Whither the sword?

Share Button

Perry Dunlop is a political prisoner. He has spent 149 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.


Perry will 47 on 22 July 2008. If you haven’t done so already there is still time to get a card or note off in the mail:

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4

Monetary gifts can be sent to Helen or deposited at a bank. Perry needs money for his canteen supplies. As we all know only too well Perry can’t work, Helen’s on disability and money doesn’t grow on trees.


Perry Update

Perry was up in the middle of night peering thru his little window to watch the thunder storm rage outside. I think it missed us – or I slept right through it. I hear it was a dandy!

Yard time today – it was raining but he enjoyed the time outdoors – he always does. There was no sound from the bird’s nest – hard to hear with the rain. Are the birds gone, or is just a case of not being able to hear for the sound of the rain? He will watch and listen tomorrow.

Supper this evening was a square fillet of white fish, rice and some sort of diced squash. The fish turned into a fillet of fish sandwich with tartar sauce. The rice was eaten. The squash was left untouched  An apple and oatmeal and raisin cookie for dessert.

Lunch was soup, noodles with a tomato and hamburger sauce and the ver-present cubed potatoes. No salad today. The soup replaces the salad.

Breakfast was Frosty Flakes cereal. Time for an Elvis sandwich! Perry thinks – hopes – that tomorrow will be a hot breakfast of eggs and bacon 🙂

Do you remember some time back I mentioned Perry was craving tomatoes? Well, a few days ago he had two slices of tomatoes. He sprinkled them with Italian sauce, a shake of pepper, and savoured every bite!

CIA is still in the pod. I was just asking about him when our time ran out. I did get enough of an answer to know that CIA has switched from Biblical themes to Rock N’Roll. What exactly that entails I don’t know – will try to remember to ask during our next conversation.


The Inquiry

My webcast feed was down for about 45 minutes yesterday (Thursday, 17 July). I could get anything else ion the net – not the inquiry webcast. I assumed it was down for everyone, but not so. I have discovered others were getting their feed while mine was down, and this morning had word from two different people in different corners of Ontario who had the feed yesterday but lost it this morning – and this morning I had not problem. Seems like rotating webcast brownouts 🙂 Frustrating when it happens – thankfully testimony was in English so at least I have the luxury of doing catch up by reading the transcripts.

With the feed down yesterday I missed a good part of Dallas Lee’s cross-examination – just caught up on that now and still poring through the previous days to clarify some odds and ends in my own mind.

Anyway, Jacques Leduc has finished testifying (Friday, 18 July 2008). Five calendar days on the stand for him. Seven for Garry Guzzo. Eight for Ron Leroux without any cross-examination. Twelve for David Silmser with a little cross-examination. Interesting! Where’s the focus?

Today’s wrap up saw a little house-keeping and tucking in of loose ends by Maire Henein (Leduc) and Sheriff-Scott (diocese and Larocque), and a little butting of heads between Henein and Karen Jones, Marie Henein and David-Sheriff-Scott. The latter started to show that his ultimate loyalties lie with his client Eugene Larocque. Sheriff-Scott set to a little housecleaning of matters whereby any smidgen of Leduc testimony might inadvertently cast Larocque in a bad light. I say inadvertently because I truly had the sense Leduc went out of his way to ensure that none of the muck falling from the $32,000 pay-off clings to Larocque.

Leduc presumably fell on his sword back in 1994 saying he as legal counsel for the diocese didn’t see the illegal clause in the September 1993 Full Release and Undertaking Not to Disclose because he had erred by not checking the signed document after the fact. It’s much the same story now, except it strikes me it is not so much a case of Leduc falling on his sword for the bishop’s greater good as it is a case of Leduc placing the now deceased Malcolm MacDonald firmly atop the sword. Perhaps indeed that is where Malcolm belongs. My question is does he belong there alone? For example I do believe at the very least it is fair game to ask: what about Charlie? If the sword goes into the deceased Malcolm should it not go into his very much alive client Charlie with equal vigour? And if perchance Charlie did not approve the illegal clause in any way shape or form why then why did he never give Malcolm a public dressing down?

We won’t hear from Charlie. We should, but we won’t. He has the privilege of an inquiry bye given to every real and “alleged” paedophile of Cornwall. He doesn’t want to testify. He doesn’t have to testify. Charlie’s “story” it seems is as insignificant to the inquiry and its mandate as are the veracity of the sex abuse allegations of the real and alleged victims of Cornwall.

Perry, well Perry’s a different matter. We won’t hear from him the Weave Shed either. That’s why he’s in jail. We all know only too well now that in as much as this inquiry is presumably about the “institutional response” it’s really all about Perry.

Anyway, I’m going to call it a day. I will first share this one remarkable piece of information/testimony regarding Leduc’s practise of law in Quebec, or at least his dealings on behalf of a C-69, a Cornwall school teacher with sex abuse allegations against a priest in Quebec.

There are two sets of quotes:

“C-69 advised when in Montreal, she was also assaulted by a priest but that he been looked after. She went on to say that she was paid $5,000 for treatment and that her good friend, Jacques Leduc, had helped her get that. She has been a friend of Leduc’s for years.

They started school together and after Grade School went to Grade 13 together at St. Lawrence High School. Leduc had advised her that she could not proceed criminally due to time limit of two years in the Province of Quebec. Leduc was acting as counsel for the Alexandria-Cornwall Diocese at the time. C-69 paid by a Diocese from Quebec had to sign documents that she would never talk about abuse from Sherbrooke priest ever again.”


“Bishop Larocque also discussed with her that if she ever talked about abuse he would see to it that she was fired from her teaching position with the Catholic Separate School Board. C-69 disclosed to Jacques Leduc everything that had happened to her because he was such a good friend.”


“C-69 advised that she received $5,000 for therapy after being abused by a priest in Quebec. An arrangement was drawn up by Jacques Leduc who is her lawyer and close friend since kindergarten to have her sign an agreement not to pursue matter criminally and, as a result, received $5,000 for therapy. Leduc allegedly advised C-69 that there was a two-year statute of limitations to report sexual abuse in Quebec, and this influenced C- 69 to settle. C-69 also advised that in early ’90s, she advised Bishop Larocque of the major abuse and, at that time, Larocque threatened C-69 by saying if she disclosed major abuse, she would be terminated as a Catholic Board teacher. C-69 states that she is very influenced by Larocque.”

According to Dallas Lee (Victims Group) a note on a typed version of one document states:

“Had to sign documents that she would never talk about the abuse from Sherbrooke priest ever again.”

(Incidentally and for the record, Leduc denies he ever told C-69 there was a 2-year-statute of limitations in Quebec. )

Henein later did damage control. She managed to pull the standard defence ploy of discrediting and undermining the victim’s credibility at all costs by slipping onto the record that, according to Leduc, the now deceased C-69 had “very significant” mental health issues.

I do hope C-69’s family is aware of what was done here. A dirty shot below the belt I’d say. Is there anyone in a position to defend this woman? I hope so. I hope and pray the family get wind of this. I admit I know nothing of the woman’s allegations or mental well-being, but I do know the defence tactic: the victim is deranged therefore it is absolutely impossible that he or she was abused or assaulted or whatever by a priest.

Why Leduc would barter the grand sum of $5,000 for a mentally deranged woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by a Roman Catholic priest is as far beyond me as understanding how a mentally deranged woman would come up with a story that her lawyer told her she couldn’t pursue criminal charges against a priest because a non-existent two-year statue of limitations had expired.

Anyway, Henien closed off the day thanking Glaude for starting the day bright and early to accommodate her:

MS. HEINEN: I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I know we started early today and that was to accommodate me and my son who’s throwing milk on his head in protest. So I wanted to thank you for that indulgence.

On that note I will indeed call it a day! I will carry on with Leduc’s testimony over the weekend.

FYI, interesting information re insurance and Leduc’s $282,000+ legal bills on the blogs

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Whither the sword?

  1. RealityChecker says:

    Did you know the Dunlops could get FREE legal service in Ontario???

    Thru this organization……

    It’s a charitable organization for those who for whatever reason don’t qualify for legal aid or don’t have the means to pay for a lawyer. It’s interesting reading thru this site as to what they can offer. However, the public cannot acsess the member’s site as to WHO actually is doing or volunteering pro bono services. Just be aware that the Upper Canada Law Society endorses this and this service works in conjunction with LawPRO (the lawyer’s insurers)…so my assumption would be that there would be payment for these pro bono services from the insurers. I obviously can’t find specific proof of this though – cause I can’t acsess the member site.

    Now, this Pro Bono Law Ontario has set with specific PROJECTS…

    Good idea!

    However, scroll down to “Appeals Assistant Project (Federal Court of Appeal, Ontario Court of Appreal, Divisional Court)

    This is where the Dunlops could get some help and pro bono services…

    I’ll copy and paste…..

    Free legal services are available to eligible unrepresented litigants before:

    Ontario Court of Appeal (civil and some limited family)
    Divisional Court (civil and some limited family)
    Federal Court of Appeal (all matters)
    It is important to note that this is NOT a lawyer referral service. We rely on volunteers who may or may not be able to take on qualified cases.

    Even if you propose to represent yourself in court, it can be important to obtain legal advice on whether you have valid grounds on which to proceed. If you cannot afford the services of a lawyer, you may be able to obtain assistance from The Advocates’ Society Appeals Assistance Project. This project provides pro bono legal advice and representation to qualified unrepresented litigants.

    In order to qualify for the program:

    you must have been refused legal aid;
    you must meet financial eligibility guidelines;
    your case must have some reasonable prospect of success; and
    you must be willing to waive solicitor-client privilege to allow your pro bono counsel to speak to your previous counsel, if any, about the merits of your case and any other matters relating to your case.
    How the Project Works:

    The Appeals Assistance Projects relies on a roster of qualified volunteer lawyers who represent litigants like you at the Ontario Court of Appeal, Divisional Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal.

    These lawyers will represent you on a pro bono basis, which means that they will not charge you for their work. You will, however, be responsible for any disbursements, such as court fees, photocopying expenses, etc.

    1. When your case has reached perfection (all necessary documents have been filed) you should contact the project coordinator.

    2. The coordinator will conduct a detailed intake with you to determine if you are eligible for pro bono representation.

    3. If you qualify, the coordinator will match you with a pro bono lawyer. (Note that there is no guarantee that a lawyer will be found for you since all participating lawyers do so on a voluntary basis.)

    4. Once you receive the name of a pro bono lawyer, it will be your responsibility to contact them and arrange an initial consultation meeting. The goal of this meeting is to determine if the lawyer will be able to represent you and ensure you are comfortable with this lawyer.

    5. When you agree to enter into a solicitor-client relationship with the pro bono lawyer, you will be asked to sign a retainer agreement that outlines:

    the kind of work your lawyer has agreed to do for you,
    that the lawyer has waived their hourly billing rate, and
    that you will be responsible for disbursements.
    For more information about the Appeals Assistance Project, contact us at:

    phone: 416-977-4448 ext. 231
    email: appealsproject@pblo.org


    Look WHO is on the BOARD for this charitable organization and their projects….


    See a Familiar name as the CHAIR???

    Oh that’s not all….

    The Appeals Assistance Project that I copied and pasted above???

    Well – the Advocacy Society was given that project and task.


    Now WHO would be involved with The Advocacy Society?

    Well, look WHO is an officer….


    …and look WHO is a director…


    I can tell you right now Sylvia….I am of the opinion the lawyers are using this organization and funding to get THEIR services paid for. Someone was asking HOW Skurka and Henien were being paid??? Would it be possible that Skurka and Henien found a loophole thru this organization? It’s suppose to be for someone like Perry – yet it appears Jacques Leduc is possibly getting the benefit of this and certainly NOT Perry and Helen Dunlop. I’m sure you can figure out WHY!

  2. RealityChecker says:

    Lets go a little further with this….

    It is mandatory practising lawyers in Ontario have liability insurance.

    By-law 6 of the Upper Canada Law Society under lawyer regulation states such…

    There are also provisions about this mandarory insurance in Rule 6 of Rules of Professional misconduct as copied and pasted below….

    Notice of Claim

    6.09 (2) A lawyer shall give prompt notice of any circumstance that the lawyer may reasonably expect to give rise to a claim to an insurer or other indemnitor so that the client’s protection from that source will not be prejudiced.


    The introduction of compulsory insurance has imposed additional obligations upon a lawyer, but these obligations must not impair the relationship and duties of the lawyer to the client. The insurer’s rights must be preserved. There may well be occasions when a lawyer believes that certain actions or the failure to take action have made the lawyer liable for damages to the client when, in reality, no liability exists. Further, in every case a careful assessment will have to be made of the client’s damages arising from the lawyer’s negligence. Many factors will have to be taken into account in assessing the client’s claim and damages. As soon as a lawyer becomes aware that an error or omission may have occurred, that may reasonably be expected to involve liability to the client for professional negligence, the lawyer should take the following steps.

    1. Immediately arrange an interview with the client and advise the client that an error or omission may have occurred, that may form the basis of a claim by the client against the lawyer.

    2. Advise the client to obtain an opinion from an independent lawyer and that, in the circumstances, the first lawyer might no longer be able to act for the client.

    3. Subject to rule 2.03 (Confidentiality), inform the insurer of the facts of the situation.

    4. Co-operate fully and as expeditiously as possible with the insurer in the investigation and eventual settlement of the claim.

    5. Make arrangements to pay that portion of the client’s claim that is not covered by the insurance immediately upon completion of the settlement of the client’s claim.

    LPIC (Lawyers Professional Indenmty Company) or LawPRO (same thing) is the Upper Canada Law Society Insurance carrier. LPIC is wholly owned by the Upper Canada Law Society.

    Annual premiums are expensive….
    Base premium is $2,300 per insured lawyer LICENSEE, plus any Real Estate and/or Civil Litigation Transaction Levy Surcharges which are applied as premiums.
    That is just FOR THE BASICS. More expensive with more coverage. Standard deductable is $5000 per claim (again – just THE BASICS).

    HOWEVER….(and it would take a lawyer to figure this out)….it seems there is a way lawyers can get exempt from paying their annual insurance premiums.

    For detailed info on exemptions see this…

    This is the shorter form….

    In other words if the lawyer is preforming work for a non-profit charitable organization they get their insurance premiums exempt.

    Well isnt that convenient…..

    Cause Pro Bono Law Ontario is set up as a CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION.

    Who ever is doing work under any of the projects under Pro Bono Law Ontario is getting their liability premiums paid for. We cant find out WHO cause we arent lawyers and cant acsess the member site or directory.

    Theres so much more to this but as Slyvia so eloquently states at times…

    Enough for now….

  3. RealityChecker says:

    Uh….before I put this away for awhile. What exactly did Perry Dunlop say about COVER UP and NO FAITH in the justice system???


  4. RealityChecker says:

    FROM TRANSCRIPTS JULY 18 starting at page 74. Sherriff-Scott’s cross examination of Leduc…this is HOW the back room deals are done…

    May 08,1995, is a letter to Dennis Power from Peter Annis –

    SHERRIFF- SCOTT…”this letter was copied to you at this juncture because it — Mr. Power’s retainer was not yet confirmed; correct?”
    SHERRIFF-SCOTT….”Okay so Mr. Annis communicated with him in advance of your actual retention of him through LPIC?”


    SHERRIFF_SCOTT…”And he communicated with you the draft statement of claim to you. You were put on notice – ”


    SHERRIFF-SCOTT…”–by this letter — by the Diosese that at some point may seek idemnification from you”

    LEDUC…”Now I recall it”

    COMMISSIONER…”I’m sorry”

    LEDUC…”Now I recall it”


    SHERRIF-SCOTT…”And subsequently you did retain Mr. Power through your ptofessional liability insurer though?”

    LEDUC…”I did”

    Next is a letter from Power to Annis – September 07, 1995

    SHERRIFF-SCOTT…”By this juncture, September, 1995, you had retained Mr. Power through your professonal liability insurers and he had confirmed his instructions to accept a pleading on behalf of the Diosese against you”


    Next is a letter from Annis to Power – October 19. 1995

    SHERRIFF-SCOTT…”Your counsel was being served with the third party issued by the Diosese against you”

    LEDUC…”That’s correct”

    Next Sherriff-Scott present the “Trial Brief” (DS vs Father Charles MacDonald, Bishop Aldophe Proulx and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. for the Diosese of Alexandria-Cornwall in Ontario)

    SHERRIFF-SCOTT…”This is the third party claim issued against you by the Diosese?”

    LEDUC…”It is”

    Sherrif-Scott goes on to question Leduc about some specific statements made in this large document and and asks him whether he agrees ot not with these statements – Leduc agrees – but we aren’t told or can see WHAT Leduc has agreed with.

    Sherriff-Scott then produces another letter between Annis and Power dated January 13, 1997. Power TO Annis.

    SHERRIFF-SCOTT… “Thank you. This offer was communicated on your behalf and through your insurer , to the Diosese.”

    LEDUC…”It was, yes”

    Another letter is produced by Sherriff-Scott dated January 31, 1997. Power TO Annis.

    SHERRIF-SCOTT…”And this I submit sir, when you read it you’ll agree with me this was the basis of resolution of claim by the Diosese against you in these matters?”

  5. RealityChecker says:

    Regardless of the $32,000 payout from the Diosese, Bryce Geoffrey did end up actually suing the Diosese et al (on behalf of David Silmser) for further damages. Silmser sued for $600,000 in general damages. As a result Leduc was third partied by the Diosese. We haven’t been told how much Silmser actually settled for. Don’t doubt there was a confidentiality agreement in the settlement. Most civil suits/settlements would have a standard confidentiality agreement between parties on settlement (and I don’t mean a confidentiality agreement like the original HUSH agreement). Regardless, I think Mr. Sheriff -Scott might have subtly breached any confidentiality agreement in the factual Silmser civil suit by telling us in an open hearing how much Silmser sued for. (David – I hope you got every penny of the $600,0000!!!)

    Dennis Power – his name comes up in cross-examination at the Inquiry. He’s known as the professional liability lawyer for LPIC in town – doing 90% of defence work for lawyers who were sued as per Mr. Sheriff-Scott in the testimony. In other words Dennis Power at that time was a Liability Lawyer working not only in private practice (Nelligan Power) but also on behalf of the Lawyers Professional Idenmity Company (LPIC or LawPRO).

    Jacques Leduc did retain Dennis Power to represent him in the third party action brought by the Diosese against him in the Silmser suit.

    However, Power was retained through Leduc’s professional liability insurers – LPIC.

    Leduc didn’t just phone up Power and say – I need you to represent me in this 3rd party action. It was the LPIC that retained Power to act on Mr. Leduc’s behalf. I don’t really think Leduc had a choice and had to agree.

    Interestingly though, according to Sheriff-Scott, Peter Annis and Dennis Power were communicating back and forth “in advance of your actual retention of him through LPIC” and Leduc was apparently copied on correspondence between the two on May 08, 1995. Mr. Sherriff-Scott says this is where Leduc was put “on Notice” by the Diosese – by him being cppied in the correspondence between Power and Annis. Now – what I have a hard time with is WHY would Power and Annis be communicating back and forth PRIOR to Leduc actually retaining Power through the LPIC and how was this correspondence and letter from May 08 between the two in effect – putting Mr. Leduc on notice??? I had to even question WHO Annis was and what did he have to do with anything. We already know Power was working on behalf of the LPIC doing 90% of defence work for lawyers who are sued (Sherriff-Scott tells us that) but again – what is the significance of this correspondence between Annis and Power prior to Power being retained by Leduc thru his idemnity insurers (LPIC)?

    Google Peter Annis – worked for the Dept. Of Justice, certified specialist in civil litigation with the Upper Canada Law Society, he’s a Mediator and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Specialist, tried running for the federal Tories for Ottawa Centre …AND….he represented Bishop Proulx and the Diosese in another civil matter – John MacDonald’s suit.

    So we have a lawyer who has been representing Bishop Proulx and the Diosese of Alexandria-Cornwall in previous civil litigation with one of the victims and this lawyer is corresponding with (Not retained as of yet) lawyer who works on behalf of the LPIC. So I gather Annis is the one who would have made the back room deal that Power be retained by Leduc??? He was communicating with Power about this situation and third party claim PRIOR to the LPIC and Leduc actually retaining Mr. Power. WHY??? Why would Annis be involved PRIOR to the retention of Mr Power??? He obviously wanted Power to represent Leduc. It looks like the decision to use Dennis Power was ALREADY made prior to Leduc even being put on notice by the Diosese. What’s Dennis Power ‘s connection to the Diocese??? Annis is HIGH PROFILE – google him – he has connections and sway!!! And Leduc got Power. Yet…there is absolutely NO MENTION – no where – where Father Charles MacDonald or his lawyers are mentioned in any of these backroom deals. The suits involved him too!!! How did he get out of that?

    I think it’s obvious as Sherriff-Scott shows us – Power and Annis were doing the backroom dealings to resolve the third party suit brought about by the Diosese towards Jacques Leduc. You can tell by this correspondence. How much was paid by the LPIC???

  6. RealityChecker says:

    People talk about cops protecting cops??? Cops investigation their own???

    Well…we have a good case here of lawyers protecting their own!!!

    It was Mr. Leduc’s responsibility to notify and put his insurers on notice – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!

  7. RealityChecker says:

    Rule 6 of RULES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT as copied and pasted below….

    Notice of Claim

    6.09 (2) A lawyer shall give prompt notice of any circumstance that the lawyer may reasonably expect to give rise to a claim to an insurer or other indemnitor so that the client’s protection from that source will not be prejudiced.

  8. prima facie says:

    David W. Scott, Q.C. received a telephone call sometime in or about 1995 from the Papal Nuncio demanding David W. Scott et al, represent the Papal Nuncio’s concerns.

    David W. Scott and therewith David Sherriff-Scott were with the Law Firm “Scott & Aylen” (search, “way back machine”).

    Despite recent Inquiry testimony implying Sherriff-Scott et al only began representing some of “the accused” in or about 2001, make no mistake about it (another play on words), “they” and “THEIR assigned SURROGATES” have been involved since the “beginning”. However, “Scott & Aylen” was part of a national-larger merger, forming in the 1998, 1999, 2000 circa, “Borden, Ladner, Gervais et al”. So, the play on words…”Borden, Ladner, Gervais, et al” technically didn’t get involved until in or about 2001.

    I personally, have had the unfortunate experience of interracting with many of the “partners, associates, etc.”, across the country, since in or about 1976, regarding, many different matters.

    In addition, I have interacted with other lawyers and/or their “Firms” (present at the Inquiry) and many of the same firms, as mentioned in “Lawyers Gone Bad”, surrounding a variety of issues, since in or before the 1970’s.

    “RealityChecker’s” info. is very good, but forgive me, I have “feet” of files, persuing these exact routes and others, seeking help, assistance, advice, direction, etc. BUT listed on the website is so important!! People must wake-up!!

    SEARCHING for exactly what is purported to be available to people, as represented by the “sources” and getting close to “receiving some help”……well, good luck.

    IN almost all cases, I end up filing complaints against them …this since 1976…..and after years of evasiveness by them.
    I was taken on as a client by one lawyer…”a real fighter for the people.” When “he” learned of the issue, (pension fraud and allegations of misappropriation of pension funds-anti-combines investigation, etc.) and the “principles” involved, he fled…”for the greater good?…recipients of “Order of Canada?””…It is my opinion Lawyer Greenspon pulled a similar “move” against Perry Dunlop lately. WHERE was the “mainstream” on that story?

    I fear it is too late for Canadians. (conditioned to be complacent and apathetic regarding important issues. Self-serving, greed, immediate gratification, narcisistic, etc.,, “THEY” have complete control of everything…(paranoid, cymical???), I think not.

    AS you research all these advocacy groups, etc., etc., which purport to be willing and able to help or advise, you will see where the one’s who can really help, either have no money, depend on Gov’t funding in part or in whole and therwith feel obligated or are obligated to “follow a protocol” in order to stay solvent….or..have been sued, etc.

    You will get nothing; especially if you do not follow their agenda, protocol, standard operations manual or advice; despite whether you KNOW or SUSPECT the advice is positive, negative, misleading or deceiving, etc.

    I have learned “organizations-agencies”, which we are led to believe “may be able to help”, etc., have the same group of people, associates or are people who share similar “Interests” as the ones, i.e.)legal advisors, board members, etc., etc., referenced in “RealityChecker’s” post.

    THESE “people” organizations have “no teeth” or will disuade your complaints or will attempt to mitigate, negotiate your complaints.

    BELIEVE ME, PERRY DUNLOP can get all the help and $$$ needed, if he only agrees to “play the game”, “for the greater good”. “The system” will decide who will be a hero and what price will be paid.

    DUNLOPS case will be used/precedent setting, to “control” future “whistleblowers”. There will be many, as “times” get very tough, over the next five to twenty years, as anticipated. WHEN “whistleblowers” or other complainants get “as far” as Dunlop has, they will be “silenced” and ostracized. The lapdog, mainstream news media, will only publish the “words” of the “ruling class”.

    Other “false pretenders” include, “Canadian Labour Relations Board”, “Ontario Labour Relations Board”, “Canadian Industrial Relations Board”, “Ontario Securities Commission”, “British Columbia Securities Commission”, “Investment Dealers Associations of Canada” and similar “agents-bodies”. They will remain, silent and useless as $$$$ are misappropriated. OMBUDSMEN, assessment and investigation groups “bodies” will continue to be “toothless” and “we” will be asked to accept one cent on a dollar for our retirement investments, which are “missing”….OR receive nothing. A public Inquiry will be commissioned.
    THE common denominator here, the same lawyers, law firms, groups with similar concerns, are involved in BOLD PRINT!!…”wealth is not lost, it is simply diverted”.

    SO WHAT can anyone do? ANSWER: Follow every step, keep notes, tape record conversations, research.
    Conduct your queries as if it was expected to “do something good”…keep a paper trail of every step.

  9. Myomy says:

    All of this information gets me thinking perhaps the diocese and Fr Charlie wanted to dodge the criminal consequences of Fr Charlies abuse and put it in the agreement with the knowledge and consent of Leduc. When the other lawyer saw it and blew the whistle Leduc finally admits/ claims to have never read the final version of the document and notifies the diocese. From then on his lawyers insurance is paying through the nose for all the dream teams of lawyers for both Leduc and the Diocese. It looks to me like this lawyers insurance plan is being taken to the cleaners by both sides in the fallout from the illegal pay off to Silmser. The more we learn about this the worse it smells. Meanwhile Perry Dunlop is hit from all sides as this legal monster trashes around protecting its own secrets.

  10. prima facie says:

    ..sorry, typo..”Borden, Ladner, Gervais”…yes “Power et al” When all else is not convincing enough,,,,circumvent the laws (as in Perry Dunlops case) and/or write legislation to meet an immediate need and then re-write it tomorrow. See the old law firm of “Nelligan-Power”, see what they accomplished “for the greater good” and what they are up to today. (paranoid, cynical, anarchist, etc?) I think not.

    ALSO, there are two “Cornwall” Judges managing to avoid being scrutinized.

    Leduc was briefly my lawyer in 1995, for a matter I was addressing while I resided in the Cornwall area. On more than one occassion, he advised me the “the powers that be” of the community were fed up with my “letters-to-the-editor, appearing in media other than the “Standard-Freeholder”. On more than one occassion he agressively confronted me with, “SO, YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD.” I eventually couldn’t stand to be in the same room with him.

    Eventually I moved all files to another firm.

    THEN, I learned more!!

    I also had Adams, Sherwood, Swabey, Follon (of the Sean Adams fame) in Cornwall do some work for myself and my wife.

    I believe Cornwall is frozen in time and will continue to waste away, until the “old guard” and their surrogates, controlling every “move” in Cornwall, is/are forced to “move out” or to “let go”.

    New “opportunists” who have arrived in Cornwall in the mid to late 1990’s are now the “surrogates” who will maintain the unrelenting “grasp” for the “old guard”.

    ALL the proposed government $$$ and programs are only temporary band-aids and will do nothing to “arrest” the “spreading plague”.

  11. RealityChecker says:

    You have read Adrian Humphreys and Lee Lamonthe’s book “THE SIXTH FAMILY”???

    ” The Sixth Family’s Montreal-based operationd have two smaller satelite cells, comprising about a half-dozen members each, one based on the South Shore, the communities across the St. Lawrence River from Montreal, and the other in CORNWALL ONTARIO (emphasis mine), a small border city linking Quebec, Ontario and Massena, New York.”

    Just so you know the authors point to the laywers aiding and abetting this particular traditional organized crime group…suggesting there are “Lawyer Branches” – “one of the most protected, secretive and valued devisions of the Sixth Family.”

    Lamonthe and Humphreys are facing big time suits!!!

    Read and weep.

    So WHO are the half-dozed from Cornwall involved???

Leave a Reply

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