Coerce, coerce, coerce

Share Button

Perry has now spent 122 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.

Nelson Barque was sentenced to the grand total of four months in jail for sexually abusing how many boys?!


Some of many thoughts on the latest legal debacle involving Perry. . . .

In December 2006 Justice Glaude stated: “It is essential for the success of this Inquiry that people come forward, free from any undue influence, promise or threat.

Perry Dunlop was told and believed he would not be forced to testify at the inquiry. He was told he could not be forced to testify.

When Justice Glaude changed his mind “for the greater good” Perry was forced into the Weave Shed. He testified that he would read his 110-page Will State into the record as his best recollection of events. He testified that he has lost faith in the justice system.

Perry was cited with contempt of court.

The AG’s office became actively involved in the persecution, prosecution and incarceration of former Constable Perry Dunlop. To that end it retained the services of lawyer David Humphrey.

At the behest of Justice Glaude and lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann and with the able assistance of the Attorney General (David Humphrey) and ready concurrence of Ontario Divisional Court, what started as a single charge of civil contempt morphed into two contempt charges and convictions, one civil, the other criminal.

When all was said and done Perry Dunlop was convicted. The honest cop who has been mercilessly and unremittingly hounded and persecuted since he stepped up to the plate to protect children in 1993 and on the heels of that apparently had the audacity to lose faith in the justice system was in jail.

Six months for civil contempt.

Sentencing for the criminal contempt conviction on hold until the six months is served.

After the sentencing David Humphrey admitted that “the objective here as I’ve said throughout is to convince and coerce if necessary Mr. Dunlop to testify.”

Yes indeed. Coercion. Remember that word.

As I see it, here’s how it plays out. First a recap of past events:

(1) If at any time during that six months Perry should decide to rush down to the Weave Shed and jump onto the stand to field the questions posed by those who have been persecuting him, covering up the cover-up and protecting “alleged” paedophiles for the past 15 years, the time remaining would be purged in whole or in part.


(2) Once the six month civil contempt conviction is served, on to the sentencing for criminal contempt. The powers that be are looking for about 15 months on that conviction. Perhaps a purging during the six months reduce it to 12 months? No guarantees.


(3) Perry’s six month sentence is up around 02 or 03 September 2008. He is actually serving significantly more time than any other inmate would serve on a six month sentence. Perry has been denied opportunity for an early release for good behaviour. That’s apparently a favour afforded paedophiles and murderers. It’s not for whistleblowers.


(4) Perry has also been denied time served, i.e., the two weeks he spent behind bars while Justices Swinton and Ferrier took time out to ponder his fate have NOT, as is the case with other Canadian inmates, been doubled and taken off his sentence. In fact, doubled or not those two weeks will not deducted period! Ditto the three days Perry spent in custody after his arrest in Duncan and prior to his appearance at Ontario Divisional Court. In short, thanks to the vindictiveness of all involved in his conviction and sentencing Perry is serving at least 17 additional days in jail. For what? At the very least the two weeks should be deducted from his sentence. How can anyone justify this?Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.”

What are those two weeks if not arbitrary imprisonment”?


Now to the present.

(1) Why did the Ontario Attorney General quash Perry Dunlop’s 17 June 2008 scheduled appearance at Frontenac County courthouse?


(2) Why was the hearing quashed at the 11th hour?


(3) Why did the AG’s office not contact Lawrence Greenspon (Perry’s lawyer) to advise the cancellation?


(4) Perry was removed from his cell in Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre at or around 8:30 pm Sunday evening, 15 June 2008. He was deposited at Quinte Detention Centre at or around 11:00 pm Sunday evening.


(5) At 1:09 pm Monday 16 June 2008 a fax marked “Urgent,” signed by Leslie Paine (AG’s office) and addressed to Perry Dunlop, was dispatched to the Quinte Detention Centre. The fax was given to and read by Perry Dunlop some time later. At that time and only then and through this means did Perry Dunlop learn that his hearing had been cancelled. There was no explanation as to why he had been hauled out of his Ottawa cell at dusk the prior evening and transferred to Quinte only to be informed within hours that his scheduled 17 June 2008 court appearance had been cancelled.


(6) Why did the AG’s office go directly to Perry rather than directly to his lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon? Is knowingly, and I would suggest wilfully, by-passing an inmate’s lawyer a routine practise of the Ontario Attorney General?


Some further thoughts:

(1) On 08 April 1997 Perry Dunlop deposited a raft of documents disclosing allegations of sexual abuse and/or cover-up against prominent men in Cornwall. The AG washed his hands.

(2) The office of the Attorney General is heavily implicated in the allegations of sex abuse and/or cover-up in Cornwall.

(3) The office of the Attorney General crafted the flawed mandate for the Cornwall Public Inquiry. The paedophile-friendly mandate omits the word “sex” and deftly side-steps any mention of the allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up which prompted calls for an inquiry.

(4) The office of the Attorney General selected Justice Normand Glaude to head the commission, this despite government assurance a commissioner would be chosen who has no connections to Cornwall. Justice Glaude has a number of Cornwall connections and is awash in real and/or perceived conflicts of interest.

(5) The office of the Attorney General sought and received full standing at the Cornwall Public Inquiry. It along with other institutions is there to defend its vested interests. The latter includes but is not limited to defending the questionable actions and/or non-actions of its Crowns attorney and other employees.

(6) The AG’s office issues Justice Glaude’s pay-cheque.

(7) The AG has been funding the Cornwall Police Service through the back door. That enables CPS to avoid asking for funding at the inquiry and thereby retain its high-priced legal team and unlimited funds- no inquiry caps imposed.

(8) Perry has been locked behind bars in virtual solitary confinement for four months. The AG’s office put him there.

(9) On 15 June 2008 Perry was transferred at dusk to Quinte Detention Centre. He would have arrived shortly before midnight. Then and only then did he know with certainty that he would not be appearing at Osgoode Hall in Toronto on 17 June 2008. At that point he understood that his 17 June 2008 court appearance would in Kingston.

(10) On or about 16 June 2008 Perry’s 17 June 2008 court appearance in Kingston was cancelled.

(11) The AG’s office knows that Perry’s lawyer is Lawrence Greenspon. Despite such knowledge at 1:09 pm 16 June 2008 Leslie Paine (AGs office) dispatched a fax marked “Urgent” to Perry at the Quinte Detention Centre. Perry was advised by Paine that his hearing was cancelled. Perry was advised by Paine that he could make ONE collect phone call to discuss the matter.


Is that what this is all about? Coercion? Is this another series of coercive tactics geared to break Perry?

It certainly has the look of it. It has the feel of it.

How far does this go?

How far can it go?

Is it legal for lawyers and judges to coerce, intimidate, and/or bully anyone in such fashion? Is it?

Whatever happened to: “It is essential for the success of this Inquiry that people come forward, free from any undue influence, promise or threat.”

Is the operative word there “undue”? Does the maltreatment of Perry Dunlop perhaps constitute due “influence, promise or threat”?

Another thought. Is this inquiry no more than a ruse to compel Perry to give evidence which could not otherwise be evoked if he were charged with a criminal offence such as obstruction of justice or perjury?

Example. Section 11(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

I recall after reading the mandate back in 2005 fearing the inquiry was out to cover-up the cover-up and to that end would make Perry the scape goat and find some way to put him behind bars. Further to that and without getting into detail I believe it is self evident to anyone watching or following the “inquiry” closely that the sights were set on Perry Dunlop as the ‘bad cop’ months and months ago.

Do you follow me? Perry has not been charged with an offence related to the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up. True enough that is not for lack of trying on the part of many, but, bottom line, he has not been charged. The inquiry has however served him a notice of alleged misconduct.

I’d say criminal charges are just around the corner.

Meanwhile, pending charges to satiate those crying for his blood and now howling to see it flow throughout the hallowed halls of the Weave Shed, the pressure is on to coerce Perry back to the Weave Shed to stand before his many accusers and detractors. He is in effect being compelled to be a witness in a proceeding against himself in relation to charges which are pending. And since he has not as yet been charged in relation to the scandal the Charter protection doesn’t apply.

This then is the last chance for those defending the “alleged”paedophiles of Cornwall and those who covered up on their behalf to extrapolate from the countless lies and spins and half-truths on the record elsewhere and load the inquiry record with “Perry Dunlop testified…”

It’s now or never.

As an aside, let’s never forget that Perry’s Charter rights have already been violated. I’m not talking here about Justice Glaude’s unilateral decision to waive Perry’s solicitor-client privilege, I’m talking about the one contempt of court charge initiated by Glaude which he ensured morphed into two charges and two convictions: one civil the other criminal.

Section 11(d) of the Charter reads:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Think about it. What independent and impartial tribunal? The one that heard the arguments to convict Perry coming from Justice Glaude? – a commissioner engulfed in Red Flags armed with a paedophile-friendly mandate who deduced without hearing a word of testimony that the “rumour” and “innuendo” circulating in Cornwall on his arrival are false ? And more arguments to convict coming from the office of the Attorney General? The AG’s office of all places!!

And with a conviction tailored to “to convince and coerce if necessary Mr. Dunlop to testify”?

What independent and impartial tribunal? Where’s the independence? Where’s the impartiality?

I see neither. To the contrary.

All because Perry said he would not answer questions. He would read his Will State into the record. He would not answer questions. He gave his reasons. Many times.

Now it’s coerce. coerce, coerce. Get Perry on the stand. Coerce him back to the Weave Shed and onto the stand. Do whatever it takes to get him there. Coerce him to testify against himself. For “the greater good.”

Is that what this is all about?

A little bribery? A lot of bullying? A lot of intimidation? And a whole lot of coercion? To force Perry to give evidence against himself? Evidence which has long been twisted and spun by lawyers and judges beyond all recognition?

Does that make sense? It does to me.

Whatever’s going on they are not letting up. How the outrage of the last few days fits into the package I have no idea, but it fits somewhere. It does.

I personally believe that as the remaining of days of Perry’s six month sentence dwindle the pressure to force Perry into the Weave Shed will mount. What form it will take I have no idea, but I do believe the pressure will mount. They want him on the stand, Badly. They want to pressure him while they still have hold of the “purge” hammer.

After early September: too late. Perry will be sentenced for criminal contempt. No purge hammer there.

Watch for more coercive tactics.

Meanwhile, get busy folks. If you care about children and justice, get busy. Perry needs you to speak up and speak out. He gave his all for children. He gave his all for victims.

It’s time to give back. He needs your help.

Sound Off! If you’ve written before, write again. If you’ve pho9ned before, do it again. Put their paedophile-friendly anti-whistleblower feet to the fire. Demand answers. Demand action. Get Perry out of their clutches and out of jail.

By the way, to my knowledge Perry did not and has not made that ONE collect phone call. His lawyer is Lawrence Greenspon.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Coerce, coerce, coerce

  1. AbsentObserver says:

    If the “powers that be” had put as much effort into investigating and trying alleged child molesters as they put into seeing Perry Dunlop and his family suffer, Cornwall would be a much safer town.


Leave a Reply