I am still shut out of my web design software. I do hope things resolve today so I can get some overdue postings up on the site.
In the interim I realize that I can post articles right here on the blog, so, for the time being, I will do so under the header Pages.
Posted today is a 26 February 2006 article I happened upon posted on the John Sabin Private Investigator blog. The article relates to another Cornwall case being handled by the Ottawa-based lawyer Michael Neville who is representing Father Charles MacDonald and the estate of Ken Seguin at the Cornwall sex abuse inquiry. Quoted in the article is Guisepi Cipriano, a junior lawyer with Neville’s firm. It was Cipriano who made yesterday’s almost comedic arguments that the Cornwall inquiry should exclude the statements and testimony of victims and the names of their “alleged” molesters because the public would conclude that Father MacDonald is guilty.
According to the article Neville is currently defending two Sudbury men charged with the deaths of two men in the Cornwall area. The pair also face charges of conspiracy to commit murder in relation to a Cornwall man’s attempt on the life of another Cornwall man. Police allege that all three suspects – two from Sudbury and one from Cornwall, were also involved in a “huge” marijuana trafficking operation.
Meanwhile at the Weave Shed the inquiry is headed by a Sudbury-based judge and Neville is defending the interests of a Cornwall priest whose current bishop, Andre Durocher, came to the Alexandria-Cornwall diocese from Sudbury.
Passing strange? No doubt, but goes to show you that (1) legally-speaking Ontario is a small small world and (2) Neville and Cipriano are busy men.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
TIME TO SPEAK OUT!! Get involved people!! Contact Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant and YOUR MPP.
SIDESHOW: The lengths taken to suppress the facts and protect the “ALLEGED” abusers are breath-taking.
THIS Public Inquiry does not belong to the “ALLEGED VICTIMS,” the “ALLEGED ABUSERS,” Judge Glaude or anyone. This is a PUBLIC INQUIRY, commissioned by the Attorney General and the Ontario Provincial Government. This Public Inquiry affects ALL citizens, everywhere. ALL citizens should be very concerned and involved.
It is my opinion that participants of the Public Inquiry are now engaged in a deceitful “sideshow.” Public opinion forming “to the MAX.” This is an effort to create the “illusion” that justice is being properly executed…step by step…, just like, how, the justice system and other public institutions, supposedly followed, “step by step,” in response to allegations of abuse of young people in Cornwall. For public consumption and perhaps some, ego-polishing, the lawyers can present their very own, “dog and pony show,” arguing, in opposition to or in support of, the motions currently before Judge Glaude. It’s very simple Judge Glaude, as you well know. Let’s save the money, the time and the agony. Judge Glaude does not have the jurisdiction to “rule” in part, on whether the “Church” is a public institution or not, because, the “Church” in this case and as depicted or defined in Sylvia MacEachern’s website, http://www.theinquiry.ca, is, a “STATE”, represented by an Ambassador to the United Nations and by Ambassadors/Diplomats around the World, in embassies and bureaus, known to us, as, “The Diocese.” As is the fact with ALL Diplomats, the “Church” is equally, “IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION”. This “Diplomatic Immunity” card can be played at any time. The “ALLEGED” abusers, are in a “win-win” situation and ALL the lawyers are well aware of it. 1) If the motions are granted, then, well, that’s self-explanatory and the “ALLEGED” abusers have nothing to worry about; 2) If the motions are denied, then the lawyers will appeal indefinitely and the “ALLEGED” abusers have nothing to worry about. Additionally, lawyers, David W. Scott, Q.C. and David Sherrif-Scott, in their representations of various “ALLEGED” abusers, are at their best here. Their motion currently before Judge Glaude, is ONE STEP away from declaring “Diplomatic Immunity” for the “ALLEGED” abusers, they vigorously defend; the unspoken message has been conveyed by the “esteemed duo.”.
Finally, Judge Glaude can only “RULE” on what is written in the Inquiry Mandate. MOST IMPORTANTLY, this Inquiry is ONLY “designed” to “EXAMINE THE RESPONSE” of the justice system and other public institutions to the allegations of abuse of young people in Cornwall,” nothing else, not the stories of sexual abuse by “ALLEGED” victims,not other related testimony and not the evidence or facts. ULTIMATELY, Judge Glaude has NO CHOICE but to declare, “the response, although not perfect, was followed in the proper manner, steps 1,2,3,4 etc., now let’s get on with Phase II.”
You’ve hit the mail on the head prima facie (great name )
Thanks to the McGuinty government and Bryant’s team of legal experts the diocese/ “Church” (diocese) is in a win/win situation. As it stand Justice Glaude has two options, neither of which I believe is appropriate or acceptable:
(1) Set the dangerous precedent of ruling that the diocese is a public institution. This would inevitably evoke howls of protest, not only from the Scott team (David W and David S) but, I would hope, from interested parties far beyond the walls of the little Weave Shed in Cornwall. I believe therefore that if this is the ruling the whole inquiry process will be bogged down and eventually – if not instantly – derailed by appeals and any other available legal recourse, possibly including as you suggest, but not limited to, claims of diplomatic immunity.
As you know I’m sure the latter has been successfully utilized throughout the world to shield the “the Church” or the Papal Nuncio (Vatican state’s representative) when either is named as a defendant in a clerical sexual abuse lawsuit.
Would the Scott team try to go there? It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to see them try to claim diplomatic immunity for the diocese, however in reading Canada’s State Immunity Act I am inclined to think the diocese might be classified as an agency of the Church and therefore in the long run it might be a futile effort – but it would certainly be a lucrative and effective stall to tie things up in legal limbo for years.
Between that and the intervention of other interested parties, and appeals of appeals, the paedophiles and victims of Cornwall would all be in or nigh to their graves by the time the legal battles conclude.
A win for the diocese and the alleged clerical molesters of Cornwall.
(2) Leave it as is. That means the diocese is not a public institution and is therefore beyond the scope of the mandate and can keep whatever damming files it has which implicate it or its clergy or staff as party to a cover-up or paedophile ring under lock and key and out of the public eye.
That demands action from those who claim they want to get to the truth. The decision would demand an appeal. And away we go to divisional court, and again things are tied up in legal limbo for years.
And at the end of the day a successful appeal would be appealed, and on and on and on ad infinitum.
A win for the diocese and the alleged clerical molesters of Cornwall.
I think Premier McGuinty, the Attorney General and his legal wizards outwitted themselves when they drafted the mandate. The diocese got its bye, but the inquiry is imploding.
We need a mandate to get to the truth, not a bye for a cover-up.
Ad that means we need a new mandate.
Sylvia