Loose Ends

When Mr. Rust D'Eye presented his report to Council, he stressed solicitor/client privilege
and complete confidentiality. He didn't mention Council has authority to waive privilege at any time

I left mine on the table to be collected by staff. I obtained another copy later. I noticed something, I hadn't before. The date on the document was weeks earlier than it was received by Council.

It was worth noting but hardly surprising.

When the Mayor retained first one and then a second lawyer to advise on " invasion of her privacy" at the beginning of the term, that dialogue went on for two years .

It ended with the second lawyer attending a conference with Council. That's a pricey item.

No evidence of invasion of privacy was opined. Had there been, it would be a civil matter and subject of a civil suit. Damage would have to be proven for compensation.

Of course, it had never been about damage. I believe destroying a political adversary's reputation was the solitary focussed objective.

You really have to be there to appreciate the depth of hostility.

In the conference. the lawyer referred to previous communications. He was surprised to learn Council was never privy to his communications.

When the Mayor first discovered what she considered a plot against her and reported to Council for authority to retain a lawyer, she made the statement then;

"I'm not going to be spending any of my money "

It went on for two years. Two separate law firms were retained. Council never knew the cost of the exercise.

Whatever it was , was wasted.