From: Louise <>

To: donna laframboise <>

Subject: Fw: Another follow-up by FC

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:13:52 -0400          

[The embedded e-mail from me below, with its further details about the coup attempt and reactions in ECMAS to it, was forwarded by Ms. Malenfant to the reporter six days before she published the article about me.]   --->


Hello Donna,


Here is another email chain forwarded to me between Ferrel Christensen and a

fellow named |Doug Pierozinski.  Apparently, I am not the only one with a

dark side, according to Ferrel Christensen.  I think what he writes will

startle you.





> ---Forwarded Message---

> At 11:48 PM 4/9/01 -0600, Doug Pierozinski wrote:                     ----->


> >>   >I don't agree with your approach and judgement.  The

> >>   > Mr. Adams scenario  is yet another example.  How is it a good thing

> to have  Donna

> >>   > Laframboise writing negative articles about the Edmonton fathers'

> rights members?  As far

> >>   > as I am aware she has been nothing, but good for the fathers'/men's

> movement.

> >>

> >>   Then you didn't understand the item I sent to the MESA list; prehaps

> you

> >>   could read it again to see what she has been doing. Yes, she has done

> >>   great work for our movement. But some of us have found out the hard


> >>   that she has a nasty dark side. If your mind is open to being changed

> by

> >>   new information, I could send more of the evidence and the story.

> >

> >My mind is always open Ferrel.  Do send your evidence regarding Donna


> side.


> On second thought, since possible legal action is still pending, I will

> delay detailing the evidence on this list--but every fact I presented in

> the press release concerning her behavior can be proven by witnesses and

> documents. For now, will you at least acknowledge that such behavior, IF

> engaged in by her or anyone else, would be contemptible?


> What I can do for now is present more detail than I did in the press

> release about why [Tim] Adams came to get on the Board of ECMAS. To repeat,

> he never planned in advance to do so--it was a spur-of-the-moment decision

> made in the attempt to stop great harm to the group.


> A certain pair of individuals having some affiliation with ECMAS--but not

> regular active members--who have long-standing personal conflicts with

> regulars in ECMAS decided to make an attempt to grab power at the Annual

> General Meeting. [Those individuals being Louise Malenfant and Walter Schneider]

This was not an open and above-board announcement of

> attempting to change things, however; it was a sneaking-around scumbag

> attempt. It involved gathering together a couple of other non-regular

> members, a few non-members who had attended some support-group meetings

> (hundreds have attended such meetings, but were not notified of the AGM by

> the leaders of ECMAS because such attendance is not activity in ECMAS

> itself), and a few persons who had never had any prior contact with ECMAS.

> The pair told these other individuals libelous lies and then brought them

> to the meeting to vote in a bloc.


> Some advance word of the conspiracy having leaked out, the regulars were

> concerned about just what might be attempted. It became obvious that they

> didn't have enough votes to prevent re-election of the existing president.

> But to [Tim] it appeared that they were going to get their person in as

> vice-president if no one else agreed to run.

> In fact, things were not as they appeared to him. But in the middle of

> final call for candidates and imminent elections, there was no opportunity

> for him to discuss such things with others concerned about the conspiracy,

> so in desperation he did the only thing he could think of--stand for

> election himself. The motives of those who then voted for him--I was not

> one of them--were largely the same as his own. [This last comment was a reasonable inference,  but I never actually asked others about their motives in voting--FC]                                               [Back]


> Since at least one person writing to this list opines that [Tim] Adams

> should have no involvement with a men's/fathers' group at all, let alone

> Board membership, let me reiterate ECMAS' position. To give adequate help

> to the hundreds coming for legal information, it is imperative to have

> someone with that knowledge. The alternative is to be unable to give it,


> worse: to allow them to be given uncorrected the sort of false information

> which is common at support-group meetings. And in all ECMAS' years of


> though it has gotten limited help from numerous lawyers, it has never


> now been able to get anyone to put in the hundreds of hours of volunteer

> time which [Tim] has put in.


> So, to all those who think [Tim] should be punished his whole life for

> offenses he has already paid for, and all those who think victims of the

> divorce system--and their children--should be denied the help he has been

> giving, I repeat: you have no damned idea what you're saying.


> FC