The Pelletier/Griffiths memo and John MacDonald’s testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry. 

In preparation for testifying at the Cornwall Public Inquiry John MacDonald happened upon a 02 April 1997 memo from L’Orignal Crown attorney Robert Pelletier to Crown attorney Peter Griffiths. (Pelletier was brought in by Cornwall Crown Murray MacDonald to handle the sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald after Murray MacDonald declared that he, MacDonald, had a conflict of interest. Peter Griffiths was then the Regional Director of Crowns.  Pelletier is now a federally-appointed judge, and Griffiths is a provincially appointed judge)

The section of the lengthy memo which disturbed John deeply was primarily the following paragraph indicating that in 1997 in the midst of Father Charles MacDonald’s preliminary hearings in Ottawa, Ontario Pelletier knew he, Pelletier, was in a conflict of interest situation, and that certainly as of receipt of the memo Griffiths was aware there was a conflict:

“…Ultimately, a decision will have to be taken whether or not to recommend further charges against Charles MacDonald in relation to the new complainants C-7 and C-8. A decision to recommend charges would lend credence to these individual claims, including the conspiracy theory. A decision not to recommend charges would, in all likelihood, be seen as a latest in the obstructive measures employed by those in authority. It is in this connection that my personal as well as professional affiliations with Murray MacDonald become a complicating factor. Your views in this regard would, of course, be very much appreciated.”

Despite awareness of the conflict Pelletier continued to handle the sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald for approximately two years to two-and-a-half years.

During his testimony John addressed his concerns about the memo:

I can’t remember what year it was that I heard that Mr. Pelletier stepped aside for the very same reasons that he’s stating here. I believe it was around 1999 and upon further review of some other documents that I’ve had a chance to go through, it in fact did put him on the case as late as September 7th, 1999 when he finally stepped aside for a conflict of interest because of Murray MacDonald.

Some other documents that I’ve come across put Mr.Pelletier on the case as early as the summer of 1993, which is a span of six years.

I just don’t know how it’s possible and he was put on the case by Crown Attorney, Murray MacDonald, upon Mr. MacDonald’s suggestion. I don’t know how it’s possible that somebody can hold a conflict, especially when he’s saying to his boss as early as April 2nd, 1997, claiming conflict and then hold that conflict for a further two and a half years before he finally steps aside for that reason.

Mr. Pelletier wrote to Mr. Griffiths and it seems Mr. Griffiths didn’t act on that conflict either. In fact, he put Mr. Pelletier back onto the case.

John told the commission that he feels “it’s borderline criminal what these guys have done” in handling Father MacDonald’s defence: he wondered what the outcome might have been had Pelletier been pulled from the case and replaced by a Crown who may not, as Pelletier did, have opted to “join” the allegations of new victims coming forward with those of John MacDonald and David Silmser.   (The 1997 preliminary hearing which stuttered its way through 1997 concluded with a ruling that there was sufficient evidence against Charlie to go to trial.  However, rather than proceed to trial Pelletier opted to join the new “alleged” victims to the first group.  Charlie did not go to trial until 2002!  In the end, he “walked” after Justice Chilcotte concurred that the priest’s Charter rights to a speedy trial had been violated. Perry Dunlop was blamed for the delays. )

Shortly before concluding his testimony on 17 January 2007 an obviously distraught John MacDonald told the commission: “This is sickening what I see here. I just don’t know what more to say about it. It’s just eating me up.”

Three days later John’s saga for justice began . .

John MacDonald’s complaint of criminal activity – obstruction of justice – against Justice Robert Pelletier, Justice Peter Griffiths and Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald was first filed with Cornwall Police Service

24 January 2007 Blog re above on Sylvia’s Site

Judges and Crown accused of obstructing justice

Blogged under Uncategorized, Idependence and Impartiality by Sylvia on Wednesday 24 January 2007 at 6:18 am

Two Ontario judges and a Cornwall Crown attorney have been formally accused of obstructing justice.

All three, Robert Pelletier, Peter Griffiths and Murray MacDonald, were at one time Crown attorneys involved in the prosecution, or, as in the case of Murray MacDonald, non prosecution, of Father Charles MacDonald. Pelletier and Griffiths are now judges. Murray MacDonald continues as Crown attorney in Cornwall, a position he held in 1992 when David Silmser first told Cornwall police he had been sexually abused by Father Charles MacDonald and probation officer Ken Seguin.

The allegations of obstruction of justice stem largely from the contents of a 02 April 1997 memo sent from Robert Pelletier to Peter Griffiths. Both were Crowns at the time. Griffiths was Pelletier’s immediate superior.

In the memo, which was entered into evidence during the testimony of John MacDonald, Pelletier indicates that he is in quandary as to whether or not to lay further charges against Father MacDonald on behalf of two new complainants, and that it is in that capacity that “my personal as well as professional affiliations with Murray MacDonald become a complicating factor.”

When, at a later date, I post the memo and a related in-depth article you will see that Pelletier’s affiliations with Murray MacDonald are a “complicating factor” precisely because they place him, Pelleter, in a conflcit of interest. He is in a conflict of interest situation and he knows it.

In short then the memo shows that both Pelletier and Griffiths were aware that

(1) Pelletier was in a conflict of interest situation and did nothing about it for nearly two-and-a-half years, and

(2) Murray MacDonald was in serious undeclared conflict of interest while the Silmser allegations were being investigated. The undeclared conflict was Murray MacDonald’s personal contacts with, to name but a few, Ken Seguin, the Chief of police, Father Charles MacDonald, the bishop of the day (Eugene Larocque) and, Murray’s uncle Malcolm MacDonald who was Father MacDonald’s lawyer.

That then is a brief synopsis of the memo which triggered the accusation that Pelletier, Griffiths and Murray MacDonlad obstructed justice.

John MacDonald is the complainant.

John, an “alleged” victim of Father Charles MacDonald, states that he attended the Cornwall Police station on Saturday 20 January 2007. He states that he told Mr. Nelson Ayotte, a member of the Cornwall police, that he wanted the trio charged with obstruction of justice.

My attempts yesterday to confirm that the allegations were received by police and the current status of the complaint came to naught. Nelson Ayotte was not available. Angela, a dispatcher, cited privacy policies and stated that the force could not confirm that a complaint was lodged. As I understood her response, only the complainant can attain such confirmation. Furthermore, it seems that all charges are not routinely made public. If and when police lay charges the charges may – may – be made public. I am surprised.

Anyway, between now and then, where this all goes remains to be seen. Indeed, the allegations open up a hornet’s nest, particularly given that

(1) the Cornwall police force, the office of the Attorney General and the OPP are already heavily implicated in the Cornwall scandal and are seen by many as party to a cover-up;

(2) all Crown attorneys are employees of the Attorney General; and

(3) these allegations of obstruction of justice go to the heart of the allegations of cover-up.

Just try to think it through. For example:

(1) Which, if any, Ontario police force is capable of conducting a truly impartial investigation into these allegations against two judges and a Crown attorney?

(2) Is there a Crown attorney employed by Attorney General Bryant who is impartial and could be perceived as impartial and therefore in a position to advise police on the merits of laying charges against Pelletier, Griffiths and/or Murray MacDonald?

(3) If charges are laid is there a Crown attorney working for the Attorney General who could prosecute the case without hint of interference from fellow Crowns or the AG? and in such a fashion that not only would justice be done, it would also and equally importantly seen to be done?

(4) Is there a judge anywhere in Ontario who could take the bench at an obstruction of justice trial for any or all of the trio who could be remotely perceived as impartial and independent? and, finally

(5) All those who deny a cover-up and dismiss the allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up as no more than “rumour” and “innuendo” have an obvious and vested interest in ensuring that none of the accused trio are charged.

Sadly, justice in and for Cornwall – as it relates to the Cornwall sex abuse scandal – can no longer be sought or wrought through Ontario Crowns and judges. Too may are compromised, too many are in conflict and too many are seen as part of the problem.

What a horrific sordid mess.

And so, how John’s complaint is handled and by whom remains to be seen. I believe however that it goes without saying that it must be handled, …..and it must be handled properly. Justice must be done .

One final but very important note on this: Good for you John That took courage and stamina. Well done!

John discovers that the “scrap” paper utilized by Cornwall Police during his visit to the station is far from “scrap.”

25 January 2007 Blog re above on Sylvia’s Site

So much for privacy policies!

Blogged under Uncategorized, Technical by Sylvia on Thursday 25 January 2007 at 2:06 pm

How private is personal information acquired by the Cornwall Police service in the course of an investigation?

Not, it seems, too private at all.

You will not believe this!

Yesterday I told you that John MacDonald officially filed an obstruction of justice complaint with Cornwall police against Justices Robert Pelletier and Peter Griffiths and Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald.

Well, it seems that a folded page of paper utilised by police to jot down a few new notes and phone numbers and handed to John on his departure isn’t exactly what you and I would call a piece of scrap paper.

True, it was initially blank on one side and looked like no more than a piece of scrap paper. Since his return home however John has discovered – to his great surprise I might add – that the page is in fact some sort of computer generated police report related to a police investigation. It provides personal details about a man I will identify only as Mr. X.

The report identifies Mr. X by name: it indicates “communicable disease” and contains information such as address, date of birth, body markings (tattoos) and piercings.

Under the caption “Special interest police Opt 2” the note: “Do not divulge interest to subject.”

Astounding! Truly astounding!

What more can I say? but, ……so much for privacy policies!

27 January 2007 Blog re above on Sylvia’s Site

The wagons are circling

Blogged under Uncategorized, Church by Sylvia on Saturday 27 January 2007 at 4:15 pm

Here we go again…

If this doesn’t have the look of circling the wagons I don’t know what does.

I am told that a Cornwall police force detective told John MacDonald that he should sue rather than pursue obstruction of justice charges against Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald and Justices Peter Griffiths and Robert Pelletier!!

Can you believe it? A police officer advising civil instead of criminal action? for the extremely serious allegations of obstruction of justice against officers of the court?

According to John, the advice came yesterday (Friday 26 January) during a meeting with Sgt. Shawn White, a detective with the Cornwall Police Service (CPS).

White, it seems, went to great lengths to discourage John from pursuing his complaint with the CPS, i.e., it’s out of our jurisdiction, the CPS is in a conflict of interest situation because of the inquiry, and intent on the part of Pelletier, Griffiths and Murray MacDonald would have to be proven, the implication being I assume that it would be difficult to prove the latter.

As it stands the complaint seems to be in jurisdictional limbo. White suggested that John might want go to the L’Orignal police or the Ottawa police, but made arrangements for neither, nor, as I understand it, did he offer to make such arrangements. In fact it seems there was not a hint from White that if allegations of criminal wrong-doing are out of CPS jurisdiction or the CPS is in conflict the CPS has a duty of some sort to make arrangement with an appropriate jurisdiction and then re-direct the complaint and the complainant accordingly. This has happened in the past with sexual abuse allegations. In fact when John initially came forward in 1995 saying he was the victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of Father Charles MacDonald it was the CPS which made arrangement with Kingston OPP to handle the allegations. John was not sent off on a mission to find the appropriate jurisdiction or a police force which would not be in a conflict of interest dealing with his allegations. The CPS made the decisions and the arrangements.

Why not the same procedure now? Curious ……don’t you agree?

As for White’s suggestion that John’s ‘best chance’ against the trio would be to initiate civil action, John was not impressed. John is adamant, and told White so, that this isn’t about money: he doesn’t want to line his pockets, he wants justice.

John had papers and evidence which he believes back up his allegations. He showed them to White who, according to John, was able to connect the dots and see exactly where John is coming from.

But, despite that, the Cornwall Police Service has washed its hands of any and all of John’s allegations of criminal wrong-doing against Cornwall Crown attorney and two former Crowns, Murray MacDonald and Robert Pelletier.

Where next as the wagons in Cornwall and beyond are reshuffled and re-circled?

Enough for now,

03 February 2007 

John attends Cornwall Police station to officially file his complaint against Pelletier, Griffiths and Murray MacDonald.  The compliant now has an index number. 

05 February 2007 Blog on above on Sylvia’s Site

(3) Obstruction of Justice Complaint Update

John MacDonald was back to the Cornwall Police Service on Saturday.  This time he filed a very official complaint of obstruction of justice against Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald and Justices Robert Pelletier and Peter Griffiths, both of whom were former Crown attorneys, who, like Murray MacDonald, were involved in some capacity in the sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald.

The complaint now has an index number.

The obstruction of justice complaint was filed with the duty sergeant, Scott Coulter.  Coulter apparently agreed with John that the complaint does belong within the jurisdiction of the Cornwall police because, as John says, it started in Cornwall (with the allegations against Charlie and Ken Seguin in 1992) and ended in Cornwall (in 2002 when Charlie was awarded a stay because his right to a speedy trial had been violated).

The complaint will now be referred to someone in the Criminal Investigation Branch.

I will keep you posted on further developments.

One thing I can assure you, John is not going to give up on this.

(4) Cornwall Police negligence?

You may recall that the last time John went to the Cornwall police he ended up with information jotted down on a piece of “scrap” paper which was far from scrap. It was in fact some sort of computer generated report providing personal details on a Mr. X.

Now listen to this…

Late yesterday afternoon John MacDonald had a call from John Spice, lead investigator at the Cornwall Public Inquiry. Spice apparently had been contacted by Staff Sgt. Garry Derochie (Cornwall police) and Derochie asked Spice to tell John that John has something which the Cornwall police would like returned!!!

Bizarre?

How or why John Spice was tasked to make the call is a mystery. But, …Spice made the call. And Spice conveyed the message on Derochie’s behalf.

According to John MacDonald, Spice also conveyed the message that Cornwall police will conduct an internal investigation. I gather that would be to determine how an official police document containing confidential information was used as scrap paper to jot down contact phone numbers and handed to John on his departure.

I understand that John said he would like to speak to Derochie.

Breach of privacy

Blogged under Uncategorized, The Mandate, Independence and Impartiality by Sylvia on Tuesday 13 February 2007 at 5:56 pm Edit This

You will be relieved to hear that the proper authorities in Cornwall have a rather important  “scrap of paper” in their possession.

You may recall that on 20 January 2007 John MacDonald attended the Cornwall Police Service to file charges of obstruction of justice against Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald and Justices Robert Pelletier and Peter Griffiths.  And that a few days later he discovered that the scrap piece of folded paper given him on his departure with contact names and phone numbers jotted down for his convenience was no scrap piece of paper at all.  On the reverse side of the page was computer-generated report with the name, identifying features and address of a Cornwall resident.

I now understand that the page is in fact a CPIC report, meaning it emanates comes from the Canadian Police Information Centre, a data base operated by the RCMP under the stewardship of the National Police Services. CPIC was created in 1966 to provide law enforcement agencies across the country information on “crimes and criminals.”  The information in the data base is obviously privileged and private.

The fact that this information was put into John’s hands is equally obviously a serious breech of an individual’s privacy.

After a degree of ado the “scrap” paper is mercifully out of John’s hands and back with the Cornwall police.  Initially John was contacted by Cornwall Public Inquiry lead investigator John Spice who had allegedly been asked by Garry Derochie (Cornwall police) to ask John to turn it in.  Believing this was Cornwall police and not inquiry business, John asked that he be contacted by Derochie.

Derochie contacted John on Friday 09 February.  According to John Derochie ‘asked if they could discuss returning that piece of paper that came into your possession 20 January 2007.’  Rightly or wrongly John felt Derochie was nervous, expecting a fight on his hands and seemed shocked when John said he would turn it over the following day.

Arrangements were made to meet at the station.

The following morning John arrived at the police station. Derochie, although off duty, was there to meet him. The page was turned over.  John asked for and received a receipt which read “10 February 2007: Received from John MacDonald CPIC printout dated 20 January 2007 9:17:13 am.”

Derochie told John that an investigation regarding the incident is under way, to submit a bill for his gas, and that, because of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act police are now obligated to contact the individual identified on the report.

A final note.  John tells me that he was given Derochie’s business card.  Derochie apparently noted that on the card he, Derochie, is identified as head of the Cornwall police CIB (Criminal Investigation Bureau) but he has in fact been seconded to the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

This raises some rather serious questions:

(1) In what capacity has Derochie been seconded to an inquiry which is presumably inquiring into the response of the CPS to sexual abuse allegations?  Derochie working hand-in-glove with the inquiry investigative team would be a serious conflict of interest.

(2) Why is the Cornwall Public Inquiry handling this CPS breach of privacy?

John of course has been unwittingly been drawn into this mess.  The paper was put into his hands by police.  He did not ask for it. Now he finds himself smack dab in the midst of a major police foul up.

When asked if he would be pulled back into it Derochie allegedly told John only if there is going to be discipline.

Only?!

Enough for now,

Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

14 February 2007

14 February 2007 Blog on Sylvia’s Site re Staff Sgt. Derochie seconded to the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

(Please note that it turns out that Derochie was apparently seconded specifically to assist the Cornwall Police Service [CPS] legal team headed by John Callaghan.  Staff Sgt. Derochie is actively involved in handling John MacDonald’s allegations of obstruction of justice against Murray MacDonald and former Crowns Pelletier and Griffiths, this despite the fact that Callaghan and his team have been retained by and are actively working for and paid to protect the interests of the CPS and its former Chief Claude Shaver, and in the process vilify Perry Dunlop and all those who allege a paedophile ring and/or cover-up involving Cornwall police and/or local Crown attorney Murray MacDonald.)

Too, too much

Blogged under Uncategorized, The Mandate, Idependence and Impartiality, Church by Sylvia on Wednesday 14 February 2007 at 4:32 pm

This is all just too, too much.

Two matters on my mind today: (1) conflict of interest, and (2) investigating the victims

(1) Conflict of interest
The more I think on it the more I realize what an egregious conflict of interest we have with Staff Sgt. Garry Derochie of the Cornwall Police Service (CPS) seconded to and working for and with the inquiry.

It’s bizarre enough that the inquiry seems to have immersed itself in CPS business by investigating the matter of the CPIC report turned scrap paper which fell into the hands of a private citizen, John MacDonald. (No. Correction. Never mind ‘fell into the hands of.” Was handed to John MacDonald. )

And bad enough that John MacDonald thought that he should deal with Derochie – not Spice – because it was a CPS – not inquiry – matter.

And then bad enough that when he met with Derochie at the police station John was told that Derochie had been seconded to the inquiry.

And interesting that John was puzzled because Derochie seemed to be very “nervous.”

Bizarre. Truly bizarre.

That’s one issue.

But, Derochie seconded to the inquiry?

That is not only bizarre, it is an outrage.

An officer from the CPS working hand in glove with the inquiry to get to the truth? The CPS which is knee deep in allegations cover-up which the inquiry should be but may or not be investigating?

In and of itself that is conflict enough. But this is Staff Sgt. G. Derochie. Staff Sgt, Derochie…

(1) who was on duty in 1995 when John MacDonald, accompanied by Carson Chisholm, arrived at the police station with a written account of his sexual abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald;

(2) who literally refused to touch John’s statement;

(3) the CPS officer tasked to investigate “Perry Dunlop’s involvement in making a copy or copies of Mr. David Silmser’s statement” and giving a copy to the Children’s Aid Society (CAS);

(4) the CPS officer who reported that Dunlop’s intentions in going to CAS may have been “less than honourable” and that “Dunlop had either exercised incredibly bad judgement or that his actions had been more calculated and sinister than originally thought”; and

(5) a CPS officer who will, or at least should, be called to testify as a key witness for the CPS

Unbelievable!!!

Impartiality?!!!

Is this for real?

If it’s not for real, why was John MacDonald told Derochie has been seconded by the inquiry?

If it is for real, well, what can I say? First we have the office of the Attorney General which is up to it’s eyeballs in allegations of cover-up crafting the mandate and choosing the commissioner. Then an Ontario judge with a series of real and perceived conflicts who has decided behind closed doors that the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling around Cornwall are false. And, now officers from the CPS working hand-in-glove with the commission.

And we’re to believe this ruse of an inquiry is impartial and independent?

May 2007

John MacDonald speaks to Deputy Chief of Police Danny Aikman

17 May 2007

John MacDonald speaks to Chief of Police Daniel Parkinson.

13 October 2007

Staff Sgt. Bob Burnie contacts John MacDonald’s sister alleging he, Burnie, has been unsuccessfully trying to contact John for the past month. 

30 October 2007 

John MacDonald emails Cornwall Chief of Police Dan Parkinsonafter he, John, was told by Sergeant Bob Burnie that John’s complaint falls within the guidelines of the Cornwall Public Inquiry and it will therefore be left until the inquiry “runs its course.”

  From: john macdonald [mailto:wildcard233@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:55 PM
To: Diane Gibeau; Guy Lauzon; James Bateman; Jim Brownell; Mark; sylvia.maceachern@sympatico.ca; wildcard233@hotmail.com; cornwall@theinquiry.ca; Pierre.Dumais@jus.gov.on.ca
Subject: Obstruction of Justice Complaint 
Chief Dan Parkinson:

My name is John Mac Donald, we have spoke by phone concerning a complaint that I filed concerning Obstruction of Justice charges against Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald, Judge Robert Pelltier and Judge Peter Griffiths.

Recently, 17 days ago to be exact, I was contacted by my sister, who called me to let me know that Sergant Bob Burnie had phoned her to let her know that he had been looking for me. He had mentioned to her that he had been searching for me for about the last month. I found this rather odd, since I had given you both my cell number and my home phone number, both of which you called me back on. These numbers were also passed on to deputy Chief Aikman, who also called me on my cell. Regardless of this, I called Bob back. He informed me when I called that there was a decision about the complaint that I had filed. I will repeat his words using quotes:

Bob said as follows:

“I was told that the powers that be have decided that your complaint falls within the guidelines of the Cornwall Public Inquiry, and they are going to wait for the Inquiry to run its course before they decide what they are going to do.”

I asked Bob that this decision be sent to me in writing, gave him my new address and we ended the call. As stated earlier, that was 17 days ago. I feel that this has been ample time for this letter to get to me. I am forwarding my address once again. I am anticipating your prompt action and attention to this request.

Sincerley,
John Mac Donald

Cornwall Community Police Service

613-933-5000 ext. 2400

Fax 613-932-9317

“The basic mission for the police is to prevent crime and disorder”

Sir Robert Peel, 1829.

01 November 2007 Blog on the above on Sylvia’s Site

…. And, finally, I was copied on the following this afternoon, an email to John MacDonald from Chief Parkinson of the Cornwall Police Service Chief:

Mr. MacDonald At your request, I am sending you this letter (email) confirming the response earlier provided by Sgt.Burnie. It is our understanding that you have already brought the subject matter of your complaint to the attention of Commission Counsel for the Cornwall Public Inquiry. Since the mandate of that Inquiry involves a review of public institutions including the Attorney General’s office , we anticipate that your concerns will be addressed during the course of the Cornwall Public Inquiry. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

Daniel C. Parkinson

Chief of Police

Cornwall Community Police Service

613-933-5000 ext. 2400

Fax 613-932-9317

“The basic mission for the police is to prevent crime and disorder”

Sir Robert Peel, 1829.

And this inquiry is not a criminal proceeding? But it will handle complaints which are of criminal in nature? Against three rather prominent men?

What was that Carmen said Howard Yegendorf said after Justice Colin McKinnon cited him with contempt: “If you hurt one judge you hurt them all”?

I think that tied in with her observation that Justice Dennis Cunnigham, who found Dick guilty of contempt in Ottawa, was the same judge who assigned Colin McKinnon to the Leduc trial and then, – thanks to Dick, after McKinnon was forced to recuse himself – dispatched Justice James Chadwick to take over the sex abuse trial turned trial and lynching of Perry Dunlop.

And the wagons are still circling….

If you hurt one judge you hurt them all……..

Enough,

But there it is. Back in 2001 Dick pleading. And here we are in November of 2007 and only days ago learned that the Cornwall Police Service has concluded that the criminal allegations John MacDonald launched last January against Murray MacDonald and Justices Robert Pelletier and Peter Griffiths will go on hold indefinitely because “ the mandate of that Inquiry involves a review of public institutions including the Attorney General’s office” and therefore CPS anticipates that John’s “concerns” will be addressed “during the course of the Cornwall Public Inquiry.”

As a reminder, the text of Cornwall police Chief Dan Parkinson’s 01 November 2007 email to John:

At your request, I am sending you this letter (email) confirming the response earlier provided by Sgt. Burnie. It is our understanding that you have already brought the subject matter of your complaint to the attention of Commission Counsel for the Cornwall Public Inquiry. Since the mandate of that Inquiry involves a review of public institutions including the Attorney General’s office , we anticipate that your concerns will be addressed during the course of the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

Some questions on this:

(i) What difference does it make if John did or did not tell “Commission Counsel” anyone at the inquiry of his concerns that MacDonald, Pelletier and Griffiths obstructed justice?(ii) How will or can John’s concerns of criminal activity be addressed by a public inquiry?(iii) What does the Chief mean when he says “we anticipate” John’s concerns will be addressed during the course of the inquiry? Who is “we”? And why “anticipate” vs “will”?

(iv) Why is the Cornwall Police Service handling a complaint of criminal activity against the local Crown attorney who was previously under investigation by Project Truth for conspiring with the CPS to obstruct justice?

Seems to me there’s something wrong with this picture. But, it also seems that at the end of the day life for some in Cornwall just keeps going merrily along.

The same old same old.

27 November 2007

John MacDonald email request to Cornwall Chief of Police Dan Parkinson seeking verification of various dates regarding the obstruction of justice complaint.

Chief Parkinson:

I am requesting the following information:

1-The incident report # for the complaint that I filed against Murray Mac Donald, Peter Griffiths and Robert Pelletier

2-The time and date that the incidents were reported

3-The name of the officer that took the information

4-The date that I spoke with Sean White regarding this same information

5-The date that I spoke by phone with both yourself and Deputy Chief Aikman regarding this complaint

I am requesting this information to verify my own notes before pursuing this matter any further.

Anticipating your reply,
John Mac Donald

04 December 2007 Blog on the above on Sylvia’s Site

You may recall that 10 months ago John MacDonald went to the Cornwall police to have Cornwall Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald and Justices Robert Pelletier and Peter Griffiths charged with obstruction of justice.

John was told that he should sue rather than pursue criminal charges.

In October John was told that nothing would be done until the inquiry is finished because the complaint of criminal wrong-doing somehow falls within the mandate of the inquiry!

On 27 November 2007 John MacDonald sent the following email to Chief of Cornwall Police Service Dan Parkinson.

Chief Parkinson:

I am requesting the following information:

1-The incident report # for the complaint that I filed against Murray Mac Donald, Peter Griffiths and Robert Pelletier

2-The time and date that the incidents were reported

3-The name of the officer that took the information

4-The date that I spoke with Sean White regarding this same information

5-The date that I spoke by phone with both yourself and Deputy Chief Aikman regarding this complaint

I am requesting this information to verify my own notes before pursuing this matter any further.

Anticipating your reply,
John Mac Donald

To date John has received no response.

Remember now that John is alleging and has reported allegations of criminal activity against the trio of Crown attorneys involved in the sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald. Ten months has passed. Nothing!

Prevention mode I suppose. All in keeping with the Cornwall police approach to crime which, as Staff Sgt. Garry Derochie so infamously explained, means: “You’re supposed to prevent crime. Not investigate crime after it happens.”

06 December 2007

Staff Sergeant Garry Derochie responds to John MacDonald’s 27 November 2007 email to Chief Dan Parkinson.

Subject: Your email to Chief Parkinson, November 27, 2007
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:36:16 -0500
From: derochie.g@cornwallpolice.com
To: wildcard233@hotmail.com

Mr. MacDonald,

The following is the response to your inquiry:

1. The incident number created to record your complaint is CW07001620.

2. The date of that incident is February 3, 2007.

3. The name of the officer to whom you made the complaint to is Acting Sergeant S. Coulter.

4. The date you spoke to Detective Sergeant S. White was January 26, 2007. He reported that contact under Incident #CW07001225.

5. The date of your telephone conversation with Chief D. Parkinson is unknown however it would have been a day or two prior to your speaking with Deputy Chief D. Aikman and that was on May 17, 2007.

Regards,

Garry Derochie
Cornwall Community Police Service

10 December 2007 

John MacDonald email to Garry Derochie asking who are “the powers that be” who have decided that John’s complaint is a Cornwall Public Inquiry matter 

From: john macdonald [mailto:wildcard233@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Garry Derochie; Guy Lauzon; James Bateman; Jim Brownell; Pierre.Dumais@jus.gov.on.ca; sylvia.maceachern@sympatico.ca; wildcard233@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Obstruction Of Justice complaint Garry Derochie:

I am forwarding you my original e-mail that I sent to Chief Parkinson, and the Chiefs’ reply. In my original e-mail I quoted Bob Burnie as saying to me, “I am told that the powers that be have decided….”. In the reply from the Chief, he confirms the response by Sgt. Burnie. Before I take any further steps in dealing with this matter, I need to know who has decided that this issue is a Cornwall Public Inquiry matter, so in other words, who are the powers that be that decided that this is a matter for the inquiry.

Anticipating your prompt reply,
John Mac Donald 

03 January 2008

Staff Sgt. Garry Derochie responds to John MacDonald re “the powers that be”

Subject: RE: Obstruction Of Justice complaint
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:11:24 -0500
From: derochie.g@cornwallpolice.com
To: wildcard233@hotmail.com

Good afternoon Mr. MacDonald, 

Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I was away from the office for two weeks prior to Christmas and that period of time led into my holiday time.  I am unable to consult with Sgt. Burnie at this time to confirm who he meant by “the powers to be”, however I don’t believe it is of any consequence to whatever further steps you intend to take. The term in question is normally used when no one individual can be identified. I would refer you back to the Chief’s response to your original inquiry.  

Regards, 

Garry Derochie
Cornwall Community Police Service
340 Pitt Street, P.O. Box 875
Cornwall Ontario  K6H 5T7
Tel: (613) 933-5000 ext: 2411
Cell: (613) 551-6849
Fax: 932-8843
E-mail: derochie.g@cornwallpolice.com

From: john macdonald [wildcard233@hotmail.com]
Sent: January 4, 2008 12:15 AM
To: Garry Derochie; Guy Lauzon; James Bateman; Jim Brownell; Mark; Mark Blackburn; Pierre.Dumais@jus.gov.on.ca; sylvia.maceachern@sympatico.ca; wildcard233@hotmail.com
Subject: Obstruction Of JusticeGarry:

I thank you for your reply of Jan. 4th. However I am still a little confused by your letter (e-mail). You start by saying that you could not consult with Sgt. Burnie as to who he meant when he said “the powers that be”. That would tell me that there is a who involved. Then you go on to say “However I do not believe it is of any consequence, the term is used when no one individual can be identified. This only leads to another question for you. You do not believe it is of any consequence to who?

I testified before the inquiry over a year ago. I at that time tried to raise the issue only to be shut down. I then spoke with Shawn White on Jan. 26th/07, only to have him try to have me deal with this issue through civil action. I then went back and spoke with Scott Coulter on Feb. 03/07.  Scott understood the issue enough to realize that it warranted an incident number, and an investigation. The next word that I get is from Sgt. Burnie, to inform me “that the powers that be” have decided it is an inquiry issue. You then refer me back to the Chiefs’  response, in which the Chief states that he “anticipates that my concerns will be dealt with by the inquiry”. Reading this paragraph I am sure that you see that things have come full circle.

I am left with many questions concerning this matter, but the number one question would be. Just where would all of this be if the Cornwall Public Inquiry was not in town? Who would “the powers that be” have turned to, to deal with this blatant act of criminal obstruction? How could Chief Parkinson be so utterly confident enough to state that he “anticipates that my concerns will be dealt with”?

Once again Garry,
Anticipating your reply,
John Mac Donald