In camera

Share Button

They’re in camera watching a video until at least 11:30 am.  What happens after that is up in the air. I made a couple of quick corrections on the last blog – typos 🙁



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to In camera

  1. prima facie says:

    VENTING!!  Regarding your last posting and blog Sylvia, including news early today.
    In Re: “Cornwall Standard-Freeholder Friday, June 29, 2007-08:00” “Clan claims are crumbling” by: “Terri Saunders”

    When David Sherriff-Scott talks….”EF”…everyone listens!!!$$$$$$$

    David Sherriff-Scott, is the preferred co-counsel, student and protege, of the highly influential and powerful, David W. Scott, Q.C., formerly of “Scott & Aylen”, but now, pursuant to merger with “Borden, Ladner, Gervais, LLP.”, a Canadian Law Firm.

    The way I feel about Sherriff-Scott, is, “kinda” similar to how I feel about the N.H.L.’s Montreal Canadians ice hockey team. i.e.) I want them to lose but, I want them to go to the finals; I want them to lose, but, if they lost, I would lose interest. In my opinion, David Sherriff-Scott is definitely ahead of the curve. I remember in 1995, when a “friend” of the “alleged” offenders stated to me, “….we’ll get that Perry Dunlop. We’ve hired Scott & Aylen and they are going to get him”. Well, that person was right.

    In my opinion as a layman I believe knowing the “law-books/theory” is one small part about “practicing law” and “being a lawyer”. I believe, the most critical and important “part” is developing and nurturing an acute ability to perceive a brief, mini-second, window of opportunity and how to react effectively. What is most important is developing and nurturing the ability, “your trademark” in articulating your defense or prosecution, in a style or fashion which convinces the news media and the “people” to trust you, believe in you, believe what you say is true and believe your representations as being “factual”.
    I believe David Sherriff-Scott is an expert above all in accomplishing the forementioned.
    I would hire him in the blink of an eye, even though I think I hate him..$$$$$$

    The above-referenced news article reads, “A lawyer for the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese said Leroux’s testimony is proof many of the pillars upon which rumours of a clan of pedophiles having operated in the city for years have no foundation.”

    “Foundation?? Proof??”

    I want to know if the news reporter and the readers clearly understand that the “words” “fed” to the reporter for public consumption were words expressed as a consequence of the interpretations made by, and the obvious intentions of, a very convincing, opportunistic, articulate, strategically wise, lawyer for the “alleged paedophiles, abusers” and “accused”. (What do we expect him to say?)

    Despite Sherriff-Scott’s assertions and perhaps the reader’s misinterpretations I assert “NO” judgement exists anywhere wherein “proof” is conclusive, for or against, the existence of a paedophile clan, which includes some of his clients. In this Public Inquiry, even Judge Glaude cannot now or in the future, make this claim.

    In fact, Sherriff-Scott is very telling. I urge readers to research news articles of several years ago, wherein, Sherriff-Scott declares, “proof” that no paedophile clan exists. Wrong again. Now, Sherriff-Scott states “MANY” of the pillars…..

    See my comment on Sylvia’s blog, entitled, “Who Is This?, June 27, 2007 at 5:02a.m., entry #2 and surrounding my perceptions of Ron Leroux’s, historical and current, emotional, physiological, psychological, psychiatric, etc., status.

    As lawyers and news articles report of this testimony it is easy for me to conclude Ron Leroux’s “MOST RECENT” testimony is receiving more credibility than his original affidavit ever received.


    Do you remember, as a foolish youth of course, experimenting with alcohol and other “soft drugs”?…..well, as we got wasted, we thought WE were okay and everyone else was “screwed” up……”we were ok…man!!

    I’m wondering if Commissioner Glaude and the Inquiry participants are clear-headed. How else could you explain the Inquiries unawareness or unconcern about Ron Leroux’s obvious dysfunction?

    To follow this up. In my expressed opinion, in a “functional, supportive setting” any Doctor who would, alledgedly,” intentionally or through ignorance or error, adjust Leroux’s medications and send him back to “the stand” or permit him to testify in the first place should be investigated for medical malpractice. How about consequences of long-term “use”, abuse, cross-dependence, dual-diagnosis, addictions, tolerance, misdiagnosis, molecular adaptation/change, half-life????

    EVERONE in the community KNOWS Ron Leroux and his bizarre behaviours, experiences, etc., etc.

    IS the Cornwall Public Inquiry going to rely and depend on this MOST RECENT depiction of the facts, as the catalytic force for_______?????

    Poor Ron Leroux and others like him, being exploited because, “THE SYSTEM CHEATED and LOST” and “THE SYSTEM MUST SAVE FACE” at the expense of ANYONE!!!!…including you Sylvia, you are party to disclosure and you MUST be censored!!!…the time will come….soon. (download site)

    As always, I wanted the truth, wherever it went….not fantasy, not fiction, not theatrics and not the parading of poor, sick and dysfunctional human beings surviving in fear.
    I wanted the truth, then responsibility, accountability, consequences and change…but no way.

    THE PEOPLE OF CORNWALL KNOW THE TRUTH and The Inquiry doesn’t see the forest for the tress……intentional or by design?

Leave a Reply

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