Social care lawyer, Belinda Schwehr on a ruling that helps challlenge opaque, illegal care plans for disabled adults
WASHINGTON — One clear theme over the past week, including at the G-7 summit, was President Trump’s erratic behavior.
But here’s another theme: How Trump has tried to use his presidency to make money.
The latest example was his defense on Monday of potentially hosting next year’s G-7 summit at his Miami golf course.
“With Doral, we have a series of magnificent buildings, we call them bungalows, they each hold from 50 to 70 very luxurious rooms with magnificent rooms,” Trump said, per NBC News. “We have incredible conference rooms, incredible restaurants, it’s like such a natural. We wouldn’t even have to do the work that they did here, and they’ve done a beautiful job, they’ve really done a beautiful job.”
More: “And what we have also is Miami and we have many hundreds of acres so that in terms of parking, in terms of all of the things that you need.”
And: “The ballrooms are among the biggest in Florida and the best, it’s brand new. And my people wanted it.”
One of the most constant themes of Trump’s presidency is how he’s used his office to benefit his business — whether it’s the foreign dignitaries and business leaders staying at his DC hotel, his sons (who are running the Trump business but involved in his political affairs), or now this.
In 2012, the Obama campaign blasted Mitt Romney for prioritizing profits over American workers.
And for Democrats in 2020, isn’t this also fertile ground — how Trump is trying to make money for his business? And at others’ expense?
Trump advocates for Putin at G-7 summit — including behind closed doors
Also at the G-7 meetings… “President Trump capped days of advocacy on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin by announcing here Monday that he intends to invite the leader to the Group of Seven summit in 2020, which Trump will host in an election year amid warnings that Russia is actively trying to interfere again in the U.S. presidential election,” writes the Washington Post.
More: “The leaders sat down Saturday evening for their first joint meeting — a dinner of Basque specialties at the foot of the landmark lighthouse of Biarritz. The meal started normally, with a discussion of the fires in the Amazon. It moved on to containing Iran’s nuclear threat. But it went off the rails when Trump blasted leaders for not including Russia.”
“Trump’s message was that ‘it doesn’t really make sense to have this discussion without Putin at the table,’ according to a European official briefed on the conversation among the leaders.”
In 2014, the leading world economies kicked out Russia from the then-G-8 for infiltrating and then annexing Crimea.
Shakeup in the Dem race? Or steady as she goes?
On Monday afternoon, much of the political world got fired up over a Monmouth poll, which showed Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in a three-way tie.
Then last night, the online Politico/Morning Consult poll had Biden up 13 points over Sanders and 18 points over Warren.
Our advice: Let’s wait for another round of polling – especially after Labor Day – to see if the Dem race has really changed.
Because as we said yesterday, the Dem presidential contest – outside of Warren’s steady climb and Kamala Harris’ ups and downs after the debates – has been remarkably stable so far.
2020 Vision: Biden invokes family tragedies in new TV ad
Joe Biden’s up with a new TV ad in Iowa discussing the importance of health care, especially regarding his family’s tragedies, per NBC’s Mike Memoli and Amanda Golden.
Individuals who may be deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) would not be informed of their rights until the deprivation has been authorised, under government changes to the bill to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS).
The amendment to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, which passed narrowly last week by a committee of MPs scrutinising the bill, would see the cared for person, and any appropriate person or independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA) supporting them, given key information regarding the process and the person’s rights as soon as practicable after an authorisation were given.
More on the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill:
- Government issues deprivation of liberty definition in bid to provide clarity to practitioners
- Labour bid to scrap DoLS replacement bill fails as legislation passes first Commons stage
This includes the responsible body – the agency which authorises the deprivation of liberty, ensuring the cared-for person, and any IMCA or appropriate person -understand the effect of the authorisation, the circumstances under which an advocate would be appointed and their rights to request a review and to challenge any authorisation in court.
Source: Key change made to rights to information under LPS : Community Care
The bill to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) has been approved by the House of Lords after peers made significant changes to the government’s original proposals.
The majority of changes made to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act were designed to address concerns that the original bill failed to provide sufficient safeguards for people deprived of their liberty or sufficiently consider the wishes and feelings of people and their families.
With the bill due to have its first debate in the House of Commons tomorrow (18 December), we review the major changes agreed by the Lords.
Reducing role of care home managers
One of the main sticking points of the original proposals was the significant role given to care home managers under LPS in cases in their homes
It was originally proposed that care home managers would be responsible for arranging assessments to decide whether the three conditions for a deprivation of liberty authorisation had been met: that the person lacked capacity to consent to their care arrangements and had a mental disorder, and that the arrangements were necessary and proportionate.
Managers were also tasked with confirming with the responsible body – which in the case of care homes would be the local authority – if the authorisation conditions had been met, if an independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA) should be appointed and if the person were objecting to their care arrangements. This is significant because anyone who objected would be entitled to have their case reviewed by an approved mental capacity professional (AMCP), a practitioner with specialist training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) similar to the best interests assessor (BIA) under DoLS.
Concerns over managers’ skills and knowledge
Peers challenged the initial proposals, questioning whether care home managers would have the required skills and knowledge to carry out what would be, in effect, the responsibilities performed under DoLS by BIAs, who have specialist training in the MCA.
They also questioned why these responsibilities would not be carried out by local authorities in their responsible body capacity, as proposed by the Law Commission in its 2017 report on reforming deprivation of liberty law that forms the blueprint for the government’s proposals.
Professionals also expressed significant concern about this aspect of the bill. A survey of over 900 people conducted by Edge Training and Community Care found that 86% of respondents disagreed with proposals to make care home managers responsible for conducting or delegating assessments.
In addition, giving managers the responsibility to alert local authorities if they judged an IMCA was required also worried peers, who warned that care home managers would act as gatekeepers and people entitled to advocates would not have access to them.
Local authorities given a choice
In response to these concerns, the government brought forward amendments to give local authorities the option of giving these responsibilities to the care home manager or undertaking the responsibilities themselves. This would act as a check to ensure that the care home was suitable to oversee the process.
The bill was also changed so that managers would no longer be responsible for notifying a local authority if an IMCA should be appointed.
Instead, the amended bill specifies IMCAs would be automatically appointed where there was no appropriate person – an informal advocate who would represent and support the cared-for person but would not be involved in their care, such as a family member – unless it would not be in the person’s best interest to appoint an IMCA.
Conflict of interest
Another government a
WASHINGTON — Every time special counsel Robert Mueller speaks — through his court filings — he packs a punch. The latest example came Thursday, when he revealed that Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen was lying about the president’s business ties with Russia, and that Trump & Co. were seeking business deals with Russia well into June 2016, right before Trump officially became the GOP’s presidential nominee.
And when you consider what Trump said about Russia during the 2016 campaign, as National Review’s David French writes, those business ties represented an enormous conflict of interest, especially since Russia is/was an adversary.
Here was Trump downplaying Russia’s hostilities with Ukraine in a March 2016 New York Times interview: “Now I’m all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn’t seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn’t seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we’re the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn’t seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn’t seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine — why is it that they’re not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things?”
And here was Trump in an April 2016 foreign policy speech calling for stronger relations with Russia: “I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a deal under my administration, a deal that’s great — not good, great — for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It’s as simple as that. We’re going to find out.”
As French says, “Trump made those comments at the exact time when his team was allegedly trying to secure a business deal that could have netted Trump millions of dollars. This is no small thing. Trump’s words mattered.”
Source: Trump’s Russia dealings represented an enormous conflict of interest in 2016 : NBC News
Proposals to give care home managers a significant role in relation to applying the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) – the scheme that would replace the DoLS – in their homes have been scaled back.
Other changes to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill would see the LPS extended to cover 16- and 17-year-olds, not just those over 18, and requirements inserted to ensure assessments were carried out by people of sufficient knowledge and experience.
The person at risk of deprivation must also be consulted in every case under a raft of changes made to the bill.
The amendments will be debated tomorrow (Wednesday) when the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill reaches its penultimate stage in the House of Lords, the report stage. They are expected to be accepted by the House of Lords.
- Peers assured DoLS replacement system will not reduce access to advocacy
- Government to amend deprivation of liberty scheme to cover 16- and 17-year-olds
- Five things you need to know about Liberty Protection Safeguards
Manager roles reconsidered
One of the most controversial aspects of the bill has been the role given to care home managers.
From golf courses to hotels to fashion, the sprawling brands of the president and his family have been taking hits since Election Day.
President Trump dropped a bombshell Tuesday — and the aftershocks could blow back to hurt the commander-in-chief himself.
Trump’s decision to fire FBI director James Comey stunned Washington when it became public late afternoon.
The official reason given for Comey’s firing pertained to his conduct during the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The case against Comey was set out in a remarkable letter by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who said he “cannot defend” how Comey had treated Clinton.
In the polarized political climate of 2017, there is zero chance that Democrats and other critics of Trump will accept the stated explanation as the real reason for Comey’s removal.
The seven nations that fall under the executive order don’t include countries with Trump Organization projects.
The president-elect has declared $315 million of debt, but the actual amount may be five times higher