Tabular Abstract for "MY CASE"

(Page numbers refer to PDF version of My Case.)       [Back]

Brief introduction to My Case††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 1

A central lawsuit issue is a claim that e-mailed questions from the Post reporter ("PR" henceforth) gave FC a chance 

to respond; for this reason and efficiency, the discussion of lawsuit issues here is structured around those questions.


Comments by PR prior to presenting her list of questions†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††... 1

PR objects to non-existent suggestion that she would not investigate both sides, falsely indicates that she has 

already investigated both sides. PR maligned Adams and FC before even trying to reach them (see also p. 36 ).


1)"How long have you been involved with ECMAS Edmonton?"†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 1

FC a member since ECMAS began. (This query already answered, along with question 2, by former vice president.)


2)"Have you ever held any official positions with ECMAS Edmonton?" ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††... 1

Why FC has never done this. (The answer to this and next question later seen to be irrelevant to PR's intentions.)


My relationship with ECMAS†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 2

Nature of and reasons for FC's recent heavy involvement in ECMAS, presented here as context for what follows.


3)"Have you ever represented yourself as a spokesperson for ECMAS Edmonton...?"††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 2

The obviously proper behavior, given the answer to the previous question, is not doing this; FC in fact never has.


3.5)Questions from an e-mail earlier sent by the reporter to ECMAS-Edmonton president, Bob Bouvier... 2

These questions accuse instead of seeking information. Not sent to FC, yet allegations on them printed in the article.


My book and the reporter's reaction to it†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 3

FC's study of the scientific research on sexuality, reasons for writing book. PR had done no such study, didn't pursue 

book's references on child sexuality; yet wrote as if she knew the book wasn't just reporting what the evidence says.


This small aspect of my book: children's sexuality†††††††††††††††††††† †††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††... 4

Basic facts on child sexual feelings; the book notes them, does not discuss what behavior best in today's conditions.


Suffering resulting from mistaken views about childhood sexuality††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 4

Some sad, even tragic consequences of this culture's traditional socialized attitudes toward children's sexuality.


The purpose here: correcting falsehoods to defend my character†††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 5

Instead of debating FC's evidence anywhere, PR misrepresented his words and character in print; a palpable motive.


Three special points regarding these quotations from the book††††††††††††† †††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††... 5

Two PR untruths here (she later contradicted each) re the quotes. Quote on pedophiles' use of porn "lure" discussed.


4)"Do you, in fact, believe...that the real problem with children being coerced into sex...?" †††††††††††† †††††††††††††† ††††††††... 6

PR here falsely describes FC's words; doesn't (contrary to article) ask their meaning, just whether FC believes them.


The quoted statement in context†††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††† †††††††††††... 6

Context for the challenged words, and some explanation beyond what is in the book.


Analyzing the misrepresentations and attitudes in question 4†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††† ††††††††††† ††††††††... 7

Two PR untruths here--not later published by her--re what quoted sentence says; her trivialization of its concerns.


5)"Do you, in fact, believe...that pedophiles coercing children into sex...?"††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 7

Again accusing, not seeking information; doesn't say what is objected to, so what was later published discussed here.


The amorality accusation and the main passage misrepresented in The Post††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ... 8

PR's amorality and 'equates' charges. The context of this passage; serious distortions in PR's published descriptions.


First 'equates' misrepresentation: the untruths about teaching morality andself-restraint††††††††††† ††††††† ... 8

PR twisted coercion into teaching restraint; in fact the book endorses guidance, restraint, and morals for children.


Second 'equates' misrepresentation: distorting potentially-as-harmful into simply-as-harmful††††† ††††††† ... 9

FC's passage does not equate the two kinds of coercion or even their outcomes, just their potential outcomes.


Third 'equates' misrepresentation: distorting equally harmful results into morally equivalent actions ... 9

PR's words imply moral equivalence of pedophiles and loving parents; what the book actually says about both.


The other misrepresented passage from my book: pedophiles luring children†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† ...9

The book argues keeping children sexually naive makes some vulnerable to pornography offered by pedophiles; PR 

twisted this to say it makes some desire contact with pedophiles, is the reason pedophiles succeed with any children.


The question of honesty and malice†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...10

PR read only five pages; had read some chapters years before, falsely alleged she could recall their relevant content.


Defences offered in examination for discovery: the amorality claim††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...10

PR defended her claim that the 5-page section is amoral on the false grounds of inadequate moral discourse, saying it 

is just about mental health; evidence that she should have known, and did know, that it was fully about morality.


Defences offered in examination for discovery: the 'equates' and 'restraint' claims††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...11

The defences of these false claims reflect bad faith, and in effect admit PR had used sophistry to deceive readers.


5A) The reporter's telephone slander and the events that ensued from it†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...12


The defamation uttered to ECMAS-Edmonton's president††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††† †††††† ...12

PR's telephone accusation, as reported by the Edmonton president, that FC's book condones child sex abuse, urging 

his expulsion. FC lawyer warned Post of lawsuit; later PR e-mails signaled continuing intent to defame FC in print.


The appeal I made to the editor of The Post ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...12

Alarmed at PR e-mail's hinted new accusations and unable to reach lawyer before article was set to appear, FC sent 

editor publishable response to views her questions seemed to reflect, hoping to ward off article or refute it in print.


Ex parte journalism†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...13

No reply from Post to this or to a later appeal by FC's lawyer. First article not on FC; word from PR that one on him 

will follow results in tainting his name in Alberta media before its publication. When it appears, it has no responses 

from FC, just libels he was given no prior notice of. PR later said Post editors never discussed its content with her.


Later defence of the allegation made to ECMAS-Edmonton's president††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...14

PR's excuse for this slander says it was only "maybe"; but it was not intended nor understood to express uncertainty.


Further making of the condonement allegation††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ...14†††††††

PR uttered the slander repeatedly--including times when there was no 'maybe'. She got the claim from LM, scolded 

the president for not acquiescing to LM; yet both women hid claim from the public and PR hid it from her editors.


5.5)"Do you think it is inappropriate for a person...who holds controversial be associating...?" ...15

This implies a conflict--undescribed--between the book and ECMAS work; again accusing, not seeking information.


There was no involvement of any such views in ECMAS†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...15

PR already knew FC hadn't introduced the book's claims into ECMAS, just wanted to punish him for thought-crime.


False accusations are dealt with by MERGE, not ECMAS††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...16

PR knew or should have known that her alleged conflict, even if real, wouldn't apply to ECMAS; about her motives.


The book's claims do not conflict with the wellbeing of the falsely accused †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††...16

Nature of the alleged conflict queried; argument and evidence given that PR in fact knew there was no such conflict.


Why publish a claim that is three ways illegitimate?†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...17

Arguments that alleged conflict was a pretext for attacking FC in print; there was no legitimate news story about FC.


6)"Have you ever considered the possibility that your association might be tainting ECMAS... ?" †††††† ...18

Another accusation, not a request for information; suggests others perceived FC's association with ECMAS as bad.


Those giving and seeking such help harmed by the reporter's own controversial views?††††††††††††† †††††††...18

PR's own sexual views show this claim is in bad faith; others' anger at hers a plausible motive for her attack on FC.


My ECMAS involvement and the book-section both known about by almost no one ††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††...19

PR aware that the book not before linked to ECMAS, so this insinuation evidently another pretext for her attack FC.


That the book's claims would taint ECMAS if known is also false†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...19

Reasons PR knew book's (actual) ideas wouldn't harm ECMAS; but knew her attack would harm, so needed a cover.


The article's central claim was fraudulent†† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...20

PR article alleged self-generated scandal in ECMAS-Edmonton, implying that many there credited her claims about 

book. PR knew there was no scandal, that ECMAS actions she wrote of were response to her slander and coercion.


7)"How long have you known  Adams?"†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...20

Next five questions hurl challenges re Adams, do not disclose intent to accuse FC of misbehavior linked to Adams.


8)"Have you read the full text of the Alberta Court of Appeal decision upholding his disbarment...?"††††† ...21

Another question of minor importance; evidently reflects PR's charge to president of unconcern over Adams' crime.


The reporter's seeming bad faith in charging lack of concern, and in her own expressed concern††††† ...21

PR knew of yet never investigated: LM's crime, LM's suspicion-raising past, or LM's uncredentialed legal advising.


The published insinuation that I concealed Mr. Adams' disbarment†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...21

FC given no warning of, hence no chance to contest, insinuation later printed that he hid Adams' disbarment; but PR 

knew it wasn't so. PR herself hid, from ECMAS and public, what she knew of LM's legal advising and LM's crime.


9)"Do you think it is appropriate for a person who has pleaded be the Vice-President...?"†††††††††††† †††††† ...22

Requests no reasons, just implies wrongdoing by ECMAS; evades FC's e-mailed partial explanation of the election.


The issues of rehabilitation and limits to punishment††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...22

PR refused to seek, or listen to, information about Adams' good works in ECMAS or whether he had lived down his 

crime. Her evident motive is seen in her insinuation, here and in the article, that FC and others condoned that crime.


The issue of the crime's relevance to ECMAS††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...23

Saying other crimes would be irrelevant (to excuse LM?), PR claimed a highly specific conflict between ECMAS' work a

nd Adams' crime; various facts show she knew this conflict-claim is unfounded, used as opportunistic pretext.


The issue of the vice-presidential election††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...24

LM conflicts with ECMAS led Adams to run; PR refused to investigate election despite its being pretext for article..


How Mr. Adams came to be elected: Before the AGM†††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...24

Strong distrust of LM by almost all ECMAS regulars; PR knew this but hid it from readers for a transparent reason.


How Mr. Adams came to be elected: At the AGM†††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...25

LM plot to grab power by bringing ringers--PR's later informants--to ECMAS AGM; result was election of Adams.


None of this was reported in the National Post††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...25

Despite learning of the reasons for Adams' being elected via her own sources, PR refused to publish any facts about it; 

to do so would have undermined her articles' insinuations of uncaring or corrupt motives behind his election.


10)"Have you ever urged fire and hire  Adams instead?"†††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...26

That anything important might lie behind this question, much less a serious accusation, not even hinted by PR.


Creation of the support group†††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...26

The serious needs and difficulties in divorce that led FC to establish this regular mutual-help group for ECMAS.


The unforeseen problem, and its fortuitous solution††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††† ...27

Inability of lay people to answer questions, dangers from false answers; Adams' free help solved both problems.


My actual behavior toward Mr. Adams†††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...27

FC never urged any to fire lawyer or hire Adams, just sometimes to look into latter; mostly urged seeking free info.


The published firing-and-hiring false accusation†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †† ††††...28

Article insinuated FC systematically pressured people to fire lawyers to get business for Adams; by suppressing and 

distorting various facts, insinuated FC was unwilling to discuss his book or his actions toward Adams with The Post.


The published accusations involving the two anonymous women†††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††...28

Untruth that FC pressured two fathers many times to do this was created by turning urging to get free info into hire-

and-fire urging, one case into two. PR hid words, by two far more knowledgeable, contradicting fire-and-hire claim


The second-support-group story††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...29

The article made it appear FC had opposed a second support group so all attendees would be potential paying clients 

for Adams. To do this PR suppressed and distorted much that she knew, even ECMAS leaders' pleas re the need for

Adams' free help and her own informant's words. In an e-mail PR said FC "preyed on" the support-group attendees.


Once again, no chance to defend myself††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††...30

PR didn't tell FC the claims by any informants, or any of her own accusations, before publication. Total refusal by The 

Post or other news media to tell ECMAS' and FC's side; no way to clear our names but lawsuit. Recap of all the reasons 

it was wildly dishonest to pretend she gave FC any chance to defend himself, or to say he refused any such.


11) "Do you think it is [proper that much] of  Adamsí paralegal work comes...through ECMAS?"†††† ...31

Another wrongdoing-implying question in which the nature of PR's objection cannot be discerned from her words.


Financial self-interest and ECMAS attendees' need for paid help†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...31

Paid help via ECMAS actually both unobjectionable and necessary. FC's knowledge of Adams' reliability. ECMAS 

would've sent clients to Adams even without his free help. The outright impossibility of a no-financial-dealings rule.


Another of the reporter's questions appears to be a pretext†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...32

Reasons to believe this PR objection too was insincere, including (once again) her wholly different treatment of LM.


The insinuation of financial exploitation†††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...32

Another charge FC not told of. Cutting part of a quote in print turned banality into insinuation FC preyed on people.


The insinuation of general greed††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...33

Further words PR left out made FC, Adams appear motivated by money; yet more distortion and bad faith by PR.


Some corruption of the reporter's own††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...33

All of the informants' actual untruths minor; PR turned them into serious ones by insinuation and suppressing facts.


12)"Do you, as a general principle, believe it is appropriate to vilify whistleblowers...?"††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...34

The one most overtly showing that PR's questions were only to accuse, that she was refusing to seek information.


Informants can misinform††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...34

PR knew risks of untruthful informants and duty to investigate, not just accept claims; never honestly investigated.


Dishonest investigating and reporting in regard to the prime informant††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...34

LM's intense hatred of FC for personal reasons unreported as motive; PR ignored her many easily disproved false 

claims. PR failed to make/keep records of her words (e-mails, 5 hours on phone) to LM despite pending lawsuit.


Dishonest investigating and reporting in regard to the other four informants†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...35

All of the other four quoted against FC and Adams had motives reflecting on their credibility, including desires for 

special assistance from LM; PR failed to investigate their motives or to warn readers of any of their possible biases.


Hiding/distorting further facts relating to the credibility of the other four informants††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...35

LM (and PR) poisoned the other informants' minds with claims about FC's book, strongly affecting the sisters. One 

reason informants had for asking anonymity was illegitimate, the other one suspect; deceit over the reasons in print.


Seeking assent to her accusations, not investigating, the purpose of all the rest of her interviews†††††† ...36

PR refused to contact any but those LM directed her to. Of the further four, PR phoned three in order to get negative 

responses to publish, not (as claimed) to investigate the other side, and just made allegations to the fourth. And when 

people defended FC, PR didn't ask for any facts, or print anything about him that they did manage to tell her.


12A) Even beyond avoiding, suppressing, and distorting facts: abusing power in order to coerce actions††† ...37


The Post Reporter as a player, not a spectator: maneuvering others to get what she wanted††††††††††††††† ...37

PR's many unethical tactics to get ECMAS to oppose FC and Adams; signs she erased audiotape to hide her slander 

of FC to Calgary group. It all got Adams to resign, board to consider expelling him and FC, Calgary group to quit..


The powerful effects on ECMAS of the reporter's manipulations†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...37

This is not just creating the news she was reporting, it is blackmail. On realizing PR's deceit, the Edmonton group 

refused to expel FC and Adams. But her slander of FC and fear of her power induced the Calgary branch to secede.


How the manipulation was used to promote the libels; how her knowing it was wrong reveals malice ...38

In print PR hid her acts that coerced reported events; hid ECMAS' opposition to her, insinuating that many in group 

credited her libels re the book. Told interviewees a reporter shouldn't make news, later denied knowing it is wrong.


Authorizing the reporter to carry out her malicious intentions: complicity by the National Post †† ††††††...39

Warned by lawyer of PR phone slander, Post editors evidently failed to listen to audiotapes. Told later of more facts 

and more wrongdoing by her, still failed to investigate, authorized her article to go ahead. Efforts by ECMAS, FC to 

save or restore their good names met with more Post untruths and bullying. Later appeals to owners of Post ignored.


13) "If Ms. Malenfant is motivated by revenge...why do you suppose she brought her concerns to me...?"...39

This is just another hurled challenge; like all non-trivial questions before it, not asked in order to find out the facts.


Yet another presented objection appears insincere, yet another question is just an evasion†††††††††††† †††††† ...39

Things PR ignored to employ this argument that LM couldn't have had any improper motives; her seeming motive.


Possible motivations of the reporter's behavior in general†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...40

Close LM-PR prior relationship argues for illicit motives; many other signs exist of illicit motives for PR's actions. The 

motives she herself claimed for her actions disproved in multiple ways from documents she supplied in the case.


Apparent motivating attitudes of officials in charge of the National Post and CanWest Global†††† †††††† ...41

Almost no editorial records turned over by Post; evidently did no investigation whatever, just had a lawyer tell them 

what they could get away with publishing. Many signs that their professed ethical concerns are self-serving pretense.


My own intentions as alleged by CanWest Global††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...42

Harm to FC's name continued by contesting and counter-suing; their court-pleadings' gross distortion of his words.


My actual motives in fighting back††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††† ...43

Serious harm done to FC's work by the libels. Besides undoing those harms, FC hopes to use this lawsuit to oppose future d

eception of the public, and future harm to ordinary people, arising from unethical journalistic actions. [Back]