I have a number of articles to post. For now will leave it at the following.
13 January 2010: Bishop Lahey faces judicial pre-trial Jan. 26 on child porn charges
In all honesty there are times I just can’t bring myself to post or blog – my insides are churning. There are obviously things I know which I am unable to share, and then there are other things which I stumble upon which just plain upset me.
There’s Perry trying to launch an appeal and apparently getting nowhere. And thanks to Justice Normand Glaude and the Ontario Attorney General, he’s branded a criminal can’t leave the country.
And there’s Lawrence Greenspon, the lawyer who left Perry high and dry in jail, being feted at his 50th by none other than Justice Colin McKinnon.
And there’s commission council Ian Stauffer busily acting right alongside McKinnon, year after year, in their Great Canadian Theatre Company.
Why pray tell was Stauffer allowed to serve as commission counsel with the Cornwall Public Inquiry? Why did he even take the position? Surely to goodness his connections to McKinnon and hence the very appearance of conflict should have been enough to keep him at bay from the Weave Shed? But no. A slot needed filling in the Weave Shed and in sailed McKinnon`s acting buddy to fill it.
Is it just me? Isn`t this a conflict?
Shades of McKinnon?
One Big Happy Family. The more I see and the more I hear the more convinced I am that the legal world is just One Big Happy Family.
And note the article from Frank magazine re speculation on McKinnon’s imminent appointment ot the bench. I knew that McKinnon’s appointment came courtesy of then Liberal Justice Minister Allan Rock. That I find interesting. I was not personally aware of the friendship between the pair.
Finally, note that three months after he was caught with pornographic images on his computer, which allegedly include those of underage males, the disgraced Bishop Raymond Lahey apparently is incapable of sorting out if he is or isn’t guilty.
Three months and no plea! Why not? He needs to think it through? He`s not sure if he did or did not possess, or download or import child porn?
So what`s the legal plan? Have a little chitty-chat on 26 January in chambers with his lawyer, the judge and the Crown to see what kind of a sweet deal he might get if he enters a guilty plea? Is that what this is all about? Try to work out a sweet deal like the one Roman Catholic lawyer-former-Crown-attorney-and-“alleged“- molester- Malcolm MacDonald got? A guilty plea and an absolute discharge?
If that`s not the episcopal plan and the hope, why the need/desire for a judicial pre-trial before the bishop enters a plea?
I can`t get beyond that basic question: How in the name of all that`s good and holy can a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church possibly NOT know if he did or did not possess and import child porn? What’s to ponder?
So pathetic. Such a disgrace. A sacrilege.
One final thing. In court the other day the date of 03 February 2010 was given as a “continuance.” Pretrial on the 26th, and contiunance on the 3rd. I checked with the lawyer representing Lahey to be certain I heard it right – “continuance.” 03 February 2010 is a continuance.
From what I can find a continuance is a request for a postponement. The media is obviously anticipating a plea on the 3rd. Where does a continuance fit into the package ? (Incidentally, the media was noted by its absence on 13 January.)
Something isn’t making sense here. What am I missing or what do I not understand?
Anyway, my head is swirling, and that’s
enough for now,