[Note: the audiotape from which this document is said to have been transcribed was reportedly missing by the time of the examinations for discovery. Thus, none of the crucial wordings below can be verified.]

[phone ringing]


Receptionist:   Good morning, ____________ Systems.


DL:      Hi, there. May I speak to Mr. Bouvier, please?


R:        Sure. One moment.


BB:      Good morning. Bob here.


DL:      Hi, there.  It's Donna.  I'm sorry.  I'm late.  I just got off the phone with Michael  Bears. [Mike LaBerge]


BB:      That's okay. No problem.


DL:      Um, I know you probably have a limited time. I did leave a message for you yesterday.


BB:      Okay.


DL:      But I guess I left it on the — I left it on the 988-4015.


BB:      Oh, okay. Yeah.


DL:      So, I don't want you to think that I wasn't going to call you, 'cause I did leave a message and I guess it was just the wrong place.  [The former president had offered to give her Mr. Bouvier's phone number, so the reporter had known where to get the correct number.]


BB:      Okay. Yeah, that's our message line and that – we have a fellow that clears that off, etc. and I guess he was working last night, so, he didn't get to it. [Told by the former vice president and former president that the reporter told them she would be publishing against Mr. Adams and ECMAS on Saturday, we feared from her not phoning the president then that she didn't mean to contact him at all.]   [Back]

DL:      Okay. So, why don't you go first?


BB:      Okay. I guess I don't really know what is involved in this story. I'm hearing this second, third hand.


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      Um, I believe it has to do with [Tim] Adams and Louise Malenfant.   And, um, my guess, from what I understand, it could be very destructive to what we're trying to do here in Edmonton


DL:      Right.


BB:      and, um, I guess I would urge you to find out more details.                      FF00487




DL:      Okay.


BB:      It sounds like [unintelligible – static]. And my understanding of the situation is that there was a, I guess some problems between Ferrel Christensen and Louise that has not gone well and it, from what appears to me, it seems like she's acting in a very vindictive manner because of her soured relationship with Ferrel.   And, she has, um, basically at some point she(?) gave me some information about the situation. I don't know really the details. I'd asked her to keep — you know, to try to work it out between the two of them and, you know, basically, that I didn't want to be refereeing their problems.


DL:      Right.


BB:      And, um, she thought — it turns — it seems like she's turned around and she's looking to basically discredit him for whatever reason. And part of that, I think, because Ferrel is friends with [Tim] and they both go to the support group, I think she's attacking [Tim] as well.


DL:      Okay.


BB:      So, I guess, the thing to realize is that — I don't think [Tim]'s even met her more than once. I'm not sure why she's — she's doing this. [Tim] Adams — I don't personally attend the support groups. I've attended a couple of times. It's on my day of access, though. Probably the best person to talk about what [Tim] does in the support group is Jiggs or James Haiden who


DL:      Sorry, how do you spell that?


BB:      The last name is Haiden, H-A-l-D-E-N.


DL:      Okay. H-A-I-D-E-N. Would you have a number for him?


BB:      Um, not — I'd have to get it at my desk. I could e-mail that to you.


DL:      Okay.                                                                                             [Next]         


BB:      If you give me your e-mail, I'll just — when I go back to my desk, I can e-mail it to



DL:      Okay. Do you want my e-mail now or


BB:      Sure:


DL:      Okay. Its dlaframboise. So, it's my first initial, followed immediately by my last name. So, D for Donna-L-A-F as in Frank-R-A-M as in Mary-B as in Bob-O-I-S as in Sam-E. And then it's at National Post, which is one word dot com.






BB:      Okay. Right. So, my understanding is that what is being said here is not even true. We had a meeting last night where [Tim] basically offered his resignation and — but, you know, what has been said in an e-mail to me basically is that she's claiming that [Tim] has had sex with a minor. Well, in discussing this with [Tim] last night, he says that he was charged, but it wasn't with sex with a minor, it was some verbal proposition, or something like that. And, so I think she's not representing the facts correctly. Or even making sure that she's got the facts. Um, as far — I've been involved with this group for a couple of years and [Tim] Adams has been involved, you know, longer than l am. And, probably before the—I believe before the support group started. He's going through divorce himself, or has gone through divorce.  He's a loving father with his children. [Back]  


            He's got—I believe he's got custody of his children. Um, what I also hear that has been said that's he's been giving legal advice. And my understanding - you'll have to check this with James because he'll know - but my understanding is that [Tim] acts more in a capacity to warn people when advice is not appropriate. Some people in these support groups say things that are not [unintelligible – static] I have understood say things that are not the proper things to say and he will say, wait a minute, you can't say that, or you don't— you know, shouldn't give that advice kind of thing. So I think it's–it's–he's been more covering, you know, potential problems that could occur. Uh, from what I've heard, I don't think he gives any legal advice in these meetings.   But, anyways, he  is involved — and I think from everything I hear, he's a valuable asset to these people that are going through these situations. That he does offer some services in a paralegal  respect  and  that  he charges for them,  but he also does a lot of volunteer work and that's what I know about him.  As far as everything that I've heard is he's a valuable asset to a lot of people who are in dire straits. So  [As noted before, the president didn't attend these meetings, and he too seemingly didn't understand the difference between  legal advice and mere legal information. (Anyone could tell attendees not to make claims about the law; only someone like Mr. Adams could correct such claims with the right information.) But...]   ----> 

DL:      Okay. Okay.


BB:      Um, you know, and I think that, you know, I think is simply a very vindictive situation here that is going on. And, you know, I really don't know, you know, you know, he's offered his resignation and without this particular support, we'll have to — I don't know  what  we're  going to do with the support group.  Um, there are some people in there that will mouth off and say things and we'll either have to ______________ or keep their mouths shut or we'll have to disband it. I don't know.  You know, without somebody there to protect ourself from somebody giving some bad advice, we could be in trouble. [...he knew the danger of misinformation being given out there.]     [Back]


                                                   So, I personally would not like to see [Tim] out of the group. Anyway, I guess, the other to realize is that we had a recent election. And it was pretty obvious to most people involved that there was a coup attempt by Louise Malenfant. ---> I think it was again with her vindictiveness here. And, you know, I think that, you know, she's basically, you know, informed me of her problems with Ferrel and Ferrel's pretty much kept me out of the loop of the whole thing and, you know, basically I've — you know, I'm going through a divorce myself and there's a lot of things we would like to accomplish as a organization and I really don't have time for petty squabbles between people and, you know, I really wish they would kind of deal with it on their own.  But, I don't think that's the case with Louise.  So – the other thing  that I've heard  that was mentioned  last night in  the meeting is that there are a  lot of  sexist feminist people at the Edmonton Journal that would love to destroy us. And I think that an article here to basically discredit ECMAS or to – I think would -------->





basically do a lot of harm.  And, you know, I wish that wouldn't be part of that if that's what's going to happen.  Um. 


DL:      What do you — could I ask you what you — what's your day job? What do you do for a living? [DL doesn't ask about Malenfant's coup attempt, instead changing the subject...] --->


BB:      I'm a engineer. [This must be a mistranscription. Mr. Bouvier uses the word 'an' properly in his speech, as the transcriptions of all his other words below indicate.]


DL:      Engineer. Okay. Um, okay, let me respond in a few ways. Um, one is that, as a journalist, one of the things I hear often


BB:      Uh-huh


DL:      and I feel that I'm hearing it here,


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      is I'm seeing someone — watching the messenger getting shot. Okay?     

[...and insisting  that Ms. Malenfant couldn't have done anything wrong.]             [Next]

BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      The messenger is not me. The messenger is Louise.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Okay? Now, Louise did not create the [Tim] Adarns, Ferrel Christensen


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      situation in ECMAS Edmonton. Okay? She is not responsible for that.


BB:      Sure.


DL:      All she has done is bring it to public attention by — by relaying her concerns to me. Okay?  Louise is the messenger.  Now, I'm sure Louise has her difficulties — has had her personal difficulties with Ferrel Christensen and, for all I know, with [Tim] Adams.  And, you know, I'm sure they've got their personal problems. But, Louise did not invent [Tim] Adams or [Tim] Adams' relationship to ECMAS and she did not invent his unsavory past. Now, let me tell you what I know about [Tim] Adams' past


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      and what is going to be in the newspaper article. And it comes directly from the Court of Appeal decision. What happened was [Tim] Adams appealed his disbarment.


BB:      Uh-huh.                                                                                                                  FF00490




DL:      It went to the Court of Appeal and three judges heard his arguments. He hired Eddy

            Greenspan, a very, very capable lawyer


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      to argue his position and all three Court of Appeal judges didn't buy it.  Okay? There's a ten-page decision outlining what the facts of the case are.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      The facts of the case are, first of all, [Tim] Adams — this is his second conviction for prostitution-related offences.


BB:      Okay.


DL:      He plead guilty to hiring a prostitute when he was an articling student.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Okay? He then becomes a lawyer. He has a client who is 16 years old. She is a minor.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      And he is representing, not only her, but he's representing her boyfriend who's in jail.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      He is in as a position of trust because he is her lawyer.


BB:      Sure.


DL:      Okay? He violates that position of trust by inviting her to have sex with him.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      From — now that's the — you know, that's the kind of the Law Society's perspective on it. My perspective is — this is a man who is twice her age,


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      he's  her lawyer, he's supposed to be helping her.  She's vulnerable, she is 16- years-old. She's obviously in a mess because she's a prostitute.  And his response is not to try to find her a job or help her get an apartment, his job is to hire her to have sex with her — to exploit her.


BB:      Uh-huh.                                                                                                                   FF00491




DL:      Okay? This is not good judgment.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      And it is not suggested this is someone with altruistic motives. It suggests this is someone who sees a vulnerable person and tries to take advantage of them.


BB:      Okay.


DL:      Okay? Those are the facts of the case. He plead guilty to trying to hire a prostitute.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      He got a 15-month conditional sentence.


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      So he has two criminal convictions. Now, to be fair, it does not appear that the first one involved a client or an underage person. Okay?  But it's not a situation where the man made one mistake [unintelligible – static]. Okay? Now, the larger context that I don't need to tell you is that there are lots of feminists out there who say that the fathers' rights — the non-custodial parents' movement — is all a bunch of bunk. That these groups are just covering up for deadbeat dads


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      and they're covering up for sex offenders and child abusers and molesters. That these guys claim that they're falsely accused, but they're not really, and these groups are covering up for them. [In this indirect way, to Mr. Bouvier, the reporter first claimed a conflict between 

having both Adams and people falsely accused of child sex abuse in ECMAS. To all interviewees before, she objected on grounds of his crime with a minor--but never 

even hinted that that act, or my book, reflected on people accused of sexually abusing their children. This will become clear as we see more of her words.] [Back]

BB:      Uh-huh.                                                                                                                                      


DL:      Well, when you have a guy with that kind of unsavory past


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      very central to your organization, that gives those people all kinds of ammunition. You know, it's only a matter of time before someone else noticed it. It just so happens that Louise came to me first. And I would suggest to you that because I'm sympathetic to the movement that I'm going to be a lot kinder — that you're luckier with — you're going to be, you know, treated better with me


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      than if, you know, some wild feminist at the Edmonton Journal got a hold of it, or Michelle Lansberg got ahold of it. Because they would say, look-it, everything we've been saying about these fathers' rights groups is true. Look-it, they have this guy. He's their bloody vice president and he's got this record of having sex with minors.        [Back]




BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Okay? That's how it looks. The other problem is that you've also got Ferrel Christensen.


BB:      Uh-buh.


DL:      Ferrel Christensen by himself would not be a news story. [Back] But [Tim] Adams and



            Ferrel Christensen, who has said some pretty disturbing things which suggests he thinks that having sex with kids is not so bad in his book. You put those two people together in your organization, that makes your organization look very bad.  [Next]


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      So, the question is, do you continue to say that these people are a valuable part of your organization or do you take steps to clean up your image. [She offers just two options to ECMAS: let us continue as "part of your organization", or "take steps to clean up your image".]  [Next] 


BB:      Right. And I guess — I don't know. My, I have not read Ferrel Christensen's book and I'm not aware of that. I have been involved with the book for a couple of years. At no time have I heard anything regarding his philosophies or anything to do with sex at all. [Obvious speech or typing error: should be 'involved with the group']               [Next]   

DL:      Right.


BB:      I can tell you that probably he's done more work, helping through the help line, etc., he's invest -- he's put in a lot of his money, etc. I have never seen him profit one nickel on anything.                                                                                                              


DL:      I know. I know.                                                                                                 [Back]


BB:      No, I guess


DL:      I agree with you. I understand all that of that.


BB:      So it's like, um


DL:      But, you know what, if there was a women's group


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      and they were volunteering and they had lots of good people and, but they had someone who, you know, had sex with a 16-year-old male prostitute and they thought that was okay, it would not look good. It does not look good for you guys.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      And that is the problem. It's an optics issue.


BB:      Yeah.                                                                                                   FF00493



DL:         It's what, you know, how does your credibility look?  These guys are going to you for help. The last thing they need in their life is to go to a group for help and end up associating with these people who have — one has an unsavory past

[Again she suggests that "these people" should not be allowed to go on "associating with" those coming for help.]

BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      And, two, has published out there in the real world some questionable views about sex with kids. [As this thread continues, note that she never suggests that the president look at the book himself, then decide what (if anything) to do; based on her allegation, she seeks a commitment to expel me.] [Next]

BB:      Well, I guess, I, I do, you know, I guess if I had, you know, 40 people that were all

working hard and were able to do things in our society, then, yeah, it would be a

moot issue. I think, that we don't need the publicity and all this kind of stuff that — you know, we have no funding.


DL:      I know that.


BB:      We have done everything on our own money.  We have started a support group. We have a men's help line.  There's people that give countless hours to these things to help out other people. We have — the majority of our people are fathers and we have a number of women on our organization as well.


DL:      Right.


BB:      But the majority of the fathers are in dire straits.


DL:      I know.


BB:      Uh, they do not have the time to put in to push a lot of things forward. With people like Ferrel who can devote more time because he's retired, we get things done that would not otherwise get done. Um, his, you know, this revelation of his book, etc.

— that has never been part of anything, according to our organization. Well, I suppose we could, you know, take him out of the group and we could take [Tim] out of the group and I'm sure, you know, in a McCarthy sort of way, we could find all kinds of things about other people, proven or otherwise, and we could hold investigations.  But, I guess, that's not what I'm about. I'm about trying to help people. And trying to help change the system. And if I now have to go and do a cleansing of, you know, various people on allegations and have tribunals, etc.


DL:      Okay. Wait a minute. Wait a minute, though,


BB:      and, you know,


DL:      you're suggesting


BB:      nothing will happen.


DL:      You're suggesting that this is in dispute. It is not in dispute


BB:      Uh-huh.                                                                                                           FF00494



DL:      that [Tim] Adams has been disbarred and he's been disbarred for those reasons.

If you want I can fax you the 10-page


BB:      Well, that's, that's, you know, okay


DL:      thing, okay? You're not holding a tribunal or deciding someone's guilt or innocence.


BB:      No, but


DL:      That is not in dispute.


BB:      Not, but I guess — I — I certainly was not aware of the details, etc. before the election. I heard that he was disbarred. I heard something about it being a set-up and that etc. I never heard of a previous incident. Um, and, but, you know, I know that we have a vindictive woman that's running loose here that's trying to discredit people and take out revenge against them. I guess


DL:      Again, you're going back to shooting the messenger. If there was


BB:      True.


DL:      there


BB:      Yes.


DL:      then I wouldn't be having this conversation with you. Louise has merely, you know, made it, made it,


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      you know, brought it to light. The fact that you've got a problem.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      So, Louise is not the problem. Your, you know, your organization's personnel is the problem. And, you know, if it wasn't Louise who mentioned it, it would have been someone else.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Sooner or later if you've got discreditable people associated with you, it's going to become an issue.


BB:      So, I, you know, basically if this is the case, like I say, [Tim] has offered his resignation.


DL:      Was it accepted last night?



- 10-

BB:      No, it was not accepted.  We have to review it a bit more. Basically it was to be — we were hoping to contact you last night


DL:      Uh-huh.


BB:      and talk to you and see what the situation was, again, most people are getting this third and fourth hand.


DL:      Right.


BB:      And then from there we would decide ______________ or not.


DL:      Sorry, I just didn't catch the last bit. From there you would


BB:      Decide whether to accept [Tim]'s resignation or not.


DL:      Okay.


BB:      You know, some of these things are revelations to people in the group.


DL:      Right.


BB:      And, I guess that, you know, we — [Tim] as well — and everything I've heard about [Tim], what he's done — he's given like countless hours to people to help them out.[This is just one of the places where the reporter was told of all Mr. Adams' valuable work.]  [Back]

            If, you know, he says that he would resign and that that is, I guess, you know, I think that if that's what it takes, you know, then we'll do that, you know. And I guess that I'm — when I'm talking a little bit ago is, you know, what could we do to stop this, I guess. Or to prevent this in the future if this is what we're up against. I'm, I don't know — it's — it's a little bit disappointing, Donna, you know. There's people that come to our group. They'll help out a little bit. A lot of them — it's hard to even find the time — the main people in our group like this James Haiden, etc. He does the support group meetings on Tuesday.  And, you know, he's just  —  it's taken a heck of a lot of his time. He's got, you know, children to raise. He's got a job, you know, etc. It's pretty tough. And, you know, we can just, you know—I know we could lose [Tim], you know, as V.P. which I thought he would, you know, with his capabilities might do some — might be a big help in some areas. We don't have enough people. You know, we have elections — except for this election with this coup attempt, basically it's all by acclamation typically. Most people, you know, we can't get enough people to hold the positions. Very rarely we get enough people to do the work. It's a tough thing to move this forward. And I'm — I'm, you know, a little bit upset that, you know, that this dissension between these two people in the group has led to something that's going to ultimately — if, in the best of situations, it looks like we would lose these people from helping out. And the worst of, is that there be this story that runs in  the Post that associates ECMAS and tries to make us out like a group that are harbouring these type of people and that, you know, that we are basically a bunch of people that are not lawfully accused of things and we're just hiding people who are falsely claiming that they're falsely accused. Um, I'm falsely accused of raping my wife and it has given her the upper hand in every bit of thing during this divorce and it's an absolutely terrible thing. And I — this system is                                                                                                                                      FF00496



completely biased and it needs to be changed. And the road ahead of us is very

hard. And, you know, I've read a lot of your stories in the Post and I'm quite impressed by them. And I'm — I think that a story to tries to, you know, tear apart ECMAS on the grounds of the past of particular people in the group I think will just serve to make it that much more difficult and I think that — I think it's not well served. I think that if [Tim]'s offering his resignation and if that's the, you know, the deal here then I think that, you know, we'll probably accept it. And I think that [Tim] has personal reasons, and I think that — we feel — I think the consensus in the meeting last night was, we feel like we're being blackmailed here. That Louise is upset with FerreI and she's going to basically take it out on them to go to her good friend The National Post and get a story written up and basically pay them up.                          [Back] 


DL:      Okay. Well, I have to tell you that I feel quite insulted by that interpretation


BB:      Well, I


DL:      because I would not write a story unless there was something to write about.


BB:      Uh-huh.          


DL:      Okay?


BB:      True. But I guess, I don't know what this story is and


DL:      The story is that you guys have exercised incredible poor judgment by electing this man as your vice president. [Next] Now, now that you — okay, you screwed up. We all screw up. You're a small volunteer organization. It's understandable that you're going to make mistakes, 'cause you're human.  The only question now is what do you do to fix the mistake?  And how quickly do you fix the mistake?  So, when I went to my editor this morning and said, well, I'm told that this guy's resigned


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      because my conversation with [Tim] Adams suggested that he was resigned, that there was no question about it. And I expected to see, you know, a fax on my desk this morning


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      with, you know, telling me that that had happened and an effective date. And there was no fax. [She expected this without even talking to the group. (Adams himself hadn't promised her a fax, nor had she asked him for one.) Such a controlling attitude is as shocking as it is revealing.]                 [Back]

BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      You know, when I went to my editor and said he's resigning,  you know, is there still a story? My editor said, well, the story now is that, you know, we're not saying they're screw-ups, we're saying they made a mistake and they've taken steps to fix

it.  [Remember: the person she later identified as her supervisor denied making any such decisions for her.]




BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      So,  the  question is  what steps are you guys going to take?  And so what I've said is that I understand that there is going to be a meeting on the weekend


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      and, you know, you know, we should probably give them the weekend to sort this out


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      before we write the story. Because we wanted to run this for Saturday. So I've bought you some time.  [Again clearly saying that this other person made the actual decision.]


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      But, early next week we are going to write a story that says here's this organization, it made a mistake, here's what it did to fix the mistake.  And then readers are going to decide whether you have done enough to fix the mistake.                [Back]           


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Or whether you've just really made excuses and said this is all about some personal vendetta of someone and refused to actually acknowledge that there might be issues of concern.


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      So, you know, I'm a journalist. I write news.   If there is no story, I don't waste my time on it because there's lots of real stories out there.


BB:      True.


DL:      The story is that you guys elected someone last Monday night who was totally inappropriate to be an official for your organization.


BB:      Well


DL:      If you hadn't done that


BB:      Uh-huh


DL:      I would not to you now.


BB:      Right. So, I guess the — with more information, I guess — you know, you hear one side — you hear the other side, etc.


DL:      Uh-huh.                                                                                                           FF00498

- 13-


BB:      One has to go through a — even, you know, as awful as this sounds, one has to go through, you know, the Board basically


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      to look at the situation and decide what to do.


DL:      Right.


BB:      Um, and based upon where this is coming from, we are, you know, wondering, you know, I personally wonder what is the truth here, you know.


DL:      Well, do you have a fax number? Can I fax you this Court of Appeal decision?


BB:      You can fax it to the 988 number.


DL:      988.


BB:      That number that I — 988


DL:      4015


BB:      And that is our message line and it takes faxes.


DL:      Okay.


BB:      Urn.


DL:      Okay. So why don't I do that for you today.


BB:      Okay.


DL:      And then you've kind of got something, you know, in black and white.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      And, you know, in these cases we never know, you know, if you're right you get some newspaper articles, you talk to different people, they say certain things, and then from a  journalist's perspective,  if the court says something, that is safe.  That is hyper-safe for us to print because we cannot be sued by quoting what a judge says.


BB:      Right.


DL:      So, when we describe [Tim] Adams' history, we're going to be quoting directly from that judgment.


BB:      Uh-huh.


- 14-


DL:      That's where the information is going to come from.


BB:      All right. I guess, you know, my feeling up until this point is, and I think that most people that voted was that [Tim] was helping out on the support group — support group meetings, that he was basically keeping things on track so that we weren't saying things that we shouldn't say. Because there's people that will give advice


DL:      Right.


BB:      in a support group. And they'll say, well, he should just do that. And he'll go, whoa, you know. And this is what I'm hearing secondhand from somebody else.


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      He said, whoa, you know, you can't say that, you know. It may be this or this, but, you know, you can't be saying this. Or giving directions, you know, kind of direct or maybe he can go some lawyer or do something, but


DL:      Right.


BB:      you know, and that — I've never heard that, you know, he's done anything but good and I guess that I heard that he was disbarred. There was some details on that. Didn't really know.  And I think a lot of people knew that he was disbarred and I think, what I'd heard, was that it was a set-up from the police because he was criminal lawyer and whatever. And, you know, that at one point somebody — I think Louise has mentioned in one of her e-mails that he had a sex with a minor. Which last night he said that's not true.  And, so, who knows. You know, where is the truth. I guess if the court documents show that this is the case, then, yeah, I guess, you know, my feeling is that we're going to — we don't have the person there. If he's going to present a problem to our credibility, then we have to remove him.


DL:      Right.


BB:      If, you know, if this is, in fact true, which it sounds like it is. I don't think you'd be making this up. So, but I think ultimately, I don't what the situation was exactly, but from what I've seen, he was trying to help people out.


DL:      Right. Now the other thing you should be aware of and, you know,  I don't know if you are or not, is that when I spoke to Mr. Adams yesterday, he admitted to me, and this was probably on the low side because, you know, it's human to do that, he admitted to me that at least 25% of his paralegal business comes from ECMAS referrals.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Okay. So, he is coming to ECMAS and he is getting clients from ECMAS.


BB:      Uh-huh.



- 15-

DL:      So, you know, I wouldn't have ever known about that if I hadn't started looking at this.  You know, but when the man himself is telling me that a quarter of his business, i.e., a substantial portion of his livelihood, is coming from you guys, that puts you in the position of referring him.  That means you are putting your blessing on people coming to the support group using him.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      And whether you intended to do that or not, that's the position you find yourself in.


BB:      Yeah. Like I say, I haven't been at the support group meetings. From what I heard last night there was never any referrals to him. [An obvious error. He may have confused not getting any business from the meeting with not doing any business at the meeting; the latter is certainly correct.]

DL:      Except the only way these people are meeting him are by going to an ECMAS meeting.


BB:      Right.


DL:      And he's saying that 25% of his clients come from ECMAS. That's how he meets them. Okay?


BB:      Okay.

[Note well that when she spoke to the president, she did not seem to have any general objection to such dealings:]

DL:      So some groups would say we're not in the business of, of, of referring anyone to anyone and we don't want anyone who comes to our meetings to be making money off of anyone else at our meetings. Some groups have that policy.  Some groups say, you know, if you are, you know, they make their different decisions.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      You guys don't seem to have had a policy and so it seems to have happened by accident. But the point is, is that, is that he, you know, if he was ordinary paralegal with a stellar past, it might not be such an issue. [In alleging the Calgary rule, question 11 says clearly that 

any financial dealings via ECMAS should be banned, not just those with one having Mr. Adams' past.]

BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      You know, it might be perfectly fine. You've checked the guy out; you like his services; you have no problem with connecting people [By that time, we had "checked him out" with two years of firsthand observation. Yet she demanded his expulsion over his five-year-old crime.]

BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      who go to the meetings with him. [Even in the published article she didn't say what is objectionable about this financial arrangement--just implied that it 

is bad by all the attention she paid to it. She also focused there,  and in previous interviews, on allegedly exploitative dealings, a topic which will be discussed here 

shortly.]    [Back]

BB:      Yeah, We have a policy actually that no member of the board is to be receiving any money, in anyway, from the group.


DL:      Okay. So, has he ever been a member of the board?


BB:      No.                                                                                                                   FF00501

- 16-


DL:      Okay.


BB:      Not until this time.


DL:      Okay. So now he became a member of the board when he became V. P.?


BB:      That's right.


DL:      Okay. Okay.


BB:      So, and that was just on — like, on that, that meeting that was — we had our annual general meeting, that was the election.


DL:      Right. Well, I can suggest to you that when I


BB:      So, according to our policy he cannot receive any money regarding anything


DL:      He did not seem to be aware of that policy when I spoke to him yesterday because he did not suggest that now that I've become V.P. I will not be taking, I will not be getting clients from ECMAS. He made no mention of that whatsoever.

 [Somehow failing to see the difference between being paid by ECMAS and by individuals met through ECMAS]

BB:      Okay. Well, I guess if you could fax that to me. That would be good.


DL:      Okay.


BB:      Um, I'm not sure — like we had a meeting last night. It was scheduled ahead of time for some other reasons.


DL:      Okay.


BB:      But, it quickly became the topic of discussion and it was the only topic of discussion last night.


DL:      Right.


BB:      Um, I guess that, again, I, you know, these things come to light I guess. What it a bad decision? I don't know. I guess, perhaps it was. You know, you vote. Many people came to vote. There was about 29 people that voted for the vice president position.


DL:      Right.


BB:      And, you know


DL:      But, you're saying to me that, that clearly people didn't know who they were voting for.


BB:      Well, I guess they didn't know the details that I'm sure that you know. I think they voted based upon what he's been doing in the past couple of years.          FF00502

- 17-

DL:      Right.


BB:      And, I think that associated with this particular election, there was definitely a coup attempt and perhaps,  you know, I even heard that perhaps that prompted [Tim] to run because, you know, this Louise Malenfant was wanting to take over the organization. And, so, um, you know, perhaps, he has no other interest to run other than that. I have not discussed this with him. I was surprised to see that he ran


DL:      Right.


BB:      on that particular night, to tell you the truth.


DL:      Right.  Right. So do you have a policy where someone has to nominate you, or can you just nominate yourself when you run?                      

[Again DL changes the subject, again refuses to inquire into the coup attempt or Adams' reason for running]   [Back]

BB:      Um, I believe people can put their names up.


DL:      Okay.


BB:      This is — we've changed our by-laws. That was one of the things that we did


DL:      Okay.


BB:      in the meeting was we revised our by-laws and those were accepted at that meeting as well.


DL:      Okay. Okay.  So, I'm sorry that we're not talking about something far pleasant. I wish that were the case.   Um, but, you know, as a journalist I have a responsibility to report the news and when you guys had your election and you elected [Tim] Adams, that became news.   And it would be news if the Red Cross elected someone with that kind of past as their vice president.   It would be news if the YMCA elected someone with that kind of past. Because, you know, they're connected to kids.  It's news when you guys do it.  So, and as I say, everyone screws up.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      The only question is do you fix the mistake. Do you fix it thoroughly. You know, do you make the right noises to the public which suggest that, oh my God, we're embarrassed that we've done this and, you know, we've learned a big lesson and, you know, we didn't — certainly had no intention of, you know, associating ourselves with someone with this kind of past.


BB:      Yeah. Um, personally, I am a religious person.


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      I do not — from what I've heard — the little bit I've heard about Ferrel's book, I have no — no alliance or like for that. I have no particular — I really would, you know,                                                                                                                                FF00503

- 18-


personally don't like the kinds of things that  [Tim] Adams is said to have done.  I think that is wrong. I guess that one thing that we have is we've got a number of people that are falsely accused in our group,


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      and I think, you know, to be fair to ECMAS, it's fairly difficult to weed out the truth from the fact.


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      And, I'm wondering now, you know, what do we do?  You know, trying to look forward from this. Do I run criminal checks on people that are board members, you know?   That we don't get stories that come out afterwards that digs up their past and tries to shed — put light on ECMAS as being supportive of this.


DL:      Well, you could


BB:      You know, do I check the false  allegations and make my own personal judgments as to whether they're not — they are true or not? I don't know. It's a tough — tough situation. Personally, I want to do positive things.


DL:      Right.


BB:      And, um, you know, if there are people that are going to help out, it's pretty hard for me to say, well, wait a minute, you know, you're not allowed, or you don't meet my standards or whatever. If they're — if they're separate in Ferrel Christiansen's case

— never has it been in there, you know — he was involved way before I was. The other people that were president, etc. seem to have let him assist, etc. Either they didn't know his — you know, the details, or I don't know what, you know.  But I guess, it, you know, you're saying what are we doing to do to fix it?  Are we looking at ourselves to do this? And I guess, we're — we'll have to meet and we'll have to decide what to do. What would you suggest?


DL:      Well, I — that puts me in a difficult position 'cause, you know, as the journalist reporting the story, I should not be affecting the story. Um [She says this after demanding to know what he is going to do to "fix" the situation she has alleged to exist regarding Mr. Adams and me.]

BB:      Well, the story is affected by your article.


DL:      Right.                                                      [Next]                                                          


BB:      There is no question.

[Here she uses an analogy to pound home her repeated suggestion that they disassociate from Mr. Adams and me:] 

DL:      Okay, let's say — let's use a hypothetical situation. Okay?  Hypothetical situation. We have the YMCA. They elect someone who has been a volunteer, who has been around for awhile, who has done very good work as far as they know. They elect this person to vice president and then it comes to light that this person has — has, you know, this criminal past that they were unaware of.                          -------->


- 19-

BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      They made a honest mistake. They say, oh my God, we made a mistake.


BB:      Uh-huh,


DL:      We ask for the guy's resignation.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      We say, we're sorry that, you know, you are guilty of this offence. You were found guilty — you plead guilty to this offence. And, you know, we certainly believe that, you know, people should be allowed to get on with their lives, but we cannot be associated with someone who has got this kind of record.   


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Because it tars our work with young people.


BB:      Okay,


DL:      Um, if it turns out that you find out that there's another person in your organization who's written a book about pornography.---> Now, let me tell you, you know, I'm very much a person who, who would agree with what — much of what is in Ferrel Christensen's book about pornography. Okay? I think — 90% of it I don't have a problem with.  I think he actually makes some, some very good arguments.  But there is, you know, 3% of it, so 95 or 97% of it I would agree with.  3% of it, whenever he talks about kids and sex, he says some really disturbing things.

 [Note that she's talking about what is said "about kids and sex" in the whole book, not just in a single section.]

BB:      Hum.


DL:      Okay? So if this YWCA or YMCA finds out they have a person, you know, this person's been around. It's never come up as an issue, but now the YMCA has become aware of it.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      They say, you know what, we're really sorry to lose you   [**Continue over to ## ! ---->]                       

BB:      Uh-huh.





DL:      but we cannot afford to have our credibility tarnished.  You're suggesting that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing. [Back]


BB:      Uh-huh.






DL:      We can't have that, because we deal with kids. We're dealing with issues that are directly connected.




BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      And, you know, we're, you know, we're sorry to lose you, but you're a liability to us and our entire organization is in danger of being totally tainted by your presence. But, if I were a journalist reporting on the YMCA and how they handled that situation, I would say, you know, they did the right thing.                                            

[Making perfectly clear that, if they do not do as she says, her article will indicate that they didn't do the right thing.]

BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      They had a problem.  They fixed the problem.   When it came to their attention, when all of the facts came to their attention, they moved quickly and they fixed the problem and they said that, you know, this should not happen and this would be something that they would try to ensure would not happen in future.

[She continues to pound away at it.]    ----->

BB:      Right.


DL:      And that's all you can ask.


BB:      Yeah. I guess that — I've never read the book. I didn't know about, you know, kids and sex is okay. I've got children and I don't think it's okay.


DL:      Right.


BB:      Um, um, you know. Uh, I do not like any association with that. I think that our group has — wouldn't want any association with that as well.


DL:      Right.


BB:      Um,


DL:      And an organization that deals with the problem, addresses it, gets rid of the bad elements, the bad apples, is an organization that you can trust to take care of their problems. That they hold themselves to a high standard just like they're expecting government to act to a high standard.


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      But an organization that has a problem and refuses to acknowledge that there's a problems, refuses to do anything, is an organization maybe people should not be coming to for help. [Note that there is no 'maybe' anywhere here. (Despite the clarity of these efforts to

get me removed from ECMAS, in discovery, we will see later on, she tried at length to deny having done so.) Later we'll see how she used the threat of media exposure 

to pressure him to act on her allegations immediately.]      [Back]

BB:      Uh-huh. Well, I think that all the people that I know in this organization, you know, only have been involved in it to help change things for the betterment of, not themselves, but for other people.


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      Um, and, you know, I can't — don't know too many people that are involved in the long run that have benefited themselves in anything.                              FF00506



DL:      Right.


BB:      So, I think that, you know, we don't— especially, you know, I feel a real responsibility to the previous members of ECMAS, you know, previous presidents, etc. who have done a terrific job and, you know, very well ______ , addressed issues, very professional in a lot of areas.


DL:      Right.


BB:      I come — you know, Ferrel Christensen was part of ECMAS well before I


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      I came in.  Um, hearing some of this information about the book, etc. and how it could tarnish, you know I guess a little bit — not a little bit. I'm not very happy about that — that part of his life. Um, I've seen it in the two years that I've been the group, I've never seen it ever been associated with any of the issues or any of the things that have gone on.


DL:      Uh-huh. Uh-huh.


BB:      Um. I guess, um, you know, to me, it's — if it's construed that this is going to make us look bad, then I think that's — we should address that. And I think that we as a group need to look at that — at that book and see if that's, you know, what he's saying and whatever and decide on that information, I don't think people have addressed the issue.


DL:      Uh-huh. Uh-huh.


BB:      That they have looked into, you know, people's pasts. I don't think, when people basically got some job to do, we're going to do this application or we're going to make this presentation, or we're going to set up this help line or whatever, we don't really, you know look at well, what could this person's past be and should we judge them. We don't have the time. We don't, like, we not —


DL:      And that's understandable.


BB:      an organization. Pardon me?


DL;      That's understandable.   But the moment something comes up,  you have to deal with it.


BB:      Right.


DL:      You know, otherwise, you — yeah, you assume people are being straight with you. You assume that they're decent. You assume that, you know, they're of good character. But the moment a question is raised, you have to address it.


BB:      Right.                                                                                                               FF00507

- 22 -

DL:      And then you have to act accordingly and make a decision accordingly.


BB:      Yeah. And I guess that's the process that we're in right now. We've got some —we had the meeting last night. Basically [Tim] countered some of the information that we'd heard. He offered his resignation. Basically, I think that — my personal feeling is that he's offered his resignation. He would not like this story for personal reasons and I don't see how, no matter what the board thinks or anything, that we could him down on that. I think that, you know, as far as his position, I — you know, we have other people — there  was another person running  that could fill that position.  Um, I, you know, I think that it's -- basically I think he probably would have — his resignation probably would have been accepted last night, but I think that we wanted to talk to you.


DL:      Uh-huh.


BB:      See where you're going with this story.   And then meet again and go from there. But I think, you know, it seemed like we needed to know more details


DL:      Sure.


BB:      before we make that final solution.


DL:      Sure.


BB:      Um, I don't think that, you know, [Tim]'s got any hesitation about resigning or whatever and I don't think too many people — what I read in the meeting had any problem with that


DL:      Right.


BB:      that solution. So, but I think it was the matter of, you know, let's see what really is going on here and


DL:      Right. But, just to be clear, you know, if the person just resigns from the YWCA was still connected to it, 


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      was still getting clients from it. There's still an issue.


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      Right? What started out as a concern about the person being in an elected position

            turns out to actually be a bigger problem.


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      So merely resigning the elected position is not necessarily addressing the bigger problem.                                                                                                                      



- 23 -


BB:      Yeah.  So, yeah.  We've got to deal with that, I guess. I don't know how — what we're going to do. You know, it's – you know, it's – in some respects – again, I don't know how his situation is related other than, you know, somebody can bring up his past and try to associate


DL:      Yes.


BB:      Urn


DL:      And because it's — if it was an offence — armed robbery


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      it wouldn't matter.  [!!]


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      If it was, you know, you know, break and enter,


BB:      Uh-huh,


DL:      you know, it probably wouldn't matter.


BB:      Yeah. Right.


DL:      But it's an offence — a sexual offence with a minor.


BB:      Uh-huh.                                                                


DL:      That's why it matters. [Her alleged reason for this view is discussed shortly in My Case.]        [Back]


BB:      Yeah.              


DL:      It's the nature of the offence.    It's the nature of Ferrel Christensen's comments about sex with children.   If he was talking about how, you know, marijuana should be decriminalized, that's got nothing to do with your mandate.


BB:      Yeah. Yeah. I guess so, you know, that's — I think that's probably the way people will look at things. You know, will — it's, I guess, it's from my perspective, we have to, you know, like you say, it's a bit of a blow, you know, to


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      our society that we're going to lose two people that, um, you know, contributed quite a bit from what I hear.  Um, as far as I know, did not have anything, you know, did not have anything to do or talk about these particular things to anybody in the group.


DL:      Right.                                                                                                              


- 24 -

BB:      So, you bring up something kind of unrelated. But, I guess it is related in that we have show that we're, you know, an organization that


DL:      Not condone sex with kids.                                                                                         [Back]


BB:      Yeah, well, yeah. And I guess, you know, there's some people that, you know, are pro-homosexual and this and that and some people are really religious, this and whatever and I guess the primary thing is like keep these other topics out of the situation.


DL:      Uh-huh.


BB:      Deal with exactly what we're doing and let's get moving on those. And that's, you know, the focus of the meetings is — you know, anybody that's going and any of the directions that pass focus them on on what we're trying to do and limited to that.  So, um, from my perspectlve, I've been not really wanting to delve or get into people's pasts.


DL:      Uh-huh.


BB:      Just, if they're not bringing up anything that's not an issue, perhaps we can, you know, I'm not to go and personally investigate it. But


DL:      Yeah.

            [The reporter's use if pressure on the president is further evident here:]

BB:      if it is an issue and it's brought up and it's clear that this is the case, then, we're going to  have to do something about it.  And I, you know, like I say, I'm president — well, I can't speak for the board and


DL:      Uh-huh.


BB:      it, you know, from what I saw on last night I don't think there's any problem with him accepting his resignation, so it may be, you know, but I can't say that until


DL:      Sure.


BB:      we go to the next board meeting, but that's the way that I would take it.


DL:      Now do you think you will be having an emergency board meeting before early next week?


BB:      Um, it's hard to say, you know.  People, um, I mean, we had this meeting last night. It was pre-arranged over a week ago


DL:      Uh-huh.


BB:      and, you know, still we're going to have — we, you know, missed about three or four people, so we can try to set this next one up and see how quickly we can do it. I — yeah, we would definitely call a meeting here and, um, we'll see if — probably



Monday would — is — seems to be the best day 'cause some kids — some people have access on Tuesdays and Thursdays and some have Wednesdays, so, um, you know, it seems like Monday is one of the best days that we have for meetings.


DL:      Okay.   I've already kind of got an extension for you by saying that there's going to be a meeting on the weekend. I don't know if I can get another extension that says oh, they're having another meeting on Monday.  [Here she is putting time-pressure on him again. (She'd already told her editor that there was going to be a weekend meeting, she said.)]

BB:      Oh, I see, okay.


DL:      You know, so, um, but you do that — you do what, you know, you have to do.


BB:      Well, I guess Monday would probably be the easiest to get the most people


DL:      Right.


BB:      but if what you're saying is — we should probably move it up to the weekend then.      


DL:       Um. I'm sorry about this. And how long have you been president.             [Back]               

BB:      Uh, this is my second term.


DL:      Okay. Second term. So, one-year term or


BB:      Yes.


DL:      Okay. Second year, okay, one year term. When did you join ECMAS?


BB:      Um, um, I don't know.


DL       Okay. Sorry.


BB:      Before my first term. Not too long before my first term.


DL:      So, '98, '99?


BB:      Yeah, probably '99.


DL       Okay. And, how do you spell your name?


BB:      Last name, B as in boy-O-U-V as in Victor-l-E-R.


DL:      Okay. And you prefer Bob or Robert?


BB:      Uh, Bob.


DL:      Bob. Okay. I would really, really like to talk to you as soon as you have some news. I understand that you can't make decisions by yourself. Um, I understand that even statements you make to the media, you probably want to consult with your 


- 26 -


board, but as soon as you can tell me something definite about how ECMAS Edmonton is dealing with these concerns, I — you know, the sooner the better from our perspective.


BB:      Okay.  Yeah, my feeling that we will have to disassociate from these people based on their past and, um, that, you know, that, to me, what really is important is where do we go from there.


DL:      Uh-huh.


BB:      I mean you know, we've got people whose past, you know, is not conducive to what we're trying to do. And, you know, this is going to be run in the papers and people like, perhaps not yourself or the Post,  but you know, as soon as it gets in the Post it'll be in the Journal and there will be Faulder in the Journal, etc. who will shine a different light on that or put a different twist on it or whatever and, you know


DL:      Okay.  You're right.  I think that it may not become a big a national story, but there will be some local coverage. So the Journal — you know, it's probably a safe bet.


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      Um, you know, Jaffer a few days ago, you know, made this mistake.


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      He apologized. It's history now. Because he took care of it. You know, it was embarrassing for a day or two and then it's gone because he did the right thing. If

you guys were to handle in a similar situation, I suggest that's how long it would be news.  Because anyone who says these issues came up would also have to say they were dealt with promptly and this is how they were dealt with.


BB:      Yeah.  Well, I guess, um, we'll hope — we'll see how things turn out.  You know, it, to me it's a  destructive type thing  that's  happening here.  Um, I, I don't know, it's — l feel a liftle bit of loss.


DL:      Yes.


BB:      To Ferrel and [Tim]. I don't really know [Tim] that well. Ferrel I've worked with on a number of things and I've found him always to be never any mention of anything about a book or anything like this                                                                            [Back]


DL;      Yeah.


BB:      And, you know, he's always been doing a lot of things, you know, always working very hard at various things and it's, you know,  I personally feel that, well, I would look at this book and I guess it's, you know, I'm disappointed that he has this past and it's basically affecting his role that he could have had as helping this movement.


DL:      Uh-huh.                                                                                                           FF00512

- 27 -


BB:      And it's too bad, because I think that he had done a lot of good things and, I guess, part of the other thing is I feel the way things turned out that this is a vindictive thing from somebody that, you know, which like you say, you know, immaterial to the newsworthiness of the story, etc., but all the same, it's kind of stinks.


DL:      Well, you know, if there was no stuff there, there'd be — if there was no ammunition, there'd be no one, you know


BB:      Hit


DL:      If there was no mud there, there would be no slinging going on.


BB:      Yeah. I


DL:      The point is is that the mud is there.


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      Right?


BB:      I guess, you know, Louise is a member right now of ECMAS.   I have heard from [Tim] last night that she will provide legal advice and instruction, etc. to various people. There's all  kinds of problems that people have had in Edmonton since she's come on various cases. Um, you know,  [The reporter interrupts to change the subject.]                                                                                                                  

DL:      But Louise does not have two criminal convictions for prostitution.   [Back]  


BB:      True. But, I guess, as far as ECMAS, what do we do now? Do we now look into those things?


DL:      Well


BB:      Or — what are we going to do now?


DL:      Well, if she has a criminal record, yes, it should be discussed(?). If she has no criminal record, 


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      you know, you're going to have to decide where to draw the line.                  [Back]


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      You know, you can, you can as you say spend all your time investigating people


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      But the easy ones are where they've written it down in a bloody book.


- 28 -


BB:      Yeah.


DL:      The easy ones are when they've got two criminal convictions


BB:      Uh-huh.


DL:      Right?


BB:      Yeah. Well, yeah, it's — yeah, I just trying to see what we can do. You know, I don't what this to happen again, I guess, is what I'm saying.


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      And, um, what do we do? Where do we go from there I guess?


DL:      Yeah.


BB:      Okay. Well, I have your number.  Um


DL:      Yes, so please




111 896-1 .WPD; Sep/07/01