheless it is so generally harmless, mostly entertaining in a perverse way, and not the main focus of concern. That’s not to say they are not of some concerns. He embarrasses America both at home and in the eyes of the world.

What really concerns me. What is more frightening and dangerous is that right before our very eyes he seems to be bent on unwinding and unraveling or at least viciously attacking, and reversing the social progress we have watched, felt, paid for, and deeply believe in. The GOP has the presidency, Congress, Supreme Court, and a majority of state governors and legislatures. The GOP Congress, for the moment, have restrained him with respect to foreign-policy decisions and costly domestic mistakes. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes by his and their own incompetence.

He has opened a Pandora’s box of the ugly underbelly, lowest common denominator of America. He has created uncertainty and fear in America and throughout the world.

He has disgraced America in the eyes of the world. The view of the international community is that American no longer leads the free world and has as its president an incompetent, embarrassing, disturbed, man-child.

Congress is going to have to face the issue at one time or another. Whether it’s the results of the Russia investigation, the damage he is doing to the reputation of America at home and abroad, or his mental state.

Congress is in their own disarray. In this they can be moved by popular opinion. Once they feel comfortable enough that they have the support of the American people who are fed up with Donald Trump then they will act.

The question is when? If they do it now, they’re afraid of the possible backlash the extent of which is hard to measure. If they don’t do it before the midterms and lose control of Congress, the Democrats will impeach both Trump and Pence, and put the new Democratic Speaker of the House in the White House.

The GOP have to grow a large pair of political balls and remove him from office before he does some damage they can’t mop up.

Government is Not a Business

Posted on Updated on

Donald Trump came to power promising to apply his business experience to running the government. Forget for a moment the realities of his business experience which lack ethics. Consider his modus operandi of using debt and bankruptcy to profit at the expense of the hard-working small businessmen who worked for him. Government is not a business.

The principles of running a business do not apply and do not work in running a government.

In business Trump was the boss. He could do whatever he wanted to do. His only considerations were making money and building his brand. There was little or no room for dissenting opinions. If he didn’t like the job you were doing, you were fired. His only constituency was himself, his family and his businesses.

Government doesn’t have a bottom-line. Healthcare and Education are investments whose success are not measured in dollars and cents. It is measured in the lives that are saved and enhanced. Government is always an exercise in pay it forward. It is measured in the social and scientific advancements which save lives and make lives in the world better.

Government in the free world democracies is a process of balance and compromise. This is not a characteristic often found in running businesses. Government is the process of debating the social and political issues to try and come to a consensus that improves the life of the nation and its citizens.

Government is there to give voice to the disenfranchised. One of the best examples is Lyndon Johnson. His success with Medicaid, his war on poverty, civil rights and voting rights, are proof that government can make a significant difference in people’s lives. if not for Lyndon Johnson it is doubtful that Barack Obama would have become president. Without Lyndon Johnson he may not be able to vote.

Government exists for entirely different reasons than a business. It has different goals, responsibilities, and methods. It success is measured in markedly different ways and with significantly different criteria than a business.

Trump and his administration are clear proof that businessmen are not suited to govern using business principles and methods. It has been a disaster for Trump, America, and the world.

The drama and infighting between Trump and the members of his administration are further proof that you cannot operate as president in the same way you run your own business. The public nature of government is a far cry from the behind closed doors autocratic style which works in business.

Trump clearly does not understand this. American democracy is paying the price. Never in the history of the United States of America has the nation been held in such low esteem by the rest of the world. Not since the Revolutionary war has America faced such a threat to their democracy, as they do today.

Americans have to restore the kind of government that puts the people first. The GOP needs to grow a pair of patriotic balls and take back American democracy.

 

 

 

Trump at the Hall of Presidents

Posted on

There has been a lot of debate over what the statue of Donald Trump in the Hall of Presidents at Disney World should say.

Here are a few suggestions:

I want to grab your pussy.

Nobody respects women more than me.

Believe me.

I did not collude with the Russians despite all of the verified evidence to the contrary.

I’m the president, can you believe it.

If she wasn’t my daughter I would date her.

Jeff sessions is a great pick for Atty. Gen.

Jeff sessions is weak.

You’re fired.

Who knew being president would be so difficult.

Mme. Macron, your hot and your husband loves holding hands with me.

Lyin Ted

Crooked Hillary

Mine is bigger and better than yours.

Make America Great Again ( after I’m finished with it)

I am the Greatest. ( apologies to Mohammed Ali)

You’ll win so much you will get tired of winning ( with apologies to Charlie Sheen)

Fake news

I did not collude with that man, Vladimir Putin.

Since I’ve been added to the Hall of Presidents the crowds have been HUGE

I demand loyalty. I just don’t give it.

Sad

On my first day in office we will repeal and replace Obamacare.

I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse.

Kiss my ass and I’ll make it worth your while.

I will not disclose my taxes. I have nothing to hide.

I nor anyone in my campaign had any dealings with the Russians except for all dealings that emerge from this witchhunt.

bubble bubble toil and trouble. hocus-pocus.

Stephen Douglas should have stopped World War II.

I have a job. All of my family and friends are working.

 

 

 

The Birth of Tyranny

Posted on Updated on

I was born in the early 50s. World War II seemed like distant history. In studying the 1930s and 40s I wondered how a Hitler or Mussolini could take over a civilized democracy. Now I know.

Putin certainly helped. Donald Trump found fertile ground in the ugly underbelly of America’s lowest common denominator. Those who stayed home in 2016 allowed Trump and Putin to hijack American democracy.

Trump is behaving like a dictator following the Tyrant’s Handbook for Dummies to the letter. He along with the GOP Congress and Scotus seem bent on reversing and destroying the social and political gains of the last 200 years.

In six months, Trump and the GOP have managed to bring America to its lowest point in  history in the eyes of the world ever. America has given up its leadership of the free world. No longer a beacon for democracy and freedom, America has become a bad and scary joke to the rest of the free world.

The GOP must grow a set of patriotic balls and take back America before it is too late.

Bonaparte and Trump

Posted on Updated on

Beside being megalomaniacs, Napoleon Bonaparte and Donald Trump have a common love of being gaudy.

Napoleon plastered or embroidered an N on everything.  Trump plasters his name and initials on almost anything but particularly buildings and airplanes.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not comparing Napoleon and Donald as leaders. Napoleon accomplished a great deal in his domestic policy  which looked out for the French Citizens.  he was a great administrator. He was also quite bright. He won and made things better for French Citizens and the glory of France.

No, they both just share the character flaws that present themselves from the ridiculously insecure, to the self-destructive misplaced belief that they are the centre of the universe.