I think that the reality of the situation is starting to set in for people that are involved with my matter.
The Department of Justice has access to the following documents:
- All the CFSIU investigation paper work from 1980, this includes documents that have never been released to the public.
- All of the 1980 correspondence between Colonel Daniel Edward Munro, his superiors and his subordinates.
- All of the CFNIS GO 2011-5754 paperwork from 2011 and 2015 to 2018 including all paper work that was never released to the Military Police Complaints Commission in 2012.
- All of the correspondence between myself, the Provost Marshal, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the Minister of National Defence.
In a court matter, the complainant and the defendant need to submit to the court the documents that they intend to use to argue their case. The DOJ doesn’t have to supply copies of the records that they used, but by reading the documents indicated above, the DOJ can formulate a plausible defence and they wouldn’t have to submit copies of what they have accessed to the court.
And the thing is that my lawyers would never have any idea of what the DOJ has accessed as we have absolutely no idea of what documents the Department of National Defence supplied to the Department of Justice.
Another issue that stymies my case and puts the sexually abused children from CFB Namao at a severe disadvantage is the spectre of the Official Secrets Act / The Security of Information Act.
There are those who will say that I am blowing things out of proportion with the Official Secrets Act / the Security of Information Act.
Section 4(1) states that anyone who was subject to the code of service discipline at the time they became aware of information while on a defence establishment is guilty of an offence if they ever tell anyone outside of persons they are authorized to pass that information on to.
“Having in his possession or control any secret official word” -comma- “password” -comma- “sketch” -comma- “password” -comma- “sketch” -comma- “plan” -comma- “model” -comma- “article” -comma- “note” – comma- “document” -or- “information that relates to or is used in a prohibited place”. The adjective “secret” applies only to “official word”. The commas do not apply the adjective secret to every subsequent clause.
In other words the first sentence of Section 4(1) reads as “Having in his possession or control any secret official word” or “password” or “sketch” or “password” or “sketch” or “plan” or “model” or “article” or “note” or “document” or “information that relates to or is used in a prohibited place”.
The first sentence of Section 4(1) DOES NOT read as “Having in his possession or control any secret official word” ,” secret password” ,” secret sketch” ,” secret password” ,” secret sketch” ,” secret plan” ,” secret model” ,” secret article” ,” secret note” ,” secret document” or ” secret information that relates to or is used in a prohibited place”.
What is a “prohibited place”?
Basically, any Canadian Armed Forces base in Canada is a prohibited place. Any chapel located on a Canadian Forces Base is a prohibited place. Any military police detachment located on a Canadian Forces Base is a prohibited place. Any CFSIU or CFNIS detachment is a prohibited place. Any private married quarters located on a defence establishment is a prohibited place. Any military social worker’s office located on a defence establishment is a prohibited place. Any school located on a defence establishment prior to 1994, would also be considered a prohibited place.
What is “information”? Information is not specifically defined in the Act, so I will go with the dictionary definition of “information”.
Merriam-Webster defines “information” as “knowledge”, “intelligence”, “news”, “facts”, “data”.
So……… anyone who was an active member of the Canadian Armed Forces and who was subject to the Code of Service Discipline back in the period of time between 1978 and 1980 and knew about the exploits of Captain Father Angus McRae or the babysitter, or knew any of the details of the investigation, or knew why the brass didn’t call in the RCMP to deal with the babysitter, or knew who exactly it was that limited the charges against Captain McRae to only those charges related to the babysitter, is forever prohibited from discussing these facts or observances with anyone at anytime without the expressed permission of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Justice.
This explains why Fred R. Cunningham had no problem telling me what he knew about the events in 1980, but shut his mouth pretty damn quick when I told the Provost Marshal in December of 2011 what Fred had told me in Nov of 2011. This is the same Provost Marshal that told me in January of 2012 that they couldn’t figure out who Fred Cunningham was and that I couldn’t put faith in what he had to say even though it would turn out that Fred Cunningham was the Acting Section Commander of the CFSIU in 1980 and was personally charged by Base Security Officer Captain David Pilling with investigating Captain McRae for “acts of homosexuality with young boys on the base”.
Fred even refused t0 be interviewed by the CFNIS in 2016 stating that he would only talk to the CFNIS if there were no records or recordings. The only thing that Fred did state as a matter of fact was that the “Provost Marshal threw the CFSIU to the dogs” in 1980. Reading the court martial transcripts and the CFSIU investigation paperwork, it appears that the Chain of Command was upset with the CFSIU for digging up more victims than was required.
If you’ve ever wondered why there aren’t more victims of military child sexual abuse from the military communities coming forward. It was all treated as a secret back then, and it’s all treated as a secret in the modern day with the people who could be our champions forever silenced by the Official Secrets Act and its very overly broad application to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Beeshive 