Is there an applicable rule of law?

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours this morning, Monday 03 March 2008. Staff Sgt. Garry Derochie will continue his examination in chief.


Can you believe it’s been over 21/2 weeks since Perry was arrested by the RCMP and taken into custody in Duncan in Duncan, BC and then transported – hand-cuffed and waistshackled – across the country?

Two-and-a-half-weeks! Imagine. Nearly fifteen years after he stepped up to the plate for the children of Cornwall Perry Dunlop is behind bars. Forget all the selective spin and hype about he could and would get a Get Out of Jail free card if he testifies. Perry’s behind bars because he did what he did back then, and nigh on fifteen years downstream “they” are still doing damage control, and “they” are still painting Perry as the guy with the horns and pitchfork, and the “alleged” paedophiles as the guys with the halos and harps. – and justice Glaude and Peter Engelmann wouldn’t take Perry’s “no” for an answer.

And now it seems that in the Weave Shed world “no” means “no” only if and when it comes from the mouths or pens or lawyers of the real and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall.

All the Cornwall paedophiles doesn’t want to testify? Fair enough. Why force the poor men? They’ve suffered enough.

All the “alleged”paedophiles of Cornwall don’t want to testify? Fair enough. No pressure on those poor souls either.

They don’t want to testify? O.K. That’s it. They don’t have to.

No whiff of judicial bullying and coercion there. Not a murmur of subpoenaes. No subpoenas, no chance of one or a dozen or more citations for contempt.

No, aside those who by chance are already behind bars there will not be one real or alleged paedophile going to jail because he doesn’t want to testify. Not one.

Put the pressure on Perry. Put him in jail after he said so loudly and clearly so many times: “No.” Leave the guys with halos and harps alone. They have suffered enough. Heaven forbid they be forced to testify against their will.

What do the guys with halos and harps know of the institutional response to anything anyway? All they might know about is who rubbed shoulders with who at Ken Seguin’s home – both before and after Seguin moved to his waterfront home in Summerstown. And who went in whose boat to Malcolm MacDonald’s porn strewn cottage on Stanley Island. And who rubbed shoulders with Cornwall’s bishop emeritus Eugene Larocque -when, and where and how. And who rubbed shoulders with former Bishop Adolphe Proulx, and retired Chief of Police Claude Shaver, and lawyer and Church canon lawyer Jacques Leduc. And who rubbed shoulders with paedophile Martial “Killer” Gagnon, and with the real and “alleged” paedophiles at the Cornwall Classical College, and with the real and “alleged” Roman Catholic teachers in the local Catholic schools.

Paedophile ring/clan/pack stuff.

But, they might even remember if they ever went to Florida, and when and with whom? Maybe they’d even recall if they knew who went to Fort Lauderdale, and with whom.

I keep thinking of all the people who know so much – the ones the commission isn’t the slightest tad interested in hearing from.

Did convicted clerical paedophiles Father Gilles Deslaurier, Paul Lapierre and Kenneth Martin say “no”? Deslaurier could tell us about his very close relationship with former Bishop Adolphe Proulx. Lapierre could sing like a canary. Like he did at his Project Truth sex abuse trial. He could tell the commission about all the priests he knew were molesting young lads. He has more to say.

Were Deslaurier and Lapierre asked? They could probably tell us a little about Fathers Carl Stone and Luc Meunier and who that pair rubbed shoulders with in the diocese. Good chance too that they’d both know a little something about ex-priest Richard Hickerson too and how he wound up in Cornwall after he wound up out of the priesthood – after he’s molested how many young lads in Prince Albert Saskatchewan and before he started on the young lads of Cornwall.

What of clerical paedophile Father Richard Racine, the Cornwall native turned teacher turned priest in the neighbouring diocese of Kingston Ontario. What does he know? Was he asked to testify? He probably knows a lot about the goings on in Cornwall when he was a young lad. Did he say “no.”

Did Roman Catholic school teachers and convicted paedophiles Marcel Lalonde and Robert Sabourin say “no”? Were they asked, deceived, bullied or coerced to testify? They know a lot.

What of Jean Luc Leblanc? He’s already behind bars. He has nothing to lose. What was his relationship to Malcolm MacDonald? What Leblanc know? Get him out of jail, put him on the stand and ask him. Did he say “no” ?

Did convicted paedophile James Lewis say “no.” He might be able to tell us a little more about Hickerson and Hickerson’s friends.

Convicted clerical paedophile Father Paul Desilets csv would know a lot about the Classical College. He might even remember Killer Gagnon. Did he say “no”?

Is Milton MacDonald still alive? He knows a lot.

Then of course there’s the “alleged” paedophiles: Bishop Eugene Laorcque, Jacques Leduc and Fathers Charles MacDonald, Kevin Maloney and Lucine Lussier.

Did they say “no”?

They must have. The time window for the real and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall to take the stand has come and gone. Not one showed up. Not one! That begs the question doesn’t it. How many were asked to testify? How many said “no.” How many were subpoenaed? How many said “no” to a subpoena?

Whatever happened behind closed doors, not one of them was charged with contempt.

If this “inquiry” has anything at all to do with the allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up which prompted its commissioning these men – and many others – should be testifying.

Where are they?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, these are the men who know what was going on behind closed doors in Cornwall.

But, not one forced to testify. Not one. Perry aside, there have been no charges of civil contempt for refusing to testify.

Why not? Why just Perry?

And look at this. A 50-year-old man preying on children on the net, exposing himself – guilty!!! He wasn’t “allegedly” preying. He was preying. He’s out on bail!

Perry is locked up in a 12’x 7’cell.

Who do you suppose poses the greater threat to society?

Is there an applicable rule of law here?

Tell me there isn’t something wrong with this picture.

Tell me there isn’t something wrong when Perry says “no” at a public inquiry and is deceived, coerced, intimidated, and bullied until he’s behind bars, but when former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney says “no” to a parliamentary committee conducting hearings into the Air Bus scandal there’s no threats, no coercion, no subpoena and no contempt?


Well, when it comes to Cornwall and the sex abuse scandal/”inquiry” if there was a teeny shred of doubt left that Perry Dunlop detractors control the media it can be put to bed on the spot. Seems these days if it’s not Claude McIntosh spinning the facts and hanging Perry high and dry, it’s Kelly Egan. And if it’s not Kelly Egan it’s Bill Cleverley,. And if it’s not Bill Cleverley it’s Gregory Bonnell.

Former cop at root of ‘pedophile ring’ claim to learn fate Wednesday. This is the news which goes coast to coast in Canada courtesy of Canadian Press. This is how people presumably find out what’s happening in Cornwall. The bias is blatant. As for errors, I’ve given up on the errors being pumped out by media over the past months. In this instance I will make a few quick observations on the article:

(1) How is this inquiry of Perry’s making?

(2) Perry Dunlop was not on the public radar screen in 1993. Perry and Helen Dunlop did not know Ron Leroux from a hole in the wall.

(3) One of the 15 men charged under the Project Truth entered a guilty plea and was convicted. Another got off Cornwall and was convicted in Quebec (same victim!)

Apart from Project Truth there were convictions for: (1) Earl Landry Jr. (son of a former Chief of police); (2) Robert Sabourin (Roman Catholic teacher, amateur photographer for the diocese and very close friend of former Bishop Adolphe Proulx), (2) Marcel Lalonde (Roman Catholic teacher and friend of Ken Seguin and others), Milton MacDonald (father of Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald); James Lewis (molested by Richard Hickerson); Father Paul Desilets (Viatorian priest who once taught at now defunct Cornwall Classical College).

(4) What whole story did Ron Leroux admitted he made up? Can anyone show me where Ron Leroux admitted – without recanting again – that he made anything up?

(5) Can Mr. Bonnell tell us how many witnesses apart from Ron Leroux saw various pillars of the community in various locales? The Cornwall sex abuse scandal does not begin and end with Ron Leroux. It never did.

(6) Perry’s “crusade” did not begin “after he uncovered a $32,000 settlement.” Perry fulfilled his legal – and moral – obligation to go CAS when he realized children were at risk.

(7) David Silmser’s sex abuse allegations against Ken Seguin were never investigated by police.

(8) David Silmser accepted a $32,000 pay-off from the diocese only because he had been told police were not going to lay charges. It was after Silmser was gagged and illegally bound to tell Cornwall police that he no longer wanted to pursue criminal charges that the “investigation” ended.

(9) Perry said a whole lot more to the two judges in Toronto than “I just don’t have the heart to go in here and face a while barrage of lawyers. Where was Gregory Bonnell?

(10) There were not, as is commonly and erroneously reported by the mainstream press, 75 supporters at the Dunlop home on the day of his arrest. There were over 200. That from a man who was there and counted! Some came and went. The numbers exceeded 200.

(11) Where did all this nonsense come from that Perry could/should get a medical certificate to excuse him from testifying? Who started that erroneous spin that woud have the unwitting public deduce Perry Dunlop is a mental basket case? And, …why?

To my knowledge and at this time there no medical reason for Perry Dunlop not to testify. I highly doubt that he would take an ‘easy out’ of his current un-enviable predicament and sparse lodgings by lying to say that there is. It’s not his style.


Check out the Canadian Press website. I just did. Read through to see what we should be expecting from CP.

I also looked about to see where does one file a complaint when greeted with articles such as those being pumped out by Claude McIntoshes, Kelly Egans, Bill Cleverleys and Gregory Bonnells of the print media world.

Here’s where to go

2 Carlton Street, Suite 1706,
Toronto, Ontario
M5B 1J3

Telephone: (416) 340-1981
FAX: (416) 340-8724


Hearings have commenced. Must go.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is there an applicable rule of law?

  1. prima facie says:

    As I see it, your blog is an excellent and “factual” record, of the events Sylvia. WAY TO GO!!
    AND thanks, I will certainly fire-off my complaints to “The Ontario Press Counsil”.

  2. Myomy says:

    Thanks for the partial list of errors in the CP reporting. What would a complete list look like, I can see why this makes you tired of the spin and lies when you are much better informed than any of the reporters writing this drivel. For them is is not only that they are poorly informed but they write the story and then look for information which can be twisted to make the story credible. Slowly but surly they are destroying their credibility with the informed public.

    Thanks also for the lengthy list of people who could tell us a lot more about the pedophiles of Cornwall than scrutinizing again the work of Perry Dunlop. As you know well this is not a real inquiry, it is limited by its flawed mandate to investigating the previous investigations. This continues a pattern that goes back to the very beginning. The early investigations were investigating the payoff to David Silmser and the conduct of this investigation. This was investigated by the Cornwall Police then the Ottawa Police then the OPP Project Truth and now the inquiry. To this date the only investigation of the crimes themselves was conducted by Parry Dunlop with limited resources at his disposal and on his spare time while under pressure from his own Police Force many years ago. This inquiry does not deserve any more respect than that other political inquiry into the activities of Brian Mulroney. The spin from the CP reporting tells us what the conclusion of this inquiry will be. The police investigation had some fowl ups but there was no cover up. That is a preview of Glaude’s report in a nutshell. Now that we all know the conclusion of the story why do we need to have Perry Dunlop rotting in jail in a vain effort to get a few more facts to support the story that is already written. Glaude like the CP reporters writes the story then looks for the information to back it up. I don’t know if there is any applicable rule of law to correct this situation but there should be. The problem goes back to the Government and its mandate. Since it is politically crafted nobody should have to participate. This is a political charade not a part of the administration of justice and no contempt of court should be used to enforce this effort.

  3. AbsentObserver says:

    Some of the articles being sent out by some media companies contain terrible mistakes. It seems none of these reporters can get it straight as to how many people were charged, how many were convicted, how many were acquitted or how many trials there were. And to read one reporter’s take on the situation – suggesting this inquiry is of Perry’s making – is ridiculously erroneous. Perry and Helen were long gone out of Cornwall when that inquiry was established. Although I’m certain both of them would have supported an impartial and fair probe into the events of the last few decades, they were trying to build a life for themselves and their daughters away from Cornwall. It was a group of individuals in Cornwall who make up the two groups Citizens for Community Renewal and the Coalition for Action who got that inquiry called. Remember the caravan to Toronto when they held the press conference? And then everyone sat in the gallery at the legislature to hear McGuinty call the inquiry? That was in November 2004, more than four years after Perry and Helen left Cornwall. They were puppet masters operating from afar. They weren’t controlling people back home. I would say the closest they ever came to that was sharing their thoughts and opinions with Helen’s brother, Carson Chisholm, but I bet if you ask Carson he’ll tell you Perry and Helen just wanted some peace and weren’t all that involved in the “Cornwall Story” after they left town. They didn’t have a hand in drafting the mandate. They weren’t involved in meetings to determine the rules of practice and procedure. They weren’t attending meetings of the Red Flag Committee to discuss a perceived lack of impartiality on the part of the commissioner. They were living in B.C., trying to raise their daughters in a safe and peaceful environment.
    My only hope here is the media get it right for once. Of course, there was one reporter who used to get it right, but she seems to have moved on. Does anyone know if she’s working on this story at all where she is now?

Leave a Reply