Mike Laberge/ Ferrel Christensen Telephone Conversation†††† Friday, March 30, 2001

[As seen from internal indicators, this conversation took place on the day the first Post article appeared. I did not inform ML--desperate to protect my name from lies he was helping to promote--that I was taping the conversation on my answering machine. The transcription was first made by Accurate Data Services; I subsequently made some minor corrections by ear--FC]

 

():Hello.

 

FC:Hello, is Mike there, please?

 

():Yeah, one second, please.

 

FC:Thank you.

 

ML:Hello.

 

FC:Mike.

 

ML:Yes.

 

FC:Itís Ferrel calling.

 

ML:Oh, hi, Ferrel, how are you?

 

FC:Well, Iíve been better.

 

ML:Yeah, so have I.

 

FC:We go back a ways here, so Iím hoping that youíd be willing to clarify some things for me.

 

ML:Uh huh.

 

FC:In the letter that you sent to Bob Bouvier, though you donít mention me by name, itís pretty, it seems pretty clear youíre talking about me, and I was just wondering if you could clarify why youíre saying those things.

 

ML:Well, some things were brought up as far as from, you know, different perspectives. You know, Ferrel, I havenít read your book[go to next highlighting] ---> or any of this, and all Iím saying, and I said to Bob Bouvier, is that lookit, guys, I donít care who the hell it is, where the hell it is or whatever, I said but youíd better be-- take a look and you better do some navel gazing and evaluate that if there are controversies that are potentially coming in, you should evaluate them yourself, to see whether or not they are real, and as an organization, because really as a society you are a business, evaluate it from an executive side, make a damn decision on it, make your stance and stick with it. But by doing nothing than wishy washying and doing stuff like that...

 

FC:Oh, thereís been nothing wishy washy here.

 

ML:Whatís that?

 

FC:Thereís been no wishy washy here.

 

ML:Well, okay, from an outside perspective of, perspective of, of that, yes, it does appear that way, Ferrel. From their side, from the corporate side of, of ECMAS. And all Iím saying is that lookit, you guys evaluate it and you, you know, and disassociate yourselves from that kind of stuff because I donít care who the hell it is or whatever and whatever, and if you think that no, thereís nothing in the work then, and it doesnít fit the bill, thatís fine, then make your stand and stick with it.

 

FC:Mm hm, well, okay, I have no complaint with thatÖ

 

ML:But thatís basically what Iím saying, what weíre saying is that, you know, if when we came to the conclusion here in the time period, you know, itÖ

 

FC:You were under pressure, I understand that. But I, there were some specific things in your letter; you speak of a member, quote, With questionable views of child pornography, unquote.

 

ML:Well, itís...

 

FC:You said, We will not support individuals...

 

ML:Or groups.

 

FC:...or groups...

 

ML:...who view or promote those views.

 

FC:Now, are you not then saying that I promote those views?

 

ML:No, Iím not, and I, and I specifically did not put your [sound blurred] reason, Ferrel, and that is, I donít know, and I donít know whether or not thatís the case. Thatís not our stuff, but thatís not, thatís not our stuff, thatís the stuff up in Edmonton for people to look at. But if it does have an effect and we are bystanders on the side that weíre getting nailed with this stuffÖ

 

FC:I understand that, but the way the letter reads to me, you are saying that you do know. You speak of a member with questionable views of child pornography, someone who views, has the contrary view to having sex with minors, which could be applying to [Tim], persons who support the views of child sexual involvement. When you say Disassociate yourselves from this person, it sure as heck sounds as if youíre talking about me.

 

ML:Well, Ferrel, you know, whether it be you or anybody else, and I specifically didnít put any names in there because I donít know what your views are on that, all right, Iíll be very, very honest with you, I donít know. And-- but youíve never, youíve never shown anything like that towards me.

 

FC:The subject has never come up in any of the meetings...

 

ML:Exactly.

 

FC:...because itís not relevant.

 

ML:And, but, you know, so what Iím saying is that, guys, evaluate your own house, and see whether or not that is the case because people are attacking your house.

 

FC:Well, it doesnít read this way. It sounds like youíre saying, Weíve already decided that it is the case, thatís why weíre getting out.

 

ML:No.

 

FC:Do you see the difference?

 

ML:Okay, Ferrel, I donít want to argue about this, okay?

 

FC:Okay.

 

 

ML:Weíve talked to a number of people here on the board. Weíre, weíve already been cancelled out of a god-damn caucus meeting with the fucking provincial government because of all this shit, and quite frankly Iím pretty damn sick of it.

 

FC:We are sick of it too.

 

ML:Well then, damn it all, out there, do something about it.

 

FC:Because we are being, I am being lied about. I have, I have a lawsuit pending here because Iím being lied about and, and itís a, instead of, of --some of the things you say in this letter just seem to me very premature in that regard.

 

ML:Well, whether theyíre premature or not, you know, we looked at it from this end, and we said all right, this is whatís occurring in through here. And we were getting calls from different people across the country as to whatís happening with ECMAS, and we say, Hey, thatís up there, go deal with them, you go talk to those people up there, thatís where the stuff is. Donít be calling us and donít be dealing with us here.

 

FC:Okay, but you got called before we did. Donna Laframboise called you before she called anybody up here.

 

ML:Thatís what I said, You talk to the people up there.

 

FC:Now, Ö

 

ML:And, because I donít know whatís going on up there, Ferrel. And with Bob, when I was talking to Bob and everything, and I think Bob understands in the sense that, that you know, weíre, weíre using the ECMAS name.

 

FC:No, I under- , I understand that, the fear of having that sort of thing thrown at you can createÖ

 

ML:Itís not fear, itís reality.

 

FC:...itís the fear of being smeared. I donít like being smeared, either, and I donít like being lied about and so...

 

ML:Thatís what I said to, to Bob, and everything is that, guys, and you know, a number of people that I talked with there said, well, you know, we havenít read this and we havenít read that. And I said, well, Jesus, you know, people are attacking your house here.

 

FC:We, weíre perfectly aware of that, thatís not in question.

 

ML:So, if thatís the case, maybe youíd better be more aware of it, and see what the hell is there and if it doesnít fit, then you make, then collectively you say, We have done this, this is our interpretation, this is the way we see it, and now Donna and Louise and everyone else, fuck off.

 

FC:Except that...

 

ML:And they have not done that from an organizational standpoint.

 

FC:We have-- they have done all of those things; and again, thatís not my issue.

 

ML:That is our issue.

 

FC:My concern is the things that you said in the letter that are talking about me.

 

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

ML:No, Iím not talking about you; I did not mention your name, whether or not itís inferred or anything, Ferrel. I did not, deliberately, because the message was to Bob, itís Evaluate your house, come to some decision and [inaudible] what weíre saying is thatÖ

 

FC:That was all done, the evaluation was done, they came to a decision. That was all done.

 

ML:Okay, when I was talking to him there and everything, you know they hadnít evaluated different programs, they havenít read the material, you know, they havenít done this kind of stuff. Theyíre just saying, Well, this is the way they see it, period. And thatís fine, if thatís the way they want to do it. We came back here as a group, we said, we said, Guys, lookit. You know, the Legal Aid Society has a new program that weíve put our names forward in order to be a member of so that we can evaluate this shit for families and everythingÖ

 

FC:Weíve, weíve been putting our name forward for a lot of things as well, so thatís not theÖ

 

ML:Well, so itís, itís, you know, I guess what weíre saying is that for us to maintain the credibility of where we are, then we better do a better job up front as far as our organization, and the executive side of our organization, and evaluate things accordingly, and make stands as to where they are so that nobody goes ahead and attacks the castle. And they have not done that.

 

FC:You think that they have not...?

 

ML:No.

 

FC:Weíll have to, have to...

 

ML:No, the ECMAS group in Cal-, Edmonton has not done that.

 

FC:Weíll have to agree to differ on that ifÖ

 

ML:That was my word to bitch Louise, as well, is that, you know, she has no business going outside with these things. She said, Well, I tried everything I could, and I said, Well, guess what, lady, your method just didnít work.

 

FC:She didnít, she didnít, she never said a word about [Tim] before she, beforeĖ to the group. Not a word ever. [This statement is in error. But at the time I made it, Bouvier had not told me about her e-mail to him against me of Feb. 16, in which was a brief statement against Mr. Adams.--FC]

 

ML:Exactly. I said, Sour grapes, because you didnít get what you want, and also, you were vying for the position that [Tim] had as far as clientele and everything. I said, Your glass house sure as hell is not clean.

 

FC:Iím glad you see, you know enough of whatís going on here.

 

ML:Oh, I know enough of it. Thatís why Iím saying is thatÖ

 

FC:Thatís reassuring right there, to hear you say that, because you realize then what weíre up against.

 

ML:Oh, I know exactly what youíre up against, I know exactly what youíre up against, Ferrel. And youíre dealing with vindictive bitches, for Christís sake.

------>

FC:Just to get really clear here now, youíd never read my book or heard of my book until, until Donna called you, I take it, or maybe got something from Louise earlier...

 

ML:Actually, I got it from Donna mentioning it, and I said Iím not aware of this. And I said if, if you have an issue, I said, I said, with Ferrel Ėwas, was Ferrel still a professor at the university when he wrote the book? She said, I donít know. I said Well, if he was, I said, Maybe you should be talking to the university, not to ECMAS. I said ECMAS wasnít even in existence when he wrote the book, plus, ECMAS never endorsed the book. So, and why youíre, ...why youíre going through all of this. And she said, Well, donít you think that blah, blah, blah. And I said, Lookit, whether or not it does or doesnít, I said Ask the people up there whether or not theyíve read the book, and have they done a critique of it and come up with a position paper.

 

FC:So did she suggest to you that I was supporting child pornography and adult-child sex, then?

 

ML:She never said anything, she asked questions.[Recall that the accusations in the reporter's e-mails to Bob Bouvier and me were in the form of questions, yet they carried detailed claims about the book.]

FC:Leading questions or...?

 

ML:Yes, leading questions that would, they were questions trying to lead me. And I got the same kind of lead from Rick Pedersen from the Edmonton Journal today, saying that well, you know, it wasnít very clear in the paper, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, heís heard some rumblings and some rumors and everything about the involvement of Ferrel Christensen. And I said [inaudible] I didnít see that in the paper; the person that brought this all up was Louise Malenfant --here, hereís her number, you call her. [However the reporter framed her words, given the words in Mike LeBerge's letter written right after and the fact that she was his source of information, she clearly told him, too, that she'd read the book, and that I ("maybe"?) condone child pornography and child sex abuse. And however she framed her words, they were forceful enough to get him to demand that ECMAS-Edmonton disassociate itself from me.] †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† [Back]

FC:Very good.

 

ML:As far as Iím concerned, Iím really downplaying this as much as possible, basically saying that some, some information has come up and Iím really pissed off at the way Donna has brought this forward: that Oh, you know, the big thing is that this thing, these people resigned. Bullshit. All it was, was --is the procedural move thatís in the bylaws that basically says, If weíre not going to use the name, in our minutes we are listed as Directors of ECMAS, so, Duh, we have to resign. Simple as that. Thatís just the procedure thing in Robert's Rules of, of organization and management, that's all. Donna, she, you know --what sheís trying to do is sheís trying to lead us. ††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††---------->

 

FC:Well, thatís the one thing thatís very clear.

 

ML:I have no intention of being, of taking up the bait with it, Ferrel. Now, if they want to bring this forward theyíre going to bring it forward, Iím not. And as far as Iím concerned, where I hope Bob was coming from, and Iím kind of disappointed that they didnít really come up with it, and that is to say, We took the time, we read this, this is what we see and everything, this is the contribution that these people make, the contributions are better than what the hell it is, guys, fuck off.

 

FC:Weíve got, actually, a whole variety of things that different people have written, Bob and others, responses that, that were all waiting until the article appeared to reply. We could hardly do otherwise. Itís all written, I guess you wouldnít have seen it because itís all in, itís all in various forms with different people and so on. But itís not as if we havenít been working on this, this last week and two days.

 

ML:No, I realize that, and Iím glad it is and you know, we just looked at it from down here [inaudible] everything we said, well, we went back through it and we said, Well, maybe this is the time here that the reason that weíve maintained autonomy of the different groups is because, if only one person or something occurred that it doesnít tarnish the other people and take away from, from the group across a large area. And with the association of the names and everything, itís, itís, itís doing that. So we said, No, letís make the break.††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

 

FC:Okay, that, thatís your decision there. But, just so youíre aware that...

------>

ML:You know, itís not that weíre never going to work with the group or people, and thereís a hell of a lot of damn good people, yourself and others, Ferrel. And what Iíve said to, which will never come out in the paper, is I said, you know, is --The people up in Edmonton have only shown high quality and integrity in dealing with their members and also with us. I said, So what is coming up and everything is behind the scenes or whatever, and weíre saying that if itís going to affect us, then we might have to change our name here. So I said, If you look at how people are to you, how these people have been to us has been nothing but positive and helpful and supportive.------->

 

FC:Okay, you make it plain, but thatís not the way itís in todayís article.

 

ML:Oh, I know it isnít.††††† [Referring to the Post article on Mr. Adams.]

 

FC:It was all you doing it because of what weíd done, nothing, nothing about Laframboise coming in and causing the trouble to start with.

 

ML:See, sheís trying to lead us in.

 

FC:No question.

 

ML:Sheís leading, sheís trying to lead us in, and we, we are not going to take the bait.

 

FC:Well, I guess some of us up here will feel better, if you have any further opportunity to say that to the press: "Weíre, weíre, weíre playing, weíre doing what we have to do to play it safe, but thatís not putting the blame on ECMAS Edmonton. Thatís --the blame may be on..." [At this time, I didn't know that he and his vice president had already talked (or would soon talk) to the Calgary Herald about me. I only knew oftheir words to the press concerning Mr. Adams, as those had been reported in the Post story that morning.]

ML:I told that to Linda Rutherford today, because --I said thereís more in this, Linda, than, than what meets the eye. [Though self-serving, ML's remarks here still declare manipulation by the reporter.] [Back]

 

FC:Linda Rutherford is who?

 

ML:Dave Rutherfordís wife.

 

FC:Oh, okay, didnít know.

 

ML:And Ėand so Iíve, Iíve given her some information, Iíve passed on Bob Bouvierís name. I said, Thereís more in this, I said, You might take note, Linda, that the person that brought this all up and has had all this big hubbub and everything just got a position as guest columnist with the Alberta Report. And I said, If you take a look at all the e-mails, and youíre on that e-mail listÖ

 

FC:Louise has done that? I hadnít heard.

 

ML:Yes, if you take a look at all of the, all of the reporters and media people and personnel, this is an unemployed person thatís trying to make a living, money, off of other people for their, after theyíre destitute and, andÖ

 

FC:I knew that she had sent messages to Rutherford and, and Alberta Report, and so on, but didnít realize she had a job with them.

 

ML:No, she just got it.

 

FC:Just got it, okay.

 

ML:Just got it. So I said, you know, A very good friend of mine, who is Senator Cools, taught me a long time ago, whenever something is going on, ask the question, Whatís the mischief behind it. I said, Thatís the bottom line, she got a job, as being a whistle blower and everything, got her the post at Alberta Report. I said, Thatís the whole purpose of it.

 

FC:Well, sheís done that before they ever came along. Thereís a long history here between her and me and that, thatís a lot of whatís behind this, is the animosity there, so...

 

ML:Yeah, so, Ferrel, I deliberately put some, put some material in your, your name. Youíre correct, your name was in inference [reference?] to that second part because of the unknown nature of what the hell we have. And Iím saying that what we said, and we looked at it here on how to word it, is basically that, if thereís a sit- you know, with affiliations, etc. etc., is divest yourself. If they come back and say weíve identified blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and stuff, and we donít see that thereís an association, or thereís, that thereís aÖ†††† [Tape ran out here]