After 8 Years On Probation, It's Finally Ended!

Apparently, in Canada if a woman attacks a man, with the express intention of completely destroying that man's life (e.g. getting him deported from the country so he loses custody of his children; refusing to ever let him see or have contact with his children; publicly spreading false allegations about him in international news media, causing him to lose his job and be ostracized by his associates), that's perfectly acceptable.

But if that man then retaliates by saying "mean" things to that woman, and by informing the world of all the things she had done to him and their children, well, aparently THAT's criminal harassment.

That really is, literally, what the case and the charges came down to 244069-2-KC. I hadn't done anything to Capuano which she hadn't already done to me.

I must report, in person, to a probation officer at least once every 4 days Condition 5.

YES! that meant I had to report in person at least twice a week - even serial rapists and murders don't have to report in person twice a week!

When I inquired, during the sentencing submissions, why I would have to report so frequently, Holmes responded that it was to protect Capuano; if I were to attempt to go to Arizona to harm her, then I would have, at most, a four day lead.

I must attend, participate in, and successfully complete a psychiatric assessment Condition 6.

I never had any objection to this - but only as long as I could record it. The psychiatric department refused to let me record it, so I snuck a recorder in and recorded it anyway. I then published the recording on this website. I wasn't going to have some hack, government stooge of a psychiatrist lie in his report or make unsupported diagnoses.

I was prohibited from leaving the Province of British Columbia - and therefore, obviously, Canada Condition 9.

The prosecutor and judge imposed this condition knowing I had no citizenship or immigration status in Canada. They knew I was not elegible for any "benefits" (e.g. health care, financial assistance), and that I was not authorized to work in Canada.

I had pointed out to Holmes, that that would put me in a position where I would be forced to be destitute and homeless, living under a bridge, for three years. She didn't care, and responded that it was a circumstance of my own creation.

I was prohibited from being within 100 meters of the US border Condition 10.

This condition complimented Condition 9. Not only was I not allowed to leave BC, I was not even allowed to go near the border. They definitely did not want me leaving Canada.

I must surrender any travel documents (e.g. passport, Nexus card, visa) and not obtain any other travel documents Condition 11.

Yeah, right! Like I'm going to surrender any foreign (i.e. non-Canadian) passports to the RCMP? Fuck that! Let me say, in no uncertain terms, I absolutely DID NOT surrender a single travel document to ANY Canadian official.

I was prohibited from "disseminating, distributing, publishing or making publicly available in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, information, statements, comments, videos, or photographs which refer to or depict, by name or description, Desiree Capuano, James Pendleton, Sage Capuano, or any of their friends, relatives, employers, or co-workers" Condition 12.

That is, literally, how the condition was phrased! Consider that:

• If I uttered the name "Desiree Capuano" in the presence of another person, I would be violating the condition.
• If I made any reference to "my ex-wife", I would be violating the condition - even if I didn't use her actual name.
• Our son, Gabriel, is a relative of Capuano's and so, was included under this condition. The condition, literally, prohibited me from uttering Gabriel's name in the presence of another person.

I was required, within 24 hours of my release from prison (that is, upon this order coming into effect) to "take all necessary steps to ensure" the desireecapuano.org website was no longer available to anyone Condition 13. Essentially, I was required to shut down the desireecapuano.org website.

But of course, I'm paraphrasing and grossly oversimplifying the incredibly convoluted and far-reaching wording of the condition. It literally read:

Within 24 hours of your release from custody you will take all necessary steps to ensure that any website, social media page, or other publication, which you have authored, created, maintained or contributed to, which contains any information, statements, comments, videos, pictures which refer to or depict, by name or description, Desiree Capuano, James Pendleton, or Sage Capuano, or any of their friends, relatives, employers, or co-workers, including the website published under the domain www.desireecapuano.com, is no longer accessible via the internet or by any other means.

Think about that for a second. That condition literally required me to "take all necessary steps" to ensure all of the news media coverage, the coverage from CBC, CTV, The Globe and Mail, Vice.com, et cetera, was no longer publicly accessible. I "contributed to" all of that coverage by participating in interviews, or by communicating or sharing information with the reporters. Therefore, all of that media coverage was covered by this condition and I was legally required to do whatever was necessary to cause it to no longer be accessible on those media agencies' websites. Clearly, the people who wrote these conditions were idiots and the judge who accepted and imposed them was just as much of an idiot. Hey, I'm just stating the obvious facts.

I told Holmes there is no way the (desireecapuano.org) website is going to be taken down, regardless of any probation conditions. I told her, if necessary, I will transfer ownership and control of the website to a third party, outside of Canada, so that during the period of probation it would not be under my ownership or control and, therefore, I could not be compelled to take it down. That seemed to piss her off some good.

Holmes and Myhre took that as me being defiant, "thumbing my nose at the system". But I was merely stating a simple and obvious way for me to be exempt from the condition. They acknowledge I have no authority or control over CBC or any of the other media outlets and, therefore, I cannot be penalized because those third parties refuse to take down the content referred to in this condition. So likewise, if I give up ownership of the website prior to the order coming into effect, I no longer have any authority or control over it and, as such, cannot be penalized because the new owner refuses to shut it down. Makes sense, right?

Of course, Myhre and Holmes were also okay with the media coverage remaining online becuase most of that coverage was completely on Capuano's side and deliberately buried any information that may have made Capuano look bad.

I was prohibited from using "the internet or any computer or cellular network", except as required to fulfill Condition 13 (above), for the purposes of employmeent (which is was legally prohibited from engaging in), or for sending (but not for receiving) personal emails Condition 14.

And again, let's take a moment to consider the ramifications of this condition.

• First, notice it explicitly states not just the internet, but any computer network, which would include a local area network (LAN). So I can do whatever I want on a single, stand-alone workstation or server - as long as it's not connected to a network. I can copy files from one computer to another, using a USB drive or an external hard drive; but I CANNOT plug those two computers into an Ethernet switch and copy those files over the network. Even if that switch is not connected to anything else.

• I can use a landline telephone, but only if it's an analog telephone and only if every point between my phone and the phone I'm calling uses the public switched telephone network (PSTN). VoIP and modern, digital switches and PBX's use IP, which runs over computer networks. It would be, literally, impossible to make a telephone call anywhere in the western world, or in any developed country, without also using a computer network. And all mobile (cellular) telephone networks use computer networks. So, this condition, as worded, prohibited me from using a telephone.

  Even if they admitted their incompetence and allowed me to use a telephone, I would not be allowed to access my Google Contacts to lookup a telephone number because Google Contacts are stored on the server, which requires accessing the internet.

  I cannot use my Google Calendar, to keep track of when I'm supposed to report for probation.

  And, if I buy a new smartphone (whether Android or iOS), I cannot do the initial setup because that would require accessing the internet.

• The exemption for employment is irrelevant because I'm not authorized to work in Canada. And I can't work outside of Canada because I'm not allowed to leave BC. But even if we pretend I was legally authorized to work in Canada, the condition allowed me to use a computer network for the purpose of employment but not for the purpose of seeking employment.

  This condition also prohibited me from using a computer for any other professional pursuits other than employment. So, I could not use it for the purpose of incorporating a business so that I could get around the lack of employment authorization. I could not use a computer network for the purpose of being an independent contractor - because that is not "employment".

• And finally, they were kind enough to allow me to use a computer network for the purpose of sending personal emails. But not for receiving personal emails. And not for sending or receiving emails other than personal emails.

  So I cannot send or receive emails related to professional matters - for example, if a client (not an employer) wanted to send me something or for me to send him something; or for communicating with government agencies like IRCC or CBSA.

  I cannot send or receive emails for legal matters - for example, I was violating the probation condition by communicating with the prosecutor, Mark Myhre, by email ... Myhre repeatedly engaged me in email correspondence, even though he was the one who wrote this condition and he was the one who fought to have it imposed.

The first time I reported to my probation officer, I held up my phone, went online and looked up the telephone number and address of the place I was staying so I could comply with the condition requiring me to provide that information to him. I then informed him I had just accessed the internet, in violation of Condition 14. I told him to go ahead and breach me. I don't think he saw the humor or the sarcasm in that. At the end of the meeting, he told me the next time I had to report. I said, "Sure, let me put it into my Google Calendar, which is on the internet. Oh, there I go again, violating Condition 14." Again, he didn't seem to get the point of how stupid all of this was.

I was required to provide my probation officer "any email address I use", and a list of any email addresses I correspond with Condition 15.

Once again, let's have a look at the staggering ineptitude that went into the writing of this condition:

• I was not required to provide all of the email addresses I use, or every email address I use. I was only required to provide any email address (singular) I use.

  The condition, literally, only required me to provide the probation officer one email address I use. And so, that is what I did. I provided him one, and only one, email address.

• The condition also required me to provide the probation officer any email addresses I correspond with. Again, it did not say "every" email address I correspond with. If I recall correctly, I didn't provide him a single email address I have ever corresponded with. Fuck 'em!

I was required to inform the RCMP of the location of any firearms I own outside of Canada Condition 17.

This was not in the original order written and proposed by the prosecution. Originally, the condition said I was required to accompany the RCMP to the location of all of my firearms and to surrender those firearms.

At one of the sentencing hearings, I pointed out to Holmes that that would conflict with Condition 9 which prohibited from leaving BC. Not to mention, the RCMP would have no authority to act in any official capacity within the US.

Realizing her's and Myhre's incompetence and that I had, once again, proven I'm smarter than them, she changed the condition to say I must accompany the RCMP to the locations in Canada, of all of my firearms, and merely inform them of the location of my firearms in the US, so they could coordinate with the ATF to seize those. I believe I chuckled and said something like "Yeah, that's not going to happen."

The only condition on this order prohibited me from being within 500 meters of the US border Condition 4. It basically just increased Condition 10 of the Holmes order from 100 meters to 500 meters.

The reason for this increase was to prevent me from being able to turn myself in to CBSA at a port of entry for the purpose of being removed again. It had been proven at the trial that I had, actually, turned myself in to CBSA at the port of entry and, since I have no citizenship or immigration status in Canada, CBSA obviously denied me readmission. The prosecutors and judges did not want me leaving Canada - even by being deported, so they increased the distance to the border so I would not be able to turn myself in at a port of entry.

Apparently unbeknownst to the BC justice system participants, I had set up another website about myself (the "patrickfox site", which also showcased all the material from the criminal harassment case (that site eventually grew into this website).

The site contained the trial transcripts, proving Capuano committed extensive perjury, and that she lied extensively about me in the news media. It contained proof that Myhre and Lagemaat knew Capuano was lying on the witness stand, but that they refused to inform Holmes or the jury.

I made all the source material for the patrickfox site publicly available and made sure the maintainer of the Desiree Capuano site was aware of it.

Since the patrickfox site was not about Capauno and did not reference her by name or likeness, the BCPS had no legitimate legal basis for trying to force me to shut it down.

Even though the prosecutors and judges don't WANT people publishing disclosure and court records related to their cases, and even though it clearly angers the hell out of them, there's not actually anything illegal about it. Not to mention, how incredibly bad it would look for the Canadian justice system to try to punish someone for publishing legal and court records which are supposed to be available to the public anyway - records which prove the corruption those same justice system participants are actively engaging in.

The only condition imposed on this probation order was that I must take down the Desiree Capuano website within 48 hours of my release from custody.

I told Phillips and Johnson that's simply not going to happen because I no longer have ownership and control of the website. That no probation order or threat of imprisonment is going to cause the website to be taken down.

They, of course, took that as me saying that I'm not going to take it down; that I'm openly refusing, in court, on the record, to obey the court's order. Because they're stupid, stupid people who don't listen to the actual words a person is saying. They hear what they want to hear. I never once said I would not take down the website - I said there is absolutely no way the website is going to come down upon my release from custody. But of course it won't - it's no longer my website.

One thing I've always found interesting, if not entirely stupid, about this order is that it was imposed for six months even though it only imposed a requirement on me for 48 hours. Phillips could have issued the order for a duration of two or three days and had the exact same effect. The three other, mandatory, conditions on the order were already being imposed under the Holmes and the St. Pierre orders, so there really was no rational basis for making this order longer than, say, three days. Perhaps another example of the thoughtlessness of Canadian justice system participants.

You might be thinking, "But wait, Condition 4 of the Phillips order and Condition 13 of the Holmes order are the same thing. They both required you to take down the website following your release from custody." Yeah, that's right. I'm quite certain that the BCPS MEANT for Count 2 to charge me with violating Condition 12 of the Holmes order, NOT Condition 13. But I think they are incompetent and get confused by things like "copy" and "paste". I suspect they highlighted then copied/pasted the wrong text from the Holmes order onto the indictment.

Obviously, it would have made a heck of a lot more sense to charge me with violating Condition 4 of the Phillips order and Condition 12 of the Holmes order. They knew the website was online as of 2020-09-16, but they had no evidence about whether it had been taken down within 48 hours, then subsequently put back online (which would mean I complied with Condition 4 of the Phillips order, but violated Condition 12 of the Holmes order); or whether it had remained online the entire time since my release (which would mean I complied with Condition 12 of the Holmes order, but violated Condition 4 of the Phillips order). That way, they would have been covered either way.

At the trial, the judge brought up the fact that both counts related to the same conduct - failing to take down the website - and expressed concern about there being a possible Keinapple situation. Johnson agreed and withdrew Count 2.

But in fact, even if it wasn't a mistake on the indictment, it wouldn't have been a Keinapple situation because Count 1 would have alleged I failed to take down the website following my release from custody on 244069-6-B, as required by the Phillips order; whereas, Count 2 would have alleged I failed to take down the website following my release from custody on 244069-2-KC, as required by the Holmes order. It clearly would have been to separate, completely unrelated, violations of two separate conditions on two separate orders. Ergo, no Keinapple sitation. Chris Johnson really is an incompetent buffoon.

But Johnson immediately agreed to withdraw Count 2 because he didn't want to risk someone pointing out, on the record, that the BCPS is so inept they copied/pasted the wrong text into the indictment. At least, that's my belief on why Johnson quickly withdrew Count 2.

At this trial, Johnson argued that Condition 4 of the Phillips order didn't only require me to take down the site within 48 hours of my release, but that it also prohibited me putting it back online. That is directly contrary to what he conceded at the trial before Phillips. I believe the reason he contradicted his earlier position was because he knew my arguments were correct and strong and that he had not even come close to proving I had violated Condition 4 of the Phillips order. Rather than trying to prove I had violated the law, he decided it would be easier to change the law.

But then, at the sentencing in this matter, Johnson argued that Phillips had imposed a condition requiring me to take down the website, which I failed to do, and so he requested that same condition be imposed again TR 2021-04-12 p3l20. That proves that Johnson didn't actually believe Condition 4 of the Phillips order (and therefore, Condition 13 of the Holmes order) didn't require me to take the website down and keep it down for the duration of the order because if that's what it meant then reimposing the condition on another order would be redundant - Condition 13 of the Holmes order would already require me to "keep the website offline".

This condition is just a duplicate of Condition 12 from the Holmes order, prohibiting me from publishing any information about Capuano.

I can't image why Rideout bothered to impose this condition since the prohibition in it was already covered by Condition 12 of the Holmes order. This condition added absolutely nothing. It is completely redundant.

The only thing I can figure is, the Holmes order would be expiring on 2021-12-29, whereas this order would expire on 2022-08-11, so it would extend this prohibition for an additional 8 months. Big fucking deal! If the past five years in prison, and two-and-a-half years of already being under this condition hasn't changed my resolve to publish and expose everything Capuano was done, did they really think another 8 months of this condition would make any difference?

I believe they did believe that - because they have the intelligence of a brick of cheddar cheese.

This condition is just a duplicate of Condition 4 of the Phillips order, which was a duplicate of Condition 13 of the Holmes order.

It fascinates me that these fucking yahoos kept convincing themselves that if they just impose this condition one more time then I'll comply, I'll give in and take down the website.

There's really nothing interesting I can say about their imposing this condition again, at this point. I mean, seriously, at this point they're really just proving to everybody how weak, ineffectual, and utterly impotent they are. It's literally like they're saying stop doing that, or I'll tell you again to stop doing it. Sad, man. Just sad,

You would think, after:

• me pointing out the BCPS's inteptitude by only charging me with violating Condition 12 of the Holmes order and not also Condition 13 of the Holmes order, even though they had no knowledge or evidence of whether the website had remained online or was taken down the put back online, at the trial in 244069-6-B; and
• the BCPS's blunder in 244069-7-B, of accidentally copying/pasting the wrong Condition text onto the indictment, then withdrawing that charge rather than admitting they're incompetent;

that they would have charged me with violating both Condition 5 of the Rideout order (prohibiting me from publishing anything about Capuano); AND Condition 6 of the Rideout order (requiring me to take down the website within 48 hours of my release). And you would think they'd double check that they copied/pasted the correct text.

But amazingly, they ONLY charged me with violating Condition 6 of the Rideout order! Seriously!

So unless they could prove they monitored the website continuously, from the moment of my release from custody, until 48 hours and one minute after my release (which they could easily have done with a simple script which would have accessed the home page once per minute and saved the result), all I would have to do for a defense was to say that at any point between the specific moments the police checked the site, it could have been taken down for any short duration of time then subsequently put back online.

As discussed above, the act of taking down the website, for even just five seconds, would fulfill the requirements of Condition 6 of the Rideout order (or Condition 4 of the Phillips order, or Condition 13 of the Holmes order).

If the website was then put back online at any point after that, even five seconds later, that that would have violated Condition 5 of the Rideout order - but they weren't charging with violating Condition 5 of the Rideout order.

It amazes me that the BCPS would make the same mistakes over and over.

Probation conditions are generally written to either prohibit a specific conduct, or require a specific conduct. In this instance, somebody screwed up and put what should have been two separate, distinct conditions into one condition. The way it is written, the condition could be very unclear and easily argued against at a trial.

The first part of the condition required me to report to a probation officer, within 72 hours of my release, only for the purpose of informing my probation officer of the exact steps I have taken to ensure the Desiree Capuano website is no longer publicly accessible. Then, at the end of the condition, it explicitly states once I have done that I am no longer required to report to a probation officer.

The second part of this condition appears to require me to take the Desiree Capuano website down within 48 hours of my release from custody. Basically the same as Condition 6 of the Rideout order, Condition 4 of the Phillips order, and Condition 13 of the Holmes order.

But if you look more closely at the exact wording of the condition, it arguably doesn't actually require me to take down the website - it only required me to report to a probation officer the exact steps I have taken to "comply with the conditions of the order". But it then goes on to say, in the same sentence, "with the following condition of this probation order", then it has the text of the previous "take down" conditions pasted inline. So, taken literally, Condition 4 only required me to report to a probation officer the exact steps I have taken to comply with the conditions of the order, particularly the condition requiring me to take down the website. Except that there is no condition within the order requiring me to take down the website.

There are also a number of contradictions in this condition, which make it ambiguous.

• First, it required me to report to "a" probation officer - not specifically the probation officer assigned to me. But it then says "for the purpose of informing 'your' probation officer". Taken literally, that means I was required to report to any probation officer, not necessarily the one assigned to me, for the purpose of informing the probation officer assigned to me of the exact steps I have taken. So by reporting to any probation officer, with the reasonable expectation that that probation officer would relay the information to my probation officer, I have complied with the condition.

  Then, at the end of the condition, it said once I have reported the exact steps I have taken, I will no longer be required to report to "a" probation officer. "A" probation officer, not "your" probation officer. Nowhere in the condition did it state I was required to report to any particular officer, or to the officer my case was assigned to.

  When I did go to report, to comply with this condition, my probation officer was not available so I had to report to a so-called "duty officer" (which seems to mean she was appointed to handle appearances which were not scheduled). I informed her of the exact steps I had taken. She told me I need to come back in two days, to report directly to the officer assigned to my case. I told her she was wrong and I showed her the probation order, where it stated I was required to report to "a" probation officer, not necessarily to the one assigned to me; and where it stated once I had done that I am no longer required to report to a probation officer. I told her I have just now fulfilled the requirement by informing her, and I would not be returning to report a second time.

  A few days later, my probation officer went before a judge, claiming I failed to report as required, and obtained a warrant for my arrest. A judge actually issued a warrant for my arrest because I didn't go back and report a second time - even though the order explicitly stated I was only required to report one time. I'm willing to bet the judge did not even look at the order. He just blindly accepted the probation officer's claims and issued a warrant based solely on that.

  The BCPS actually charged and prosecuted me for breaching by failing to report. At trial, after being held without bail for 10 months, I was acquitted of this breach.

• The condition required me to report the exact steps I had taken to "comply with the conditions of this Probation Order", but then said "with the following condition of this Probation Order", then essentially that I take down the website within 48 hours of my release.

  So which is it? Do I have to report the steps I've taken to comply with the conditions stated on the order? Or do I have to report the steps I've taken to comply with the condition to take down the website (which wasn't actually one of the conditions stated on the order)?

  And if I'm supposed to state the exact steps I've taken to comply with the conditions of the order, does that mean I'm required to state the exact steps I've taken to not have contact with Capuano (Condition 5), and the exact steps I've taken to not publish any information about Capuano (Condition 6)? How can I possibly express the exact steps I've taken to NOT do something?

Prior to my release from custody, the website had already been taken offline, so at the time of my release and the time I reported, the day after my relase, the website was not online. So I told the probation officer the exact steps I have taken to cause the website to be no longer available are absolutely nothing. She was confused by this. So I clarified. I told her the website was already offline, so there is nothing I can do to cause it to be taken down. That seemed to confuse her even more. I told her, "I've done nothing to cause the website to be no longer available. I'm required to inform you of the exact steps I've taken to cause the website to be no longer available. I've taken no steps. There, I've informed you of the steps I have taken - which is no steps - I've complied with Condition 4 and I will not be coming back in two days to report a second time." That angered her, but I had no time or patience for her stupidity. I left.

I can't think of anything else relevant or interesting to say about this condition. It was clearly prepared by someone with significant mental deficiencies.

This is just another duplication of Condition 5 of the Rideout order and Condition 12 of the Holmes order, prohibiting me from publishing any information about Capuano.

At sentencing, Denhoff said the intent of the probation order is to prevent me, for the longest time possible (i.e. three years), from doing the things stated in the condition, namely having any contact with Capuano and publishing any information about Capuano. I responded that I've been on probation with these same conditions for over three years now and they "have had zero impact on anything". I went on to say:

I don't know why the Crown would all of a sudden now think that imposing a new probation order with the same conditions is suddenly going to change anything.

But I didn't stop there, I continued:

I think it's going to be futile and a waste of everybody's time and efforts ... and as for the sentence, I would argue in favour of time served. A longer sentence is not going to have any deterrent effect. It's not going to make any difference whatsoever, to be honest.

It's not going to change my behaviour. It's not going to make me do anything differently.... So, leaving me in jail for another three months, or another year and a half, or even if you sentence me to four years, the statutory maximum for a breach, it's not going to cause the website to come down. Like, nothing is going to change. [...] Like, the website will still be there, regardless of if I'm in jail, or if I'm outside and people are still going to be making updates to the website regardless.

And as I'd said, nothing changed. The website remained online following my release from custody.

This was the only relevant condition on the probation order. Just another duplication of Condition 6 of the Denhoff order, Condition 5 of the Rideout order, and Condition 12 of the Holmes order.

It's important to note, this exact condition was already being imposed under the Denhoff order which would still be in effect for another two years, so imposing this condition again, on the Oulton order really changed nothing. All it did was to extend the condition for an additional year. But this condition had already been in place for more than four years and has had absolutely no effect on anything - the website was still online; it was still being updated; information about Capuano was still being published.

Why the prosecutors and Oulton thought imposing it again, on a new order, would change anything, I have no idea.