Desiree Admits She Was Actually TRYING to Keep Me Talking to Her

The offense of criminal harassment CCC §264 requires:

• that the accused person must have engaged in any of the particular conduct which is listed in the statute;
• that the accused person knew (or reasonably should have known) that the complainant was harassed by that conduct;
• that the conduct in question was unwanted by the complainant;
• that the complainant actually feared for their safety as a result of the conduct in question.

Obviously, an accused's conduct cannot be considered harassment if the complainant is actively encouraging the accused to engage in that conduct. Particularly, if the complainant is voluntarily using that process as a means of gaining something (e.g. information) from the accused. For example, if the complainant keeps asking the accused to come over and clean her apartment, she cannot then claim she was harassed and afraid for her safety by the accused coming to her apartment.

So, obviously if the complainant were to testify that they were actually actively encouraging, trying to keep the accused communicating with them then that complainant could not, reasonably, claim the communication from the accused was unwanted. In fact, in such a case, the accused was only doing exactly what the complainant expressly wanted them to do.

In case you don't know, I was convicted of criminally harassing my ex-wife, Desiree Capuano, based primarily on my email communication with her over a period of time, and secondarily on the website I created to expose her lying, cheating, manipulating, sociopathic ways. I was sentenced to three years in prison, followed by three years of probation, on that charge.

The prosecution's case was based almost entirely on Capuano's testimony. And boy did she put on a show.

On the third day of the trial, the third day of Desiree's testimony, on cross-examination, Desiree admitted she had been very deliberately trying to keep me communicating with her in exactly the manner I had been TR 2017-06-14 p50l36-p51l4. She testified that she was using it as a way to get me to say and admit things she could use against me. Let's have a listen, shall we:

Desiree Capuano -
Complainant

In addition, Desiree also admitted in her testimony on cross, that she had been deliberately provoking me, trying to annoy and anger me TR 2017-06-14 p29l33-39; p47l8-17; p56l15-16.

So let's see if I understand this correctly: Desiree was deliberately trying to get me upset, she was actually going out of her way, intentionally, to get me pissed off, so that I'd argue with her; and then, once it got to the point of a profanity laced argument, she was actually intentionally trying to keep me arguing with her? All right, so then how the fuck is that communication criminal harassment?

Tony Lagemaat -
Defense Lawyer

Now, you would think the lawyer appointed against my will to do the cross-examination of Capuano, Tony Lagemaat, would have noticed this and would have pursued the matter further with her. Perhaps trap her into admitting this is all just a game to her, just another of her horribly vindictive ploys to spite me for her own demented amusement. But nah. He just ignored it and moved on.

Mark Myhre -
Prosecutor

And you would think the prosecutor, Mark Myhre, being that the BC prosecutors are, according to the BC judges, honorable, fair, and honest, would have realized at that moment that Capuano was just using the justice system as her own tool or weapon in her fucked up, narcissistic, childish games. You would think the prosecutor, being so honorable, would have halted the trial at that point. But no.

Both Myhre and Lagemaat ignored Capuano's admissions and proceeded as though it never happened.