TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
DONNA LAFRAMBOISE (“DL”) AND "Source B" (“SB”)
[For reasons given elsewhere, the names of the reporter's
four interviewees unnamed in the two articles have been replaced, in this publicized version of the
lawsuit documents, with descriptors and initials (as seen above). In all other
ways, this version's wording remains as in the original lawsuit document.--FC]
DL: . . .Donna
Laframboise from the Post. How are you?
SB: Okay.
DL: I’m sorry. I
realize that I’m taking up your lunch hour. That's terrible.
SB: Oh, that's
fine.
DL: You’re not
going to be able to eat. You’ll be hungry. You’ll faint on the job.
SB: That’s all
right. I’m just worried my battery’s going to die on my cell phone.
DL Oh, dear. All
right. Okay. Well, then I’ll get serious and stop being ------------. Um, I am writing an article for the
National Past and it’s not something I’m terribly happy about doing. But I
think it needs to be done. And it’s an article about ECMAS in Edmonton. And
there’s been some, some kind of weirdness going on there and I was wondering if
you might just tell me what your experience with ECMAS has been lately. Whether
that’s something you might be willing to chat with me about.
SB: Okay. What
would you like to know?
DL: Well, how long
have you been going to the meetings?
SB: Uh, just over
a year now.
DL: Just over a
year. Okay. And, have you found the organization to be a good organization?
SB: For the most
part, yes. Because it was strictly for laymen, you know. It's brainstorming,
you know. Everybody’s got their ideas and, and, but now that’s changed a bit.
DL: Okay. Now,
just if we can step back for a minute. Why would you think that it would be an
important organization for people to go to?
SB: Well, well,
for moral support for one thing.
DL: Okay.
SB: Just to see
that their, you know, you’re not alone out there.
DL: Yeah. Yeah.
SB: Like, it gives
you some fairly decent ideas to do things, uh, whether you represent yourself
or are represented by lawyer. Gives you a little better insight.
U00336
-2-
DL: Okay. Okay. Okay. Now when you
were going - or
when you are going, have you been going
to the support group meetings or have you been going to the kind of more
general meetings or the committee meetings?
SB: I’ve
– I go more to the support group meetings, but I do go to both.
DL: Okay.
Okay. Um, and so would you say in the last year you’ve gone to a meeting
every
week or once a month or ________________
SB: Uh,
just about every week, except for the last two weeks. [As noted elsewhere, this
claim
about SB's attendance rates was grotesquely false--but the reporter didn't know
it.] [Back]
DL: Okay. Okay. So, most weeks in the last year. Okay. Now, what I wanted to ask you about is
Mr. Adams.
SB: Oh, yeah.
DL: Yeah.
SB: ---------------- impressed about.
DL: Pardon me?
SB: I’m not very impressed about that at all.
DL: Okay.
Okay. Now, what I'm trying
to establish from talking to different people
who’ve been at the meetings is what role was Mr. Adams playing in the support
group meetings?
SB: He
was giving legal advice.
DL: Okay.
Like in what way? Can you give me an example?
SB: Well,
you’d ask him a question, what legal ramifications would happen if you did this
– like if you were to go to your ex-spouse’s house and go for a visit or
something like that and she slams the door in your face, you know, what do you
do?
DL: Right.
Right. Okay.
SB: So,
then he would say, well, legally you're allowed to do this, this and that. [Despite
his use of the word 'advice', this
person's description captures the feel of the legal information given. As in
the next linked document--written before the publishing of the article alerted
me to the claim that I was touting "legal advice" by Mr. Adams--I
myself was careful to use words such as 'information', not 'advice':] [Next]
DL: Right.
SB: And
DL: Okay.
U00337
-3-
SB: some people are going for that. Um,
however, he was also soliciting that, you know, for his advice after the
meetings he wanted $100 an hour for counselling services. You know, to do some
more brainstorming with his legal knowledge.
DL: Okay. Okay. Now when you say he was
soliciting, what do you mean by that?
SB: Uh, well
DL: Like give me an example.
SB: I can’t give you an example, because I
don’t have any names as who he’s done that with, but
DL: Okay. Well, did you hear him say, you
know, if you’d like to talk to me after the meeting,
SB: Yes.
DL: Okay.
SB: Or he'll hand out his business card or
[First read all of what the quoted informant said:]
DL: Okay. Now, you think you’ve gone to about 50 meetings in
the last year.
SB: Yeah. [This "50
meetings" part wasn't published, but its gross falsity is noted later.
Evidently, this informant was trying to make himself appear far more
knowledgeable of ECMAS doings than he actually was.]
DL: How many meetings did you see him hand out
his business cards in?
SB: Oh,
probably at least 20. [Even here, SB was wildly
falsifying his attendance. But a consequence
of
the two claims, that Mr. Adams' card was given out in about half the meetings
SB attended, is probably true.
Revealingly,
the reporter didn't publish that it was done in only about half the meetings.]
DL: At
least 20?
SB: Yeah.
DL: Okay,
so it was a common thing for him to do.
SB: Yeah.
DL: It’s
not just something that happened once.
SB: Yeah.
DL: Okay.
Okay. So he would just – would he hand it out to everyone in the room or would
he just
SB: No,
only certain people.
DL: Okay.
Who– like would this happen in the middle of the meeting, at the end of the
meeting.
U00338
-4-
SB: Towards
the end of the meetings.
DL: Okay.
So, how many people – if there’s 20 people in a room, how many people do you
think he would give a business card to?
SB: Uh,
maybe one or two. [But now see what the reporter was told by her one informant
who really
had
attended a lot of support-group meetings, and hence did know what generally
happed there:] [Next]
DL: One or two.
SB: Yes.
DL: Okay. Okay.
SB: 'Cause he kind of feels them out
as to, you know, who's got money and who
doesn’t.
DL: Okay.
SB: Like,
‘cause we’d tell our story and what’s happening in our
situation and both him and Ferrel would kind of– they ask about the
financial aspects and – from that he determines, okay, you know, I’m willing to
help you ‘cause you make good money.
DL: Okay. Okay. So you think that's
what was going on?
SB: Uh-huh.
[affirmative]
[She asks him to repeat his belief in
these claims, but, as usual, says nothing that would probe whether or not he
was telling the truth; she doesn't even ask him for any details of the events
he was describing.] [Back]
DL: Yeah. Okay. Now, did you ever hire him for
SB: No.
DL: Okay.
Did anyone ever
suggest that
maybe you should hire him?
SB: Uh,
Ferrel did. Maybe for some legal counselling. Um, but I didn’t bother. I can’t
afford it anyway, but
DL: Okay.
So, now, how many times would Ferrel have made this suggestion
to you?
SB: Uh,
just the one time. [At least, this
much was admitted in the article.]
DL: Just
the one time?
SB: Yeah. [Next]
DL: Okay. Okay. What was that? During the
meeting or on the phone or
SB: No, it was at a meeting. But I don’t
remember whether it was during a meeting or afterwards.
DL: Okay. U00339
-5-
SB: 'Cause after meetings, we usually go downstairs to
Albert's and kind of b.s. a
little
bit.[A minor error, oddly made by both anonymous sources; the
place is Bonnie's Lounge.]
DL: Okay.
SB: And that’s what [Tim] calls his office. [As noted already, this is
twice in error.]
DL: Oh, yes?
SB: Yeah. It’s kind of an inside joke because everybody goes down and has a beer or whatever, or a
coffee, and they sit and talk some more after a meeting.
[The words following 'an inside joke' were omitted from the
article, we will see next.]
DL: Okay. So, it’s kind of like a bar
downstairs?
SB: Uh-huh. [affirmative]
DL: Okay. And [Tim] calls it his office?
SB: Yeah. It’s more of
a joke than
DL: Okay.[At
this point the reporter cuts him off, not asking whether Mr. Adams in fact did any business
there. Indeed, nowhere
here does this informant say he ever saw Mr. Adams provide assistance for pay.]
[Next]
SB: you know.
DL: Okay. Now do
you know anyone who actually paid [Tim] for any of these services?
SB: Not that I know of because I – as soon as that was
mentioned I’d kind of stay away. Because I asked [Tim] why he was so into the group and he told me flat out that he got disbarred
and everything because he had sex with one of his clients or something like
that. And fine, he paid his debt to society and everything, but I don’t
think he should be the vice-president. [Next]
DL: Okay. Why don't you think that?
SB: Uh, well, because
it hurt our movement. I mean, I think the group itself could be
good as Iaymen,
DL: Okay.
SB: you know. But
as soon as you get professionals involved and then they’re wanting money from
these people and everything, creates a problem.
DL: Okay. Now, do
you think there’s a problem with how the group looks if it’s got someone who
has this kind of past involved?
SB: Yes, that’s my
biggest concern.
DL: Okay. Um, um,
okay, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so when you say it’s your
biggest concern that this guy has had sex with his client?
U00340
-6-
SB: Yeah.
DL: Okay. And you don’t want to be
SB: I don’t want to be associated with that. I
mean, I agree with our movement, 100%.
DL: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
SB: However, I don’t agree that he should be
in this position of power with – because then if he talks to reporters or he’s
on the news or anything, if any of that gets out, then holy wow, you know,
that’s a big– it'II shoot our whole group down, what we’re trying to do. He’ll
destroy everything just because of one person.
DL: Right. Right. So, what do you think the
average person would think of ECMAS if they knew that this guy was the
vice-president with his past?
SB: Well, we’re kind of mixed on that right
now, ‘cause he just got elected vice-president there at the beginning of the
month.
DL: Yeah.
SB: And he won by one lousy vote. We had 13 –
or 33 voting members
DL: Okay.
SB: and only 29 of them voted. And he got 15
and [the girlfriend] got 14.
DL: Okay.
SB: And our president got 22 and the guy that
was running against our president got 11. So there was kind of a
DL: Well, that’s strange.
SB: Yes. [As
noted elsewhere, the reason involves absentee ballots--see the AGM minutes.]
DL: Okay. Um, now, do you have any concerns
about Mr. Christensen?
SB: Ferrel?
DL: Uh-huh.
SB: Yes and no. I don’t know how to read him.
DL: Okay.
SB: It's seems like he’s playing me, or
originally he was playing. He kind of leaves me alone now. [I left him alone only in the sense of waiting, after sending
him to Ms. Malenfant, for her
done
so; instead she took SB and the two sisters as her own clients, to deal with
their court cases.] ---->
U00341
-7-
DL: Okay.
SB: But originally
it was more like he was playing me as a puppet?
DL: What do you
mean?
SB: Uh, well, I
told him my story and there’s been some very serious allegations, you know,
including a murder and
DL: Holy cow.
SB: all the rest
of it. Yeah. Like I’ve had some very serious allegations
against me. And he really, oh, wow, you
know, it’s a good story, we should do something about that. Put it on the
Internet and everything and – which is all fine. But it’s like he's, he’s
picking and choosing trying to do it just solely for publicity. [...hence all I can make
out of this is that, while I was waiting for Ms. Malenfant to
do her part, SB decided I had abandoned him--FC]
DL: Okay.
SB: Not – it's not
so much that he even cares or want to help. It’s like he’s in it for the glory
or something.
DL: Okay.
SB: Get his name
in lights or something. I don’t know.
DL: Right. Right.
Now, one of the things that you might not be aware of is that Mr. Christensen,
or Professor Christensen, wrote a book a few years ago.
SB: Right. And
I’ve heard about it. I haven’t read the book.
DL: Yeah. I have
the book right here. I think – let me just see when he wrote it. 1990. So, you
know, ten years ago. And there is a lot in the book and, you know, is
interesting. Um, there is much that I would agree with. You know. 98% of it is,
you know, it's the
man's opinion and you'll agree or you don't agree, but there’s a small little bit of it where he talks about
sex with children and he suggests that he doesn’t
really think that sex with children is such a bad thing.
SB: Holy.
DL: Yeah. Yeah. And, so, you know, I wouldn’t
have even known about this, but I started looking into [Tim] Adams.
SB: Uh-huh.
DL: And then they said, oh, but, you know,
some people I’ve been talking to said, well, have you read what Professor
Christensen says about sex with children? ‘Cause he seems to
think he’s okay. So, you know, now I’m saying, holy cow. [Back]
[Very clearly on the tape, the word
'it's' occurs just above here, not 'he's'. But usually, the interview-transcripts
supplied to me by CanWest's lawyers are quite accurate--FC]
U00342
-8-
SB: Yeah. I seem to remember something when I
first started going a long, long time
ago. I think
there was something – I – don’t quote me on this
DL: Okay.
SB: but I think it’s possible that he said
something about, um, Holland or Sweden or something like that that children are
allowed to have sex at the age of 9. [Evidently,
I
other.
That he read Holland or Sweden into that can perhaps be explained by his
general lack of education.]
DL: Yeah. I don’t remember that part. Um.
SB: Something to that effect.
DL: Yeah.
Yeah. He basically doesn’t think
it’s bad if kids have sex when they’re young.
SB: Yeah. So, we had a big discussion about
that, but that was such a long time I don’t really
DL: Oh, yes, and you had it – when would the
discussion have taken place? In a meeting or
SB: Yeah. It was – or awhile after a meeting.
DL: Huh. Okay. After a meeting. So, kind of in
the bar type of situation?
SB: Yeah.
DL: Okay. So you remember it actually coming
up as an issue?
SB: Yeah.
DL: Okay. Okay. That’s interesting. Okay. Now,
unfortunately when ECMAS elected [Tim] Adams last week, it became news
then. You know, if [Tim] Adams had just
kind of stayed in the background and done what he’s been doing for the last
year, it wasn’t so much a news story.
SB: Right.
DL: But now that he’s an official with the
organization it is a newstory.
SB: Right
DL: And I have a duty as a journalist to
report on the news. And if the local YMCA that has just elected this person
with this past to their, to their, you know, vice- president’s position, I
would have to report on that, too, because, you know, they’re doing stuff with
kids.
SB: Yeah, of course.
1500343
-9-
DL: Right?
And there's a connection. So what I'm looking for is some people I can quote in my article
and,you know, maybe you want your name used and maybe you can’t have your name
used, but who are basically saying that they’re, they’re a little upset,
they’re a little bit disgusted. I don’t know if you would feel comfortable
doing that. [Back]
SB: Well, I am
disgusted, yes. I don’t know if putting
my name is a good idea. There’s a few of
us that are quite disgusted. I know [Source A]
is quite upset and [his girlfriend] is
quite upset and there’s a few more of us.
DL: Right. Okay.
Now, now, the other thing is that, you know, everyone makes mistakes.
SB: Yeah.
DL: Right? You’re
human; you’re running a volunteer organization; you have a lot on your plate;
you screw up sometimes.
SB: Yeah.
DL: So, the
question really now is – now you made the mistake, is ECMAS going to fix the
mistake? Um, and how – or are they gonna just ignore it? Or are they going to
take care of it? You know, it’s just like that young MP in Edmonton on the
weekend who, you know,
SB: Right.
DL: he screwed up;
he apologized; he set things right and now it’s no longer news anymore.
SB: Yeah.
["Source
B" is another of the two male anonymously quoted informants.]
DL: Because he did the right thing afterwards. So, what do you think
ECMAS should do? As someone who has been a member, what do you
think they should now that these have come to light?
SB: Well, I thought right after the vote – we
were so upset, we left.
DL: Okay.
SB: But, I had talked to [girlfriend] the next Tuesday, or the next day, because they had the vote on the
Monday. [In none of her recorded interviews did the reporter ask for any details
of
DL: Okay.
SB: And, ‘cause
she’s the one that lost.
DL: Right.
U00344
-
10-
SB: And I said, it doesn’t make sense, you
know, 15 to 14, just a close vote and yet 15 and 14 is 29 and yet there was 33
voting members. I think we should have a
re-vote or something because this is just not right.
DL: Right.
SB: And that’s what I’m trying to force [the
girlfriend] to do.
DL: Right.
SB: And she’s – she doesn’t know what to do.
Or how to go about it. [The newly-elected
secretary later told me the girlfriend phoned her and was told how the absentee
ballots made up the difference.]
DL: Right.
SB: She doesn’t know if we can go for a
re-vote, you know.
DL: Okay.
SB: ‘Cause we’re all kind of new at this
organization thing.
DL: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We’re all kind of new at
this. I’m writing that down. Okay. So, um
SB: Where Ferrel, he seems like he’s the pro
because he’s – he’s saying, okay, you know, you’ve got to nominate this person,
or you’ve got to open a discussion. I
don’t even remember the terminology. lt just frustrates me so much I get upset
just thinking about it.
DL: Oh, no. On.
SB: But, like Ferrel, he was directing the
whole voting and nomination and everything because our president Bob Bouvier,
he doesn’t even have a clue as to how to run
a meeting.
DL: Okay. So he was sort of running the
election the other night then?
SB: Yeah. Yeah, in essence, yeah. He was doing
it from the background, but, you what I mean?
DL: Okay.
DL: Okay. Now, are you aware of - you said that Ferrel Christensen once mentioned to you that you should get [Tim] to be your
lawyer. Did he tell you to fire your own lawyer?
SB: No, no.
U00345
-11-
DL: No?
Okay.
SB: No.
I didn’t have a lawyer at that time.
DL: Okay.
Now, are you aware that he – of him making that suggestion to anyone else. Did
you ever overhear him saying that to anyone else?
SB: I
couldn’t say honestly for sure.
DL: Okay.
Okay. That’s fine. That’s fine.
SB: There’s
a strong possibility, yes, but
DL: Okay.
SB: because
we have so many meetings and so much is said that [Though she
hid this
crucial
information, the reporter published multiple things these two said that she did want to hear.] [Back]
DL: Sure.
No problem. Okay. Okay.
Um, now, um, one of the issues is that even if you were to elect a new
vice-president
SB: Uh-hum.
DL: you’ve still got Mr. Adams involved in the
organization. Do you think it would be okay to have him involved, or do you
think you should more than – you should do more than Just replace him? Any
ideas? Have you thought kind of ahead of it in that respect?
SB: Well, I don’t think he should be – I think
he should be just one of the group, you know.
DL: Okay.
SB: Sure, he could be even a voting member
because he, yes, he’s paid his debt to society and he’s been disbarred and
everything. However, I think he should, you know, give up on, on trying the
financial aspects of retrieving funds from the group.
DL: Okay. Okay. Okay, so you think he
shouldn’t be the v.p. and be taking money from people
SB: Right
DL: he meets in the group.
SB: Yeah.
DL: Okay. Okay. Um, any other thoughts?
SB: No, that’s about it.
U00346
-12-
DL: Okay. And you'd rather that I'd not use your name,
is that right?
SB: Well, I
haven’t really had a chance to even talk to my lawyer about anything.
DL: Okay.
SB: because
that’s what I’m worried about is repercussions.
DL: Okay.
Then, you know what, we’re going to say, he asked not to be named. We may give
you a fake name. [Contrast this with what DL had said to the grandmother.]
SB: Yeah. [This last-interviewed informant didn't specify what kind of legal
"repercussions"--whether he had in mind already ongoing custody
actions, or concerns about defamation--or it was merely a pretext. And yet the
reporter failed to request clarification, much less request that he do consult
his lawyer.] [Back]
DL: Okay. Okay. No name. Now, just for my
records, how do you spell ["Source B"]?
SB: [First name being spelled out here.]
DL: [Spelling of last name asked for here.]
SB: [Last name being spelled out here.]
DL: Okay. Okay. Um, and you’ve been involved
for just over a year?
SB: Yes.
DL: Okay. Thank you very much. Actually do you
have FereIl’s card?
SB: FereII’s card?
DL: Not – sorry, no – [Tim] Adams’ card? Would
you
SB: I’m not sure if I have it or not. I had it
at one time because he wanted to work together with my Iawyer. My Iawyer knows
him I guess. [unintelligible - static] That's when I asked [Tim]. [Tim] wouldn’t
really say a whole lot and then I asked him, well, how’d you get involved.
DL: Right
SB: And, yeah, I have his card. Says [Tim]
J.
Adams, B.A., LLB and it’s got Hon
DL: H-O-N? Yeah. Hon.
SB: H-O-N-S, in-brackets. Whatever that is.
DL: I think it’s honours, maybe.
SB: Yeah.
DL: Um, do you – when would he have given you
that card?
1100347
-13-
SB: Oh, when I first started going to the meetings.
DL: So about a year ago or so.
SB: Yeah.
DL: Okay.
I am trying to get a copy of that card because we think we might like to
use it with our story. Would it be possible for you to photocopy it and fax it
– the photocopy to me or is that something that you just can’t manage?
SB: No, that’s not a problem.
DL: Yeah? Whew. Okay. You made my day. Let me
give you my fax number.
SB: Okay.
DL: It’s 410-383-2439
SB: 2439?
DL: Yes. 416-383-2439.
SB: Yeah.
DL: And then write, you know, attention Donna
L.
SB: Okay.
DL: Because there’s a lot of us and, you know,
it might go astray, so should get to me then.
SB: Okay, Donna. I think my battery’s going to
die here.
DL: Okay. Thank you so much.
SB: Not a problem.
DL: You have a good day.
SB: You too.
DL: Bye-bye.
SB: Bye-bye.
END OF CONVERSATION
111792-1.WPD;Sep/O5/O1
U00348