[As seen from internal indicators,
this conversation took place on the day the first Post article appeared. I did
not inform ML--desperate to protect my name from lies he was helping to
promote--that I was taping the conversation on my answering machine. The
transcription was first made by Accurate Data Services; I subsequently made
some minor corrections by ear--FC]
( ): Hello.
FC: Hello, is Mike there, please?
( ): Yeah, one second, please.
FC: Thank you.
ML: Hello.
FC: Mike.
ML: Yes.
FC: It’s Ferrel calling.
ML: Oh, hi, Ferrel, how are you?
FC: Well, I’ve been better.
ML: Yeah, so have I.
FC: We go back a ways here, so I’m hoping that you’d be willing to clarify some things for me.
ML: Uh huh.
FC: In the letter that you sent to Bob Bouvier, though you don’t mention me by name, it’s pretty, it seems pretty clear you’re talking about me, and I was just wondering if you could clarify why you’re saying those things.
ML: Well, some things were brought up as far as from, you know, different perspectives. You know, Ferrel, I haven’t read your book [go to next highlighting] ---> or any of this, and all I’m saying, and I said to Bob Bouvier, is that lookit, guys, I don’t care who the hell it is, where the hell it is or whatever, I said but you’d better be-- take a look and you better do some navel gazing and evaluate that if there are controversies that are potentially coming in, you should evaluate them yourself, to see whether or not they are real, and as an organization, because really as a society you are a business, evaluate it from an executive side, make a damn decision on it, make your stance and stick with it. But by doing nothing than wishy washying and doing stuff like that...
FC: Oh, there’s been nothing wishy washy here.
ML: What’s that?
FC: There’s been no wishy washy here.
ML: Well, okay, from an outside perspective of, perspective of, of that, yes, it does appear that way, Ferrel. From their side, from the corporate side of, of ECMAS. And all I’m saying is that lookit, you guys evaluate it and you, you know, and disassociate yourselves from that kind of stuff because I don’t care who the hell it is or whatever and whatever, and if you think that no, there’s nothing in the work then, and it doesn’t fit the bill, that’s fine, then make your stand and stick with it.
FC: Mm hm, well, okay, I have no complaint with that…
ML: But that’s basically what I’m saying, what we’re saying is that, you know, if when we came to the conclusion here in the time period, you know, it…
FC: You were under pressure, I understand that. But I, there were some specific things in your letter; you speak of a member, quote, With questionable views of child pornography, unquote.
ML: Well, it’s...
FC: You said, We will not support individuals...
ML: Or groups.
FC: ...or groups...
ML: ...who view or promote those views.
FC: Now, are you not then saying that I promote those views?
ML: No, I’m not, and I, and I specifically did not put your [sound blurred] reason, Ferrel, and that is, I don’t know, and I don’t know whether or not that’s the case. That’s not our stuff, but that’s not, that’s not our stuff, that’s the stuff up in Edmonton for people to look at. But if it does have an effect and we are bystanders on the side that we’re getting nailed with this stuff…
FC: I understand that, but the way the letter reads to me, you are saying that you do know. You speak of a member with questionable views of child pornography, someone who views, has the contrary view to having sex with minors, which could be applying to [Tim], persons who support the views of child sexual involvement. When you say Disassociate yourselves from this person, it sure as heck sounds as if you’re talking about me.
ML: Well, Ferrel, you know, whether it be you or anybody else, and I specifically didn’t put any names in there because I don’t know what your views are on that, all right, I’ll be very, very honest with you, I don’t know. And-- but you’ve never, you’ve never shown anything like that towards me.
FC: The subject has never come up in any of the meetings...
ML: Exactly.
FC: ...because it’s not relevant.
ML: And, but, you know, so what I’m saying is that, guys, evaluate your own house, and see whether or not that is the case because people are attacking your house.
FC: Well, it doesn’t read this way. It sounds like you’re saying, We’ve already decided that it is the case, that’s why we’re getting out.
ML: No.
FC: Do you see the difference?
ML: Okay, Ferrel, I don’t want to argue about this, okay?
FC: Okay.
ML: We’ve talked to a number of people here on the board. We’re, we’ve already been cancelled out of a god-damn caucus meeting with the fucking provincial government because of all this shit, and quite frankly I’m pretty damn sick of it.
FC: We are sick of it too.
ML: Well then, damn it all, out there, do something about it.
FC: Because we are being, I am being lied about. I have, I have a lawsuit pending here because I’m being lied about and, and it’s a, instead of, of --some of the things you say in this letter just seem to me very premature in that regard.
ML: Well, whether they’re premature or not, you know, we looked at it from this end, and we said all right, this is what’s occurring in through here. And we were getting calls from different people across the country as to what’s happening with ECMAS, and we say, Hey, that’s up there, go deal with them, you go talk to those people up there, that’s where the stuff is. Don’t be calling us and don’t be dealing with us here.
FC: Okay, but you got called before we did. Donna Laframboise called you before she called anybody up here.
ML: That’s what I said, You talk to the people up there.
FC: Now, …
ML: And, because I don’t know what’s going on up there, Ferrel. And with Bob, when I was talking to Bob and everything, and I think Bob understands in the sense that, that you know, we’re, we’re using the ECMAS name.
FC: No, I under- , I understand that, the fear of having that sort of thing thrown at you can create…
ML: It’s not fear, it’s reality.
FC: ...it’s the fear of being smeared. I don’t like being smeared, either, and I don’t like being lied about and so...
ML: That’s what I said to, to Bob, and everything is that, guys, and you know, a number of people that I talked with there said, well, you know, we haven’t read this and we haven’t read that. And I said, well, Jesus, you know, people are attacking your house here.
FC: We, we’re perfectly aware of that, that’s not in question.
ML: So, if that’s the case, maybe you’d better be more aware of it, and see what the hell is there and if it doesn’t fit, then you make, then collectively you say, We have done this, this is our interpretation, this is the way we see it, and now Donna and Louise and everyone else, fuck off.
FC: Except that...
ML: And they have not done that from an organizational standpoint.
FC: We have-- they have done all of those things; and again, that’s not my issue.
ML: That is our issue.
FC: My concern is the things that you said in the letter that are talking about me.
ML: No, I’m not talking about you; I did not mention your name, whether or not it’s inferred or anything, Ferrel. I did not, deliberately, because the message was to Bob, it’s Evaluate your house, come to some decision and [inaudible] what we’re saying is that…
FC: That was all done, the evaluation was done, they came to a decision. That was all done.
ML: Okay, when I was talking to him there and everything, you know they hadn’t evaluated different programs, they haven’t read the material, you know, they haven’t done this kind of stuff. They’re just saying, Well, this is the way they see it, period. And that’s fine, if that’s the way they want to do it. We came back here as a group, we said, we said, Guys, lookit. You know, the Legal Aid Society has a new program that we’ve put our names forward in order to be a member of so that we can evaluate this shit for families and everything…
FC: We’ve, we’ve been putting our name forward for a lot of things as well, so that’s not the…
ML: Well, so it’s, it’s, you know, I guess what we’re saying is that for us to maintain the credibility of where we are, then we better do a better job up front as far as our organization, and the executive side of our organization, and evaluate things accordingly, and make stands as to where they are so that nobody goes ahead and attacks the castle. And they have not done that.
FC: You think that they have not...?
ML: No.
FC: We’ll have to, have to...
ML: No, the ECMAS group in Cal-, Edmonton has not done that.
FC: We’ll have to agree to differ on that if…
ML: That was my word to bitch Louise, as well, is that, you know, she has no business going outside with these things. She said, Well, I tried everything I could, and I said, Well, guess what, lady, your method just didn’t work.
FC: She didn’t, she didn’t, she never said a
word about [Tim] before she, before– to the group. Not a word ever. [This statement is in error. But at the time I made it,
Bouvier had not told me about her e-mail to him against me of Feb. 16, in which
was a brief statement against Mr. Adams.--FC]
ML: Exactly. I said, Sour grapes, because you didn’t get what you want, and also, you were vying for the position that [Tim] had as far as clientele and everything. I said, Your glass house sure as hell is not clean.
FC: I’m glad you see, you know enough of what’s going on here.
ML: Oh, I know enough of it. That’s why I’m saying is that…
FC: That’s reassuring right there, to hear you say that, because you realize then what we’re up against.
ML: Oh, I know exactly what you’re up against, I know exactly what you’re up against, Ferrel. And you’re dealing with vindictive bitches, for Christ’s sake.
------>
FC: Just to get really clear here now, you’d never read my book or heard of my book until, until Donna called you, I take it, or maybe got something from Louise earlier...
ML: Actually, I got it from Donna mentioning it, and I said
I’m not aware of this. And I said if, if you have an issue, I said, I said,
with Ferrel –was, was Ferrel still a professor at the university when he wrote
the book? She said, I don’t know. I said Well, if he was, I said, Maybe you
should be talking to the university, not to ECMAS. I said ECMAS wasn’t even in
existence when he wrote the book, plus, ECMAS never endorsed the book. So, and
why you’re, ...why you’re going through all of this. And she said, Well, don’t
you think that blah, blah, blah. And I said, Lookit, whether or not it does or
doesn’t, I said Ask the people up there whether or not they’ve read the book,
and have they done a critique of it and come up with a position paper.
FC: So did she suggest to you that I was supporting child
pornography and adult-child sex, then?
ML: She never said anything, she asked questions. [Recall that the accusations in the reporter's e-mails to Bob Bouvier and me were in the form of questions, yet they carried detailed claims about the book.]
FC: Leading questions or...?
ML: Yes, leading questions that would, they were questions
trying to lead me. And I got the same kind of lead from Rick Pedersen
from the Edmonton Journal today, saying that well, you know, it wasn’t very
clear in the paper, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, he’s heard some rumblings and
some rumors and everything about the involvement of Ferrel Christensen. And I
said [inaudible] I didn’t see that in the paper; the person that brought this
all up was Louise Malenfant --here, here’s her number, you call her. [However the reporter framed her words, given the words in
Mike LeBerge's letter written right after and the fact that she was his source
of information, she clearly told him, too, that she'd read the book, and that I
("maybe"?) condone child pornography and child sex abuse. And however she framed her words, they were
forceful enough to get him to demand that ECMAS-Edmonton disassociate itself
from me.] [Back]
FC: Very good.
ML: As far as I’m concerned, I’m really
downplaying this as much as possible, basically saying that some, some
information has come up and I’m really pissed off at the way Donna has brought
this forward: that Oh, you know, the big thing is that this thing, these people
resigned. Bullshit. All it was, was --is the procedural move that’s in the
bylaws that basically says, If we’re not going to use the name, in our minutes
we are listed as Directors of ECMAS, so, Duh, we have to resign. Simple as
that. That’s just the procedure thing in Robert's Rules
of, of organization and management, that's all. Donna, she, you know --what she’s trying to do is
she’s trying to lead us. ---------->
FC: Well, that’s the one thing that’s very clear.
ML: I have no intention of being, of taking up the bait with it, Ferrel. Now, if they want to bring this forward they’re going to bring it forward, I’m not. And as far as I’m concerned, where I hope Bob was coming from, and I’m kind of disappointed that they didn’t really come up with it, and that is to say, We took the time, we read this, this is what we see and everything, this is the contribution that these people make, the contributions are better than what the hell it is, guys, fuck off.
FC: We’ve got, actually, a whole variety of things that different people have written, Bob and others, responses that, that were all waiting until the article appeared to reply. We could hardly do otherwise. It’s all written, I guess you wouldn’t have seen it because it’s all in, it’s all in various forms with different people and so on. But it’s not as if we haven’t been working on this, this last week and two days.
ML: No, I realize that, and I’m glad it is and you know, we just looked at it from down here [inaudible] everything we said, well, we went back through it and we said, Well, maybe this is the time here that the reason that we’ve maintained autonomy of the different groups is because, if only one person or something occurred that it doesn’t tarnish the other people and take away from, from the group across a large area. And with the association of the names and everything, it’s, it’s, it’s doing that. So we said, No, let’s make the break.
FC: Okay, that, that’s your decision there.
But, just so you’re aware that...
------>
ML: You know, it’s not that we’re never going
to work with the group or people, and there’s a hell of a lot of damn good people, yourself and
others, Ferrel. And what I’ve said to, which will never come out in the paper,
is I said, you know, is --The people up in Edmonton have only shown high
quality and integrity in dealing with their members and also with us. I
said, So what is coming up and everything is behind the scenes or whatever, and
we’re saying that if it’s going to affect us, then we might have to change our
name here. So I said, If you look at how people are to you, how these people
have been to us has been nothing but positive and helpful and supportive. ------->
FC: Okay, you make it plain, but that’s not the way it’s in
today’s article.
ML: Oh, I know it isn’t. [Referring to the Post article on Mr.
Adams.]
FC: It was all you doing it because of what we’d done,
nothing, nothing about Laframboise coming in and causing the trouble to start
with.
ML: See, she’s trying to lead us in.
FC: No question.
ML: She’s leading, she’s trying to lead us in, and we, we are
not going to take the bait.
FC: Well, I guess some of us up here will feel better, if you
have any further opportunity to say that to the press: "We’re, we’re,
we’re playing, we’re doing what we have to do to play it safe, but that’s not
putting the blame on ECMAS Edmonton. That’s --the blame may be on..."
[At this time, I didn't know that he and his vice
president had already talked (or would soon talk) to the Calgary Herald about me. I only knew of their words to the press concerning Mr.
Adams, as those had been reported in the Post story that morning.]
ML: I told that to Linda Rutherford today, because --I
said there’s more in this, Linda, than, than what meets the eye. [Though self-serving, ML's remarks here still declare
manipulation by the reporter.] [Back]
FC: Linda Rutherford is who?
ML: Dave Rutherford’s wife.
FC: Oh, okay, didn’t know.
ML: And –and so I’ve, I’ve given her some information, I’ve passed on Bob Bouvier’s name. I said, There’s more in this, I said, You might take note, Linda, that the person that brought this all up and has had all this big hubbub and everything just got a position as guest columnist with the Alberta Report. And I said, If you take a look at all the e-mails, and you’re on that e-mail list…
FC: Louise has done that? I hadn’t heard.
ML: Yes, if you take a look at all of the, all of the reporters and media people and personnel, this is an unemployed person that’s trying to make a living, money, off of other people for their, after they’re destitute and, and…
FC: I knew that she had sent messages to Rutherford and, and Alberta Report, and so on, but didn’t realize she had a job with them.
ML: No, she just got it.
FC: Just got it, okay.
ML: Just got it. So I said, you know, A very good friend of mine, who is Senator Cools, taught me a long time ago, whenever something is going on, ask the question, What’s the mischief behind it. I said, That’s the bottom line, she got a job, as being a whistle blower and everything, got her the post at Alberta Report. I said, That’s the whole purpose of it.
FC: Well, she’s done that before they ever came along. There’s a long history here between her and me and that, that’s a lot of what’s behind this, is the animosity there, so...
ML: Yeah, so, Ferrel, I deliberately put some, put some material in your, your name. You’re correct, your name was in inference [reference?] to that second part because of the unknown nature of what the hell we have. And I’m saying that what we said, and we looked at it here on how to word it, is basically that, if there’s a sit- you know, with affiliations, etc. etc., is divest yourself. If they come back and say we’ve identified blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and stuff, and we don’t see that there’s an association, or there’s, that there’s a… [Tape ran out here]