More connections

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) Monday morning, 12 January 2009.  Justice Peter Griffiths will take the stand.  Griffiths was Director of Crowns attorney for the Eastern Region throughout the Cornwall scandal and cover-up. 

The schedule for next week is posted:

Week of January 12 to January 16, 2009*

The Honourable Mister Justice Peter Griffiths – Ministry of the Attorney General

Lorne McConnery, Assistant Crown Attorney – Ministry of the Attorney General

Cosette Chafe, Victim Witness Assistance Program – Ministry of the Attorney General

Shelley Hallett, Crown Law Office – Criminal – Ministry of the Attorney General

Things are moving at break neck speed now.  Major witnesses from the office of the Attorney General are on and off the stand in the twinkle of an eye.  Yes, it’s absoultley ridiculous, but that’s the way Premier Dalton McGuinty and his current henchman AG Chris Bentley conveniently orchestrated the falling of the ax. 

Note too that Cosette Chafe will take the stand to tell us about the Victim Witness Assistance Program.  That one is sheer damage control.  At a time when time is at a premium we are going to hear what a great job the AG’s office is doing.  I personally believe Victim Assistance business belongs and should have been done way back at the beginning, back in early 1996 when Glaude was framing his inquiry with “expert” witnesses.  That’s where it belongs.  I believe too that as the clock ticks down the paltry hours left for numerous key witnesses would have been better spent trying to get to the truth.  Silly thought I suppose, but, for example, I’d say time could have been better spent leaving Murray MacDonald on the stand for a few more hours.  Or Don Johnson.  Or Curt Flanagan.  But, that’s not the way it will be.  At this “impartial” and “independent” inquiry the AG is pulling the strings, so, as the clock goes Tick Tock, a day or so earmarked for AG  damage control,  with focus on the AG’s evolving victim assistance policies, practices procedures.

****

The transcript from yesterday is posted.  A new page for Curt Flanagan has been added.

I am going through the transcript to clarify a few things.  I also have a few thoughts to share on a number of matters related to Flanagan’s testimony.  For now I will stick with the testimony regarding Justice Colin McKinnon.

McKinnon you may recall was brought in to take the Project Truth sex abuse trial of lawyer and Church canon lawyer Jacques Leduc.  Leduc had also been party to brokering the $32,000 pay-off of David Silmser.

McKinnon was called in presumably to ensure impartiality at a Project Truth trial.  Six weeks into the trial however he was obliged to recuse himself, this when he was confronted with proof of his prior legal involvement with Claude Shaver, the former Cornwall Chief of Police.  Then and then only did McKinnon ‘recall’ his prior involvement in having Perry Dunlop charged under the Police Services Act.

All bad enough.  We have since learned more of McKinnon’s Cornwall connections, including but not limited to the fact that he was also Father Charles MacDonald’s lawyer for a spell.

Anyway, the fact is that despite his multitude of conflicts McKinnon was called in – and took the bench! – as an “outside” judge.  The public was led to believe that McKinnon on the bench would ensure impartiality!

Now more connections. …

We have learned that McKinnon and Brockville Crown attorney Curt Flanagan know each other, and worked together – and are probably friends. 

Flanagan it turns out was far more involved in Cornwall than I had thought.  It turns out he was called in or consulted as an “outside” Crown on a number of Project Truth files.  He was also, as we have long known,  the “outside” Crown who handled the prosecution of former Cornwall Crown attorney Malcolm MacDonald on charges of obstruction of justice in relation to the illegal clause in $32,000 pay-off of David Silmser.

More on all of this later, but, for now, a look at the transcript and the pulling of teeth by Frank Horn (Coalition) to get the Flanagan-McKinnon connection, specifically that Flanagan articled at the same firm where Colin McKinnon worked back in 1982.

I will simply post the excerpt from the transcript, but as your read note the following: (1) Darrell Kloeze (attorney General) was quick on his feet to protest Horn’s line of questioning as irrelevant; (2) Flanagan doesn’t “believe” that Claude Shaver was at the roast, but doesn’t recall; (3) for whatever reason Flanagan threw in that Jake Dunlop was at the roast ( I think actually that should be Dunlap, the former football player turned lawyer? ); (4) Justice Glaude  was anxious to advise that invitees to Chief Flanagan’s roast would have been friends of Chief Flanagan and not his son Curt; (5) when Glaude eventually asked Flanagan if he socialized with McKinnon the reply was: “ Well, I have to say this. I articled at a firm where Mr. McKinnon was a lawyer”; and (6) Glaude did not follow through with the next obvious question: ‘Did you socialize with Claude Shaver?’ – nor, unfortunately, for that matter, did Frank Horn.

So, here’s the transcript:

MR. HORN: …Your father is the — was the former Chief of Police of Ottawa?

MR. FLANAGAN: My father is deceased.

MR. HORN: Pardon?

MR. FLANAGAN: My father is deceased and he is the former Chief of Police of Ottawa, yes.

MR. KLOEZE: I don’t think any of this is relevant. I don’t see —

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don’t know. Where are we going?

MR. HORN: Well, it’s relevant to this extent. There was a — from what I understand, there was a roast.

Your father had a roast back in 1990?

MR. FLANAGAN: A function, you mean? Yes.

MR. HORN: A function.

MR. FLANAGAN: Yes.

MR. HORN: And you were involved and your father was there?
MR. FLANAGAN: I spoke at it, yes. I was one of the roasters.

MR. HORN: Okay. And at the roast were a number of people. Was Claude Shaver there?

MR. FLANAGAN: I don’t believe so but I don’t recall.

MR. HORN: What about Colin McKinnon?

MR. FLANAGAN: Yes, he was there.

MR. HORN: He was there.

MR. FLANAGAN: Jake Dunlop was there.

MR. KLOEZE: Mr. Commissioner, from what I understand, Mr. Horn is maybe examining connections between Mr. Flanagan, Sr. and other people. I’m not sure how this is relevant to this witness.

MR. HORN: Were you one of the organizers of that roast?

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a minute, Mr. Horn.

Mr. Horn.

MR. HORN: Yes.

THE COMMISSIONER: There’s an objection.

MR. HORN: All right.

THE COMMISSIONER: So you have to answer to it before you can continue to ask questions.

MR. HORN: All right.

THE COMMISSIONER: So he’s saying — Mr. Kloeze is saying, “What’s this got to do with anything?”

MR. HORN: From what I understand, Mr. Flanagan was the one that organized the roast.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR. HORN: And he would be the one involved in inviting these people.

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm.

MR. HORN: Not his father.

 THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm.

MR. HORN: So that he’s the one that has these connections; not his father.

THE COMMISSIONER: Connections?

MR. HORN: To these people who are involved in what we allege are a cover-up here in Cornwall — Mr. Shaver and Mr. McKinnon.

THE COMMISSIONER: So —

MR. HORN: Back at that time.

THE COMMISSIONER: Slow down.

So like if you’re having an official function, you know, for our next police chief, you know you have the “have to invite” list, you know — the lawyers, whether you like them or not; you know, whether you know them or not. It’s all going to involve about who the person retiring, who is being honoured or whatever, who he knew.

MR. HORN: Even though he may have been the one organizing it —

THE COMMISSIONER: Well.

MR. HORN: — for his father. May be doing the inviting.

THE COMMISSIONER: So what? I mean if you’re going to invite somebody to your father’s roast it’s not going to be all your friends. It’s going to be the people that worked with your father. But okay, so he knows these people.

Okay, give me your line of questioning.

Where else are you going to go?

MR. HORN: I’m just suggesting and I’m asking this witness if the —

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, ask me first.

MR. HORN: Okay. Mr. Shaver, Mr. McKinnon, were people that he socialized with, he knew them. That’s why they were invited.

THE COMMISSIONER: Did you socialize with Justice McKinnon?

MR. FLANAGAN: Well, I have to say this. I articled at a firm where Mr. McKinnon was a lawyer.

THE COMMISSIONER: Fine.

MR. FLANAGAN: I was a lawyer there for a year, year and a half, but I can tell you I didn’t organize the roast. The roast wasn’t for my father after he retired. It was a roast about three years before he retired and it was organized by the Ottawa Police Service and I was invited to be a roaster because I was the family roaster in relation to my dad.

MR. HORN: Okay, it’s explained.

THE COMMISSIONER: Great.

****

Former Chief of Ottawa police Thomas G Flanagan died 18 November 2002.

A posting on the Internet is listed as “Notes for Mr. Thomas G. Flanagan, S.C.
Military Police Complaints Commission to the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.”  The conference was held in St. John’s, Newfoundland, 19 September 2002

In the notes the former Ottawa Chief had this to say:

There is no denying that there is a kind of bond among police officers everywhere, in the sense that, “if you attack one of us, you attack all of us.”

He added:

It’s important to understand however, that this feeling goes both ways, as in, “if you do something to dishonour your uniform, you dishonour us all.”

Food for thought…..

And,

enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to More connections

  1. prima facie says:

    “MY OPINION”, of course.
    Pretty Long read, so read at your own risk, it’s my therapy.
    “DESIGN or EVOLUTION”

    “more connections”, “hard to take”, “not getting any easier”, “whose nest is being feathered”. Sylvia, as you know, these are the “titles” of some of the most recent “posts” you have made.

    “Attorney General’s Office Was Overworked-Inquiry”, “Conspiracy Theory At Core Of Inquiry Testimony”, Inquiry Hears Why Quebec Got A Conviction And Cornwall Didn’t”, “Exemplary Record Results In Absolute Discharge For City Lawyer”, is “news story-posts” on a Cornwall radio stations website.

    Quite a contrast.

    Regarding these matters and others, I sit in contemplation;…how do the mostly, “uninformed” and dare I suggest, “naïve, preoccupied, complacent, scared, complying, populous”, interpret your “posts” and the “posts” by the radio station? How are readers’ “opinions being formed” and “influenced” by these “posts-reports”? As “busy and preoccupied”, consumers, who periodically “fall into” and rely upon a five second news-bite for information, I ponder, who would “they-the consumers-citizens”, be more likely to rely on for “information” and who would “they” perceive to be a more credible source for information and why? Would “consumers” take the time to visit and re-visit http://www.theinquiry.ca for “your-Sylvia’s” updated information, opinions and interactions? Would consumers watch the inquiry proceedings at http://www.cornwallinquiry.ca on a regular basis and form their own opinions? Do our/their opinions count?
    I consider, what information is being disseminated to the public by whatever “means”, by whom and for what purpose? What sources of information are being accessed or utilized by most people and consequently, what opinions are most likely to be formed?

    Do “facts” relating to the “actual, original” allegations of sexual abuse and the management thereof, support claims of, “a clan of paedophiles”, “conspiracy”, “collusion and/or allegations” of “cover-up” or do “actual, original facts” support claims ultimately justifying the denouncing, stereotyping and discrediting of some people as “conspiracy theorists” and liars? Are we justified in saying the “allegations” of these so-called “conspiracy theorists” and liars are nothing more than malicious lies, attempting to destroy and ruin prominent citizens for whatever motive; i.e.) power, influence, notoriety or to seek money in exchange for silence?
    OR, (from another perspective), are the “opinions”, “suppositions”, “conjectures”, “speculations”, “accusations”, etc., that are being articulated NOW at “the inquiry” and/or were articulated by some since “after the actual, original allegations-1992”, NOW being widely disseminated as “historical fact” in the place of, the “actual, original allegations/facts”, of-the-time? i.e.) fact versus spin.
    Is it not fair to suggest, “the ones with the most money and the most power…rule?”
    Are the “historical facts” being replaced with “after the fact” articulations and reporting, therewith, now being interpreted by “consumers” as the “actual and original facts”?
    Gee, am I a conspiracy theorist?
    Who’s “position” is likely to be considered more credible and why? Has anything really been proven conclusively, to support any “position” since 1992, or, can it be successfully argued that the “complete file” is now, replete with convoluted and ambiguous, “speculation”, “conjecture”, “interpretation”, factual errors and misguided conclusions, perpetuated and nurtured by favouritism, nepotism, cronyism, fear, misrepresentations, power, influence? Would a conspiracy theorist suggest this “ambiguity” is a result of “design or evolution”?

    In my opinion, the “mainstream news media”, as a result of the motivations of some lawyers and others being interviewed, published “factual errors”, which have, over time, consequently been interpreted by the public as being true and factual. For example; one lawyer declared to the world, that it was proven no paedophile clan existed in Cornwall and Area as alleged and therefore his/her clients were/are exonerated. However, the facts were and still are that, for various reasons, not enough evidence was discovered at the time, by investigators of the time, to prove the existence of a clan of paedophiles.
    However, despite what I believe Commissioner Glaude will attempt to instill in “us all”, I submit, at the time and today, nothing has been proven to suggest that “evidence” did not exist somewhere at-the-time and does not still exist today, that could prove otherwise.
    Quite a contrast!! But, we see how public opinion is formed, fueled and enabled by a highly reputable, so-called credible lawyer, who probably gives to the poor, sits on the boards of various community charities, offers free advice to the homeless and loves his/her family….oh, and has a dog and a cat.

    After looking at some of the “mainstream” news reports recently and throughout the past few months of testimony, even I, one who has been “involved” to some degree, so-to-speak and one who has extensive lifetime experiences supporting or confronting, “the powers that be”,……can see how, many readers, may experience a slight feeling of sympathy for the poor, overworked, ill-equipped, uneducated, untrained, confused, lost, “Attorney Generals Office”, various other “institutions”, “the surrogates” and “the powers” of the time.

    Don’t get me wrong, as a result of my education, professional experiences and personal experiences, relating to these matters and others, and, considering the fact that I have watched many hours of this “Glaude Inquiry” a.k.a. the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”; most of the time, I was appalled with what I watched and heard.
    I believe I witnessed various deviant techniques utilized with impunity, to enter into the record forever, a multitude of misrepresentations, innuendo, speculations, conjectures, suppositions and accusations.

    Yes, “public opinion forming”. Isn’t this what “public inquiries” are designed to do? Convince the public that “all is okay”, “you can come out of your hiding places now” and get on with your lives, because, the “powers that be” have concluded, that, for various reasons, “all is now okay”…”for the greater good”.
    I mean, how arrogant, how condescending of the “ruling class”. Abuse of power? Abuse of authority? From my perspective, I have more faith in “the people”.

    In addition; this week, it is reported, Lead Commission Counsel Peter Engelmann offers his hopes, in that, “the inquiry’s legacy will be that Cornwall is now an example of how to properly deal with sexual abuse allegations.”
    I say, “Dear God, Give Me The Strength”. Does it not seem evident that Mr. Engelmann and “the powers that be” are so obviously, out of touch with reality, so brutally and so very sadly, “out of touch”! Are his “hopes” an early glimpse into the future. Are Mr. Engelmann’s hopes the “tone” of what we can expect from Commissioner Glaude’s final report and recommendations….”for the greater good” as interpreted by the current “rulers”?
    The “hopes” of a mal-practice, liability insurance funded, labour lawyer, who, as I see it, perches himself high above the city at 20 Dundas in Toronto (Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell), looking down on the proletariat, working class, subordinate, commoners, I suspect he rarely has any quality time for, on an individual basis.

    Yes, aren’t we simply “medieval serfs”, who MUST obey the “rulers”. (By the way, if it is not obvious, to be fair, I have a serious bias and prejudice against “Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell”. I have previously filed complaints against some of their clients.)

    This is the most frustrating part…i.e.) watching the agony, the pain and suffering, the persecution, many people experience, relating to the “systems” denial of the obvious and the misrepresentation of facts. “Design or Evolution”?
    I believe this agony evokes, words and phrases such as, “hard to take”, “not getting any easier”, “painstaking”, “persecution”, “cover-up”, etc.

    For me, and based on what I have experienced in current and previous “confrontations with the system” and “the powers that be”,…well,…I believe I understand the why’s about the “sanctioned”, “coercive measures”, “the payoffs”, “the sell-outs”, “the lies”, the “denial of the obvious”, the “circumventing of the truth and the facts” at any cost, the re-writing of histories, the misrepresentations of history, the ostracizing-suppression and blacklisting of dissenting voices and the suppression of facts. Does it mean it is easier to take or that I will give up? No. This “law practice” of today goes much further than, negotiation, mediation, reconciliation, conciliation, restitution or the mitigating of time and costs, etc. In my opinion this “law practice of today” is evil and fuelled by greed and the desire for power.
    I have been along “this road” before, more than once. It isn’t any easier to, “accept the things I cannot change”. However, I will never accept that I must accept everything as something I cannot change or something I cannot be part of, in supporting the passion for justice and change.

    People say to me, “what can I do?” They express feelings and agony to me that I have compared to what I believe I might experience, if I was forced to watch a loved one being brutalized in front of my own eyes. I imagine if at the same time, I was unable to stop the brutalization or to intervene and then afterwards, to be told by authorities that, nothing happened. To be told, to move on with my life.

    I have no problem accepting the belief by many that, in most situations, “justice is only achieved in-the-movies and the “word of law” ends in the classroom”.

    In Ontario, Lawyers and “Justice” are self-regulated, disciplined, monitored and investigated. It must be quite funny, when determining who the Committee or lawyer will be, when reviewing a public inquiry or complaint against a lawyer, golf partner or friend.

    For lawyers in Ontario, some of whom I know personally; for you to know the evil exists and to do nothing, is in fact condoning the evil, to say the least. Shame on you.
    “DESIGN or EVOLUTION”…what to do?

  2. RealityChecker says:

    There’s no arguement to what you have written prima facie.
    In my opinion – this says it all…you hit the nail on the head…

    “this “law practice of today” is evil and fuelled by greed and the desire for power.”

    I’m of the opinion it is DESIGN more so than EVOLUTION. Self-Regulation of professional organizations such as the Law Society of the Upper Canada and/or the Canadian Judicial Council DOES NOT WORK nor does it work in other self-regulating professions. These organizations are stacked at the top – it was designed that way and they certainly are not independant in their thinking, monitoring, disciplinary action or accountability. Afterall, the #1 focus of these self-regulating bodies is to protect their profession at all costs!!!

    Because of their DESIGN – it has EVOLVED to the evil we see today. There’s NO accountability,NO Independance.

    What to do??? Keep at it. I don’t have to accept that this is the way it has to be…. and I don’t accept it!!!

    People within their professions who are aware and know about the evil that lurks within and who do nothing about it – well – there is absolutely no respect in my books!!! They don’t deserve it!!!

  3. RealityChecker says:

    Prima facie ….you may be interested to check THIS out….
    (sit down – cause it’s going to blow you away!)

    Seems Justice Glaude is known to take things “ex-parte” – out of his juridiction!!!

    http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=glaude&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii28435/2004canlii28435.html

    Hope you can link to it – it’s CanLII I’m taking this from…but this quote from the decision is what caught my attention…..

    “Glaude J. lost jurisdiction when he proceeded ex parte in the absence of any basis in the material which could justify proceeding in that manner. Absent any justification for proceeding ex parte, the failure to give the appellants notice of the applications amounted to a denial of natural justice resulting in a loss of jurisdiction”

  4. RealityChecker says:

    It seems Glaude was harshly criticized by his colleagues for taking things ex-parte in this particular case.

    You would have thought he would have learned something from this especially when he did the same thing to Perry Dunlop!!!

  5. prima facie says:

    Yes “Reality Checker”..”OMG”. POWER!! “Abuse of power and unchecked authority inevitably leads to corruption.”

    In my opinion, in the majority of cases, the ex-parte application is a dirty, dirty, tactic, utilized by unscrupulous people et al, who have been allowed to wildly run with power, unchecked and unchallenged.

    I remember sitting in the Weave Shed when Commissioner Glaude was in a very brief discussion with Mr. Engelmann about how “process” was “filed and served” to compel Perry Dunlop to attend. As the brief seconds passed, I heard Mr. Engelmann whisper the words “ex-parte” and “Justice of the Peace”. Well in my opinion, you can’t get any lower, in the “dirty trick scale”. I just about jumped to my feet and screamed “foul”. Of course several people have since said, “I should have.”

    I believe that, unfortunately, the “ex-parte” application procedure is seriously abused and that few get “quashed”. Of course, “Joe six-pack” is completely ignorant. I have many disturbing stories, as I’m certain others do. (maybe someone should start a website so “suspicious” consumers, can share their experiences).

    For example, in my opinion, alot happened and the Dunlops sufferred tremendously subsequent to the ex-parte application being granted to compel Perry Dunlop.
    IT is my opinion, the ex-parte application in Dunlops case was immorally and abusively utilized and if Perry Dunlop had been represented by a “competent” and “trustworthy” lawyer with Dunlops better interests “in play”, Commissioner Glaude would never had attempted an ex-parte application, and Dunlops lawyer would have successfully defeated any attempt to compel Perry Dunlop.
    In reviewing my notes and as an additional note of interest; when Perry did attend the inquiry, Commissioner Glaude was in discussion, seemingly with himself, about the who, what, why, when, where and how Perry “appeared”. I’m certain you will see in the transcripts where Commissioner Glaude whispered something like, “well irregardless how you got here, you are here and that’s an admission that you accept this inquiry and you agree to be here.” Those words were whispered in seconds. You see, those words are now on the record. I should have jumped up and screamed!! Perry did not argue “those words” or the “ex-parte” words because he is ignorant of the interpretations, definitions, etc.
    Furthermore, some definitions:”ex-parte” “..generally such an application is only made in cases of emergency where it is not possible to give the adverse party notice of the proceeding.” “An ex-parte judicial proceeding is one brought for the benefit of one party only, without notice to or challenge by an adverse party.” “..an application having been granted without the adverse party having had notice of its application.”

    SO, it is my opinion of course, in Dunlops case, Commissioner Glaude could have found a sober and “flunky” “J.P.” to “rubber-stamp” the ex-parte application. No notice, no service of papers and no effort to permit Dunlop to reply and/or argue the “statement of facts-statement of law-points and authorities, etc., etc.” used in support of the “ex-parte” application. IN fact, who know’s what the supporting documents portray!
    In this case, the whole world knew where Perry Dunlop was.

    As previously referred to, has anyone ever wondered why some time was spent at the Inquiry surrounding Helen Dunlop and Perry Dunlops statements that they never received and official notices or why Mr. Glaude, on more than one occassion, implied that if anyone had a problem with whatever happened that day, that he/Commissioner Glaude is the one to hold accountable.
    BELIEVE, among other “transgressionsI I believe “occurred and other” in this inquiry, “the ex-parte” application, in this context ranks among the highest.
    BUT, this is Ontario…”round us up and lock us up”…”dissenting voices”. What to do!!

    “He who despises his own life is soon master of another’s.”
    “It is not power that corrupts but fear. The fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

    “NEVER DOUBT that a small group of committed citizens can change the world.”

    Various quotations.
    AND, with the “truckload” of esteemed and informed lawyers attending this inquiry, not one suggested to the Commissioner, that “the ex-parte” application could do with a review.

  6. RealityChecker says:

    If you had jumped up and screamed “foul” in the Weave Shed with that exchange between Glaude and Engleman you know darned well what would have happened!!!…sure looking back in hindsight – now that people understand they are obliged to say you should have jumped up but AT THAT TIME none of the general public would have understood what it was all about – you would have looked like an idiot!

    It is a dirty rotten low tactic!!!

    I wasn’t paying attention to what had actually happened – it wasn’t until you posted on a comment thread on the Freeholder I “got it” and caught on.

    Prima facie – sometimes one has to keep repeating and repeating until that one day when people WAKE UP and really understand what you have been saying – you keep pushing!!!You keep repeating!!!

    The squeeky wheel gets the grease!

    I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS!!!

    NO – I can!

  7. RealityChecker says:

    There HAS TO BE a fully independant Judicial Review of these proceedings.

    There is no other option.

    HOW???

  8. prima facie says:

    Yes, I agree. A Judicial Review or, “they” can also convene a Judicial Committee or similar.
    When Commissioner Glaude unveiled the “mandate”, I decided to peruse the “requirements that must be met”, among other things, to justify convening a Judicial Review, Judicial Committee and/or applicable. I don’t have the doc’s handy right now. However, in laymens terminology, I BELIEVE, that there has to be a formal application with evidence, affidavits, etc., etc., almost proving the case in advance, but at least showing that there is “just cause”. I believe the aforementioned must be submitted to be considered by “officials”, before their contemplation on whether they would convene the Review or not.
    Also, I BELIEVE “persons in authority” i.e.) Justice and/or political personalities, must “carry-the-ball”, so to speak. “Commoners” cannot “carry the ball” for long, in my opinion. There may even be costs, disbursements and other fees attached.

    The fact that “working class, subordinates” such as myself are unsatisfied with the “process” means little to the “powers that be”, who have other “objectives”, “for the greater good”; i.e.) assuring the public “all is well”, and nothing really happened. Just an over-zealous “Cop” and “ill-equipped system”, all of whom, meant well.
    I believe I/we would be told that my/our “complaints” should have been “dumped” at the inquiry, if I had something to say.
    Yes, I’m sure that I would have been well received-ha!! ha!! ha!!……just like Commissioner Glaude was going to address the alleged conflict he has, respecting his nuclear and/or extended family members living in and around Cornwall.

    For generating the needed assistance and “attention”, politicians can be lobbied and other prominent professionals can be lobbied to “carry-the-ball”. BUT, I believe “the system” wants this whole sordid affair to DISAPPEAR; Originally, I believe people like Peter Kormos and Garry Guzzo were “on the scene”, to “speak for”, “consult with”, “influence”, “defuse” or “manage” the disgruntled citizens and other. From my personal perspective, I have no reason to trust either one of them. In fact, I have personal reasons to not trust them.

    However, in our society today and as we are law abiding, hard working, productive members of society, the likes of Mr. Kormos and Mr. Guzzo et al, are a “lawful” and “contemporary” “vehicle or means” to attempt to achieve a “goal”, as I say, in our society today;…. usually things like decriminalizing marijuana or “pressing” the City of Ottawa to replace bilingual traffic signs in Ottawa to “French only” for one day, on St. Jean the Baptiste Day…..But when we get to an issue like confronting a corrupt “system”, regarding “these” particular issues and the “Ontario Justice System”,….. well “persona non grata” comes to mind.

    Unfortunately, I believe that, I am not the only person to recognize the complexity and depth of this particular issue (from the beginning). Furthermore, I don’t believe I am the only person to recognize that, in a Judicial Review or applicable review, the possiblity that portions of “the truth” may be revealed, in an official capacity, exists and could consequently result in prominent citizens, justice officials and institutions looking, “not so good”.
    “And then,….we must “save face” musn’t we”?

    And finally, in this “post”; what retired and/or sitting characters in the “Justice System” or other would you select/solicit to conduct a Judicial Review and/or applicable Review of their colleagues? How about Justice Gomery? He seemed to go after “the facts”….and now, “the powers” are attempting to discredit and ostracize him completely. In his case, I don’t think any of his recommendations have been implemented as yet. In Commissioner Glaudes case, may I be so bold as to predict, 90% to all recommendations will be implemented. “DESIGN or EVOLUTION”?

  9. RealityChecker says:

    I gather as it stands now – we will have to wait to see exactly what Comissioner Glaude will say and recommend in his final report.

    I don’t think it’s going to be a surprise to too many of us.

    However, what I’d be curious about – how many law suits are going to be launched once that report is out? How many people are waiting in the wings for the conclusion – to pounce?

    In my opinion it looks like no one can do anything (legally)until this concludes.

  10. RealityChecker says:

    Just remember one thing – not one damned lawyer objected or said anything about the “ex-parte” application or asked for a review – NOT ONE!!!
    It shouldn’t have been just prima facie sitting there knowing what was happening and wanting to jump up and cry foul (it must have been difficult to restrain yourself as you watched the proceedings – very difficult) – every single lawyer in that Weave Shed should have and could have stood up and cried FOUL! The non action of these esteemed lawyers amounted to a denial of natural justice for one Perry Dunlop!!!

    SPEAKS VOLUMES!!!

  11. Sylvia says:

    I am with you both 100%. A judicial inquiry, or joint federal provincial judicial inquiry or whatever it takes to conduct an investigation/inquiry into all the allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up that have been scoffed and belitteld for years.

    Something with teeth, where truth matters and is sought and pursued.

    Something with authority to find fault and lay or recommend charges.

    Something with the ability and desire to put federally-appointed judges such as Colin McKinnon on the stand.

    Something with a level playing field, where the numbers of those defending the real and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall are matched by those who aren’t.

    Something with a mandate to dig into who crafted the mandate for the Cornwall Public Inquiry, and who chose the commissioner, and who briefed Justice Normand Glaude and his staff, and who decided to pull the plug with the OPP and AG witnesses up, and who was pulling the strings at the Weave Shed, and who at the AGs office decided to fund the Cornwall Police Service through the backdoor so they weren’t subject to the inquiry cap on legal fees and research hours.

    Something with a judge and lawyers collectively eager to put the real and “alleged” paedophiles/molesters/predators of Cornwall on the stand to hear their “story” and learn first hand what’s been going on in Cornwall and who went were with whom when, and who did what to whom when and how.

    I agree. I think it would be impossible to have an Ontario judge. Absolutely impossible. At least one who is both impartial in fact who is also perceived by the public to be impartial.

    What does that leave us?

    A little disheartening or what? But, there has to be a way……

  12. prima facie says:

    ..ahhhhh…”Reality Checker” and “Sylvia”, I’ve heard these kind of “pleas” before. May I be so bold as to suggest, the “tone” and “frustrations” you and many others seem to be experiencing and sharing with us on this website and other venues, are exactly the same expressions and utterances, allegedly expressed by various “alleged victims”, “victims”, their families, friends, supporters and many, many “caseworkers”, as well as many, many “caregivers” in Cornwall and Area in and before 2000.
    You can add some police, probation and parole personnel as well as Children’s Aid workers, some politicians and some Clergy, to those who were “suspicious” and/or could today be perceived by some as being, “conspiracy theorists”.

    IN FACT, it is my opinion, that based on all the “facts” “local citizens” knew that were available to them, since 1992 (before)and up to 2000, including all “investigations”, relating to allegations of sexual abuse in Cornwall and Area and the management or mismanagement, “cover-up” thereof led some citizens to act. I suggest those related “frustrations and beliefs” of cover-up and criminal acts, acts of ommission, by “institutions/authorities, et al”, are what in actuality compelled some “citizens” and alleged victims to collaborate with Dick Nadeau; thereafter contacting the operator of http://www.projecttruth.com and the creation of http://www.projecttruth2.com by Mr. Nadeau.
    “There had to be a way”, “what to do”, “these victims are being traumatized over and over again”, were the words of the day.
    I believe, these people felt betrayed and re-victimized. Furthermore, some people will argue that “nothing substantial” was ever done for “alleged victims” until the websites published certain testimonials by “alleged victims” etc. “Alleged victims”, who have ALL received “realated” compensation, subsequent to the publications.

    In addition, I believe, the original “concept” of a petition for a public inquiry and its intended “Mission”, was dramatically “altered”, after over fifteen thousand people signed on.

    This inquiry, in my opinion, has been “officially” dead-in-the-water, so to speak, since the “command” to bring it to an end in late 2008. It is my opinion, these last weeks are simply to enable the “one-sided” lawyers their opportunities to enter all kinds of “rumour and innuendo” into the record on behalf of their clients and re-write history; with impunity.
    I believe, “the powers that be” will tell the world, that every investigation since 1992 before or thereafter, found no evidence of a paedophile ring.
    The words “found no evidence” is a big difference from, “not being any evidence”. Unfortunately, this inquiry was not interested in the who-what-where-when-why and how’s about, surrounding “no evidence “found”.

    I believe the “powers that be” will close this entire matter, with the “findings” Commissioner Glaude writes; there may be a couple of criminal sanctions for publicity purpose, that will be mitigated months later, with little or no fanfare.
    I believe no one, unless a miraculous Law Firm set on self-destruction or “closing shop”, would be naive enough to “take on” any further “appeal” or “action” for justice.

    At one time Garry Guzzo, stated “this goes right to the top”. Well he got that right. But, for various reasons, “Judge Guzzo”, intentionally or through error allowed himself to be totally discredited, disgraced and made to look the fool, by inquiry participants…ha!!…ya right!!

    I believe, any new allegations discovered during counselling sessions, offered by inquiry designates, will be seen and treated as new, non-related allegations.

    Has anything “really substantial” changed since 1992? The same people support the same people, etc. Some information has been discovered that “each side” can utilize or manipulate to support their own agendas. But, no real “truths”, no accountability, no reaponsibility, no consequences. But yes, consequences for the “dissenting voice and the whistleblower”, for “telling on the system”.
    That’s it folks…all this to “save face”.

  13. Sylvia says:

    I do believe you’re right prima facie, and all this to “save face.”

    Funny, when this whole thing started I had a ‘gut’on where it would go. A ‘gut’based on what I knew and had seen and heard to date at the time the inquiry was commissioned. I have since realized time and again it’s one thing to have speculated on where it would go, and quite another to be where it’s at 🙂 Hard to deal with the stark reality that we no longer have a justice system, we have a legal system. Hard to hear lawyers resort to sophistry and extrapolate and/or spin facts to suit their own ends and/or those of clients.

    I am working my way through my thoughts. I think I am in the same boat as many others. Not smooth waters right now 🙁

  14. prima facie says:

    ….and Sylvia, we are told again and again, “to trust the system.” “Trust Justice.”…and yet the facts speak for themselves. Yet, “we” are blamed for creating an atmosphere that influences citizens to distrust their “government”…I mean really!! Really!! We are the anarchists? Really?? Can you believe the big-“powers that be” implying “we” are in the same boat as “anarchists”. Oh, I think not,….”power inevitably leads to corruption and more greed and more corruption.”

    And, regarding my post #13 and “carrying the ball”…..haven’t the “wagons been circled”, i.e.) like how do we expect the likes of local “powers” Bob Kilger (Mayor of Cornwall and ex-Speaker of the House of Commons), Guy Lauzon-politician, Jim Brownell-politician, Jean-Marc Lalonde-politician or local retired politicians, wherein, some are members of the “Chief Privy Councils Office”, a.k.a. “the permanent government” or advisors thereto, like Don Boudria, Ed Lumley, or the Noble Villeneuve family,…..to “carry the ball”. I think they all sit at the same table, at the same “monthly breakfast meeting”, don’t they? At least 99% of them are members of the same religious “orders”, “associations” or “affiliates”, aren’t they.
    Believe me, it is my opinion, the aforementioned will give Commissioner Glaude a parade through town, portraying, “a job well done”…..”now we can all move on” scenario.

  15. RealityChecker says:

    Uhhhh….to be caught up in that tangled web of a legal system that we have now – not a justice system – especially when it involves lawyers is a NIGHTMARE BEYOND WORDS!!!

    Trust me – I know!!!

    All it takes is one or two dirty lawyers!

    I can tell you from experience – The SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK!!!

    …and reality sets in!

    Yes…Lots to think about. It’s not smooth waters right now 🙁

  16. Sylvia says:

    Ah yes. There’s that One Big Happy Family. Rampant brotherly love.

    Sometimes it’s necessary – but not always easy – to recall that justice is not always rendered in this world. And to recall that inevitably one day we will each be called to account for our sins of ommission as well as those of comission. And to rembember that justice will indeed be done in the next world. And to try as best we can to live our lives accordingly while striving to making this world a safer place for children.

  17. prima facie says:

    Amen.

Leave a Reply

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