A serious misrepresentation of the facts

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

Letters to the Editor

12 February 2009

On July 26, 2006, I appeared before the Cornwall Public Inquiry, as Commission counsel was unable privately to provide Judge Glaude's financial reasons for funding of the Diocese. Why did I focus on the Diocese and not the other parties? I focussed on the Diocese as some members of the public, expressed concern as to Judge Glaude's possible bias, and as he originally declined to fund the Diocese, then changed his mind, so it became incumbent that he provide his financial reasons.

I also appeared because of Judge Glaude's comments on his use of religious "law" in his decision to recommend funding. I quote his comments of July 26, 2006: "In his report Reverend Morrissey clearly separated the religious duties of the church from that of the financial arrangements. Having done so, it is clear that conventional wisdom gives way to a new reality, one of which I, for one, was clearly in the dark.

"All of this is to demonstrate that this Inquiry is not about conventional wisdom but about facts.

This Inquiry will take the time to listen and, as I often say, to ponder all aspects of the evidence presented."

As such an argument opens the door for any business to organize its duties in such a way as to avoid financial responsibility, I sought clarification as to his use of that "law".

In response to my application, Judge Glaude made the following comment: "Mr. MacLennan's comments this morning that he used his application for standing and funding as a method to raise his concerns that are clearly outside the scope of this Inquiry nor am I impressed that someone would take the opportunity to attempt to use the Inquiry and its website to perhaps promote its own agenda."

What was my agenda? My agenda was to secure Judge Glaude's financial reasons for recommending funding to the Diocese, and clarify his comments on his use of religious "law". What was Judge Glaude's response? Judge Glaude's response was that my concerns were "clearly outside the scope of this Inquiry." In other words, it is none of the public's business that he may have shown bias or lack of competence in not providing his financial reasons for funding of the Diocese, or used religious "law" in his decision.

It was the foregoing issues that formed the major basis of my application on the misconduct of Judge Glaude to the Ontario Judicial Council in September 2006. Based upon the Judicial Council decision, I made application for funding on Nov. 17, 2008 to proceed to Divisional Court to primarily deal with those same matters. An additional purpose of my application for funding was to expose the flawed government's means test for funding, which amounted to a sham or charade, as it had no criterion to determine eligibility, but even if it had a criterion, because of the disparity in the make-up of the parties, no fair and logical criterion could be devised. The test was also an invitation to whim and fancy, as former Attorney General Michael Bryant later, in response to my request on the future use of the flawed test, described it , as "principled flexibility."

It was this flawed test that gave rise to Judge Glaude's errors in judgement. It was this same test that also has resulted in the perception that city ratepayers are being discriminated against in the payment of a portion of the Inquiry's costs, in comparison to the Diocese and other parties, notwithstanding the city made a financial deal, unknown to city council, and the city and province refuse to disclose to the public the details of the deal. I made former Attorney General Bryant, current Attorney General Chris Bentley, and the Standard-Freeholder fully aware of my concerns going back to November 2006.

It was on Jan. 6, 2009 , in ruling on my application for funding, however, that Judge Glaude, made the most serious error in judgement by misrepresenting my purpose for making application to proceed to Divisional Court. I quote from the transcript of Hearing as follows:

* Page 197, Line 20-22 -Judge Glaude asserts that the purpose of my application was "to challenge my (his) decision to recommend funding for the Diocese."

* Page 198, Line 9-13 -Judge Glaude asserts that I made a number of arguments "to challenge the Diocese funding should be overturned."

* Page 202, Line 3-5 -Judge Glaude

asserts that I wish "to participate in order to argue that another party's funding be withdrawn."

All of the above statements were grave misrepresentations of the facts, and constitute serious misconduct. I have formally requested Judge Glaude to retract his comments. I challenged only Judge Glaude's failure to provide his financial reasons and his use of religious "law" in his decision.

I, in fact, recommended that all parties, including the Diocese, be granted funding, at the judge's sole discretion, subject to appeal, without a means test, as found in my application for standing of July 26, 2006.

These latter misrepresentations, as well as the other errors in judgement, should be a serious concern to the public, as they directly impact on the merit of his future recommendations. If Judge Glaude is able to blatantly misrepresent my purposes as noted, what other events and evidence will he misrepresent? I believe the victims of sexual abuse, the parties with standing, and the public generally should have serious concern. Will Judge Glaude's judgement be any better than those upon which he sits in judgement?

H. Ken MacLennan, West Palm Beach, FL

On: “A serious Misrepresentation of the facts”, letter to the editor by H. Ken MacLennan, which appeared on the Cornwall “Standard-Freeholder” website dated Feb. 12, 2009 and on the “Final submissions process for Cornwall Public Inquiry”.

I believe Ken MacLennan, in his letter, has bravely shared his “Cornwall Public Inquiry” experiences with us. He expresses his dismay and appears to be quite upset.

I applaud Mr. MacLennan for sharing his experiences with us.

Mr. MacLennan’s disclosure is yet another example of yet another individual whose concerns and important questions were/are “dismissed” as irrelevant, minimized and rationalized away by Commissioner Glaude and Commission Counsel.

From my perspective, this is one of a series of “dismissals” and rationalizations Commissioner Glaude has arrogantly chose to follow, since this inquiry was publicly announced. Let us not forget one of his first “dismissals”, in that there was no conflict with him “sitting” as Commissioner. Sometimes, I wonder, did anyone really closely watch this Inquiry? Did “informed” citizens, victims, survivors, other laymen and professionals, really, closely “watch” this public Inquiry? I mean, I don’t think Mr. MacLennan is the only to assert, “a serious misrepresentation of the facts”,  “Parties with standing at the Cornwall Public Inquiry will be making both Phase 1 and Phase 2 oral and written submissions.” I ask. Do we (“the public”) have justifiable and documented reasons for concern?

Are examples such as Mr. MacLennan’s letter, evidence supporting “our” reasons to be concerned? “A serious misrepresentation of facts”, convoluted examinations and cross-examinations, testimony replete with supposition, conjecture, guesswork, presumptions, inferences, hypothetical speculation and attempts to lead the witnesses into surmising how “events” unfolded, etc., etc., appeared to me, to be the “road” most travelled at this “Inquiry”. I believe the likes of lawyers Michael Neville, Helen Daley and others, very astutely, re-wrote history, with impunity, while representing their clients at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry.” While cross-examining witnesses, lawyers’ Neville, Daley and others, seemingly utilized the “well-oiled” illusive tactics, referenced above, to elicit anything but “the facts”, therewith, forever “engraving” the “words” in the files and records for future retrieval, at an opportunistic and “needy” time for them. The above “illusive” tactics, elicited replies from witnesses, such as, “maybe”, “could have”, “I guess so”, “possibly”, “I’m not really sure, but could have, should have, might have”, etc., etc., etc,…..you all get the point. This was the “Inquiry”.

Would it be fair to “suggest”, that in a different venue, with a more diverse gathering of lawyers, much of what I discuss above, would have also been challenged by some of them and in the fashion I assert.?

  FACE THE FACTS FOLKS: The likes of Neville, Callaghan, Daley, et al, are “forcing” THEIR OWN AGENDAS (not the public’s better interests). Weren’t “opportunistic, self-serving” members of Daley’s group, the “CCR”, not contacting the Dunlop’s during the early parts of the Inquiry, urging the Dunlop’s to join their group? Then when it was clear the Dunlop’s would not “join their group”, the “members” sent e-mail’s, “presumably” “attacking” the Dunlop’s. Gee, what a “turnaround”, in such a short time.  Make no mistake about it; when the above lawyers et al present their “final submissions” and perhaps recommendations, many, many people will be screaming, “A serious misrepresentation of the facts.”

I urge readers to do their own research. Compare the “submissions” with the “facts” “of the day”, “in the time”. Mr. MacLennan, through his letter, has in my opinion, disclosed serious “allegations”, supported by tangible, documentations.

I urge readers to avoid comparing “submissions” with interpretations, re-interpretations, suppositions, assertions, defenses, etc., that have been disseminated since “the day” (1992) and especially not with what has been recorded in this public “Inquiry”.

Again, “what got the ball rolling?”

Finally: When “observers” really get “fed up and angry” with what is presented in “final submissions”, I urge you to again, research, compare and challenge “authorities” with the “facts”.
Let us ask ourselves; are the “final submissions” an accurate representation of the facts of “the day”, “in the time” or are the submissions, replete with the “misrepresentations”, “suppositions, conjecture, guesswork, presumptions, inferences, hypothetical speculation and “wishful thinking”, designed and constructed, during the public “Inquiry” process, by over-zealous lawyers and other authorities? “You Decide”.  

“For the greater good” philosophy does not cut it here. “For the greater good” has been abused, misused and will be misused again as, justification for the many acts and acts of omission that have taken place. Many of which, I see as being the unlawful and abusive misapplication of justice, you have gone too far!!

I believe the “Misuse of Power, Authority and the Misadministration of Justice” has been utilized to achieve a pre-determined objective, nothing else. Shameful to say the least. Again Mr. MacLennan, even though you write that all your information has been “on the record” for some time, I believe this recent disclosure and assertion by you is to be applauded. 

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By JAMES "SPEAK OUT",