Shaking my head

Share Button

Perry has now spent 138 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.

****

NOTE: Perry’s birthday is 22 July 2008. He will be 47. Pick up a card now. Have Masses said for him. Swamp him with love – lots of cards, letters and notes of best wishes.

No gifts to the jail.  Aside sheets of writing paper, not allowed.  He does however need monies to purchase canteen supplies.  And to pay for his collect long distance calls home.   If financial gifts are sent to Helen to keep his canteen going and help defray phone costs he will have as happy a birthday as can expected under the circumstances.  Address and banking info here.

****

Note yesterday’s article in the Cowichan Citizen.  How heart-warming to see someone in the media pay heed to the Dunlops’ sorry plight.  “Mired in the system.”  So true.  There are a few minor errors – understandable with the growing complexity of the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up.  Perry actually found out that his court appearance was cancelled on 16 June 2008, the afternoon before his scheduled appearance.  In truth there’s little difference is there?  Early afternoon on the 16th was as much the 11th hour for Perry as the am of the 17th would have been.  The bottom line is it was cancelled.  He is still waiting to be told why.  He has no idea. None.  No one has had the decency or courtesy to tell him.

I see that Helen is urging supporters to call Lawrence Greenspon.  Good idea.  His phone number is:  613-288-2890.

****

Over two weeks since his return from the Quinte Detention Centre Perry is still waiting for the return of his meagre possessions – odds and ends such as his cherished mail, writing paper and addresses he had jotted down. Not impressive.

At shortly after 2 pm yesterday afternoon he was still waiting for two of his daily papers.  He eventually gets them.  No complaints from Perry on that count.  He figures better late than never. I however can’t understand what the problem is.  The papers are delivered early in the morning throughout Ottawa.  I’m sure the OCDC is no exception.  Is it simply a case of someone finding or making the time to walk the papers up to his cell?

Things like that I must say bother me.  Perry has little enough as it is.  He’s in virtual solitary confinement 24/7. No radio.  No TV. No computer.  No pen.  No notebook.  Surely it’s not overkill for someone to take a few moments to get his belongings back to him?   And surely the newspapers can reach his cell before mid afternoon?

On a brighter note, one batch of baby birds have flown the nest!  They’re all gone.  The nest is vacated.  Silent.  But, from another corner of the overhand high up over the yard –  lots of chirping.  Another batch of wee ones 🙂

Something I didn’t pass on earlier.  Canada Day behind bars was a different and difficult experience for Perry.  For years Perry was either playing with the police band on Canada Day, or playing a gig, or off to watch the fireworks with Helen and the girls.  None of that this year.  No music.  No fireworks.  Just four walls. Meanwhile out in BC Helen and the girls headed off to watch the fireworks.

Which reminds me:  I mentioned before that Heather is off to university this Fall.  So is Marlee!   That leaves Monica.   One more year I think?

****

I posted the transcripts from Father Maloney’s brief appearance at the Weave Shed.  Very brief!  I’m still shaking my head, both over brevity and content.

I will get Father Maloney’s page fixed up and do a recap tomorrow or Sunday, but for now a question:  Do the Roman Catholics in the Diocese of Alexandria- Cornwall know where their collection monies are going?  I mean really know?

Yesterday we heard that in September 2000 Father Maloney along with a bishop and five priests initiated legal action against several parties.  Maloney said the purpose of the lawsuit was “to stop the website.”

The Statement of Claim was massive – in the order of 136  pages.  There were eight defendants.  The action against some parties lasted three years.  The case against at least one if not two defendants was dismissed with costs.

How much did the lawsuit cost?  And who picked up the tab? Who picked up the tab to “stop the website.”

Maloney said it wasn’t he.  He has no idea who it was but he didn’t pay a penny.

David W. Scott and David Sheriff-Scott filed and handled the suit.  They were lawyers for the diocese.

Who paid them?  They don’t come cheap.  Who footed the bill to “stop the website”?  The diocese?

We also learned yesterday that David Sheriff-Scott went after the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on Maloney’s behalf .  Who picked up that tab for that one?   Again, it wasn’t Father Maloney.  Who was it? The diocese?

If it was in fact the diocese which looked after both the lawsuit and the intervention with Criminal Injuries Comp., how much was taken from diocesan coffers to finance those legal ventures?  I would guess the lawsuit alone must cost a sizable sum, what with payment of costs and things dragging on and with all those defendants it must have been a princely figure.

Who paid?  I do believe parishioners would do well to find out where the money they faithfully put into the collection plate Sunday after Sunday has been going. Those who are happy to finance one lawsuit after the other and fund the defence of one “alleged”clerical paedophile after the other, so be it.  Those who question or object, hang onto your money until there’s some accountability.

Some more questions:

(1)  In the past 15 years how much has the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall spent issuing notices of libel and/or suing?

(2)  Do parishioners get a break down of moneys spent initiating, defending legal actions?  If not, why not?

(3)  Why was Father David Ostler ( Father Gary Ostler’s brother) not a plaintiff in the action?

(4)  Is it really sheer happenstance that Justice Colin McKinnon went after Dick’s website in early 2001 and charged him with contempt of court?  Indeed by the third week of January 2001 McKinnon had accomplished in the courtroom what Larocque et al were paying big dollars to do, namely – according to Father Maloney – “stop the website.”  By end January Dick had been ordered to purge in the order of 50 articles from his site.  According to Dick most dealt with “police corruption and the bishop and his priests.”

****

One final note – Peter Wardle’s remarks when he passed on behalf of Citizens for Community Renewal.

MR. WARDLE: Father Maloney, my name is Peter Wardle and I’m here for an organization called Citizens for Community Renewal. We have no questions for you today, sir, but my client wanted you to know that we appreciate that — all you have been through and we thank you for coming forward.

‘They’ couldn’t come up with one single question? Not ONE?  I suppose as they say ‘the record speaks for itself.’

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Shaking my head

  1. Myomy says:

    With Perry mired in the system it is worth remembering that the system is doing all of this so that Perry and all of us who see this will have greater respect for the system. Well Glaude and all you judges who are doing this to Perry are you feeling the respectful vibes yet. How much more are you going to keep doing that doesn’t work, and is even counterproductive, to achieve your purpose? We know everything we need to know about the instututional response to allegations of sexual abuse in cornwall – punish the whistleblower not the pedophile abusers!

  2. RealityChecker says:

    Have you seen this yet???

    Posted on July 4, 2008

    Peter Alfred Shoniker (1985), of the City of Toronto, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a lawyer for:

    being convicted on August 18, 2006, of two offences under the Criminal Code, namely, money laundering and theft over $5,000, as follows:

    for unlawfully using, transferring the possession of, sending or delivering to, transporting, transmitting, altering, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with, in any manner and by any means, to Citibank, New York, New York, United States of America, Canadian currency in the amount of $750,000, with the intent to conceal or convert that property or proceeds of that property, knowing or believing that all or part of that property or proceeds of that property was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of the commission in Canada of the designated offence of theft, contrary to the Criminal Code; and
    unlawfully stealing $50,000 in Canadian currency, the property of a named individual, of a value exceeding $5,000, contrary to the Criminal Code.

    By Decision and Order dated June 25, 2008, the Hearing Panel ordered that:

    The licence of the Lawyer to practise law in Ontario as a barrister and solicitor is hereby revoked, effective immediately.
    (Counsel for the Society, Lesley Cameron / Counsel for the Lawyer, David M. Humphrey)

    Seems Mr. Humphrey has been busy!!! Is he not working for the Attorney General??? I thought he was representing the AG for the incarceration of Perry and yet he’s representing Shoniker before the law society too???

    …and he was a witness for the accused priests of Alfred???

    http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Humphrey&language=en&searchTitle=Ontario&path=/en/on/onsc/doc/1993/1993canlii5566/1993canlii5566.html

    GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

    “Lawyer gone bad”???

  3. RealityChecker says:

    If there is one thing I absolutely DESPISE – it’s DIRTY LAWYERS!!!

  4. prima facie says:

    Sylvia: Mr. Sherriff-Scott’s cross-examination and the testimony of Kevin Maloney was, “VERY DISCLOSING, VERY TELLING, VERY REVEALING” for me. I hope others, who know the facts, observed the “evasive” style and “leading”, style of Mr. Sherriff-Scott’s cross-examination.

    The effects of Kevin Maloney’s obvious, pre-hearing, “coaching”, was “clear and present”.

    There must be some lawyer somewhere wondering why everything was unfinished or never conducted in the first place. Why there were never, any judgements and never rulings on the “statements” and why there were so many delay tactics; i.e.) appeal, applications for judicial review, etc., etc.

    Someone, somewhere must be asking, why didn’t “they”-the “accused-witnesses-plaintiffs”, just volunteer to engage in thorough and competent “interviewes” regarding the “Statements” and get it over, therewith, providing an “official and legal” public document, filed in a court of law, for the news media and world to “exploit” on “their” behalf. The aforementioned would most likely have the effect of “dispelling” the so-called “rumour and innuendo” openly and publicly. Why were some or all of the “accused” not directly asked, “have you ever sexually abused young people in the context explained and described” in the “Statements” which appeared on the “website(s)” or otherwise?

    One major point is that in all these expensive lawsuits and applications for judicial revues (i.e. “Ontario Victims Compensation Board”, Dick Nadeau et al, etc.), financed by “who knows”,….nothing was ever accomplished by “them” to “legally” exonerate, vindicate or prove “innocence or guilt” of anyone. Nothing was “accomplished” to prove “their” allegations in each “count” of “their” litigation against Nadeau et al.

    As the transcripts disclose and the record shows, “NOTHING”, absolutely nothing, was accomplished to prove allegations written in “alleged victim” and/or “actual victim” statements were false or true, despite what counsel and other “characters”, attempted to convince the world in news media press releases or interviews, (in the circa), utilizing legalese and undisclosed personal interpretation, as a veiled attempt the represent, purported “fact”.

    There is a big difference between dismissal or withdrawal of an “action”, or, being unable to “FIND” evidence sufficient enough to warrant criminal charges, versus,…”the “Statements” are proven “false” or other “absolute” declarations some counsel and news media promoted. Public opinion forming?

    THE only “accomplishment” was to temporarily a-) intimidate people and suppress the information, b-)temporarily oppress people like Dick Nadeau. As the transcripts and the record discloses, no “monies” were ever recovered by the “accused-witnesses-plaintiffs” named in the litigation(s). Someone et al, paid dearly for nothing.

    The “information in the Statements” has never been proven “false or true”, despite the attempt to “spin” otherwise. THIS is why, it is so important to “GET THE FACTS”, visit court rooms, extract study and purchase “the facts” as you recently did Sylvia. ANYONE can do it, even the “mainstream”, but they don’t.

    However, regarding the “Statements” and the expensive litigations, it is my belief, most of the “authors” of the “Statements” have been “compensated” in exchange for their “stipulated conditional, silence”, including the withdrawal of “claims”.

    I wonder if “CCR” and President Paul Scott really represent the wishes of the majority of the community?

  5. RealityChecker says:

    So….

    1. David M. Humprey REPRESENTS an adult victim of clerical sexual abuse in periphary legal matters (law society hearing)related to criminal activities the adult victim (SHONIKER) gets himself tangled up in.

    2. David M. Humphrey’s name comes up in a 1993 trial related to a publication ban on the CBC airing of “The Boys of St. Vincent” (this ban is attempted prior to the completion of trials of the Christian Brothers – the ban was imposed). Shoniker represented the Christian Brothers. David M.Humphreys is actually called as a WITNESS FOR THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS. He is the barrister asked to view “The Boys of St. Vincent” and give recommendations as to the airing prior to the finishing of the trials.

    “The applicants’ own witness, David Humphrey, analyzed the film and concluded that if the mini-series were broadcast as planned, there would be a real and substantial risk of the impossibility of empanelling an impartial jury; however, when cross-examined, he indicated that with a jury selection process which eliminated those who had seen the film, only a “lingering risk” of the impossibility of having a fair trial remained.”

    3. David M. Humphreys is presently acting as special prosecutor for the office of the Attorney General. He is also doing the bidding for the Commissioner and Council of the Cornwall Public Inquiry involving himself in the incarceration of Perry Dunlop for contempt.

    David M. Humphrey stated in a media scrum “the objective here as I’ve said throughout is to convince and coerce if necessary Mr. Dunlop to testify if he maintains his refusal to testify and he has to face the consequences and appropriate penalties have to be imposed.”

    “The imposition of penalties involves more than just Mr. Dunlop and his personal situation. It’s important that public denunciation be effective and that general deterrence be effective through the imposition of appropriate penalties.”

    THIS IS NOT A CONFLICT????

    The judiciary, politicians and powers that be do not see this as a conflict???

    I guess the AG and every other lawyer in this province knows WHO to call in when the going gets rough – huh???

  6. prima facie says:

    Re: Shoniker: Glad to see there is at least a public record disclosing the information you have provided “RealityChecker”.

    The “roadblocks” in trying to pursue and reveal these “cons” (discussed in “Lawyers Gone Bad”), is enormous. Each securities commission in (Ontario-British Columbia)have to be continuously inspired to “do anything”. Eventually they all “wash their hands”. Even the R.C.M.P., who have a special division, “can” or elect to do little and “was their hands”.

    Of course, I am currently involved in an “investigation” regarding monies I have “lost” in, what I perceive as a significant fraud. Briefly, a stock traded on the TSX-V, supposedly operating-regulated out of Vancouver, has quickly been acquired, unofficially, by a “company” trading “OTC-Pink Sheets” in New York. The “original” company cannot be found but the acquiring company has NOW advertised its head office as being in Hong Kong….all of this occurred since I/we, intiated complaints.
    Several of the “high profile” “Order of Canada” type law firms and other personalities mentioned in “Philip Slayton’s”, “Lawyers Gone Bad”, are involved in “my/our” action discussed herein.

    To “cut” to the chase, from my perspective, the question is, “when” will Shoniker “mitigate” his “current or reported status”, resulting from the reported disciplinary action “RealityChecker” refers to. Also,”where” will he “strat-up” again.

    UNFORTUNATELY, people like me will be “represented” to be unsophisticated, high-risk investors. This is despite our own education and training in the “industry”. We will be characterized as investing in the TSX-V, looking for “the big win”, but cry-babies, when we lose. FOR the majority, we, “lose” our investment in this type of untoward “professionalism” and the “commissions”, politicians et al, representing that they are there to protect us, in fact, “have no teeth”; they do or can not not help the average joe.
    Finally: I urge ALL people to vigorously, review and “protect” your investments; especially over the next 5-15 years. Very serious times.

  7. RealityChecker says:

    BTW…anyone know if Leduc is going to be represented by Skurka when he appears at the Inquiry???

    Lets see how the media deals with this one… cause….

    Lawyer Steven Skurka is the legal analyser for CTV News (gets paid by CTV for his analysis). Lawyer Paula Todd is someone else who does the same thing for CTV. So in other words Leduc would have the media in his back pocket by way of his lawyer.

    Lets see what happens.

  8. Sylvia says:

    To RealityChecker (#8)

    I think as far as Leduc and Skurka are concerned Skurka is long gone, but, doesn’t mean favours won’t be called and/or given. He may indeed resurface to help Canadians understand what is really happening in Cornwall and how a decent lawyer just trying to do his job to the best of his abilities fell prey to the evil wiles of Perry Dunlop?

    I recall that Skurka did work for the Ontario AG sometime before he became part of Leduc’s “dream team.” Another in the endless list of real and percieved conflicts in the Cornwall sex absue scandal and cover-up.

    Watch for Margaret Wente of the Toronto Globe & Mail to weigh in again. She seems to have a big heart for Jacques Leduc

    http://www.theinquiry.ca/Wente_080301.hide.php

    and a kinship to Claude McIntosh

    http://www.theinquiry.ca/Wente_100707.hide.php

    I noted in the past that she re-surfaced out of the blue after a lengthy spell of media silence

    http://www.theinquiry.ca/wordpress/?p=558

  9. Myomy says:

    I like that one prima facie – “Order of Canada” type law firms. With the inclusion of Morgentaler in the order of Canada and honorable former recipients returning their medals so as to not be associated with this group the ” Order of Canada” is becoming synonymous with scum. The ” Order of Canada ” lawyers are well represented in the persecution of Perry Dunlop so it all fits.

  10. RealityChecker says:

    Well, Leduc used Skurka as late as 2005 trying to get his $140,000 in legal expences written off as a tax write off with CCRA.

    http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/2005/2005tcc96/2005tcc96.html

    Come on …legal expenses in criminal proceedings as a tax write off and income for his buisness???

    As far as I’m concerned any lawyer attempting to do that is playing “the law”. It’s disgusting!

    That in itself is MISUSE of the legal system…but of course DIRTY LAWYERS know how to use the system to their advantage, know WHO to use and have the money to play these games!!!

  11. prima facie says:

    To keep this post short (believe it or not)
    “Digging” and “connecting the dots” takes enrgy, time and money. But, we know there are many dots to connect.

    We all know “society” is in serious trouble, even though each of us have differences of opinions, we do have similar concerns and may even agree in some matters.
    THE point is, perhaps “we” but defintely “other” people believe “concerned citizens” must “get involved and become active”, or “they” will leave us with nothing and imprisoned like Perry Dunlop.

  12. Sylvia says:

    True prima facie. We must persevere and by the grace of God and through the efforts of many leave this country a safer place for children, and a safer place for those who, like Perry, are couragaeous enough to come to the defence of those who can not defend themselves against the manipulative wiles of perverted beings who prey on children.

    The dots are being connected. One by one.

    And there’s a totally new piece of information re Jacques Leduc. He tried to write off his legal fees!!! Under other cirmcumstances I might not beleive it 🙂

    Justice Chadwick did his absolute utmost to ensure Leduc’s legal fees were taken care of. He awarded him costs – I dont’t recall off the top how much, but I do recall the whole legality of that one was called into question.

    I think $140,000 falls far shy of the mark for Leduc’s legal bills. The Leduc trial ran 6 weeks. The ‘dream team’ must have cost in the order of $1,000/hr. And then there was the appeal to the Supreme Court – very costly to go to the Supreme Court I am told. And then back to Cornwall for trial #2. And all the legal travel to and fro between Toronto and Cornwall, and the costs of putting the dream team up at Nav Can. I think $140 is the tip of the iceberg.

    But imagine trying to recoup legal fees as a business expense?!!! Takes a lawyer to come up with that one 🙂

  13. RealityChecker says:

    Don’t forget….Leduc had INSURANCE through being a member of the Upper Canada Law Society that would offset his legal costs too! Malpractise Insurance is all part and parcel of of being a lawyer and I would suggest it would have kicked in – in this instance. How much did the Upper Canada Law Society’s Insurance payout???

    I’m questioning whether Mr. Leduc was trying to “double dip.” Certainly looks like he was trying to do something fishy – with trying to recoup $140,000 as a business expense that would.t the Society’s insurance carriers cover?

  14. RealityChecker says:

    http://www.lawpro.ca/insurance/insurance_type/Lawpro_policy.asp#Professional

    Woops….Doesn’t look like the insurance policy covers criminal acts.

Leave a Reply

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