I have added Father Joe LeClare to the Accused page and started a page. The Citizen article is posted as a searchable pdf file. This is one of those bizarre times in which my software protested and absolutely would not allow me to post that article. I finally gave up and opted to post is as pdf file. Here it is:
16 April 2011: The priest, his gambling and trouble at Blessed Sacrament
Did you notice who LeClair’s lawyer is? Ian Stauffer. I don’t know why it should, but that surprised me.
Those who followed the Cornwall Public Inquiry will recall that Stauffer came to the inquiry in mid-stream as commission counsel. Some may also recall that Stauffer performs with the Great Canadian Theatre Company, as does Justice Colin McKinnon.
I wonder how he wound up with Stauffer?
Anyway, time to get some supper together so must run, but will get back at the site later. I have yet another name to add to the list (:
Enough for now,
Sylvia
I must confess that I am somewhat confused.
I was under the impression that the work of this sight was dedicated to the sexual abuse crisis. Why would this priest be added to the “accused” list? The mere association of his name in the same category as those who are accused of sexual abuse is damaging, slanderous and I think sinful.
Regarding the article, if no parish funds were touched, then it is a private and personal issue…Gambling, alcoholism, computer issues are among the serious personal addictions that are present in every family.
Does this mean every time a priest has a personal issue that it will end up on your
“accused” list? If so, then you need the title of this blog needs to change. The last time I checked, it said “blogging the sexual abuse scandal…”
Let’s be fair or all credibility will be lost.
The comments at the top of the Accused page read in part:
“This page will list names and info regarding Canadian clergy and other prominent Roman Catholics publicly accused, sued and or charged in relation to criminal acts of any nature and/or actions which are unbecoming to that person’s station in life.”
It would appear – at this point – that the police have not been asked to conduct an inquiry. Does this mean that any accusation is justification to pose the credibility as being authentic enough to be accused on this site?
What is the threshold for your site to be considered “accused”? Does having a personal addiction warrant enough for a person to be humiliated by a website or is there a more specific criterion?
Silly question Francis Xavier.
Sylvia, by “silly” do you mean that the answer should be obvious?
No. I wouldn’t say so Larry. Not at all. I mean the questions are silly. FX isn’t looking for answers. The questions are rhetorical.
Below are Ian Stauffer’s credentials (as pulled from his firms website “Tierney Stauffer”). It is interesting to note in his CV that Mr. Stauffer’s “clientele is restricted to those with civil litigation problems.” Mr. Stauffer is quoted with remarks concerning Father LeClair in the Citizen story, which to me implies that he was Father LeClair’s lawyer before the story came out. What does it mean? I am not sure.
“Ian R. Stauffer, B.A.(Hons),
B.Ed., LL.B., C.S., C. Med.
Call to the Bar
Law Society of Upper Canada, 1983
Educational Background
– Carleton University, B.A. (Hons.), 1974
– Queen’s University, B. Ed., 1976
– University of Ottawa, LL.B., 1981
Practice Summary:
Ian has practiced law for over 25 years throughout Ontario and now restricts his clientele to those who have civil litigation problems. Ian joined Tierney Stauffer LLP as a Partner in 1989.”
John Mac Donald
Now that is both interesting and puzzling John!
If Stauffer restricts his clinetelle to “those who have civil litigation problems” why is he currently representing Father LeClair? Has Father LeClair been sued? or is he suing? or, is Stauffer perhaps just a good friend willing to help out in a time of need?
Does anyone know?
I have a few ideas, but I would not gamble on the accuracy thereof.
And your ideas “pardon the pun”? I’m interested.