The Grandmother Interview

Interview of the Grandmother with Lawyer Grant Brown (April 6, 2005)

[After four years, the Post's lawyers had given us only interview-transcripts with much material blacked out to hide identities--even though they knew we knew who the interviewees were--leaving us in the dark about key things that were said. Their correspondence even left it open that we still might have to fight them at trial to get the material de-censored. So my lawyer sought interviews with the anonymously quoted sisters, seeking their own permission to de-censor it. To do so, he had to show them the censored transcripts to identify their words, although it might influence their memories. The present document is a transcript made from my then-lawyer's tape-recorded interview with the grandmother; copies of the tape and transcript for both his interviews were given to counsel for The Post. The other two informants resisted our efforts to contact them. But a year later, the opposing lawyers finally turned over the de- censored transcripts for all of the reporter's interviews. (For reasons elsewhere noted, key names are deleted here.).]

I Interviewer (Grant Brown)

S Subject [name omitted here]

[Note: the sisters' words to my lawyer were said under oath, unlike those said earlier to the reporter. Transcription from the audiotape was made by Accurate Data Services; I subsequently made some minor corrections by ear--FC]

I Okay, I guess maybe the first thing we should do is to get you to identify yourself for the record.

S Okay, I'm [name omitted] from Edmonton, Alberta.

I Okay, and you've had a chance to review the transcript that I provided a copy of you with and - -

S Yes, yes I have.

I And the transcript, just to be clear, is numbered U00362--

S That’s right.

I --through to U00373?

S That’s right.

I That’s correct, okay. Can you positively identify yourself as the person who is being interviewed by the reporter, Donna Laframboise, in that interview?

S On the basis of this transcript? Yes, I think I can. I am not going say positive because I can’t remember anything any more. But I am going by one little paragraph in here and I would think that yes, that was me.

I Now, did you have more than one conversation with Donna Laframboise?

S No, I did not.

I Just one?

S Just one.

I And as far as you know, as far as you can remember, that transcript there is a complete version of the conversation.

S Yes, yes, mm-hm, yeah.

I And she didn’t try to contact you subsequently or leave a phone message, or you left her a phone message or anything like that?

S No, no. Not to my knowledge, no.

I Did you realize that Donna Laframboise was recording this conversation when you were talking to her?

S No, I didn’t, I didn’t know - - I did not realize she was recording. If she did mention it, I guess I didn’t pay enough attention to it. But, I cannot remember whether she did or didn’t.

I Okay. Were you aware at the time that this interview took place that Donna had also interviewed your sister, [the aunt]? Do you remember whether you had any idea whether your sister had also been interviewed by Donna at that time?

S At that time, no I did not. [The phone log shows that her sister's interview was after hers.]

I You weren’t aware?

S I was not aware.

I Okay, and so obviously since you weren’t aware, you couldn’t have been sort of like comparing this –

S Collaborating, no, no.

I Okay. I don’t want to make it sound sinister, collaborating.

S Yeah, yeah.

I No, just because, you know one of the ideas is to make sure that each person’s testimony is independent and they haven’t - -

S Mm-hm.

I - - they haven’t discussed it and come to a common understanding in advance of being interviewed because then it is not really independent evidence, so part--

S Right, no.

I - -part of the idea is to make sure that – okay. Okay, now I want to ask a couple of questions about what you know about the contents of Dr. Christensen’s book that is discussed in your interview. You hadn’t - - had you read the book yourself?

S No, I never even saw the book.

I Okay.

S I never read any part of it and I basically went on hearsay and I guess a person shouldn’t do that, but I did.

I Okay, and - -

S This is what I –

I - - who did you get that information from, do you remember?

S Basically, Louise.

I Okay, anyone else that may have said something about it or anyone else you knew of who knew about the book?

S I think when I kind of came out into the open that this book was written, I guess prior to Louise even finding out, it was known by some of the group, but we weren’t going that regularly, so we weren’t aware of it.

[It was never brought up in the group--it was Louise Malenfant herself who contacted people about it.]

I Okay.

S And then all of a sudden, Louise got information about it and she - - I don’t know what - - most of the information I got was from Louise.

I Okay. And can you describe roughly what information that was that you received from Louise? What did she tell you about the book?

S Well, she seemed to dwell on the fact that in this book, he - - it was more or less acceptable to him for young children to be exposed to sex, to possibly even doing the sex act. And when I heard that, I thought, this is not really what our group is about, because a lot of our fathers have been charged with sexual abuse of children.

I Right.

S And, so as a result, it was a very mixed-up state at that time, but I do not agree with that type of thing and whether that was in the book or not, I don’t know. Therefore I say [unintelligible]

I Well, I guess maybe I'll be a little bit more specific. Was one of the things that Louise told you about the contents of the book that Dr. Christensen condones sexual relationships between adults and children?

S I believe she did mention that, yes.

I Okay, as opposed to children playing doctor and nurse and that kind of thing among themselves?

S See now there, I am not sure any more, but it was involving children and the sex act. Now whether it was adults or children, or children-children, that I can’t remember anymore just how she put it. [This interview of the grandmother by my lawyer (also that of her sister by him, next) occurred four years after the events in question. By that point, it is clear here, discovering in any detail what they had been told about various things was not possible.]

I Okay, could have been both?

S Could have been both, Mm-hm. [To the reporter originally, the grandmother merely said my book endorses child-child sex. Whatever she was told, we've just seen that her reaction back then was very emotional.] [Next]

I You haven’t read his book since the article was published?

S And I am not going to.

I Okay. Are you aware that Donna Laframboise has published a book on, well, generally on the topic of sexual equality?

S No, I am not.

I You are not aware that she has published a book named, “Princess at the Window?”

S No.

I You are not aware of any of the contents of that book?

S Not at all.

I So you wouldn’t know about the reporter’s own views about sexuality in someone?

S Not at all.

I Okay. Now I want to ask some questions about Louise Malenfant, who was part of the ECMAS group at one point, and what’s your understanding of how it was that she came to Edmonton. Do you have any awareness of, you know, how she came to Edmonton and became a part of the group in the beginning?

S Well, the first thing that we heard, it was actually from Ferrel, and that he was bringing this woman up from Winnipeg, and she was very, very good as far as - - I guess, with the groups, a group of this nature and so as a result when she came, there was some function way, way out in the west end somewhere, where we met her for the first time and Ferrel said. “You know, you make sure you talk about your situation, your case and I’m sure that she will give you advice or help you.” And that’s basically how I met her - - [This is a complete mis-memory, one no doubt infected by Ms. Malenfant's own desire to get involved in their court case. My purpose in bringing her to Edmonton was to research and write up their claims of injustice involving Child Welfare and related matters--FC]

I Okay.

S - - at that function, way out in the west end somewhere and I can’t even remember the person’s name, whose place it was at.

I Sure, okay. This would have been an ECMAS function?

S Yes. [Like her sister, she has evidently misremembered the MERGE 2001 annual picnic and AGM as an ECMAS event. A short time later, I held a meeting for the MERGE Child Welfare Committee (at the Mill Woods home of its chairwoman), discussing my plans for her with members of that committee, including the two sisters.]

I Now, I just want to be clear. Was the purpose of Louise being there, as far as you know, or as far as you can remember, maybe you can’t remember the details, was her purpose in being there to give assistance and advice and aid through the legal process or was her purpose to get your story, write it up, so that it could be used for the purposes of convincing Child Welfare Authorities or the Justice Minister, or whatever, of the need for some kind of systemic - -

S You mean at that particular function?

I Well or –

S Or even –

I The reason she was brought to Edmonton in the first place?

S I think the reason she was brought to Edmonton is because, like no, at least I shouldn’t say nobody, but we certainly were not aware of this woman and Ferrel was very excited –

I Mm-hm.

S - - about bringing her up here because he was, and apparently, she was supposed to have done such great things in Winnipeg and I think it was more or less for her to help individuals and I think Ferrel’s intentions were that she maybe write letters for them, or she, you know, maybe give it advice, not advice particularly, but tell who to get in contact with maybe. [She had clearly forgotten the reason I brought Ms. Malenfant here...] Because to my understanding she’s supposed to have had a great relationship with the Social Services Department or Children’s Services in Winnipeg - - [...recalling only things like this that Ms. Malenfant had said.]

I Mm-hm.

S - - and I think this is what Ferrel felt that she might do here, but it didn’t get that far.

I Okay. Do you have any knowledge of any working relationship between Dr. Christensen and [Tim] Adams? Do you know if they had any kind of working relationship, I mean other than being members of the same volunteer organization?

S No, I don’t.

I Okay, and you are not aware of Dr. Christensen’s either paying [Tim] Adams or [Tim] Adams paying Dr. Christensen for any kind of work or assistance or anything along those lines?

S None at all.

I Okay, so you mentioned in your interview with the reporter that Ferrel would sometimes urge people in the group and –

S I think Ferrel was trying very hard to be of assistance and because [Tim] Adams is a lawyer, was a lawyer, I’m sure he still is a lawyer, doesn’t matter, we can’t take that away from him, that he felt that he could certainly give you some advice, which was all very good. And I know I asked [Tim] Adams a couple of questions and got his advice on, you know, should we do this or should we do that type of thing. [Go down a page] -----> But as far as using him on a regular basis and after finding out how much he charged, my son and I were so far in the hole already that we just couldn’t see paying him $90 an hour, paying another lawyer whatever the rate was at that time, $175 to $215 an hour to represent us in the courts.

I Right, okay now, maybe we will just back up a bit. Your understanding was that [Tim] Adams could not represent you in court. Is that correct?

S He told me when I spoke to him.

I So it wasn’t disguised from you that he was disbarred as a lawyer?

S No, he was very upfront and –

I He was upfront about that?

S - - yes, he was.

I Okay, and I guess in the ECMAS groups as a whole, Dr. Christensen or other members of the group would, I take it, present the possibility of three options, one being to be represented by a lawyer, one being to represent yourself to go to court and speak, you know, on your own behalf, to save the costs of the lawyer and the third one being a kind of a compromise where you would get legal advice from a paralegal or someone who isn’t a lawyer, and therefore isn’t able to represent you, but to prepare documents and that kind of thing, and then go and represent yourself. Now those, in general, those three options were –

S Yes, yes, I am sure it was all in very good intentions of Dr. Christensen, but we were so far into it already and whatnot, we, maybe –

I And I guess my next question then is partly based on an answer that [the aunt] gave earlier, but it was clear to you very early on that you couldn’t take either of the two options of either [her son], your son [son] representing himself? You were there in relation to the problem that your son, [the son] was having?

S No, my [son], or my son [son], he wouldn’t, he’s not forceful enough as far as speaking out in a place like a courtroom. No, he would never be able to represent himself, you might think.

I Correct. So for two reasons, it was really a non-starter to have [Tim] Adams assist you in any kind of professional way. One reason is that because of the expense and the other reason is because even with his assistance, your son [son] wouldn’t be capable of representing himself.

S That’s right, and at the time, at the beginning, when Ferrel suggested [Tim] Adams, I was not aware that he charged that amount of money. And had it been a much lesser amount, we may have used him. But, we just couldn’t afford it.

I Right, okay.

S That’s what it boils down to.

---->

I Okay, well I mean, one of the reasons I am asking is because in your interview, I just wanted to draw your attention to a couple of passages. You indicate that Ferrel would be, you said constantly kept calling, “why don’t you quit your lawyer go to [Tim] Adams” and words to that effect. And you indicate that he had insisted on you doing that maybe five, six, eight times, something along those lines.

S Yes, yes, he very much wanted us to go with [Tim] Adams and I know this probably all in very good intentions of his, but like I said, we just couldn’t afford both. [Unfortunately, my lawyer did not persist in this line of questioning to get an explicit answer about whether she really did recall how many times I spoke to her about hiring Mr. Adams, as opposed to getting free information from him. She rushes past that question to assure him that my intentions were good (so different from the way she had talked to the reporter) instead of discussing that matter. But her general poor memory at this late date would have made it hard to rely on such details, either way--FC] [Back]

I But what I’m trying to get at though is, if it was clear that, that wouldn’t work in your particular situation and of course, that would be true of probably most of the people in ECMAS that--well maybe I should ask you, in your knowledge was [Tim] Adams working for most of the people in the group, or just a few of them or do you know?

S Why I think anyone that asks about, or talked to him about their situations and whatnot, he was very willing to give advice and to talk to them –

I Sure, within the context of the volunteer organization.

S Yeah.

I But what I am saying is, among the people who came for assistance in the volunteer organization, are you aware of how many of those would also hire him on the side as a –

S No, no. I have no idea.

I Okay.

S No idea whatsoever.

I Okay. Now, you said that Louise Malenfant was there to assist individuals. And were you, or your son [son], one of the individuals that she assisted?

S Yeah, she typed a lot of letters and things for us and whatnot, yes.

I And how would you say that assistance went? Was it successful or not successful or, I would like rather you put it in your own words, if you can?

S It wasn’t as successful as we would have liked to think it might have been, having heard her expertise or heard what she was able to do. And I think it became obvious to us, maybe a little too late, that she loved to work with people, the guys, that had false accusations thrown at them. Particularly, a father sexually abusing their child. She loved to work on cases like that.

I Okay –

S And we, at that time, we didn’t need that particular help. But she did type a lot of letters for us and –

I And was this voluntary assistance, or did you pay her?

S Paid her very well. Paid her rent many times, bought her food many times. She got paid very well.

I Were there cash - -

S Not necessarily that she charged, but in other ways like buying cigarettes, or I need groceries, or paid her rent - - [My information from others is that she didn't charge specific fees, but let it be known through making repeated requests when she felt she not had been paid enough for her services--FC]

I Okay. Do you remember roughly what the rent was? Ballpark figure.

S It was almost $500 a month. I don’t think it was quite $500, but I am not positive. [Back]

I Now again, I am going on some information that [the aunt] seemed to recall last time, when I interviewed her. She indicated or seemed to indicate that there was a Justice Sterling Sanderman involved in your son’s file at one point, is that correct?

S Mm-hm.

I Just want to get clear on the details. The justice had seized himself of the file, had he? He had become case manager of the file? Is that your understanding?

S Only because it was handled very sloppily.

I Okay.

S Yeah, but he was excellent.

I Okay, and according to [the aunt], at some point, he stopped being case manager of the file.

S That's right.

I Can you explain in your own words why that happened? Do you know?

S Do you know, I can’t remember any more. [Inaudible]

I No, it’s okay, I don’t want there to be sort of collaboration between us – if you can’t remember, that's a perfectly fine answer.

S I really can’t remember. I can’t remember. [Inaudible]

I Okay, again [the aunt] had indicated that you had a series of lawyers. [son] had had a series of lawyers dealing with his case. And around the time, that the article was – you know, it was around the time that Louise was helping you, she was also trying to help one of his lawyers. Maybe I will back up one step. Now Louise was not a member of the Alberta Bar, either, as far as you know, is that correct?

S Yeah, she was not.

I And so she couldn’t represent you, or represent [son] in court, I guess I should say.

S Mm-hm.

I And so [son] did have a lawyer in addition to Louise at this time?

S Oh definitely. Mm-hm. Mm-hm.

I And [the aunt] seemed to remember that at least one of your lawyers had quit because of some interference that Louise was giving. Is that your recollection?

S Well, no, he didn’t quit, but he was very upset; because she tried to give him advice, give the lawyer advice and he got very, very upset every time we’d go and see him and whatnot. He almost pulled his hair out because she was constantly ‘do this’, ‘do that’, ‘do this,’ you know. [Skip over next highlighted material, to *** 2 pages below]

---------->

I Do you know remember the name of that lawyer?

S Oh, what was his name? Starts with a “C”.

I That’s okay. It’s not, it’s not – -

S I’m not sure.

I - - really that important.

S But it will come to me, maybe.

I When in the relation to the publication of the article did Louise stop working for your son, helping you? Do you know if it was after the article was published. Shortly after, half a year after?

S Actually, I think not that long after it was published, she moved to B.C., if I remember correctly.

I But in any event, she wasn’t helping you on the file anymore after the article was published?

S She may have still typed the odd letter for us and whatnot, but I really can’t be sure. Because I really believe that it wasn’t too long after that she moved to B.C. [It was most of a year later before she left Edmonton.]

I Okay. And what was your involvement with ECMAS around the time the article was published?

[Here 'I' is the interviewer, lawyer Grant Brown, 'S' is the subject, the grandmother.]

S I think the only thing was that we’d tried to go to the odd meeting, but that was about it. Very seldom, though.

I Okay, now –

S Because I just work around the clock, and I don’t have time for a lot of stuff.

I And that was the same situation back in 2000?

S Oh, definitely. [Back]

I Okay. I’ve asked some of these later questions earlier so I am skipping over it. Now, I guess I want to also confirm whether or not Dr. Christensen had ever discussed much the case with your son directly, as opposed to going through you?

S Our case? Like him and his son?

I Yeah.

S And discussed it with my son?

I Yeah, with [son], yeah. But first of all, maybe I can ask it this way. Did [son] attend many of the ECMAS meetings?

S No, he didn’t.

I Very few of them?

S Very few. [In fact, he never attended a meeting (perhaps a special event such as a public demonstration) until the 2001 AGM.]

I So basically, you are acting as the intermediary between your son and ECMAS as a group, but Ferrel Christensen and [Tim] Adams in particular, to the extent that you got some advice from [Tim]--you had indicated earlier that you had asked him some questions and--it wasn’t [son] that was doing that directly?

S No.

I Okay, in the course of those conversations you had with Ferrel Christensen, did he ever urge you to dump your lawyer and hire [Tim] Adams. Was that the nature of his um mm.

S Again, I’m sure he wanted to do his level best for us and whatnot and maybe save us money down the road, but, yes, he really felt that we should go with [Tim] Adams, but I think his intention was, like I said, I really believe his intention was good, but I don’t think he realized that my son could not represent himself in Court, and felt that with the help of [Tim] Adams, it'd be a lot cheaper. But because of my son’s situation, not being able to go to the courts, we had to have a lawyer.

I Did you ever explain that to Dr. Christensen, that [son], because -- I guess the reason I'm asking is because you indicated earlier that Ferrel probably wouldn’t have known [son] very well at all, because he --

S Not that well, no.

I -- So he may not have understood that [son] wasn’t able to represent himself.

S Mm-hm.

I Did you explain to Dr. Christensen that it just wouldn’t work because [son] couldn’t represent himself even with some assistance?

S I am not sure if I did or did not mention that to him. If I didn’t it was certainly an error on my part.

I We're not trying to find fault, just trying to understand how –

S But I can’t be sure whether I did. I cannot be sure.

***----->

I Uh, now, when Louise Malenfant was assisting you, did she ever indicate to you that you should get rid of your lawyer, fire your lawyer, or dump your lawyer and get a new one, or let her handle it?

S Mm-hm, mm-hm.

I She did that.

S Mm-hm. And that’s why we let one lawyer go and hired, what, because she wasn’t getting along with that lawyer, so she says, “I’m really getting along with this one now, you go to him.” So we took her advice.

I So you did in fact change lawyers on Louise Malenfant's advice and was that once, or more than once?

S Just once.

I Just once?

S Mm-hm. [Back]

I And then, after that, she ceased helping you. Did you end up sticking with that lawyer for a while, or - -

S Yes, yes we did. And it looked like it - - yeah, it was not - - oh, I know. I think the last time, we were in the courts, it was to go to trial, and we were trying to fight that situation because it was too costly. But, things turned out better for us. So –

I Things turned out better after Louise stopped helping you, you mean?

S Oh, well no.

I Or just in general?

S It’s just that in general, things worked out better between the mother of my grandson and my son, so we didn’t have to go all that way. [Inaudible]

I I just want to ask a couple of wrap-up questions. Have you ever been contacted by anyone representing themselves as a lawyer for the other side in this litigation, either the reporter Donna Laframboise or the National Post, prior to today?

S The lawyers representing the National Post?

I Well, obviously if, for example, someone phoned you, you wouldn’t know who it was - -

S Right?

I - - But if they said to you, ‘I’m so and so, representing the National Post’ –

S The National Post.

I - - or so-and-so representing Donna Laframboise. Did anyone make a phone call to you representing themselves to be a lawyer for either the reporter or the newspaper?

S Yes.

I Roughly, when was that? Shortly after article was published or recently?

S I can’t remember, but just recently, actually they contacted us--or me.

I Did you get a name, who is the “they?”

S What was his name now?

I It could be Fred Kozak?

S Yes.

I Recently, he contacted you?

S Yes.

I What was the purpose of the call?

S The purpose of the call, I guess, was to indicate to us that the case was still ongoing and – I can’t remember what his purpose really was.

I Okay, did he ask you whether you still wanted the identities to be kept out of the - -

S Yes, he did.

I - - and how recently was that? When you say recently, was it like months, about a year ago, two years ago?

S No, that would have been about a month ago.

I And did you answer his questions, whether you wanted your identity –

S Yes.

I - - and what was your answer?

S I would prefer not to have it exposed.

I Okay, but at this point, you are not going to insist on that, is that correct?

S Why, actually I would like to have it, I would still rather if it wasn’t, because of my grandson’s situation. Because things could flare up any time again and we're right back to square one. But if need be - -

I Okay, well did he indicate to you whether or not you should talk to Dr. Christensen or anyone else involved in litigation [inaudible] work done?

S No. No.

I Okay, I guess that’s all my questions then. Thank you.

(END OF INTERVIEW)