Bishop Raymond Lahey has another court date today, Friday, 19 February 2010.  I had been thinking of going but decided against. 

I menetioned before that I arrived there last week and it was all wrapped up a few days earlier.  Well, here is what happened.  The court date had been set on Wednesday 03 February 2010 for 9 am 12 February 2010 in courtroom #8.  As I mentioned in that blog, the date had momentarily been set for 05 February 2010, and then there was some talk about the judge which was difficult to catch and then a rapid change to 12 February 2010 - all agreeing that their calendars were open for that date and time.

Something changed. 

On 05 February Lahey’s defence filed an application to change the date to 08 February 2010.   According to the Application,

“Application is made for the following exceptional circumstances:

“This matter was previously set for trial readiness court on Feb. 12, 2010 to be spoken to.  However, Counsel will be unavailable and wishes to bring the matter forward to be spoken to on February 8, 2010.”

I did sit in on proceedings in courtroom #8 last week.  It apparently is the courtroom which deals with issues related to trial readiness, i.e., one defence lawyer was asking for an extension because other charges had been brought forward against his client, others were seeking delays for whatever reason.  It seems to me it’s like remand court but a step closer trial?

No matter, I think anything of interest which had to be said in public would have been addressed on the 8th.  I missed it :(  What they’re up to tomorrow I have not the foggiest, but I don’t think I’ll be missing much - it’s like a sausage factory in there too :).

As it stands it would seem that things are stuttering along toward trial - no plea therefore seems it must be a ‘not guilty’?

Of interest, Lahey’s high profile lawyer Michael Edelson has now been retained by Colonel Russell Williams.  (Williams is in custody at the Quinte detention Centre.  That’s the same place they had poor Perry locked up for a spell- possibly even the same cell? )   

Edelson also briefly represented Jacques Leduc. 

And, of course, while all of this plays out, the sex abuse allegations against Roman Catholic priest and now retired Chaplain General of the Canadian Armed Forces chaplain Monsignor Roger Bazin loom large.

I said I would be getting more info here.  I have been doing a bit of digging around but have to delve into files related to the lawsuit launched against me by now deceased priest, Father Lorne Whalen.  Whalen had been a military chaplain for a spell - just before he surfaced in the sanctuary of my church.  Bazin was Chaplain General at the time.

The action against me was dropped after six long years.  

The action was also against the Ottawa Sun.  The Sun had been going to see the case to trial but, unfortunately, decided at the 11 th hour it would be cheaper to pay Whalen a few thousand dollars than go to trial.  Such a shame.

 Anyway, I have raft of files related to the lawsuit which I must go through now.  In light of the charges against Bazin I will most definitely share what may be of interest. 

****

Day 3 of Lent.  One bishop (Raymond Lahey) heading toward trial of kiddie porn charges, the former Chaplain General/Brigadier General (Roger Bazin) of the armed forces facing child sex abuse charges, and the Colonel of the Trenton, Ontario Air Force base (Russell Williams) facing charges of murder, sexual assault and who knows what.

God help us.

****

I have several emails to answer.  I will do so next week.  It’s been a bad week health-wise for my husband and self, plus boxes from finally Ireland arrived and I have been up to my ears unpacking and getting things squared away.  I’m still at it, but getting there.  This nearly brings to close the long painful journey which started last August.  It’s been a difficult time. 

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

I missed this in the paper yesterday - a good friend called and asked had I seen it.  No, I had not. 

I did a bit of googling and came up with a series of articles re sex abuse charges Monisgnor Roger Bazin, Roman Catholic priest, former military chaplain and former Brigadier-General in the Canadian Armed Forces.   As Brigadier General Bazin was the top dog in the military chaplaincy chain of command.

I knew him! 

I see that in the initial reports Bazin was denying, and then along comes word of a secret $24,000 2005 settlement against another “alleged” victim.  And I see that Bishop Fred Colli claims he knew nothing of the 2005 allegations!!  That’s a hard one to swallow, but, we shall see…

This makes me sick, but I am thankful the dirt is coming out into the open. 

There are a couple of things I must check on this - will be back with more

Enough for now

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

A busy couple of days.  Settling business following my brother’s death is still wrapping up – a shipment which I packed and sent while in Ireland has finally arrived – running around today picking up papers and clearing customs.  It’s done, and boxes will be delivered tomorrow .  I managed to arrange delivery to allow time to pop into courtroom #8 at 9 am this morning to find out what’s happening with the charges against disgraced Bishop Raymond Lahey.

****

I said I would double check on the Emma Wilson-King business to be sure I have my facts straight.  Yes indeed.  Two paedophiles are on the loose in Cornwall, their identities secret because they were charged and tried as juveniles.  This because Wilson –King concluded the the acts of sexual abuse (sodomy included ++) were committed when the molesters were  juveniles.  Neither did jail time for their crimes.  Few know their identities. The sexual abuse began when the victim was a 7-year-old child.

According to the victim there is no doubt that both these men were molesting him when they were over age 18.  According to the victim the facts regarding time lines and dates re his first molester were irrefutable.  He actually got into an argument with Wilson-King when he found out that  the man would be tried in juvenile court, and bluntly told Wilson-King in so many words that he was the one who was sodomized and he remembers.  At that Wilson-King allegedly broke into tears and away she went, and in short order the victim was chastised by another police officer for giving “Emma a hard time.” 

A probation officer called the victim to say he was going over the file of one of the molesters – he told the victim that the perp should have been charged as an adult  - he allegedly said that the numbers were all there right in front of him.

But, the charges stood.  Both men were tried as juveniles.  Both were found guilty.  Neither went to jail for these atrocities.  Because they were tried as juveniles both are now protected by a publication ban.    One got 3 months house arrest and 9 months probation.  The other got three years probation and was deemed a high risk to re-offend.

By the sound of it, another of CPS’ thoroughly bungled child sex abuse “investigations.”

So, there it is, two convicted molesters are on the loose in Cornwall.  Few know who they are.  Children are at risk.

Sad to say, that’s the other thing I remembered about Emma Wilson-King.  I double checked. 

Still not a word about the charges or court appearance.  Silence! 

****

A letter to the Editor and two new articles posted.

10 February 2010:  Letter to Editor

06 February 2010: Retreats for sex abuse victims

11 February 2010:  Taking steps to healing 

When I first read the article about the retreats in Quinte I wondered how that came about and who, if anyone, was the Cornwall contact.  It seemed to come out of nowhere.  Yesterday I saw that the connection is Justice Normand Glaude himself, and also may well be Janet Handy, a former member of Glaude’s presumably conflict-free  Advisory Panel. 

Has Handy nestled right into Cornwall?  Has she actually relocated to Cornwall permanently?  When she was first introduced at the Inquiry she was from Toronto and had been heavily involved as Executive Director of Gatehouse there. (scroll down the Advisory Panel page to see article re financial problems at Gatehouse in 1997. )

But, here she is, running a women’s group called SASS, and now piggy-backing piggy-backing healing sessions for male victims courtesy of funding from the AG.

Is this a perc which comes with having been on Glaude’s Advisory Panel?  Was it all hammered out in advance?  Or, did the powers that be just see something in Handy that no one else had?  I don’t know, but I must say I don’t think it’s appropriate that those who ‘worked’ the inquiry as advisors should be the beneficiaries of the government handouts they advoctaed.  Seems when it comes to the inquiry and things Cornwall we just move along from one real or perceived conflcit of interest to another 

That aside, what an insult to male victims.  Did you read that?  They’re going to make “ a dream catcher”  or, perhaps, “ a rattle”!!! 

What absolute nonsense!  These are grown men. 

On top of that, these men are being relegated to the back door!  To make the women feel comfortable?!  

I don’t believe it. 

What about the men?  Will they feel comfortable being relegated to the back door?  Or, does that matter?

Note that counselor Seguin says that everyone is equal?!  But, front door for the ladies and back door for the men it is – because Heaven forbid we upset the ladies who, after all, were here first?

Why do I fear this is no more than a feminist sorti into the potentially lucrative domain of “healing” for male victims of childhood sexual abuse.  

One more and final comment on this silliness …

According to the article, Handy’s Halifax-based helper Wanda Seguin said” “We’re giving back to the community. If we all did that, all of our little ones would be safe. Wouldn’t that be amazing?”

What does Seguin mean?  How would “all of our little ones be safe?”   Does she really mean that if everyone took part in healing sessions, and making rattles, and eating our children would be safe? 

How? 

Why?

If the paedophiles and molesters  are still running loose – and of course we know only too well that they are! - how will making rattles etc protect our children?

I don’t understand this at all.  Does Seguin perhaps mean that all male victims are molesters, and that if they make rattles etc they will stop molesting?  Is that it? 

I hope not.  I certainly hope not.  That may be fine and dandy for the few who actually do become molesters, but what does it say of and do to the many who don’t? 

If perchance that’s what’s behind those comments it’s nothing short of negative and malicious stereotyping of male victims of same-sex childhood sexual abuse.   As I say, I do hope that’s not what is meant, but, back to my question:  how in the name of goodness are these weird new “healing” sessions for male victims going to protect our children? 

As far as I’m concerned, the bottom line is this:  our little ones will not be safe until the judiciary, legal profession, and law enforcement treat child sexual abuse as the abhorrent crime and sin that it is, and until molesters are treated like the abhorrent human beings that they are and are locked up, - for a good long time.

And, alas, in this day and age and as things stand, that really would be amazing.  But, a goal well worth fighting for.  True justice.  Somehow I sense that that would go a long way to helping victims “heal” - just the sheer assurance that society and “the system” views the sexual abuse of a child as so dispicable that the hand of justice will fall heavy and hard on those who dare to sexually violate a child. 

Enough for now,

Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

A new article posted.   Cornwall Police Service Detective Constable Emma Wilson-King ‘allegedly’ drinking and driving

09 February 2010: City police officer charged by OPP with impaired driving

Wilson-King’s name has surfaced several times in relation to various CPS sex abuse “investigations.”  Perhaps the most familiar to me is the time that Wilson-King, apparently at the behest of Father Kevin Maloney and his lawyer Sean Adams, ordered John MacDonald, a man alleging sexual abuse by a diocesan priest, not to call Father Maloney, a Roman Catholic priest.  The whole thing was a royal convoluted mess. 

Less familiar is the role Wilson-King played in the investigation of a victim whose name is under publication ban, as it that of his convicted molester whose name is also under publication ban and who is now freely roaming the streets.  I will say no more on this until I double check my facts.

No matter, the bottom line is that one of CPS’ own has been charged with drunken driving. 

To say the least, the circumstances surrounding this are a little odd.  Seems it was a male passenger in the vehicle who actually flagged down the OPP! 

Why was the man, whoever he was, not behind the wheel?  Was he too intoxicated himself to drive? but not too intoxiacted to flag down police?  or what?

And why was the car stopped at the side of the road, presumably with Wilson-King still behind the wheel?

Bizarre.  There truly must be more to this latest CPS saga than meets the eye

Incidentally, I just checked for a report of Wilson-King’s court appearance which, according to media reports, was scheduled for yesterday.  Nothing.

Does anyone have an update?  Did she appear?  What’s going on?

And speaking of John MacDonald, not a boo as yet about the RCMP investigation into his complaints against the former Cornwall Crown and two former Crowns turned judges - Murray MacDonald, Robert Pelletier and Peter Griffiths.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

Just in case people miss the blog re ex priest Donald Grecco posted today on the Why Four years? …

With no word re Grecco’s latest court appearance I called the Cayuga courthouse today to check the outcome of the scheduled 03 February 2010 court date.  I was told that the case has been transferred to the Hamilton courthouse “for a guilty plea.”  It is unknown what Grecco intends to plea guilty to.

Grecco’s next court date is 26 March 2010 at the Hamilton Courthouse, courtroom #302.  I don’t have the time – didn’t think of asking at the time L(  If someone out there knows the time could you please blog under Why four years? 

****

While at the Ottawa courthouse for the Lahey shenanigansI decided to take the opportunity to check some paperwork, specifically lawsuits against Jacques Leduc.  Two have been filed at the Ottawa courthouse  – I checked one file (it costs money to get the files so I just pick away with a file here and file there)

The case file that I checked is still open.   I understand from the staff that there is a settlement conference coming up in March 2010.

This has been going on since 2005!!!!

There is one particular thing of interest in the Amended Statement of Claim I want to pass along.  (From what I can see the Amended Statement of Claim was amended solely because of a typo in the original Statement of Claim.  The original statement read “…the defendant MacDonald used his position of authority and trust…”  The amended statement reads “the defendant Leduc used his position of authority and trust..,:

Para 8 of the amended statement reads in part:

Commencing in the year 1989, when the Plaintiff , was 15 years old and for the following 4 years, Leduc repeatedly sexually abused, assaulted and molested the Plaintiff, exposed him to prurient sexual behaviour, encouraged him to engage in deviant and prurient sexual behaviour with himself and others.  The particulars of the same are as follows:

(g) anally penetrating and sodomizing the Plaintiff;

(j) exposing the Plaintiff to group sexual activity;

Group sexual activity!

That I had never heard. 

This “alleged” victim never had a chance to take the stand to testify at what was passed off as the sex abuse trial of Jacques Leduc.  I can’t help but wonder now how much of the vilifying and back stabbing which went on inside and outside of the courtroom was to ensure that this “alleged” victim would never make it to the stand to testify. 

Rather damning I’d say.  Of course, as we all know, these allegations have not been proven in a court of law.  And, as we all also know, Leduc could have seen his trial through to the bitter end – he could have thumbed his nose at the chance to “walk” on a technicality, and he could have fought these allegations out in a court of law.  Leduc  opted to for the technicality, the one which rested on vilifying Perry Dunlop and stabbing Shelley Hallett in the back.

His choice.  No matter, these allegations have not been proven in a court of law, and, in his Statement of Defence, Leduc denies them.

Also of interest, in his Statement of Defence Leduc claims that he has been targeted and charged because of his involvement in the David Silmser case:

25. In 1998, Leduc was charged with various offences as a result of an ongoing investigation referred to as “Project Truth.”  This investigation carried on by a special task force created by the Ontario Provincial Police proceeded to an investigation arising from allegations of the existence of a pedophile ring in or around the City of Cornwall whereby various high profile, professional men, including clergy, lawyers, judicial officers, crown attorneys, probation officers and others in positions of authority were involved in child molestation activity.

26. These allegations, as referred to in the previous paragraph, were initiated by individuals who were concerned about the settlement of a potential civil suit against the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall by a person alleging sexual misconduct of one of its priests.  Leduc represented the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall in this settlement and the matter gained much notoriety and publicity in 1992 and 1993.

27. It has now come to light that as a result of his participation in this settlement of the civil suit Leduc was a person of interest to those who alleged the existence of the pedophile ring and was targeted as a sexual predator, which led the police to carry on an investigation in his [sic] respect.”
  
How terribly pathetic.  But, really the same old same same old.  Leduc claims he was charged with sexual abuse because of his involvement with the David Silmser pay-off!   That means that he claims the very OPP officers who helped him stab Shelley Hallet squarely between the shoulder blades to get his first stay are the ones who had him charged in the first place!  Does that make one iota of sense? 

Note there is not a boo about the illegal dimension to the “settlement”/ pay-off he was party to. 

Note too that in para 26.  he says “were initiated by individuals who were concerned about the settlement of a potential civil suit” against the diocese.

 A potential suit.  Interesting choice of words here.  A little more accurate than the standard buzz that the $32,000 was a settlement for legal action commenced by David Silmser, but ….still a considerable distance from the truth that the $32,000 was in fact an illegal pay-off to gag Silmser and keep him from having Father Charlie charged.

Anyway, I do wish both Leduc and Charlie had had the courage of their convictions to see their sex abuse trials through to the end so that at the end of the day they could either be found guilty or be in a position to honestly say that the allegations against them were not proven in a  court of law. 

They didn’t.  Both bolted for the Charter. 

I repeat, the allegations against Leduc noted above have not been proven in a court of law.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@the inquiry.ca)

I did a quick blog last evening re the charges against Bishop Raymond Lahey.  As I noted then, a court date has been set for Case management Court, that date being Friday 12 February 2010 at 9 am (Ottawa). 

A little more …

Yesterday’s hearing was in the room designated  for remands.  Remand court starts at 08:30 and runs until the cases are finished.  It can wind on all day.

Thankfully a representative from the Crown’s office and one from Lahey’s defence showed up around 8:50. 

The crown made a request for Case Management Court this Friday.  The date was set.  Then someone questioned who the presiding judge of the day would be.  The date was re-scheduled to the following Friday (12 Feb) , courtroom #8 at 9 am. I don’t know thaat there was anything untoward in the change of date -  I’m not sure but it seemed to relate to having someone qualified to deal with the case.   (The acoustics in the courtroom are terrible and it’s very difficult to catch what’s going on.)

Anyway, that was essentially it.  Swish bang.  Remand court is like a sausage factory.

Also, as I said previously, I talked ever so briefly to both the Crown and defence outside the courtroom. 

At the end of the day my understanding from the Crown is that defence has “some issues” which need to be sorted out.  His words I believe were:  “The defence has some issues on setting this down” and that those matters were not going to be discussed in open court yesterday morning.  Those issues will presumably be addressed in some fashion at the Case Management Court on the 12th.  The court is open to the public.

I asked the Crown about the judicial pre-trial of the 26th.  As anticipated, mums the word. 

All fair enough. 

Where things get puzzling for me is on the use of the word “continuance.” 

You may recall that after attending court 13 January 2010 I blogged that 26 Janaury 2010 was booked for judicial pre-trial and 03 February 2010 was a “continuance.”  I actually checked with the lawyer representing Lahey to ensure I got the dates right AND to ensure I understood correctly that the word was “continuance.”  It was foreign to me.

I later blogged that I was puzzled by this “continuance” .  I looked it up to see what I could learn and it just made no sense - plus the media was reporting that a plea was anticipated on the 3rd, and there not a mention of a “continuance.”  I failed to understand how there could on one hand be a request for postponement and on the other anticipation of a plea.  

 In addition, it made no sense to me that a continuance would be scheduled beforethe judicial pre-trial had transpired.   How would they know that they needed to postpone if they didn’t know what would transpire in chambers?  But, I am a layman and well aware that I am less than familiar with a lot of legal jargon.  I finally decided that things would fall into place and start to make sense as they unfold.

Not so.  At least, not yet.

Yesterday I asked the lawyer representing Lahey for the day about the continuance (sorry - didn’t get names).  He was the same lawyer who was in court on the 13th.  Well, he denied the word had ever been used, or that yesterday had been booked as a “continuance.”  I assured him I did not make it up since I had never heard the word before, but, he insisted that  he did not use the word and the word had never been used and that yesterday had not been scheduled as a continuance.

Figure that one out :)  I suppose to say I am more puzzled than ever now is putting it mildly.  I am wondering if yesterday was a little like a continuance without it being a continuance?   The long and short is things are dragging on a snail’s pace, and the clock is ticking,.  

Finally, I note that media reports indicate that Lahey’s next court date is 09 April 2010.  I heard no mention of the date in court but gather it must be fact? 

So, according to media reports the next court date is April 9th .  Easter Friday.  What is supposed to be happening then?   Not a clue.   I will certainly try to find out more on the 12th and report back.  Meanwhile the clock ticks.

Now, a few new postings and quick comments:. 

(1) Lahey 03 February 2010: “Bishop Lahey child porn hearing postponed” with comments, and 04 February 2010: “Lahey child porn case to resume April 9″ 

Already discussed. 

 (2) 04 February 2010: Cornwall’s Final Inquiry Tab: $1,738,981.03

Boo hoo hoo!

As I have said before I do believe that the Cornwall Police Service pulled a fast one here.  If, as it seems it should have, the Cornwall Police Service had applied for funding at the start of the inquiry it probably would have received funding.  And had CPS received funding it would, alas, have been tethered by the inquiry imposed caps on hourly rates for lawyers and so on.

 Do you suppose CPS didn’t know that?

I don’t believe CPS wanted to be tethered.   I think it pulled a fast one.  As far as I’m concerned it pulled a fast one, and, as far as I am concerned  the office of the AG was complicit.  It was, after all, the office of the AG which came to the rescue when the wailing first began and funded the colossal CPS inquiry costs through he back door.

Methinks things at the Weave Shed might have played out a little differently if CPS had had its wings clipped and been obliged to follow the rules for parties with funding.

(3) 04 February 2010:  “Charge dropped against OPP boss” and other articles re Fantino charge
 
Same old same old. 

What is it?  One Big Happy Family?  or friends in high places? or two tiered justice?

No matter, Fantino is indeed as snug as a bug in the proverbial rug.  He can still sleep tight. 

(4) Ontario Court of Justice: Her Majesty the Queen v, Gary William McHale:  Excerpt of proceedings on preliminary inquiry before the Honourable Justice B. Zabel on November 25, 2008 at Hamilton, Ontario

I posted this because it was linked into the previous article.  An interesting read.  Looks like McHale did a darn good job in court.

Final note here:  Never ever forget now, Commissioner Julian Fantino never ever ever threatened anyone

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

A big day in two Ontario courtrooms tomorrow….

(1) Bishop Raymond Lahey has a court date scheduled for 8:30 am tomorrow morning (03 February 2010) at the Ottawa court house.  There has been speculation by the media that he will enter a plea.  The 03 February court date however was described in court as “continuance.”   I still don’t understand that, but perhaps will be enlightened tomorrow :) 

By the way, I heard via the grapevine that Lahey’s hefty legal fees are presumably being picked up by a rich brother.   True or false?  I have no idea.  For what it’s worth I do know that the average Catholic in the pew is adamant that they do not want to and will not pick up the tab.  The question there is, barring legal action or an inquiry, how would they ever know if the diocese did or did not pick up the tab?  One for sure is that Lahey has had no trouble running up his bill as he dithers about contemplating whether or not he actually did the dastardly deeds .  $800 or so per hour adds up quickly - even with a teeny weeny bit of dithering.

I also wonder if the CCCB would sit by idly twiddling thumbs when one of its is ‘in need’?  I doubt it.  I truly doubt it. 

Bottom line:  rich brother or no I do believe Lahey’s hefty legal bill will be taken care of.  

(2) Ex priest Don Grecco’s preliminary hearing is scheduled for tomorrow at the Cayuga courthouse.  Hopefully someone can report back to us on the outcome of that.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca) 

Two articles posted last night, ….with comments:

(1). 27 January 2010:   $1.5M for CAS roof

Note the stats:

- 140 Children’s Aid Society workers

- “$25 million-plus” budget for 2008-09

- 391 children under CAS’ care in 20008-’09.

Now look at the numbers quoted in a 23 January 2008 article:  “CAS Proposal Request RFP#01-2008 for a Public Relations Campaign

- 120 staff

- approximately $22,000,000 budget

- 350 children in care

 Those immediatley above were presumbaly current stats in Janaury 2008.  The others are stats for the year 2008-2009.

That means that in the year 2008 the CAS staff increased by 20, the budget increased by $3M+, and 41 more children were cared for.

That raises a number of questions:

(a) Do 41 children warrant an increase of 20 staff?  and/or,

(b) Do 41 children warrant a $3M+ increase in budget? and/or

(c)  Was the $3M+ budget increase to cover care costs of $75,000 income per additional child? and/or

(d)  Was the $3M+ budget increase to cover a salary of $150,000 per additional staff? and/or

(e)  Were the new hires to provide a ratio of one staffer/2 new children in care?

(f) 391 children with CAS?   God love the poor dear little souls.  I pray they will fare better than many of their predecessors whose heart wrenching accounts of abuse we heard at the inquiry. 

One final question, as the roof was just about to literally fall in at the CAS, how much did CAS spend on its PR campaign to counter bad PR from the Cornwall Public Inquiry?  the campaign which came up with the slogan “We are here to help” in an effort to re-invent itself? Does anyone know?  Total costs that is, for the entire campaign?  Would it have made a fair dent in re-doing a roof?

(2) 28 January 2010: Expansion intrigues top cop

Less than a year ago we heard of an exodus of experienced officers from the Cornwall Police Service.

Now CPS is apparently debating expanding its reach into the surrounding communities. 

In light of what we heard at the inquiry, I shudder at the thought.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

Oh joy!  www.theinquiry.ca  website is un-hacked! 

By the way, whoever thought this would be good for a lark, I have a very good and sharp webhost.  I have your IP address :) 

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

 I have a problem.  Seems someone has somehow hacked my website and added a link to an ad for a male potency product.  Do not click in “logekey” on the Menu at the left.  Ditto “Online” which  is currently showing as a broken link but was not put there by me. 

 Can anyone help me with this?  I have no idea how it got there and am unable to remove it with my software?  I have been trying for sometime to sort out how to remove the two links and just can’t.  I have an idea for success which I will try after I post this.  I will aslo get in touch with my web host but in the meantime if anyone has a sure fire way to adress the problem I would appreciate any assistance I can get.

**** 

First, a quick note re word of appeal as it was reported by the media.

The headlines read “Dunlop a no show in court,  the implication being Perry was supposed to show and, because he was a no show somehow he erred.

The truth of the matter is that  the Court of Appeal was advised by Perry last Spring that he would NOT be appearing in person at his appeal.  He had the option of filing his appeal in writing.  He chose that option.  His appeal was filed last Spring.  It is with the court. 

A reporter from Canadian Press, which first put the story out that Perry was scheduled to appear on 18 January 2010, appears to have read the documents on file at Divisional Court.  He/she would have read that Perry’s intent was to appeal in writing – not in person.  For whatever reason the CP reporter wrote the following:

Dunlop’s appeal is scheduled to be heard Monday, but he is self-represented and it’s unclear whether he will attend in person.

Why no mention of the fact that Perry explicitly stated in writing - in his appeal - that he would not appear in person? 

The article drawn from the CP coverage also noted that

The Crown didn’t notify Dunlop of the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have not been fruitful, according to information in Dunlop’s court file.

That is fact.  The Crown failed to notify Perry that the appeal was scheduled until days before the 18th. 

I am a little confused about all of this.  Obviously there was an onus on the Crown to notify Perry of the scheduled date for the appeal, but why the apparent buzz over whether or not he would appear? 

It makes no sense to me.  What it has done in the long run is drag the matter out for who knows how much longer.

Begging time?  If yes, for whom?  and why?

Yet again something isn’t making sense.  

The Crown on the appeal, by the way, is none other than David Humphrey, the very man who fought tooth and nail on the AG’s behalf – successfully -  to put Perry behind bars.

What exactly does it take for the powers that be at the office of the Attorney General to recognize a conflict of interest?  And how many conflicts does it take for the AG to actually declare a conflict of interest when it comes to persecuting Perry Dunlop?

I hope I am wrong, but right now it’s looking like yet again the cards are being carefully and painstakingly stacked against the whistleblower. 

*****

Note the blog on the Canadians for Accountability website:  Perry Dunlop: Forgotten Hero.  A great blog.

****

Three new media articles are posted.  The link and a brief comment on each:

(1)  25 January 2010:  ‘Reckless’ delay in support for victims

Another country heard from!

John Swales is suddenly back in the picture!  and looking for the Ontario taxpayer to fund unlimited counselling for every single sex abuse victim in Ontario!!

What can I say?  I am at a loss for words :(  I do believe common sense has flown right ut the window on this one! 

(2)  25 January 2010:  Diocese won’t be holding fire sale: But parishes told all but core assets on auction block

Goes to show that protecting, nurturing and/or harbouring clerical child molesters is a costly business in more ways than one.

Also, I see Bishop Brian Dunning is to be installed as Lahey’s replacement today.  Did ‘they’ take pains to pick a man with a squeaky clean slate this time?  The people of Antigonish deserve nothing less. 

(3) 25 January 2010:   Church making progress in dealing with sexual abuse: But new cases continue to arise and systemic issues remain 

More psychobabble from prominent Canadian Roman Catholics – try to lay the blame anywhere and everywhere but on the sinning priest. 

“What has happened in Cornwall is typical of what has happened across Canada,” the bishop said.

Meaning what?  What DID happen in Cornwall Bishop Durocher? I for one would like to be enlightened as to what the bishop beleives has been happening all across Canada. 

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)