First, the court dates:
(1) Marcel Lalonde
Former teacher and convicted molester Marcel Lalonde has a court date tomorrow morning in Cornwall, Ontario:
29 April 2014: 09:00 am, courtroom #2,”to set date,” Cornwall, Ontario courthouse (29 Second St. W.)
It’s hard to know what if anything will happen. Barring an adjournment for some reason or other there is a good chance a date will be set for something. It will be over in the twinkle of an eye.
I will check on the next date on Wednesday and post.
Please keep the complainant in your prayers.
(2) Father Charles Picot
28 April 2014: Case of Former Priest Facing Sex Charges Adjourned
What other profession would put up with these kind of shenanigans?
This has to be so terribly disappointing and frustrating for the complainant. Please keep him in your prayers
(3) Father Dan Miller
I finally got the dates for father Dan Miller 🙂 There are two:
15 & 16 September 2014: 10 am, Pre-trial motions (in court and open to the public) Pembroke court house ;
14 & 15 October 2014: 10 am, TRIAL Pembroke court house (as with other trials – open to the public)
This is quite amazing. These charges have moved to trial much more quickly than most in Ontario. That I am sure is a great relief for the complainant.
Anyway, mark your calendars for the Fall. And note that both sets of dates are open to the public.
And, as always, please keep the complainant in your prayers
St Mary’s International School
The following comment has been posted for the past ten days on the St. Mary’s International Labor Dispute website. Several people have drawn it to my attention. I have been, for a number of reasons, in a bit of a quandry as to whether or not to copy and post the comment on Sylvia’s Site. I finally decided to proceed.
Here is the comment:
I had sex with bro Lawrence
April 18, 2014 at 4:27 am
First, the writer does not mention the years he attended SMIS. I was trying to sort that out. He also claims that he thinks he is the victim referenced in Saburo Kagei‘s 01 February 2014 letter to parents. That letter specifically references allegations of “sexual misconduct” made “by a former student.” According to the Kagei letter the “misconduct” occurred in 1965.
So, he must have been at SMIS in 1965. He also mentions attending Camp KEEP. Brother Lessard took his Grade 6 class to KEEP for sex ed classes in the 70s. My understanding is that Camp KEEP was not a Lessard destination until the 70s? I have spoken to and been in touch with former students who attended SMIS in the 60s who say there were no Lessard/Grade 6 trips to Camp KEEP in the 60s.
Were there trips to KEEP in the late 60s?
Still, it isn’t making sense. He believes he is the victim who was molested by Brother Lawrence in 1965. And he claims his “consensual” sexual relationship with Brother Lawrence began when he, the writer, was 14.
Well, by age 14 he was beyond – or should have been? – Grade 6. And I can assure all that in or before 1965 there definitely were no trips to Camp KEEP.
Not only that, the Kagei letter is very explicit : “an allegation of sexual misconduct has been made against Br. Lawrence Lambert by a former student.” (emphasis added)
It is not a third-hand allegation. It is an allegation made by the victim himself. What makes this man think for a moment that this is referring to him?
That aside, I can tell you in all honesty that I have had some problems with the above comments and hence my hesitation in posting them here. I felt there was something about them which didn’t ring true. I have read and re-read the comment numerous times and can’t quite put my finger on what it is that unsettles me. Yes, of course, I am deeply troubled that anyone believes that a 14-year-old boy can engage in a “consenusal” sexual sexual relationship with a male teacher – all the more so when that teacher is a Roman Catholic Brother who is bound by Church teaching regarding all manner of pre-marital sex.
My initial thought was that whoever penned this sounds for all the world like someone from an organization such as NAMBLA pushing the ‘man-boy love’ agenda.
I have difficulty with the notion that Brother Lawrence presumably was fine with having a sexual relationship with the student, and that Brother Lawrence was fine with the boy having a sexual relationship with Brother Marcel, but that Brother Lawrence physically attacked Brother Lessard for trying something sexual with this boy at Camp KEEP. Perhaps just a plain case of jealousy? I don’t know. But, if as the writer says, a 14-year-old has the right to decide with who he has sex then, using that flawed reasoning, why would he have not, if he wanted to do so, been entitled to have a sexual tryst with Brother Lessard? Why should the ‘loving and caring’ Brother Lawrence have dictate to him with whom who he (the boy) should or should not have a sexual relationship? That doesn’t make sense, at least not to me. But, he seems just fine with that.
Re Brother Lawrence we are told that: “He would never take advantage of boys.” If that’s not an oxymoron I don’t know what is. Brother Lawrence, a Roman Catholic Brother, adult and school teacher engaging in sex with a 14-year-old student is not taking advantage of the boy? Really? Brother Lawrence must have been about 40 then.
A 40 year -old religious – called to be chaste – having sex with a 14-year-old boy?
He really thinks that’s okay? that this man is not taking advantage of the boy?
Again, that sounds like the thinking of an advocate of “man-boy-love.” Scary really.
I have trouble too with the idea that, when the young lad left SMIS and headed off to college, there was an agreement to cease all contact. If both Brothers Lawrence and Marcel were so loving and caring, why not stay in touch with the odd letter, or at the very least an annual Christmas card? Was it just all about sex, and if there was no possibility of sex then all ‘loving and caring’ came to a grinding halt? I don’t understand. Where is the “love”?
Do I think it’s possible that this man did have a sexual relationship with Brothers Lawrence and Marcel? Yes. It’s possible. But, there’s still something about that whole comment which doesn’t sit right with me. What is it? Or, is it just me?
Finally, if there are logical explanations for all of the above, the question which keeps running through my mind is this: What is the purpose of this very public expose?
Does the writer think for a single moment that his words will put the mind of anyone at the school – parents, students past and present – at ease?
Does he, for that matter, think for one moment his expose paints these two Brothers of the Christian Instruction, Brothers Lawrence and Marcel, in a positive light? (Brother Lessard too I suppose? and, for that matter, every Brother who was at the school because, he claims, they all knew about his “consensual” sexual dalliances with their confreres? )
I am both puzzled and skeptical. I finally decided to post these comments because people are contacting me about them
Any insight on this strange expose welcome.
(A reminder too that these Brothers are Canadian)
Enough for now,