A confusing and disconcerting day yesterday (Monday 28 January 2008).
I will go over notes and all later to see what I have missed as far as quotes and explanations are concerned. I did speak to lead commission counsel to try to wrap my head around what’s going on now. That helped, but I’m still feeling that something isn’t adding up. I need to listen to tapes to see if I can put some pieces together.
For now I’ll go from memory so I can bring you up to date as quickly as possible.
The warrant for Perry Dunlop’s arrest has been issued. It has not been executed and in fact execution of the same may prove to be a bit problematic.
Perry is to appear before the justices of the Ontario Divisional Court at a date to be determined AFTER 12 February 2008.
As anticipated Perry did not arrive in Toronto and was nowhere to be seen in Courtroom # 8 in the historic Osgoode Hall.
I’d say there were about 22 to 25 Perry-supporters filling the small courtroom. They came from Hamilton, Kitchener, Kingston, Cornwall, Brockville, Ottawa and Toronto. For court matters of this nature, and with no anticipation of seeing Perry, an amazing turnout. A tribute to esteem in which Perry is held.
After about three hours of arguments and questions interspersed with breaks to ponder a number of problems, Justice J Swinton. J. Hoilett and J. Ferrier ruled that (1) a warrant would be issued for Perry’s arrest, (2) Perry is to appear before the court on a date to be determined AFTER 12 February, (3) the Ontario Attorney General is to appear on that yet-to-be-determined. They also indicated a preference that Perry not be arrested until such time as a date has been set. There seemed to be a genuine desire on their behalf that he not be jailed pending the hearing. That was not an order per se.
So, for perhaps another two weeks, Perry is a ‘free’ man.
As I said already, it was a confusing morning. That’s putting it mildly. Those in the gallery had no idea what was going on and, indeed, at times it seemed nether did anyone else.
First, there were issues related to attaining and issuing a warrant and the subsequent ability to execute the warrant out of province. I am not convinced this matter has been fully resolved.
Then there was an issue regarding criminal contempt and civil contempt charges.
Perry has already been convicted of civil contempt.
Now a charge of criminal contempt looms on the horizon. Criminal.
Justice Glaude wants Perry be charged with criminal contempt.
To be quite honest I personally had no idea there were two types contempt charges. As far as I was concerned contempt of court was contempt of court. But, such is not the case. There is, I now know, civil contempt and criminal contempt. The latter can apparently warrant stiffer sentences. In addition I believe a conviction on criminal contempt would have serious repercussions on out of country travel. Finally, as we learned from the justices yesterday, a criminal contempt conviction, unlike civil one, can not be purged.
It’s all quite bizarre and totally confusing. No one seems to know how any of this works, or if indeed it works at all!
Think about it. In his factum Justice Glaude states that he wants Perry “found guilty of criminal contempt” for his “disobedience,” and then goes on to ask that Perry be given the ability to purge after he has started serving his sentence! .
So, if Perry ends up serving time for two separate convictions – one civil and the other criminal – with the sentences running concurrently as is the norm, he could presumably purge part of his time for the civil conviction by heading for the Weave Shed, but then again he couldn’t because he’d also be serving time for a criminal contempt and he wouldn’t be able to purge it!!!
Doesn’t make an iota of sense.
I’m going to search about to if I can find more information this later today.
That aside the justices seemed rather concerned that Perry had not been properly or adequately advised that Justice Glaude is after a criminal contempt this time around, not a civil.
Brian Gover, who represents Justice Normand Glaude, felt that because “criminal contempt” is in the factum the matter has been addressed and that is suffice to do the job. I got the sense the justice did not fully concur.
This whole issue will be addressed at the next hearing. At that time the justices will decide whether any further contempt charges will be criminal or civil.
There is also some issue with the office of the Attorney General. There was not a soul in the courtroom from the AG’s office. Present were the three justices, courtroom staff, Petewr Engelmann, and unidentified assistant with Engelmann, Brian Gover and Patricia Latimer, the latter both with the law firm Stockwoods which represents Justice Glaude at these Divisional court hearings.
I got the distinct impression that there was a hope that someone would have been there.
I also got the distinct impression that this whole process will somehow implode if the Attorney General fails to participate.
According to a 25 January 2008 letter from the Attorney General to Brian Gover “the Commissioner elected to commence the application. It is appropriate, in our view, for the party which commenced the application to continue it.”
Does that sound a little like the AG saying: “You started the ball rolling in this mess. You can finish it”? I think it does.
For whatever reasons the ministry did not participate. It will, however be there for the next hearing because it has now been asked or told to be there.
What the nature and need of its involvement remains to be seen. The AGs implication in the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up seems irrelevant to one and all.
That’s basically it.
Justice Hoilet is retiring next week. It is unknown if he will be replaced or if two judges will handle the matter the next time around.
Justice Swinton is going on holiday. She will be back after 12 February 2008. That’s why the next hearing will be set after 12 February 2008.
I tried to find out the sequence of events which would transpire after the warrant was issues. No luck.
Out in Duncan B.C the Dunlops wait continues… One of these days they’ll come for Perry. The question is when? The stress must be unbearable……
Enough for now,
Sylvia
.
It seems clear that this process is being driven by Glaude. It would not go forward but for him. You have noted his past statement that nobody would be forced to testify. In addition to that he often introduces witnesses talking about the need for mutual respect. These events demonstrate that his idea of respect is a one way street. He wants others to show him respect but where is his respect for Perry Dunlop? The word respect means “to look again” so as to appreciate what is really there that you didn’t see the first time. I would call on Glaude to look again at Perry Dunlop and stop your bullying. Mutual respect and bullying cannot go together. Mr Glaude listen to your own little speech on respect.
January 29, 2008.
Desperate People and Institutions vs. Perry Dunlop
I believe “the system” has “backed itself” into a corner…yes, “BACKED ITSELF” and “it” is now very desperate. “Ontario Divisional Court” and various others, will be conducting serious, “closed door deliberations”, over the next couple of weeks, regarding this “file”.
The “main” cause of this “systemic dysfunction”: “LAWYERS GONE WILD”, including the highly esteemed and renowned, “best of the best”. All done, in their efforts to protect and defend their clients (the accused, their supporters and their protectors) at ANY COST.
In my opinion, this “file”, which is currently before the “Ontario Divisional Court”, is a “precedent setting” case file. I believe this “file” has much “greater implications” to Canadians, than perceived by most Canadians. In fact, for various reason’s, as I have previously discussed, most of Canada NEVER heard of this “file” until last week.
In reality, this “file” began in or about 1993. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THIS COULD HAVE ALL BEEN OVER YESTERDAY.
“Google” “Constitution of Canada” and “Google” “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”…..because that is where we are.
a) IS it not strange to some people that, “Sylvia MacEachern” was the only journalist or “news media” present at the “Hearing” yesterday?
b) IS it not strange to some people that, Counsel for Commissioner Glaude (“Stockwoods LLP, Barristers”), utilized “copious” published, but unreliable, news media sources and interviews of Perry Dunlop, as evidence supporting Commissioner Glaude’s assertions?
c) IS it not strange and disturbing to some people that ALL news reports published on January 28, 2008, subsequent to the Divisional Court Hearing, were basically the same, even though NO news media sources/agencies were present?
d) EVEN though NO news media sources or agencies were present, IS it not strange or disturbing to some people that, the news media contacted “Cornwall Public Inquiry” Commission Counsel Peter Engelmann and therewith, Commissioner Glaude, the “Applicant” in this matter, versus Perry Dunlop, the “Respondent” in this matter, to be the personality interviewed, with the “perceived” perspective of the “Ontario Divisional Court”, surrounding the “facts and events” of this “Hearing?” I ask, was there real or perceived “personal and/or professional bias?”
e) In consideration of the above, did Mr. Engelmann and therewith Commissioner Glaude, provide his/their “INTERPRETATION”of the “facts and events”, of yesterdays “Divisional Court” Hearing and does this suggest that the public, reading those news stories, perceive that Mr. Engelmann et al, were representing the “Ontario Divisional Court”, when his statements to the press were made. In reporting to the “mainstream news media”, WAS Mr. Engelmann representing the “Ontario Divisional Court?” Who authorized him?
f) Isn’t it really too bad, that every mainstream news media, investigative journalist, etc., etc. somehow, missed this story and CHOSE to take Mr. Engelmann’s word, as “fact”. Can anyone say, “marching orders, fear of reprisal, self-preservation, cronyism….etc.” I submit, these are unambiguous examples of my previous blogs-comments, (re): social control censorship, “extreme socialism”.
( “Google” “extreme socialism”). I ask, WHEN will the “sleeping giant” wake-up.
There is much more.
Did I read the factum correctly? Is it true Glaude is suggesting Perry be incarcerated for a “significant” period? Is it possible that the man who blew the whistle on child sexual abuse could spend much more time in jail than the perpetrators? Rev. Gilles Deslauriers didn’t spend a day in jail … Rev. Paul Lapierre was sentenced to a year, but with good behaviour, was likely out soon after going in … a woman in Cornwall was convicted of killing her husband and didn’t spend a day in jail … she was given a conditional sentence to be served at home. Another woman in the Cornwall area was found responsible for the death of her baby but because a judge determined she was incapable of knowing the consequences of her actions at the time, she was sent home … every day in Cornwall, people are found guilty of terrible crimes … murder, rape, abuse … and time and time again they get house arrest or very minimal jail sentences. Yet Perry Dunlop is facing going to jail for a significant period of time? What is wrong with this picture? I share Perry’s lack of faith in the system … it seems very screwed up to me.