Back in La La Land

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Tuesday, 09 December 2008.  Retired Detective Inspector Pat Hall will return to continue his scarce begun cross-examination.

****

I swear I am living in La La Land.  I can’t believe my ears.  Or my eyes.

It seemed to me Pat Hall took the stand with a bit of an attitude yesterday.  By day’s end there was attitude throughout the Weave Shed.   Lead commission counsel was at the end of his rope trying to get anwers out of Hall or make sense of the answers he did get.  Diane Lahie (OPP) was doing the yo-yoing today objecting to this and that while dramatically and emphatically advising Justice Glaude that this witness has been on the stand for SIX DAYS in examination in chief and she certainly hopes there will be ample time for cross-examination.  The commissioner assured Lahaie they have until end January and “depending on how you folks organize your time maybe we won’t hear from the Attorney General but we’ll do everything as we go through. And then we’ll let the cards fall where they might.”

So, Lahaie can cross examine till the cows come home.

The OPP is of course part of the Ontario government’s Ministry of Safety and Correctional Services.  Lahaie could turn this into a governmental institutional double whammy.  She can fiddle about and work at polishing up Hall’s tarnished halo.  And she can fiddle away to get the  OPP off any hooks on which Hall may have inadvertently hung it out to dry.   And all the while Lahaie fiddles and faddles and fixes and polishes the clock ticks.  The more fiddling and faddling and fixing from Lahaie, the less time for AG witnesses and AG bombshells.

A governmental win-win.  The truth is that the less time available for bombshells the better.  Excessive institutional primping and preening may become the goverment instutions order of the day.

Glaude is truly caught between the devil and deep blue here for sure.

Funny, but this reminds me a little of Shelley Hallett.  I do believe Hallett naively thought things were going swimmingly at the Leduc trial – until the OPP stuck the dagger between her shoulder blades.

I looked at Glaude yesterday when Lahaie was jumping up and down, and something about the way things were playing out for Glaude reminded me of Shelley Hallett at the Leduc trial.  Something about it all seemed so familiar. One of those déjà vu moments

I could be wrong on that. I’m not even quite sure what it is.  As I say, just one of those déjà vu moments.   We shall see 🙂

Anyway, more La La Land stuff today.  As the clock ticks.

Some of today’s “highlights,” or lows, or whatever you call the testimony which has me scratching my head wondering what are the pre-requisities for promotion to the rank of Detective Inspector in the Ontario Provincial Police:

(1) What’s it all about?

Hall claims that both the Dunlop-Fantino brief and Perry’s letter to the Attorney General was the basis for the Project Truth mandate.  All Project Truth “investigations” were presumably conducted as a consequence of the allegations contained and persons named in those materials.  The allegations against Father Charles MacDonald were presumably a priority because Charlie had already been charged and his preliminary hearings were under way.

However, Hall has also admitted that, for example, before they were even really off the ground, he/Project Truth took on the sex abuse allegations of Claude Marleau against multiple abusers even though not one of Marleau’s real and “alleged” abusers was referenced in any of the materials.

I don’t offhand recall a rational explanation for that early digression from the mandate, I do recall Hall saying  that when Claude first contacted them they were in the process of getting themselves sorted out, and still sifting through Perry’s materials and clipping things onto clip boards.

Hall has also admitted that, for example, his team did NOT take the sex abuse case against Roman Catholic school teacher Marcel Lalonde even though Marcel Lalonde WAS mentioned in Perry’s materials because Lalonde had previously been charged and was under investigation by OPP and the OPP officer involved was a Project Truth officer.  They did however take on the allegations of Father Charles MacDonald who had previously been charged by OPP and as of Project Truth was under investigation by OPP Project Truth.

And we know that the team took on the allegations of David Petepiece and then downstream decided that they didn’t fit the Project Truth mandate and that was the end of that.

I believe this afternoon Hall also said the “investigation” of allegations of conspiracy and cover-up was restricted to those persons identified in the Dunlop materials and connected to the $32,000 pay-off because as far as he was concerned that’s what the allegations of cover-up were all about.  If I heard that right, that of course narrows the “investigation” into allegations of conspiracy/cover-up rather significantly.

I am now totally lost as to what Project Truth was truly all about.  It seems impossible to get a straight answer from Hall, at least one which is not amended or contradicted in later testimony.  It’s like pinning jello to the wall.

(I must check, but am quite certain the text of Perry’s letter to the AG in April 1997 was the same as this one to the Sol Gen/Minister of Correctional Services.)

(2)  What makes a ring?

When it gets down to Pat Hall telling us what what constitutes a ring and/or conspiracy/cover-up things get really convoluted.

Hall had previously testified he had trouble defining what constitutes a ring.  He obviously pondered his past response over the weekend and came back yesterday refreshed and anxious to explain.

This one is a dandy, but difficult.  If I understand the machinations here correctly, as far as Hall is concerned if an “alleged” paedophile was not convicted at trial then Hall could not refer to him as  paedophile and hence as a memer of a paedophile ring!!!!

Seriously!

Hall then gave as example the Claude Marleau allegations and said that there were no convictions and therefore da, da, da, da.

Engelmann interjected to say that Father Paul Lapierre was convicted.

Hall said that was in Montreal.

I don’t know if this implies that Hall thinks that Lapierre is a paedophile exclusively in Quebec and therefore not in Cornwall, Ontario? and that therefore for Project Truth’s purposes Lapierre is not a paedophile?  and that therefore Lapierre can not possibly be considered a member of a padeophile ring?

Sounds like it to me.

But, the bottom line is that Hall decided there was no ring because presumably no one he/Project Truth was looking at in the Claude’s allegations was convicted – Father Paul Lapierre included!. And according to Hall Claude Marleau remains an “alleged” victim!

Convoluted logic or what?

But presumably the team was looking at allegations contained in the materials in the Dunlop-Fantino brief and Perry’s letter to the AG?

Therefore, if paedophile rings are restricted to convicted paedophiles – the ones who don’t mange to make it through the paedophile-friendly courts –  who all might Pat Hall have been looking at when it came to talking the possibility of a ring? I’m not sure who all was named in those materials but believe I can safely say the following:

(i)  Father Paul Lapierre – convicted.  Friend of deceased “alleged” molesters Fathers Don Scott and Hollis Lapierre .

(ii) Jean Luc Leblanc – convicted.  Friend of deceased “alleged” molester Malcolm MacDonald.

(iii)  Nelson Barque – convicted.  Ex seminarian turned probation officer.  Friend of “alleged” molester Ken Seguin.

(iv)  Marcel Lalonde – convicted.  Roman Catholic school teacher.  Friend of “alleged” molester Father Charles MacDonald.

(v)  Milton MacDonald – convicted.  Father of  Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald.  Allegedly around Ken Seguin’s home.

(vi) Early Landry Jr. – convicted.  Son of former Chief of Police Earl Landry Sr.

(vii)  Father Gilles Deslaurier – convicted.  Chaplain at La Citadelle.   Friends with various clergy.

If the measure was convictions and being referenced in Perry’s materials, did Hall ever seriously look for connections between any of the above convicted molesters?

And what about Richard Hickerson?  Hickerson admitted, and then committed suicide.  Does an admission equal a conviction?  If yes, what efforts did Hall make to see what connections existed between Hickerson, an ex priest and violin virtuoso and the above?

What of Roman Catholic school teacher Robert Sabourin.  He was convicted.  The allegations against Sabourin perhaps could have been turned over to Project Truth?  Sabourin was a great friend of Bishop Adolphe Proulx.  What efforts might Hall have made to see what connections there were between Sabourin, and Gilles Deslaurier and who know who?

I do believe Perry could have sorted this out and known what to look for and what questions to ask.  I think he still could.  Give him Hall’s salary and the Project Truth budget and see what he can do.  I think the Cornwall mess would be sorted out in pretty short order and those involved in any “alleged”rings or coverups identified – dead or alive!

(3)  Speaks volumes

Did I hear right?  In the synopsis in his Crown brief on the conspiracy allegations did Hall say something about Perry’s “crusade”?  If yes, that speaks volumes for me.  Volumes that Hall would choose such demeaning language, and volumes more that he would feel comfortable enough putting that in black and white in a brief for the Crown.

(4)  Didn’t know he had the notes

Yet again, I wasn’t sure if I heard this one right.  I just checked.  I had to 🙂 The transcripts are up.  I heard it right.

Listen to this.

Hall was trying to get some notes from CPS officer Ron Lefebvre.  Lefebvre couldn’t find the notes.  The notes related to Lefebvre’s initial 28 January 1993 interview with David Silmser.

At “trial” in May 2002 Michael Neville (Father Charlie) used non-disclosure of those notes as one of his arguments to get Charlie off.  Charlie, as we all know only too well, “walked.”

Here’s the clincher.   Hall/Project Truth had those notes all along.  Well, at least for sure he had them from 31 July 1998.  That’s when Perry gave Hall copies of all the documentsincluding those related to his, Perry’s, Police Service Act charges.

Those are documents Hall was supposed to have had but apparently didn’t get with his copies of the Dunlop-Fantino brief,  and they’re the same documents which were  among the pile which were never forwarded to him by the AGs office which had the notes and everything else!

Imagine!  Hall had those notes on 31 July 1998.

The Lefebvre materials were part of the package.

I just checked.  There are eight pages of Lefebvre notes in Perry’s materials from the Police Service Act charges.  Eight pages:  pp 440 – 448.

And Hall didn’t know he had them?

And Neville wrapped Charlie in the Charter using, in part, non-disclosure of those notes!

And Pat Hall had the audacity to call Shelley Hallett a liar and sink a knife into her back?  because as far as Hall was concerned Hallett was lying when she said the hadn’t heard of the Perry –C-16 mother contact? and because, as far as Hall was concerned, Hallet had Perry’s Will State and there was a line in it about the contact in the Willstate?

And Hall missed eight pages of Lefebvre notes.  He didn’t miss a line or two.  He missed eight pages.  EIGHT pages!

(5)  Sarcasm and insults

Sarcasm and insults seem to flow freely from the mouth of  retired Detective Inspector Pat Hall.  Carson Chisholm was another one who got the brunt of his sharp tongue today:

MR. HALL: I think the main proponent of a ring of paedophiles was Detective Carson Chisholm, who was blowing his horn continuously about paedophiles, and I met with him personally and I audiotaped the interview, and he didn’t — all he had was hearsay and innuendo. He knew nothing.

(6)   Words for victims

Hall had a few word for victims:

MR. HALL: … I’d like to address victims. I would like to address those victims of sexual assault who are unable to come forward with allegations due to the adverse publicity surrounding Project Truth. I say to them, I would have had the opportunity to assist you in the criminal process. I hope you are able to deal with your abuses and get on with your life.

What can I say?  What oh what can I say to that?

(7) Hall’s personal Impact Statement

My personal impact. This Inquiry has affected me more than any investigation I have ever done, but cannot be compared to the anguish sexual assault victims have suffered. This Inquiry was called in November of 2004. I had retired in April of 2004. I obviously knew I would be called to testify due to my involvement.

Interviews commenced in October 2005. I had additional interviews in May, June and October of 2006.

My wife and I spend the winters in Texas from November to April for the past four years. Interviews continued in 2007 and in October, as we were about to leave for Texas, Mr. Engelmann requested to interview me prior to Mr. Guzzo’s testimony.

This took place the first week of November 2007 over a four-day period. At that time, I was asked if I would return in January or February 2008 to testify, if required.

I said I would. He further indicated my evidence would be complete no later than April/early May. Nothing happened.

Various dates were given, such as July, August, October.

Again, nothing happened. My travel plans have been curtailed and our lives are put on hold. I am sure other witnesses have felt the same thing. During the past week, I have been continually asked why various investigations took so long.

Mr. Commissioner, why is this Inquiry taking so long? Is it possible your mandate was too broad and you didn’t stay within it? I believe you were told so by a court.

Why did you choose a labour lawyer as your lead counsel when all the matters surrounding this Inquiry are criminal in nature?

It’s nothing personal, Mr. Engelmann.

Why is it that 27 OPP witnesses were identified and less than half are being called?

When do we hear about the good work and interaction of my officers as they were the backbone of Project Truth?

It is obvious that you are on a fact — fault-finding mission. It is clearly evident that you’re in a sprint to the finish line with this Inquiry at a time when the most factual evidence could be heard.

It’s a sad day when politics calls for an Inquiry and politics shuts it down. There should be an inquiry into the conduct of this Inquiry.

I just have one more item to mention. This is a matter that is near and dear to my heart. It is Detective Constable Don Genier, one of my investigators on Project Truth. I would be remiss if I did not comment about him. He put his heart and soul into this investigation. He was responsible for identifying most of the members of the clergy and made many trips to Montreal regarding the Quebec prosecutions and working with our Quebec counterparts. We would not have accomplished the success that we did without his efforts, particularly in the French language.

He is presently on sick leave and has been for some time. He is unable to testify at this Inquiry. He is in the fight of his life as he has been diagnosed with ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease. The prognosis is not good.

I can’t help but wonder if the Project Truth investigation and the stresses associated with it had any bearing on his present condition.

And what oh what can I say to that?

****

Helen Daley (Citizens for Community Renewal)  has barely started her cross-exam and, by the sound of it, already she’s got a gun pointed at Perry’s head.

As it stands and unless things change Daley has saddled Perry with the blame for the two years it took the Crown to “join” C-2’s allegations to the other raft of allegations against Charlie.

I do believe Daley knows full well that C-2 didn’t want to be involved and Perry was not going to divulge his name without his consent, but, more to the point, I do believe Daley  knows that the Crown could and should have gone ahead with Charlie’s trial. There was no need to join those charges – that was sheer foolishness.

To blame that delay on Perry is reaching another of the many lows reached in the Weave Shed these days.  That was absolutely not Perry’s doing.  It was the Crown’s choice.  Why?  That of course is the question.  Why did the Crown decide to join those charges?  Why?

****

 I may be heading out for a while today.  If so, I will be back at the computer in evening 🙂

Enough for now,

Sylvia

([email protected])

This entry was posted in Circling the wagons, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry, Perry Dunlop, Trials and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Back in La La Land

  1. prima facie says:

    My goodness; these people are professional police officers, with specific and particular, professional training, etc., etc. GET REAL!! Times/cases get tough!!

    As all these professional police officers like Pat Hall et al, cry about the desperation, pain-suffering and hardships they “allege” to have experienced and are supposedly still experiencing today, I direct readers to a part of your “post” Sylvia, wherein you imply that someone like Perry Dunlop could have completed a thorough investigation in “no-time” (from 1992 or before).

    In fact, I am certain, with my minimal experience as a police constable, in a different Province, combined with the “facts” I was/am aware of and/or had access to, I could have conducted a trustworthy thorough investigation, prepared appropriate “briefs” for the Crown Prosecutors Office (if even necessary), executed arrest warrants, booked the accused, completed complete and thorough reports and provided professional testimony as a witness at preliminary hearings and trial, in a prompt, professional and efficient fashion.

    I believe the so-called pain, discomfort, etc., witnesses like Pat Hall purport to have experienced and are experiencing today, is the “pain and suffering”, they have obviously brought on to themselves, as a consequence of their intentional or accidental incompetence, clumsiness, inexpertness, “unfitness for duty” and perceived “cover-up”.
    It is my opinion that many of these witnesses intentionally or through error, allowed themselves to be influenced, interfered with, manipulated and to act “recklessly”.
    I believe that, since in or before 1992, through the use of physical or moral force, “more than one party”, who had an interpreted “cause” and “reason” to act with the purpose of achieving a “prohibited result”, agreed upon, constructed and “acted” on, an unlawful plot.

    I believe people like Perry Dunlop are trustworthy and dependable. They would have “got the job done” and that is why “he” and his family have “paid the price” for fifteen years.

    I believe, many of the witnesses and accused crying pain and suffering, as a result of this whole “sordid affair”, are in such a “state” because they fundamentally knew what they were doing and are doing today, is wrong. They have their conscience to “live with”….and their “fear” of possible prosecution;…not easy.

    I believe people like Perry Dunlop, who could have “wrapped” up this whole sordid business in days, have lived and suffered for fifteen years, not because of anything they have hidden or anything they have lied about, or any frauds or conspiracies they have engaged in. They are “doomed” for everlasting pain and suffering as a result of the “truths” they hold, that others want kept secret.

    And again Sylvia, as you refer to “CCR” and lawyer Helen Daley et al; what are they truly after? What are they so obsessed with asserting? Do they really have a “quantified” following? What is their real intent?

  2. prima facie says:

    November 09, 2008
    1114hrs Eastern Time:

    WASTE OF TIME, what a brutal waste of time and $$$$. WHAT a load of B.S.
    Where is the “lapdog, mainstream, news media”????

    Is anyone watching lawyer Helen Daley (“Citizens for Community Renewal”, aka “CCR”) cross examine Det. Inspector Pat Hall this morning. I mean, these people are so much depending on the ignorance and naïveté of the citizens of Cornwall. Helen’s recurring theme and spin, unabated is, Carson was spreading rumour and innuendo and Perry Dunlop was a rogue cop who couldn’t be controlled. WHAT A DISAPPOINTING JOKE you are Helen and “CCR”.
    WHAT a WASTE OF TIME and $$$$!!

    As I have always said, if Perry Dunlop was so difficult and hiding so much and interfering so much…..WHY didn’t “authorities” act? WHY didn’t they act? They could have!!!

    WE have all seen how quickly Commissioner Glaude jailed Dunlop this year (Feb. 2008 and thereafter.) Glaude took the steps he believed necessary to deal with a so-called, non-compliant, dissenting witness, ie) Dunlop.
    Commissioner Glaude took care of it in days!!!

    Yet, the likes of Det. Inspector Pat Hall and other’s, didn’t lay criminal charges of obstruction or harassment or common assault or threats or kidnapping or other criminal charges against Dunlop, when they could have done so for many years…if they wanted to. WHY didn’t they?
    WHY didn’t they? Even “me”, a person with limited experience as a police officer, would have managed this “correctly”.
    WHY didn’t the likes of Pat Hall and other “authorities” secure formal complaints against Dunlop, from people who were supposedly being contacted by Dunlop or who were contacting Dunlop and had complaints against Dunlop?
    Even “little old me” would have done it “correctly” and laid formal charges if necessary. Thereafter, I would have released “credible” press releases from “credible” authorities disclosing the prosecution of Dunlop. WHY didn’t authorities do the same?

    Det. Insp. Pat Hall testifies that, “no one is going to tell Dunlop what to do”. I say, does Pat Hall and Ms. Daley, really think we are all so stupid?
    Did Commissioner Glaude or Divisional Court take orders from Dunlop or did Dunlop comply with “their” Orders and go to jail?

    IF Dunlop was interfering so severely, why the heck wasn’t anything done to intervene, arrest him, convict him, jail him or otherwise? Supposedly, they could have if they wanted to.
    IF Dunlop was running wild, why was he not stopped…..legally?

    I mean, this is all so academic…so simple…WHAT A WASTE of TIME and $$$$

    Final note: Helen Daley now injects a claim that “homophobia” in the community interfered with “Project Truth” investigations. Where does this suddenly come from? As a person who worked in the “social services” industry in Cornwall and Area, as well as other venues in Canada, it is my opinion Cornwall and Area was/is no different, in relating to “homophobia” than other areas. In my opinion, “homophobia” had nothing to do with “Project Truth” investigations and Helen Daley ie) “CCR” is attempting to create a misunderstanding. Oh, I get it…the reason everything failed so miserable is because of Carson Chisholm, Perry Dunlop and homophobia. Ya right!!! Get real you clowns!!

  3. Sylvia says:

    The plan for today was to get to the Weave Shed. But, the best laid plans of mice and men etc.

    Bad weather. My husband and I launched for Cornwall at 6 am. We drove 30 miles in two hours. Still had 60 miles to go, Snow, sleet, trafic back-ups, whiteouts on the country roads. Forecast to continue all day with freezing rain later. Back we came.

    I missed the first 40 minutes or so, but I get the picture. Citizens for Community has its guns blasting at Perry. Again.

    The CCCR dynamics are becoming all too familiar. I can scarce stand to listen or watch. Perhaps fortuitous the weather is against me today. I do believe had I made it to hear Helen Daley’s tarring and feathering of Perry I’d be spending the day out in the halls cooling my heels. It makes me sick.

  4. prima facie says:

    Does Helen Daley, the “Nutty Professor” and the “CCR” really claim to represent the citizen’s of Cornwall?
    I think they are in a fantasy world.

    Helen Daley is a disgrace as she “leads” the inept Pat Hall into supposions, conjecture and speculation, defaming Perry Dunlop.

    This part of cross-examining is a total JOKE!! Idiots may believe her/and Hall, but anyone with a grade one education can see this misrepresentation of facts.

    ALL of this testimony since approximately 1115hrs should be taken as it truly is, “prejudiced and biased speculation” by an inept Det. Inspector Pat Hall, as orchestrated by an equally biased and obviously prejudiced Helen Daley and “CCR”. But really, why is Helen Daley chosen to agree to “dance with Hall”?

    SPECULATION and guessing…nothing more. The actual facts tell a different story. Helen, how very, very disappointing.

  5. Sylvia says:

    Now Hall – led and coaxed by Daley, accusing Perry of being interested only in seeing charges laid to validate his allegations and advance his civil suit – and no interest in seeing the suspects convicted!!!

    That’s one pretty heavy accusation!

    But, that reminds me of a conversataion I once had with CCCR’s founder Paul Scott. I think I may have mentioned it before. We were at the Leduc trial – outside on a recess. I had the overwhelming sense Leduc was going to walk. I said so. Scott said “no” “no.” I reiterated that I do believe he’s walking. Scott then replied that, oh well, that’s alright, we’re going to have an inquiry.

    I highly doubt Perry would have come out with something like that. I certainly bever heard it from him. Nothing remotely akin to it.

    Hall and Daley work well together don’t they? Quite a team. They see eye to eye. Sing from the same old song sheet.

  6. prima facie says:

    Today, December 09, 2008, it is my opinion that during cross-examination by Helen Daley, 99% of the testimony provided by Pat Hall was conjecture, guessing, surmising, speculation and fantasy, constructed and introduced by lawyer Helen Daley. I believe Helen Daley “led” Pat Hall right along her well-designed path.
    None of it was disclosure or testimony disclosing Pat Hall’s “facts” surrounding the events. WHAT is Helen Daley really trying to do on behalf of the citizens of Cornwall, via the “CCR”?

    Det. Insp. Pat Hall also disclosed his close relationship with Dick Nadeau, who operated a website. I believe the record shows, Dick Nadeau started a website in or about 2001, some eight to ten years after allegations of a pedophile clan and sexual abuse against minors, was first widely discussed in the community and nothing significant was done to investigate the allegations competently and prosecute the accused.
    In addition, I wonder how Dick’s partner at the time, Carmen, who testified early at this inquiry, feels about Mr. Hall’s testimony today. For example: Was Det. Inspector Pat Hall influential in what Dick Nadeau posted on his website, deleted, amended or otherwise?

  7. David Price says:

    Correction: This pedophile clan was widely discussed in the early 70’s by the youth who hung out downtown. Any suggestion that this was a 90’s phenomena is totally absurd.
    Correction: Pat Hall declared Project Truth for boys only, girls did NOT fall under his terms. So who created the hom ophobic buzz. Pat Hall.
    Correction: By removing one gender from the investigation Pat Hall effectively removed half of the victims from a pedophile ring.
    This is all tooooo sick. Gotta go.

  8. Sylvia says:

    Yes, tooooooo sick. Nw we learn that things couldn’t have gotten much better for “alleged” clericial paedophiles in the diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall. Detective Inspector Pat Hall – presumably heading up an investigation into sex abuse allegations and conspiracy – armed their lawyers with all the ammo and every angle needed to keep their clients out of jail. At least that’s what Hall did for Borden Ladner Gervia lawyer Brian Saunderson. By the sound, and without doubt to the sheer delight of the diocese, Hall did a real muck raking number on Perry. Hall apparently told Saunderson Perry was conducting unauthorized investigations, his techniques were substandard, he was coaching witnesses, and, he was urging victims to launch lawsuits. Hall apparently told Saunderson the latter activity was criminal and Perry should be charged!

    If all of this doesn’t constitute character assassination I don’t know what does.

    I believe Hall took a few swings at Crown Shelley Hallett too.

    Makes me wonder who Hall was working for? And why he was picked by Detective Tim Smith? And why he has such a soft spot for the diocese that he feels obliged to feed this kind of information to diocesan lawyers?

  9. Sylvia says:

    prima facie

    Pat Hall told us the other day that he was the one who compiled the list of articles which Dick was remove from his website. Beyond that I don’t know.

Leave a Reply

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