(1) The Cornwall Public Inquiry schedule for next week is up!
Hearings resume at 09:30 am Tuesday 17 April 2007 with a “Witness Requesting Confidentiality.” Does this mean a witness will take the stand requesting confidentiality? or that lawyers are going to spend the day arguing the pros and cons of granting him/her confidentiality? or that the day’s hearings at this “public” inquiry will be behind closed doors with we the public locked out – again?
I have no idea. There is no indication that hearings will be conducted in camera, but, who knows? We will have to wait and see
(2) Wednesday and Thursday (18th & 19th) are ear-marked for David Silmser business. Two full days of play acting that a witness is on the stand. And if the legal throng aren’t happy with the outcome from that approach, they’ll scrap it all and find another another which might suit their end. If worst comes to worst they may decide to expunge both Dave’s testimony and all their attempts at play acting the real thing, but, I am inclined to think they would be most reluctant to take that approach – it might, Heaven forbid, look too much like a concession to a beleaguered and weary victim’s plea, or perhaps it might be misconstrued as being held ransom?
How it all works out is anybody’s guess. The only for sure is that somehow or other at the end of a Weave Shed day David Silmser’s credibility will be in tatters.
Sad to say when it comes to dealing with the nub of the Cornwall scandal that’s just the way it is. The same old same old. The “alleged” victims are lying money grubbing trouble-makers. The “alleged” molesters are honest, law-abiding, upright, persecuted pillars of the community.
I will be relieved and most pleasantly surprised if things evolve for the better 🙂
(3) I have re-done The Scandal page. Still a bit of tiddling around to do with it – somtimes software and computers have a mind of their own and no amount of fiddling can make them do what they’re supposed to do 🙁 So, I decided to call it a day. Meanwhile I do believe it will be easier to read and navigate and more legible with other browsers.
(4) You will see I have added a link on The Scandal page to a page which will be “Non clergy charged, sued or accused.” I will start adding names over the next few days. It’s one of many things which have been on my To Do list for months. I will probably start by listing names – then will add what information I have on hand as I find time. It will be a work in process. As I work my way along please don’t hesitate to email names which I may have overlooked.
(5) John MacDonald’s father is dying. Keep him, his dear wife of 60 plus years, John and the whole family in your prayers during these difficult and painful days.
(6) Still pretty cool outside – snow on the ground and the odd flurry! But, we braved the cold and headed off on a 11/2 mile walk yesterday morning. Then trudged out again to tackle a hill in the afternoon – each day we launch and head a few steps closer to the top. Yesterday took us half way! It’s a great measure of progress – seems like yesterday two minutes walking was a major challenge, and here he is doing about an hour a day. And hills to boot! Progress 🙂
(6) And don’t forget the Steve Parisien Legal Defence Fund. Steve needs the resources to find and retain what some might call a “damn good” lawyer.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)
So back to “Act IV” or is it “Act V”?
I was reviewing the doc’s at http://www.cornwallinquiry.ca; specifically the interaction between David Sherriff-Scott, (Counsel for the Diocese et al and Commissioner Glaude). It’s really something, see http://www.cornwallinquiry.ca cover page, then link transcripts.)
IN THE BEGINNING….I can clearly remember, what appeared to be a naive, Commissioner Glaude, asking a couple of lawyer’s why their clients were seeking standing and funding at the Cornwall Public Inquiry. The lawyers replied something to the effect of, “protecting the reputations and good names of our clients”. Isn’t it SOOOOOOOOOOOOO true how this Public Inquiry has become nothing BUT the lawyers and NOTHING but protecting the “good names”, while re-writing the facts. HELLO!!!! Commissioner Glaude, anyone home???
At the “standing and funding” link on pages 16-19, David Sherriff-Scott continues to assert the position of the Diocese, in their application for standing and funding at the Inquiry. I interpret, (correct me if I am wrong), that David Sherriff-Scott, discloses the Diocese has already spent over $800,000.00 (eight-hundred thousand dollars), WITH HIS LAW FIRM, over the past 6-10 years, defending itself, prior to the Cornwall Public Inquiry. I’m not certain how accurate Mr. Sherriff-Scott’s bookkeeping and accounting skills are or if he was including other law firms, retained by The Diocese.
David W. Scott, Q.C. and his co-Counsel, David Sherriff-Scott, were Partners/Associates with Scott & Aylen and now, Borden, Ladner, Gervais, via a merger.
In Addition, Mr. Sherriff-Scott eludes to the issue where insurance carriers may have paid in the past or are also paying for these “high priced” lawyers; prompting the speculation of “double-billed” for the same work, or earnings being “bumped-up” or re-classified to accommodate the incentives offered by the insurance carriers.(can anyone spell forensic audit)
I suggest anyone research these lawyers for themselves. Most, if not all these lawyers, are retained soley to represent issues protecting insurance carriers wherein malpractice, negligence, wrongful dismissal, discrimination, etc. etc., is alleged and/or suspected against their so-called, policy-holders, i.e.) municipal, provincial, federal or other allegations or suspicions which could lead to large judgements being awarded to “plaintiffs” were they to be successful in civil litigation. Then, the “plaintiffs” are “gagged” from EVER disclosing “the facts.”
It is my opinion this category of human-being (lawyer) is representative of the proverbial “bottom feeder”, or maybe, to give them a little more esteem, “cleaners”, yes, I mean those-“cleaners”.
In addition, based on my education, experiences and knowledge, these lawyers are retained by Insurance Carriers to defend and/or be “proactive” in derailing litigations or publicity, as well as arguing, settling, bringing to an end through “various means”….any allegations, assertions, litigations, potential litigations, brought by Petitioners and/or Plaintiffs, against their “clients/policy-holders”, i.e.) Cornwall, Ontario, Police Dept’s, Agencies, Ministries, Canada, Diocese, etc., etc., and ALL their representatives.
Believe me, they stop at nothing and are justified by “only doing my job or protecting the rights of my client” rhetoric.
Also, Sylvia, do you know if John Spice was working for Norm Inkster, when he was at Interpol. I believe Interpol had significant problems addressing issues surrounding the international trafficking of children for sexual exploitation.
IN CONCLUSION: I believe the Inquiry is “effectively” over…..or never began. Now is the time for “interested” parties to retain screenwriter’s and get the story out.
Last week the local paper, editorial “Coffee Break”, addressed the writer’s perception the rules of the inquiry were unfair. I ask, does that writer ever get out of Cornwall or watch the “big” news channel? Standard procedure of “disclosure” for sexual investigations……by civilized thinkers, of course.
I have no knowledge that John Spice was ever involved with Interpol. However I think John Spice has a few headaches regarding the RCMP scandal which is currently erupting. Am just preparing to post on that one 🙂
Sylvia