Note yesterday’s press release. It seems that start time for oral submissions Monday 23 February 2009 may be 0930 hours rather than 0900 hours as indicated on the Cornwall Public Inquiry website. I will keep an eye and, if necessary, seek clarification before the 23rd. The order of parties presenting will be made public Friday 13 February 2009.
Also note that submissions for Phase 2 are scheduled for Friday 27 February 2009. members of the public who wish to submit Phase 2 recommendations have until Thursday 12 February 2009.
****
As I said earlier, I have been doing a lot of thinking. One thing which I go back to time and time and time again, the same thing mentioned today by AbsentObserver: the $32,000 “Church” pay-off.
A $32,000 pay-off to do the following (i) hush up David Silmser, (ii) keep Dave’s sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald under wraps, (iii) allow Father Charlie to continue functioning as a priest, (iv) ensure Father Charlie continues to enjoy his ‘good’ reputation, (v) ensure Father Charlie enjoys the continued trust of naïve parishioners, and, in consequence to all the former (vi) allow Father Charlie continued and unfettered access to children.
That’s the pay-off minus para 2, the clause which presumably turned a legal pay-off into an illegal pay-off.
Legal? So they say.
Moral is another matter.
How it can be construed as legal is beyond me. Without the insertion of the illegal clause the release reads:
In addition to the aforesaid release and for the said consideration I further hereby undertake not to disclose or permit disclosure directly or indirectly of any of the terms of this settlement or of any of the events alleged to have occurred. Breach of this undertaking will constitute a breach of settlement agreement as
Note: “not to disclose or permit disclosure directly or indirectly … of any of the events alleged to have occurred.”
How could Dave possibly continue to pursue criminal charges with that clause? How could he possibly have pursued criminal charges if he was bound by the pay-off not to talk about his allegations against Father Charlie? How could he have testified at trial if he had signed an agreement “not to disclose or permit disclosure directly or indirectly of any of the terms of this settlement or of any of the events alleged to have occurred”?
I gather however, that in the legal world it is understood that that clause does not prohibit pursuit of criminal charges. Lawyers apparently know and accept that. But, as I continually discover, such is the world of lawyers. It’s different than ours. I for one would read it and instantly conclude that the $32,000 would be clawed back if Dave said a boo about his allegations – to anyone, anywhere.
Anyway, with or without the illegal clause, that’s the route Bishop Eugene Larocqueand officials within the diocese chose to go. Gag/hush David Silmser. Maintain Charlie’s status quo.
That’s the way it was meant to be. That’s the way it would have stayed ….had Perry Dunlop not happened on the scene, that’s the way it would have stayed.
That was the plan.
The diocese wasn’t chomping at the bit to let Children’s Aid Society officials know. That didn’t happen.
Nor did the diocese urge Dave to carry on with his criminal complaint against Father Charlie. That didn’t happen.
Nor did it call in CPS officers and urge that the investigation of Dave’s allegations be pursued, leaving, as all involved in this dirty mess are prone to say, ‘no stone left unturned.’ That didn’t happen.
Nor did it urge Father Charlie to let justice take its course. That didn’t happen.
Church officials were happy with the status quo. Keep it secret. Shhhhhhssshh.
The “addition” of the clause which presumably made the pay-off illegal reads:
2.In addition to the aforesaid release and for the said consideration, I hereby undertake not to take any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, against any of the parties hereto and will immediately terminate any actions that may now be in process.
What was Dave going to do? Gagged and hushed as he would be by the provisions of para 3, why the compulsion to order him to “terminate any actions that may now be in process”?
Anyway, para 2 was thrown in for good legal measure, presumably by Malcolm MacDonald. Dave was then thoroughly and illegally gagged.
That’s the seeds of the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up. That’s where it all began. That’s what Perry happened upon. That’s what he blew the whistle on.
No one else was taking action. No one at CPS had fulfilled their legal obligation to report the allegations against Charlie to CAS. Ditto at the diocese.
Even Roman Catholic Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald knew about the allegations and was prepared to stay silent.
Perry would not stay silent.
From that day to this Perry has been in the cross hairs.
From that day to this millions of dollars and probably an equal number of manpower hours have been expended to vilify and demonize Perry be parsing his every word, scrutinizing his every contact and attributing ulterior motives to his every act.
Charlie was never interviewed by police. Believe it or not, he was never interviewed!
I dare say that had one tenth of the CPS’, OPP, diocese’s and/or dollars and manpower gone into scrutinizing Charlie in similar fashion as Perry we wouldn’t be in sad state we are in today.
A Roman Catholic priest, a Roman Catholic Bishop and at least two of three Roman Catholic lawyers gagged David Silmser. They were each and every one prepared to let an “alleged” clerical sexual predator run loose in the diocese.
They got caught.
By Perry Dunlop.
That’s the genesis of the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up. Flawed mandate and tap dancing or no, that’s the genesis of the Cornwall Public Inquiry.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
Yes Sylvia, simple as “that”..you said it all in one simple blog!! A “prima facie” case. Your “blog” has everything of real IMPORTANCE in it…EVERYTHING-ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING!!…and that is why this inquiry went to great lengths to avoid the points you write about. This is why the high priced lawyers are here; to protect some pretty important people; “goes right to the top.”. Does anyone remeber a picture in a newspaper (Ottawa or Toronto)of then Ontario Premier Mike Harris sitting in a boat in the middle of a lake with the “Papal Nuncio” or some important member of the R.C. Clergy. The story depicted a discussion they were having about Clergy sexual abuse allegations in Ontario. This picture would be so fitting, re: allegations of cover-up.
As you write Sylvia, “that day” with Silmeser “settling”, “illegal settlement”…I believe everything after “that day”, is nothing more than lawyers and the “co-conspirators” constructing and implementing an elaborate scheme involving the proverbial smoke and mirrors. All in an elaborate and expensive effort to hide the facts of Silmser’s original complaints and the subsequent efforts to “cover-up”.
Unfortunately “the world” and the “lapdog mainstream news media” have been “lulled” into focussing or defocussing on eveything else “SINCE” “that day” instead of “what actually got the ball rolling” in the first place.
That’s what these high priced, mal-practice, liability insurance carrier lawyers are paid to do on behalf of their clients; that is, confuse and manipulate sick, disabled and very vulnerable victims, basically re-victimizing them. These lawyers manipulate and give fresh light to newly constructed interpretations of facts, at the same time leaving the unstable, suffering victims, in shock.
MAKE absolutely no mistake about it people, AS I KNOW and YOU VICTIMS KNOW and YOU SURVIVORS KNOW, and YOU SEXUAL PREDATORS KNOW and PAEDOPHILES KNOW, so do the LAWYERS KNOW…and that is,…, the very second to pounce upon and exploit a suffering vcitim “TO GET WHAT WE WANT”!!!
It is my opinion, the confidential, non-disclosure, etc., etc., stipulations are mainly utilized to intimidate one of the parties (ex. Silmser), his agent, heirs and successors, into silence, fear and lull them into compliance.
If anyone in any matter, even where they have signed a non-disclosure, confidentiality “settlement”, agreement or otherwise, want to disclose in criminal or civil proceedings, they can. However, as you imply, a layman will most definitely believe they have no recourse and believe as you have written, especially depending on what was explained to him or not explained to him when the “settlement-stipulations” were made.
If they have a “shyster” as a lawyer, I believe, for various unscrupulous reasons, the “shyster” will disuade the client one way or the other. However, if the client gets an unbiased lawyer willing to “do the right thing”, just maybe, he could have a chance….and then again, the lawyer or other may conclude “the right thing”, is to move on, “for the greater good”.
A point to look into would be, who was advising Silmser “in the day” and did they represent him or advise him in good faith? Was there the potential for a real or perceived conflict of interest? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind criminal charges could have and should have been pursued “in the day”.
I ask you to consider if criminal charges could still be pursued today? Hasn’t John M., filed criminal complaints surrounding issues that occurred “in the day”? Why can’t anyone else?
Also, even if “anyone” has signed “settlement” stipulations with pages of conditions attached; if they are subpoenaed in future “proceedings” or if they subpoena anyone else-AND I MEAN ANYONE, they can disclose anything and the “parties” subpoenaed must answer questions truthfully or risk facing additional criminal charges. ex) contempt, obstruction, perjury, etc…
On: “Final submissions process for Cornwall Public Inquiry”.
Did anyone really closely watch this Inquiry? Did “informed” citizens, victims, survivors, other laymen and professionals, really, closely “watch” this public Inquiry?
“Parties with standing at the Cornwall Public Inquiry will be making both Phase 1 and Phase 2 oral and written submissions.”
I ask. Do we (“the public”) have justifiable and documented reasons for concern?
Convoluted? Supposition, conjecture, guesswork, speculation, presumptions, inferences, hypothetical speculation, attempts to lead the witnesses into surmising how “events” unfolded, etc., etc., appeared to me, to be the “road” most travelled at this “Inquiry”.
I believe the likes of lawyers Michael Neville, Helen Daley and others, very astutely (as far as a “layman’s” knowledge and understanding), re-wrote history, while representing their clients at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry.”
While cross-examining witnesses, lawyers’ Neville, Daley and others, seemingly utilized the “well-oiled” illusive tactics, as referenced above, to elicit anything but “the facts”, therewith, forever “engraving” the “words” in the files and records for future retrieval, at an opportunistic and “needy” time.
The above “illusive” tactics, elicited replies from witnesses, such as, “maybe”, “could have”, “I guess so”, “possibly”, “I’m not really sure, but could have, should have, might have”, etc., etc., etc,…..you all get the point. This was the “Inquiry”.
Thereafter, during cross-examination with the same witness, the well-versed, well trained lawyers would shift their personal skills and styles into high-gear, therewith, re-visiting the previous “encounter”. Now, the lawyer “suggests” that the witness had earlier agreed to a question. The lawyer now, using the previous “testimony” gets a confirmation and/or affirmation in this current questioning, that the “information” elicited in previous testimony was a fact or true. This is now entered into the files/records on two or more instances. Unfortunately for ALL PEOPLE, the lawyers omit the disclosure that the original testimony was coerced and elicited through, convoluted, supposition, conjecture, guesswork, presumptions, inferences and hypothetical speculation, leading the witness to “surmise” about how “events” unfolded.
I have watched lawyers “dance around” for days, disclosing little emotion or intent, trying to “elicit” one word, from the mouth of a witness.
Not very factual.
In fact, a good lawyer or an ignorant layman such as myself, would have objected about and clearly explained to the world, the “illusive tactics” being utilized at the Inquiry with impunity; i.e.) the who, what, where, when, why and how.
I submit herewith; would it be fair to “suggest”, that in a different venue, with a more diverse gathering of lawyers, much of what I discuss, would have also been challenged by some of them, in the fashion I assert I would have done?
FACE THE FACTS FOLKS: When the likes of Neville, Callaghan, Daley, et al, who are each “forcing” THEIR OWN AGENDAS (not the public better interests), present their “final submissions” and perhaps recommendations, I urge readers to do their own research. Compare the “submissions” with the “facts” “of the day”, “in the time”. I urge readers to avoid comparing “submissions” with interpretations, re-interpretations, suppositions, assertions, defenses, etc., that have been disseminated since “the day” (1992) and especially not with what has been recorded in this public “Inquiry”.
Again, “what got the ball rolling?”
Finally: When “observers” really get “fed up and angry” with what is presented in “final submissions”, I urge you to again, research, compare and challenge “authorities” with the “facts”.
Let us ask ourselves; are the “final submissions” an accurate representation of the facts of “the day”, “in the time” or are the submissions, replete with the “suppositions, conjecture, guesswork, presumptions, inferences, hypothetical speculation and “wishful thinking”, designed and constructed, during the public “Inquiry” process?
“You Decide”.
And one more point. To you lawyers reading these blogs, as opposed to posting on your own “intranet” blog site.
This has been a very sad experience. I personally, am extremely disappointed on how you have behaved and managed yourselves. This has been disgusting; simply disgusting and you know what I am talking about.
Thank God, most of us, we the lay people, are just that, “lay people” and ignorant of the rules, regulations, ethics, responsibilities, code of conduct, etc., etc., you have chosen to stretch beyond the limit, at any cost, with impunity.
“For the greater good” does not cut it here, you have gone beyond that.
I believe, the “Misuse of Power, Authority and the Misadministration of Justice” is the only reason you are able to get away with this travesty…nothing else.
I can tell you prima facia that my faith in lawyers has taken a sharp nose dive since this ruse of an inquiry got off the ground. I struggle with that. That’s not where I want to be, but here I am 🙁 I await with baited breath the lawyer in shining armour who rides in from afar with a passion for the pursuit of truth and justice burning in his mind.