Major victories

Share Button

Perry has now spent 137 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.

****

NOTE: Perry’s birthday is 22 July 2008. He will be 47. Pick up a card now. Have Masses said for him. Swamp him with love – lots of cards, letters and notes of best wishes.

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC

Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4

****

Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning (Friday 04 July 2008). Father Kevin Malony is resuming his. It’s Friday. Hearings will recess early afternoon.

****

A major victory for Bishop Paul Andre Durocher yesterday. The 19 mystery names of clergy which Dallas Lee wanted to put to Father Vaillancourt in question were discussed behind closed doors yesterday morning. In the end the list was divvied into two: one list of 14 which was deemed public, and one of 5 which was deemed confidential.

It was left to Dallas Lee to decide how he would proceed to put questions to Father Denis Vaillancourt regarding the names on the list of 14, the public list. Lee opted to keep the names secret. He gave the list to Vaillancourt to review. Two of the 14 were identified: Father Paul Lapierre (same victim – not guilty in Cornwall; guilty in Quebec) and Father Lucien Lussier (currently before the courts).

Vaillancourt testified that he had never been approached with allegations against any of the 19, nor to his knowledge had the diocese, nor had he ever been told that any of 19 were molesting.

Lee noted that at his Cornwall trial Lapierre testified about “possible misconduct” of other clergy. Indeed he did. Lapierre pointed fingers in every direction but at himself. He even pointed to his friend Father Kenneth Martin. On the objection however of Lapierre’s lawyer Don Johnson (former Cornwall Crown) who was also representing Martin that name was struck from the record.

We know 2 of the 19 names. For the other 17, secrecy prevails.

A major victory for Durocher!

Under the circumstances I think it is fair to guess that Bishop Eugene Larocque’s name was on one of the two lists. If that’s the case, a major victory for Larocque as well.

****

Father Kevin Maloney took the stand. He will be finished today. These Roman Catholic priest witnesses are being whisked on and off the stand at the speed of light. Quite amazing. Not much interest at all here in who rubbed shoulders with who, and when and where.

Some info from Maloney’s testimony to date:

(1) Obtained his BA at St. Francis Xavier (Antigonish, Nova Scotia). Seminary at St. Paul University in Ottawa (0rdained 1972);

(2) Cousin to the two brothers, Fathers Kelvin and George Maloney;

(3) At some point after the scandal erupted was named Big Brother of the Year. Maloney testified he was hesitant to accept the award because he didn’t want to bring bad publicity on the organization.

Apparently on the advice of police officers he changed his mind and decided to accept the award (“I decided to accept it on the advice of the police officers.”) Which police officers gave the advice is unknown;

(4) Father Maloney explained that he forwarded John MacDonald’s personal appeal to him re Father Charles McDonald to the CAS and police because that was diocesan policy. He personally walked it over to CAS. He also gave a copy to Larocque. He testified he has no recollection of discussing it with the bishop;

He admitted knowing Father Charles MacDonald and having lived with him for a spell at St. Columban’s but denied discussing the letter with him.

Maloney said he had received two calls from both David Silmser and John MacDonald. He recalls one message left by John – just name and phone number. He never talked to John. He claims there were two calls to the rectory made by Dave. In one Dave was “aggressive” but not threatening. Some time later there was another call by Dave:

“Phone answered by Father Rory MacDonald and caller identified himself as David Silmser. He informed Father Rory that he would be picketing at St. Columban’s Church on the following weekends. David was polite and non confrontational. He stated he just wanted us to know what would be happening.”

Maloney reported the phonecalls to police!!! Whether or not the latter call was included in his complaint I am uncertain.

According to this Roman Catholic priest he reported these two alleged victims to police

Because I didn’t want to get involved with talking to them and interfering in the investigation because the protocol said that they were to look after the investigation.

Maloney testified he took this action on the advice of his lawyer Sean Adams. He claims he did not know that Adams had previously acted for David Silmser. He claims the call was not made as a complaint.

A CPS incident report on the matter lists the “Complainant” as Father Kevin Maloney. Under remarks it states: “Harassing phone calls”. The incident is classified as ““indecent harass threat phone calls,”

Maloney however claims he told police he just wanted them to tell Dave and John not to call him because he couldn’t get involved! Remember now, that’s a Roman Catholic priest!!! Concerned for the salvation of souls!!!

Anyway, on 19 August 1995 by Constable Emma Wilson-King notes

“Writer attended 36 4th Street West, the residence of Father Kevin Maloney. Father Maloney, in the presence of his lawyer, Sean Adams, advised writer that he has received two phone calls through his answering service from a David Silmser as well as one from John MacDonald due to an investigation being done by our department. Father Maloney, on the advice of his lawyer, wished to have these two advised to stop calling until the investigation is complete.”

Maloney testified he does not recall if he told King Dave was “aggressive.”

I have no idea what “investigation” was being conducted by police in summer 1995. To my knowledge by then the CPS was no longer involved in any way shape or form in Dave’s allegations against Father Charles MacDonald.

Read the account of this priest reporting John to the police for attempting to call him.

(5) After Perry launched his lawsuit someone apparently showed the materials from the action to Maloney. Maloney was not named as a defendant in the action but his name was apparently referenced, as were those of Bishop Eugene Larocque and several other priests.

Larocque and the group of clergy apparently discussed the matter.

Around May 1997 Maloney and Monsignor McDougald headed over to the Children’s Aid Society to meet with Richard Abell. There were allegations of sexual misconduct against both so they apparently determined to follow diocesan protocol “and if there’s an accusation to allow the CAS to investigate! It seems the pair were self-reporting!!

The pair later gave Abel the Ron Leroux affidavit, a Ron Leroux statement and an Affidavit of Gerry Renshaw.

Initially the pair met Abel without legal counsel.

On 20 June 1997 they arrived with their lawyer Tomas Swaby. They met with Abel and Mr. Carriere.

Swaby was with the same law firm as Sean Adams. Adams was the lawyer who was called in to read and explain the $32,000 pay-off to David Silmser and managed to do so without presumably recognizing that the deal was illegal.

McDougald and Maloney expected that the CAS would investigate the allegations in the documents “neutrally.” They did not go to police because as far as they were concerned as defendants in the legal action the police already knew about the allegations against them!

Interestingly enough despite the fact McDougald and Maloney were presenting themselves as possible molesters Maloney was not removed from St. Columban’s pending the outcome of a investigation. Nor it seems was the possibility of such action being taken discussed with Laorcque. Nor did Maloney didn’t think of removing himself from the parish!

By June of 1997 a Mr. Rudden of the law firm Rudden, Stevenson and Levesque was apparently representing other clergy who were apparently implicated in some fashion through Perry’s lawsuit or supporting documentation.

(6) In a September 1997 interview with Ontario Provincial Police Maloney said that he had had dinner at St. Andrew’s rectory but had never attended dinner parties.

At this David Sheriff-Scott bounced up to object. Sheriff-Scott reminded Glaude that: “On September 17th, ’07, you ruled that people will not be asked about the facts underlying allegations of investigations of charges.”

(7) According to documents entered into evidence Maloney paid at least two unannounced visits to Perry Dunlop’s home. During one or more of those visits

“Father Maloney overtly advised the Plaintiff [Perry Dunlop] that he [Perry] was no longer wanted with the Cornwall Police Service and should resign. Father Maloney inquired about the Plaintiff’s marriage and the pressure, stress and stress must be exacting on them. He further suggested that the Plaintiff move out of Cornwall,Ontario.”

Maloney however denies that he ever said such thing. He testified that he went to visit Perry because “he had stopped coming to church and I wanted him to know that he was welcome to come back anytime he chose” and that “because of the public nature of this I wanted him to know that he was welcome back at church.”

Maloney denies the visit was made on the advice of Bishop Larocque.

(8) According to a document entered into evidence charges were not laid against Maloney and the others because the OPP and Crown concurred that there was a credibility problem

the Crown attorney shares the view of the OPP police officer with respect to the credibility of the allegations, essentially saying that there is a credibility problem and that charges won’t — and on that basis that charges won’t be laid against you and others.

(9) There were allegations of sexual assault against Maloney the details of which he learned through the Criminal Compensation Board. It seems these particular allegations may have been alluded to but not detailed in the other material.

(10) In 2000 Maloney became aware of a website which allegedly had information regarding sexual misconduct against Malony. Maloney testified that he is not computer literate, does not own a computer, there was a computer at the church, he never saw the website and that he was initially told what was on the site and at some later date was given printouts.

Maloney testified he had no idea if there were one or two websites and had no idea how long the website was active.

By then the group was represented by David W. Scott and David Sheriff-Scott (no relation)

On 19 September 2000 Maloney along with Bishop Eugene Larocque and several other diocesan priests launched a lawsuit against several individuals. ( Bishop Eugene Larocque and Fathers Bernard Cameron, Rejean Lebrun, Ranald Roderick MacDonald, Kevin Joseph Maloney, Donald Bernard McDoulgald and Gary Ostler against James Bateman, NBC Internet Inc., Paul Likoudis, Alphonse J. Matt Jr., the Wanderer Printing Company, Dick Nadeau, Alta Vista Company and Tera-Byte Dot Com Inc.)

According Maloney the named defendants “were responsible for the website” and the purpose of the suit was “to stop the website.”

Maloney denies that he initiated the action. He testified that Larocque was involved in all discussion regarding he matter.

Maloney believes that as a result of the lawsuit the website was taken down.

A notice of discontinuance dated 23 August 2001 was signed by Dick Nadeau. That of course was nearly one year after the action was launched and after Justice Colin McKinnon went after Dick Nadeau and forced him to purge document after document from the site.

Maloney has no idea what happened to the other defendants. He claims no knowledge that according to Garry Guzzo there was word that the defendants in the United States had settled following payment of costs.

Read more on the lawsuit here. The Wanderer by the way was not involved in the website. James Bateman’s website was closed when the legal action was launched. And James Bateman, the last defendant in the suit, settled with costs in 2003!

Read comments on Dick’s continuance here. (Scroll to “” Dick sued by Larocque et al”)

****

Bishop Paul Andre Durocher, the current bishop of the diocese, has been in attendance at the Weave Shed since his clergy began testifying. I hear he nearly wound up sitting in on the in camera session yesterday.

****

Maloney’s examination in chief is finished! The Citizens for Community Renewal just PASSED. No questions from CCR for Father Maloney. Not one!!!

Another major victory for the diocese!!!

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Alexandria-Cornwall Diocese, Bishops, Circling the wagons, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry, Perry Dunlop and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Major victories

  1. AbsentObserver says:

    I’m confused, Sylvia. First you said that there was a public list of 14 names and a private list of five names. Then you said only two names are public and 17 are private. Then I see in an article in the Standard-Freeholder this sentence:

    “In the end, Glaude ruled that 16 of the names would be made public, while another five remained confidential.”

    How many names are there? Because it’s either 19 or 21. And how many are public? Because it’s either 14, 16 or two.

    I’m confused.

  2. Sylvia says:

    I just read this morning’s Freeholder and I’m confused too:) The Freeholder references 21.

    Initially there were definitely a total of 19 names which Dallas Lee wanted to go through one by one. I checked the transcript of 02 July 2008. Ninteen.

    A ruckus over that – into lockup. On return the list had been broken down to two: C-1855 and C-1856.

    C-1855 is the longer “public” list. I heard it comprised 14 names. I just checked the transcript and can’t find it – it must have been said in French.

    C-1856 is the shorter confidential list. It definitely comprioses five (5) names. That I found in th transcript.

    Justice Glaude left it to Dallas Lee’s discretion how he would handle posing questions related to the 14 on the “public” list. He had the option as I understand it to go through the names publicly, putting each name to the witness publicly and on record. There was a risk that there may be objections to naming some in this fashion, but Glaude left it to Lee’s discretion.

    Lee opted to present the list to the witness. The witness then reviewed the list and answered the questions posed without the utterance of names. In this process Lee made reference by name to two persons on that “public” list (C-1855) – Fathers Paul Lapierre and Lucien Lussier. He was free to identify them.

    So at that point two names on the “public” list actually became public. There were still 14 names on the “public” list but only two of the fourteen were actually made public.

    There has since been reference to the fact that two other names on the “public” list are those of Fathers Gilles Deslaurier and Charles MacDonald. At this point all those publicly identified have been charged.

    Then during testimony Father Maloney identified himself as named on the list. He was never charged but was accused and in response along with the bishop and five other priests initiated legal action – a public action.

    So my understanding is there were 19 names. Unless two more names were added at some point the total count is 19. Let’s say it remained 19.

    The 19 names have been divvied into two lists, one “confidential” (five names) and the other “public” (14 names). Dallas Lee could have named the 14 but essentially opted, at least initially, to treat them all as confidential. Both Lee and witnesses refer to a name by its numerical placement on the list.

    Through one manner or another five of the fourteen persons named on the “public” list have now been publicly identified, i.e., Fathers Paul Lapierre, Lucien Lussier, Gilles Deslaurier and Kevin Maloney.

    I think it is easy enough to deduce that the remaining nine on the list of 14 “public” names include those of Father Kenneth Martin who was charged and found not guilty, and Father Paul Desilet csv who was charged and convicted in the States. In due course I think the names will come out.

    Any clearer? I apologize for not being clearer. I think the dificulty here rests with the fact that a list which is designated “public” is being treated as confidential.

    As for the total number named now being 21 vs 19 – if anyone can read the French transcript and find definitive mention of 21 names in total please relay the word.

    Sylvia

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *