Re: Please Stop your Defamation (Re Nolan

Criminal Charges)
From Amy M <> hide details
Jeff Kerk <>, againey <>,
rjamieson <>, robtgconsulting <>
Sent Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:29 AM
Show all headers

Dear Jeff, (Anna, Rob G, and Rob J),

I am also educated and a respected professional. I've spent 17 years serving the community and building a positive
reputation, albeit in a different industry. I've also spent many years advocating for children's rights and protections
and when I'm not busy with journalism, I've been a spokesperson for the Ontario Association of Social Workers.

I care deeply about the situation with Mr. Nolan and I'm familiar with the issues he presents, both legally and
socially. I haven't done anything to commit defamation against you or anyone else, and I believe everything I've
said pertaining to the situation to be true.

I don't know what you're alleging when you say I've "engaged in spreading false, destructive, and defamatory
rumours" about you. You haven't cited any comment or any person. You haven't denied anything either. You've
simply listed 2 email dates and complained the contents of my letters are false. I fail to see how noting your own
LinkedIn page, with information you made public, or hospital board meeting minutes, could be an issue.

As you stated, the act of defamation needs to prove that I knew, or should have known, some part of the
information was false. But I'm so convinced that everything I said is true, that I have documentation to back it up. I
reported everything in my letters to Constable Callahan at the Barrie Police Service (where the Child Exploitation
Unit is investigating) and I made this statement before Christmas. I offered to attend the detachment and swear an
oath, if the task force deems the information essential.

Moreover my letters state, in bold and bold-italics, that I'm not accusing anyone of wrongdoing and I'm specifically
deferring to the justice system. However, within Canadian law there is the established principle of 'guilt by
association' as a cause to investigate. Both you and Mr. MacEachern were hospital colleagues with Nolan at the
time of allegation. Both you and Mr. MacEachern are close enough friends and/or associates with Nolan, that the
three of you ran the former's election campaign and joined the Simcoe-Grey EDA executive together.

There is already investigation by a special police task force and investigation by the hospital. The three of you are
all involved in the hospital investigation as a result of your positions and participating with the board of directors.
That means the three of you need to be vetted or consulted by two different entities. An ongoing criminal case that
may involve preying on children can't be deflected from the SGFLRA because you threaten me with retaliation for
the act of requesting Vulnerable Sector checks as a precaution.

Now I need to ask if you're accusing me of providing a false statement to the police and request that you not
defame me in this regard. It would be a criminal offence, what you're suggesting, as well as intimidation to prevent
my communication with the authorities.

I consider this response from an executive of the SGFLRA to be an abuse of power as well. The letters you've cited
were sent by me in confidence, only to the SGFLRA executive and senior executives in the Liberal Party of
Canada. While both organizations are refusing to comment whatsoever, yours is the only letter and it's
inappropriately threatening. Therefore you are the spokesperson for the LPC and this is the course of action
Liberals have chosen.

You've chosen to leave the information about youths collected by the LPC open to criminal abuse and child sexual
exploitation. You're threatening me to keep it that way, by sending my private letters with the party to police and
bringing frivolous legal complaints to silence me.

I regularly respond to threats like that by going public entirely. Furthermore you're threatening a journalist, to
interfere with the reporting of this story. The police and public deserve to know that the SGFLRA and LPC are doing
nothing to safeguard youth info during a child exploitation and pornography investigation. The police need to know
what sources of youth data Mr. Nolan had access to, and concealing The Liberalist from their purview would be an
absolute obstruction of justice. Why would the LPC not want to know if any alleged victims arose from their data
and/or events? There are already 2 more girls coming forward and we don't know if they're strictly related to the
hospital. We don't know if Mr. Nolan is alleged to abuse anyone through the riding yet.

I regret that you were friends and colleagues with Mr. Nolan, to have to endure the discomfort of an investigation
completing. But what does it say when you lash out at me, instead of co-operating to protect the vulnerable kids
and proactively ensure they can't be put at risk? IF Mr. Nolan is convicted one day, why would anyone assume that
a sexual predator confined his hunting ground to a single data set? IF a predator was dangerous at the hospital,
they would also be dangerous in a volunteer organization. Why wouldn't you want to know if Nolan manipulated any
of his colleagues, including you? Is the SGFLRA so intent to make this go away that they'd turn a blind eye to
children being abused for the sake of political prestige? You wouldn't want to know so you could stop it from
happening again?

Repeatedly I state that I respect the legal due process and every right enshrined by the Charter. I refer to the
charges against Nolan as 'alleged' and the investigation as 'ongoing'. But I fear the SGFLRA and LPC aren't
respecting the right of police to investigate fully, to reach a fair conclusion. If my colleague was charged with
heinous offences, I'd be the first to share what relevant info I knew, to either exonerate the person or protect the
workplace families in lieu. The truth doesn't pick sides arbitrarily and facilitating an investigation doesn't compete
with the presumption of innocence. Facts remove the bias of interested parties so our community is equitable and
no transgressions against privacy have been committed in this instance.

Responding this way to the contents of a police report is disconcerting at best. Denying there was a treasure trove
of youth data for Nolan to obtain through the SGFLRA and LPC would be absolutely disingenuous. Denying
Vulnerable Sector checks during an unresolved child exploitation case is downright dangerous, in addition to
purposely negligent and a possible breach of fiduciary duty. Has the SGFLRA consulted a lawyer regarding its own
data and liability if it was abused? What is the executive going to do if the pending charges for these next two
complainants involve contact through the LPC? Will you threaten the justice system with defamation to prevent the
court from investigating, or any witnesses from speaking?

My request was non-threatening and rather matter-of-fact. It was good advice even, to preempt the threat of
member abuse and liability if the organization abetted criminal activity in its negligence to provide reasonable
oversight. The SGFLRA and LPC know about the allegations against Mr. Nolan. They know he had access to
thousands of children in The Liberalist and yet they won't do a single thing about it. No party investigation. No co-
operating with a child exploitation task force. No preventative measures. No precaution whatsoever. And no
justification for prospective victim families. Why do you think the community is chattering when the only response
from SGFLRA and/or LPC is that they'll sue someone who reports what they know, or dares to speak for the rights
of these children over the pomp of an executive nameplate? They're stuck in the middle of all these developments
and if anyone can't respect their safety, they don't belong in a volunteer organization that seeks to shape their belief
systems. What is so hard about verifying that SGFLRA executives are safe to trust? In the thick of a serious child
sex scandal, whether the accused is found guilty or innocent?

That the SGFLRA and LPC are stonewalling maliciously, is enough reason not to trust. And if they won't safeguard
Ontario Young Liberals, the public at large has a right to know so they can make responsible decisions within their
own families about the privacy of their children. That is not your right, Rob's right, the SGFLRA's right, or the LPC's
right. It's not even the Prime Minister's right. You have a fiduciary duty and I will not shut up about it.

Finally, do you deny being a hospital colleague of Mr. Nolan's? Do you deny managing patient data at that same
hospital? Do you deny the charges against Mr. Nolan state that he abused patient data to contact (a) victim(s)? Do
you deny working with Mr. Nolan on the election campaign? Do you deny working with him as a fellow executive on
the EDA? Do you deny that being a riding executive and election campaign rep could provide access to The
Liberalist? Do you deny The Liberalist contains considerable personal information about youths? Do you believe
that anyone suffering from a psychological condition that would cause them to be a child predator, would only select
victims from a single location? Do you know the outcome of this forensic investigation of 11 computers will only
return evidence related to the hospital and not the LPC, when it isn't completed yet? Do you know what all the
constituents in Simcoe-Grey are saying about this? Do you know what my sources as a journalist are saying to me
about this? Because if you can't answer yes to all of these questions, then your threat of defamation proceedings is
purely intimidation.

I've seen that you're angling to replace Mike as the candidate, but if you're called as a witness by the
prosecution or defence, you can't pass green-lighting anyway. This is bad for the hospital and bad for the Simcoe-
Grey Liberals, but it's even worse for the child complainants and no adult aspirations can trump their basic safety.
Our goals and the timing of by-elections versus trials can't supersede the obligations of our justice system. Again I
state that I am honestly very sorry you've been caught in the process between Mr. Nolan and the young girls. But
an upright community contributes what it knows and minds the interests of public safety before ego.

Please rescind your defamation allegation and be a true political leader by encouraging the SGFLRA to co-operate
for the benefit and healing of our riding. Please see fit to put the children first, until we can ascertain what happened
through a trial. Please allow the evidence to be collected in its entirety, so there is no miscarriage of justice in either
direction. And please stop being hostile toward the idea of Vulnerable Sector checks, because they validate the
organization and its members when its reputation is being challenged. Until all the charges are laid in the Nolan
case and a verdict is rendered, the SGFLRA will remain under a dark cloud. That's the legacy associated with this
particular executive and I should think you'd work harder to restore it than threatening its members. Remember how
the Ghomeshi case played out and all the opinions that were fair game for the media? Well this is no different and it
was Nolan who caused his colleagues to be at the centre of it. Not me or any other member of the LPC. All I've
asked everyone to do is smarten up.

Yours very truly,

Amy MacPherson

Endnote #1: I've carbon copied Rob Glozier, Anna Gainey and Rob Jamieson with this response, because your
complaint arises from my private party communications with them. I also suggest that you put the officers you
complained to in touch with Constable Callahan. I don't take kindly to frivolous police reports made about me and I
expect you to sort that out before I have to do it myself. If you refuse to comply, then please provide your officer's
name so I can file a counter complaint for harassment. Respectfully, thank you.

Endnote #2: To Ms. Gainey and Mr. Jamieson, this is what happens when you ignore serious issues.

On 2/3/2017 at 10:22 PM, "Jeff Kerk" <> wrote:


I am an educated, respected professional. I have spent years serving the
community in my profession and in building a positive reputation. Recently, I
have learned that you have engaged in spreading false, destructive, and
defamatory rumors about me.

It is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and reputation.
Defamation consists of
(1) a statement that tends to injure reputation;
(2) communicated to another; and
(3) that the speaker knew or should have known was false.
Your defamatory statements pertaining to my involvement in Mr. Nolan’s alleged
criminal activities are false and without merit. I have forwarded a copy of your
recent communication and your November 17th 2016 communication to the
police and consulted with a lawyer about your defamation.

I demand that you immediately cease and desist your defamation of my
character and reputation. If you do not comply, I will seek all available legal
remedies. Before taking these steps, however, I wish to give you one
opportunity to discontinue your conduct by complying with this demand.


Jeff Kerk