Another legal ruckus

Share Button

Another legal ruckus!

Hearings have recessed and will resume at noon.

Roy Hawkins former Regional Administrator (Eastern Region) Youth and Community Services, Ministry of Correctional Services will take the stand.

Sue Lariviere’s testimony which was scarce off the ground has been put on hold.

The witness change follows a protest by Michael Neville (Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin). Neville argued that certain evidence should not be introduced because it’s beyond the scope of the mandate. Neville’s protest differs in some minute legal fashion from that of David Sheriff-Scott’s (the diocese) but seems to me to be yet another legal dimension to the protest.

Apparently what is at the heart of this whole ballyhoo is a factual overview compiled by Correctional Services. The purpose of the overview was apparently to, amongst other things, assist commission to understand the scope of the “alleged” abuse, determine when the complaints were reported and the response of correctional services to the same, give an overview of the responses to the disclosures and show the protocols in place and be as transparent as possible.

A number of the gathered throng protested, arguing in ever decreasing circles, parsing words here and quoting the Court of Appeal decision there.

Once again they have seized control.

Justice Glaude took fifteen minutes to ponder this latest mess.  He returned to announce a change in witnesses.  Roy Hawkins will replace Sue Lariviere.  Hawkins will take the stand at noon.

In an effort to make up for time lost, lunch break has been trimmed to one hour, from 1 pm to 2 pm.

What becomes of Sue Lariviere and when she will resume her testimony I have no idea.

And it goes on…



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Another legal ruckus

  1. prima facie says:

    January 23, 2008. 1354hrs.


    “Power-Authority Left Unchecked Inevitably Leads To Corruption”
    “INTERPRETATION”…a “never ending story…”

    Are Commissioner Glaude, the “Cornwall Public Inquiry” and “Justice”, being “HELD HOSTAGE” by a group of aggressive, over-zealous Lawyers, willing to go to “ANY LENGTHS” to reach their goals, in representation of their clients et al?

    WAS this also a predominant, accusation or perception, many people shared, during the “Project Truth” investigations and other related “proceedings”, since in or before 1993?
    I suggest, YES!!!, but, YOU DECIDE!!

    Since allegations of sexual abuse and the claims of an existence of a pedophile clan, first surfaced in Cornwall and Area, (in or about 1993), various lawyers were retained or engaged themselves otherwise.

    MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: These lawyers have all, individually, brought with them, “their” different instructions, motivations, intentions and their “traits”, education, training, styles, techniques, strategies, experiences, etc., etc, which they rely upon to, among other things, “interpret”, evidence, testimony, rulings, laws, rules of practice procedures, terms of reference, examinations, cross examinations, etc.

    It is my opinion, that these perceived, trustworthy, “pillars of the community” and their representatives, since in or about 1993, unintentionally or through design, acted and made statements, to the news media or in court rooms, that, “fanned the flames of anger, fear, acrimony” and consequently, created, “so-called rumour and innuendo”, therewith, confusing fact with the stigma, “rumour or innuendo.”

    In 2008, many of these very same lawyers are still “engaged” and retained by those same “clients.” There is still delay after delay after delay, challenge after challenge after challenge, as there was since 1993. Is it a wonder people became frustrated. Is it a wonder, Cornwall is “trapped in time”….1993, when someone, “BROKE THE SILENCE?”

    I believe, Judge-Commissioner Glaude CAN bring it all to an end NOW if he truly wants to, or, we can go on arguing and challenging “interpretations” for decades….yes, really. Believe ME, the Neville’s and Sherriff-Scott’s of the world, will stop at NOTHING to “save their clients”…especially sionce 1993..this is why they can command top $$$$$$.
    On to the Supreme Court or not. Is it too dangerous to go to the High Court? And why has it come to this? Is Commissioner Glaude going to be pressured into, “getting the costly Inquiry” over with as soon as possible, which would leave everything in greater turmoil…..devastating.

    With this “matter”, I ask, could this type of “ongoing” “file”, (different titles but “the same” in reality) since 1993, cause “lawyers” and other “parties”, to take “everything”, very personal? In the same light, could this long-term involvement, in this type of “file”, possibly, jeopardize judgement, surrounding the “proper” execution of, rules, procedure and process, including, professional conduct, conflicts, ethics, etc.? ( …yes, I understand a lawyer may say, “what I interpret as “proper” may not be what they interpret as “proper”. For the sake of this writing, I think we all get my suggestion.”

    In Addition and from a layman’s perspective and opinion:

    I believe, legislature, laws and rulings are INTERPRETED by each lawyer (client’s interest), then ARGUED in front of a judge, tribunal and/or equivalent; in this case, Commissioner Glaude.

    A thousand lawyers CAN have a thousand “interpretations” to argue, often depending on the NEEDS of the clients they represent.

    Thereafter, I believe among other things, Commissioner Glaude will, hopefully, and in the interest of justice, utilize various personal and professional skills, knowledge, obligations, expectations, research, education and expertise, when considering the arguments.

    THERE is NO automatic ANSWER, that’s why there are Judges; people “argue” their positions and the Judge “rules”. I believe, all “positions” argued can provide substantial theory and perhaps “case law” to support their “argument.” THERE IS NO right or wrong argument. The “fun or problems” really take light, when the lawyers are “arguing” their interpretations of the law, rulings or other, in fact, trying to “argue” these facts, etc., in a manner, which convinces the Judge/Commissioner to “rule.” In his/her favour.

    In the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, as in, “so-called” related “proceedings” since 1993, most of the lawyers have been/are representing the “accused”, their representatives and their supporters. So, “is it fair to suggest their arguments” are made from the perspective of “representing theirs clients, the accused” at any cost? YOU DECIDE!!
    I submit that, included in representing their clients’ legal rights, obligations and innocence, is the need for them to influence public opinion and attempt to direct the “flow” of information (dissemination), to help “form” public opinion, favourable to them. (“Google” “public opinion forming”)

    I have stated to friends that I feel Commissioner Glaude is in a very difficult “spot” and that he is under attack from ALL CORNERS; as friends detect a hint of sympathy, I am quickly reminded that Commissioner Glaude, studied the mandate “in the beginning” and he agreed to the mandate, “Terms of Reference”, “Rules of Practice and Procedure” and similar. Furthermore, I am reminded he has all the knowledge and professional expertise to conclude, “I am ready for any twist or turn this inquiry or the lawyers therein, may take, including going to “Higher Courts” for interpretations, rulings, or other if necessary.”

  2. Myomy says:

    I did catch among the things the lawyers were saying about the contents of C8’s revelations in the factual overview that both Fr Charlie and Ken Seguin were named in the part protested by Mr Neville. The high sounding legal reasons are being voiced for one reason to keep things quiet.

Leave a Reply