Natalie Clancy and the CBC Are Full of Shit

Natalie Clancy,
Investigative Reporter,
CBC News Vancouver

Any intelligent person knows that at least 90% of what they hear on, or read in the news is complete bullshit. So, if you're one of the people that actually believes what you see in the news, well, I guess that just means you're just an idiot and there's no hope for you. When a reporter has 2 hours of interview footage, it's not hard to cherry pick the 2 and a half minutes of sentence fragments, devoid of any context, which they will present, in order to turn the story into whatever they want. If you think this is cynical, well, you're pretty naive. News is just a form of entertainment for those people that like to consider themselves "intellectuals". And the networks need to sell advertising space, just like with a sitcom or any other program.

In this article we're going to examine what Natalie Clancy and the CBC tried to cram down your throats as being "news", and we'll provide proof that what they presented was either grossly skewed/distorted or just blatantly false. Although Clancy's title is "Investigative Reporter", it seems pretty clear the extent of her "investigation" in this matter was limited to talking to Desiree and me.

Clancy presented the story as a poor, helpless, woman (Desiree), being brutally tormented by her ex-husband (me), and the horrendous website, on which everything I said about her is completely false. Of course, that couldn't be farther from the truth - by now the whole world knows that, in fact, everything on the website is true; Desiree is not now, nor was she ever fearful of me or of the website; and she's never really given much of a shit about it. In truth, Desiree's current fiancé, James Pendleton, is the one that's been getting his panties all twisted up about it.

What I, and I'm sure many others, would really love to see, though I'm pretty certain CBC would never do it, is for the complete, unedited interview footage of both Desiree and me to be made publicly available. I think a lot of people would be amazed at how news agencies, like CBC, actually, deliberately distort people's statements to create a story where one doesn't really exist.

So, let's commence.

Notice Clancy states Desiree left me. That's kinda true. Desiree did physically leave the residence - on a temporary basis. What Clancy doesn't state is that I was the one that decided the marriage was over and filed for divorce. Clancy does this to create the suggestion that I am motivated by a sense of rejection. And, judging from how many people have posted comments to the various websites saying things like "move on", and "find another woman", that suggestion was clearly received by the hordes of imbeciles that allow the media to tell them what to think.

Clancy says "...the toxic custody fight over their son has escalated to this - a revenge website...". I don't know where she would get the idea that the website has anything at all to do with the child custody dispute. When I was interviewed by Clancy, I was very clear that my motivation stemmed more from Desiree having me deported based on false allegations, her repeatedly making false allegations against me in the family court, and her past efforts to turn my friends and associates against me - again, based on false allegations, than our child custody disputes. Of course, making it about the child custody disputes makes the story more emotional - and that gets more viewers. And it's all about getting viewers to sit through the commercials. That is, after all, how the network generates it's revenue.

Clancy refers to the website as a "revenge website". "Revenge" means "to exact punishment for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit". However, no indication is provided of what Desiree did to me that would make me believe she had wronged me. If the purpose of the website is revenge, as so plainly stated by Clancy, then that would mean Desiree must have done something worthy of seeking vengeance. But Clancy does not want to the viewer to know what that might have been - lest the viewer see Desiree as a monster, rather than a helpless victim.

The US protection order Order of Protection didn't stop me because a US protection order has no weight in Canada. It is a completely meaningless order because I'm not physically present in the US. What's more, the order of protection only prohibits me from contacting Desiree, or going near her residence. There is nothing in the order prohibiting me from saying anything at all about Desiree, using any medium I choose (in this case, the website is the medium of choice). In fact, it would be extremely difficult to get an order prohibiting a person from making any public statements about another person - that is exactly what the free speech clause of the First Amendment is about (and I believe there is a similar thing in Canada).

The order does require me to immediate surrender all my firearms, and it prohibits me from possessing firearms while the order is valid (for 1 year), but again, only within the US. The order of protection did not result in my Canadian firearms license (PAL) being suspended or revoked, and the RCMP told me I'm not required to surrender my firearms - because the order means nothing in Canada!

So why would Clancy even bother to bring this up? It seems like an irrelevant point. Unless, of course, she's trying to create the impression that I either have no respect for the law and for the courts; or to make it look like I have, somehow, been able to thumb my nose at the courts and violate their orders without consequence. Most likely, that was her intention. However, the reality is simply that the order is meaningless outside the US. But that doesn't make for very exciting news, now does it?

Clancy also states that being arrested by the RCMP also "didn't stop" me. That's because the RCMP arrested me based solely on Desiree's false allegations and the extremely skewed "evidence" she provided them. After interviewing me, looking at the "evidence" objectively, and investigating Desiree's own background, the RCMP realized she was full of shit. Ultimately, they released me with the only condition that I not contact Desiree. In the RCMP's own report, they stated "There is no criminal offence being committed" RCMP incident report, page 4. Yet, Clancy didn't mention that. In fact, she later states the opposite - she states the RCMP "recommended a charge of criminal harassment". However, there is absolutely no record, no evidence of the RCMP making such a recommendation.

So again, what was Clancy's point with this? The only logical assumption is that she's trying to create the impression in the viewer's mind that I have a complete disregard for the legal authorities. You see? That Patrick Fox is a bad, bad man! No respect for the law, whatsoever! Or, at least, that's what she, and the folks at CBC, want you to believe. If she had reported that the RCMP determined that Desiree was completely non-credible and there was no actual criminal harassment, well, then there wouldn't be much of a story, now would there.

One interesting point which wasn't mentioned in the story, was that as a result of Desiree's criminal harassment allegations, my PAL (firearms license) was put in an "under review" status while the RCMP did a very thorough investigation of me. It took over four months, and in the end they concluded there was not a single thing to be concerned about. They returned my PAL to "normal" status. While my PAL was "under review" I was not able to purchase any new restricted firearms (typically, handguns) - though it didn't affect the ones I already had.

This point has drawn a lot of attention. Almost all of the brain dead sheep out there have somehow completely not heard the first part - that I claimed Desiree abandoned our son and I raised him alone; and only heard the second part - that I took our son and hid him from Desiree for nine years. It's amazing how people only hear what they want to hear.

On this point it is very, very clear that Clancy and the bleeding heart, feminists at the CBC really want the viewer to accept that Desiree is the victim and I am the villain in this story. See, Clancy had the proof - the court documents - showing that Desiree did abandon our son; that I did raise him alone, without any help from Desiree; and that Desiree was in contact with us during that time she claims I was "hiding" him. Desiree, on the other hand, did not provide CBC any evidence to support her claim. Nothing! Yet, Clancy only reported that I and Desiree only claimed their opposing points. There is no mention, at all, of Desiree's admissions, under oath, that she voluntarily left our child, and that she knew where I and our child were all that time. That evidence has since been posted to the website see Proof That I'm Lying About Fox Hiding Our Son From Me for 9 Years – My Own Sworn Testimony; and More Proof I'm Lying About Fox Hiding Our Child From Me for Nine Years – My Own Letters.

Why do you suppose Clancy would ignore and fail to report the fact that one side of the story (mine) has mounds of evidence, including Desiree's own admissions, to support my claim; while Desiree's side has absolutely no evidence at all to corroborate her claim? Because the victim has to be portrayed as being wholly good, in order to gain the sympathy of the viewer. Sure, she did say what I "claim", and my claims do contradict Desiree's, however since they portrayed me, overall, as being the villain it is unlikely many viewers would believe my "claims" over hers. Particularly when they also made a point of stating I was "jailed" for perjury (lying under oath). By immediately mentioning the perjury, they are suggesting to the viewer that I am "officially" a liar and shouldn't be trusted.

You will notice, they never mentioned that the allegedly perjurious act occurred in 2007 - nine years earlier - with no record or indication of questionable conduct before or after that point. She would not want to mitigate the perjury conviction by pointing out that it occurred nine years ago and that I have never been found to have done anything wrong before or after that single occurrence. That might have made me appear more positive to some of the viewers.

In this clip, Clancy also makes a pointed reference to me being in prison. She claims Desiree "regained custody" or our son while I was serving the prison sentence for that perjury conviction. That statement has helped Desiree gain huge support. Nobody will feel sorry for someone who loses their child as a result of deliberately committing crimes, right? The problem is that none of it is true! Desiree didn't gain custody of our son while I was in prison, and I never actually went to prison for the perjury conviction. Sure, I was sentenced to two years, but a month after I was sentenced I was released from the US Marshals' custody and transferred back to ICE custody - not to prison. There is a very important distinction between "prison" and "administrative detention", which is what they call it when you're in "immigration custody". "Prison" is where you go when you're being punished for committing a crime; "administrative detention" is where you go when you haven't committed a crime and there is no legitimate legal basis for keeping you locked up. In August 2011, when Desiree went to Los Angeles and took our son by force, back to Arizona, even though our son had no history with, or knowledge of her, other than two short, weekend long, visits a few months prior, I was not in prison - I was not serving a sentence for committing any crime - I was in ICE "administrative detention". And, I was released and went back to Los Angeles three weeks after Desiree abducted our son, traumatizing him. Then, three months after that, the family court ordered her to return our son to me.

It is in January 2013, after Desiree filed a completely false report against me, with ICE, and I was again "administratively detained" by ICE, that she got temporary custody of our son - and only because I was being "administratively detained" by ICE. The perjury conviction had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Desiree even admitted, openly, in the family court, that she was the one that called ICE, specifically to get me deported from the US I Finally Admit I Had Patrick Deported – And it Was Recorded!.

Curious that Clancy didn't mention any of that, huh? Of course, had she reported that Desiree filed a false report on me, resulting in me being detained by ICE for six weeks and ultimately losing custody of my son, then that probably would have gained me a lot of sympathy with the viewers and made Desiree look like an evil sociopath. And that just wouldn't work for their story. The CBC claims they had o knowledge of this, but I certainly provided that aspect of the story to Clancy. It's all included in the one hour of video that was edited down to a minute and a half.

Clancy states I was deported back to Canada two years ago, suggesting I was originally from Canada. When Clancy interviewed me, she showed me a copy of my US birth certificate and I acknowledged it was mine. However, stating in this segment that I was born in the US would conflict with the previous statements about me being deported from the US - not to mention it would raise a lot of questions about how a US citizen could have been deported from the US; and, why Canada would allow a person who is not a Canadian citizen to be deported to, and remain in, Canada. Again, questions which would likely increase viewer sympathy for me - better to reiterate, in the viewer's mind, that I lied under oath and was kicked out of the US because I'm a bad, bad man.

Clancy then attempts to portray me as presenting Desiree with an ultimatum: that she allow me to take our son with me to Canada, or I will do everything in my power to destroy her. However, Clancy ignores such critical considerations as: our son had been with me his whole life, until just a few months prior, when Desiree had me deported; our son was only with Desiree because she had me deported - not because the family court believed she was a better, or even a good, parent; our son wanted to be back with me - even if it meant living in Vancouver; since our son had been with Desiree she had repeatedly made efforts to prevent me from having contact with him (including withholding my letters, not forwarding my voicemails, and changing her telephone number). None of that was mentioned.

Once again, had CBC included all, or even just some, of the relevant facts, then it is very likely, many viewers would have empathized with me.

Let's consider, the video of me, in this clip, begins in the middle of a statement. Why would Clancy deliberately cut out the first half of the statement? Because that first half of the statement was me explaining that, after being deported to Canada, I had contacted Desiree and told her I would give her one last change to do the right thing - to return our son to my care before the start of the school year - and that if she refused then I would devote the rest of his life to destroying her. Not because I wanted possession of our son, but because our son wanted to be with me, and had always been with me, and our son simply didn't want to be with Desiree.

It's not much of an ultimatum when what the party is requesting is simply what is morally right, and what is in the best interest of their child. But, again, Clancy did not want me to appear compassionate and reasonable - that would have gained me support from the viewers and made Desiree look less like a victim.

This shot is purely to gain viewer support. Desiree was instructed to appear fearful and frustrated. And I think she pulled it off very well.

Desiree says "He's been allowed to get away with everything...". There's no mention of the fact that the reason I have "been allowed to get away with everything" is because I haven't actually violated any laws. But much more significant, is the fact that CBC deliberately did not make a single reference to a single bad thing Desiree had ever done - even though I provided them extensive evidence of such things. For example: the time, in August 2011, when she abducted our son from the only home and "family" he'd ever known and brought him to another state to live amongst strangers; that she tried to abort her pregnancy with our son, five months in, by repeatedly punching herself in the stomach; that she tried to sell our son when he was 4 months old; the numerous times she refused to allow our son to have any contact with me; the time she contacted my friends and professional associates and told them I had hid our son from her for nine years, was an illegal alien and a fugitive, to try to turn them against me so I would not be able to get employment; that she was the one that called ICE to have me detained and deported so that she could get custody of our son because the family court ordered her to return him to me.

Those of you who are, or have been, users of stimulants, such as meth or coke, might recognize some of the tell-tale facial expressions and twitches of a person who is currently high. Watch Desiree's mouth - notice the exaggerated twitching at the edges. The constantly shifting eyes. The inability to sit still. Of course, coke also makes your nose numb so you get the sniffles - meth is a much more appropriate drug to use before going on camera. Notice the reddish complexion; the sweaty, shiny forehead - dead give-aways of someone who just did a bump.

Yet no mention is made of Desiree's drug use. Even though she was high out of her fucking mind, right there on the camera, and one of my allegations against her was that she is a drug addict, still Clancy thought it better to withhold that from the viewers.

Clancy knew that revealing such information would surely turn most viewers against Desiree.

We'll be frank with you now, since so much proof of Desiree's lies has been posted on the website, and I'm sure not one of you believes her or is willing to give her an ounce of compassion anymore: this statement is a complete fabrication! I never sent a single mass email to the people Desiree worked with, pretending to be her. You might notice there has never been any evidence provided to support that claim. If it had actually happened then it would be very easy to prove - the emails themselves would be a start.

Clancy's statement in this segment is very, very significant because she expresses it as a statement of fact, on behalf of herself and CBC - not as a statement made by another. Often, reporters will repeat what another party said, which may or may not be true, but they suffix it with something like "...according to such-and-such". That way, the reporter is not actually making a false statement, they are saying that such-and-such other person made the statement and they're just telling you what that other person said. That is not the case here! Here, Clancy is stating, herself, that Desiree was "laid off soon after everyone she knew saw the explicit articles, derogatory allegations, and private photos". Now, it's not shown in the segment which aired, but Desiree stated in other interview footage that the website was brought to her attention by a co-worker in March 2014. Yet, she was laid off from Apollo Group in September 2015 - 18 months later. Granted, "soon after" is subjective, but few tribunals will consider 18 months to be "soon after". And then there's the problem that she stated, under oath, in the family court, before she even did this interview, that the termination of her employment with Apollo Group was not in any way related to the website or anything that I may, or may not have done I Lied in the News About Losing My Job Because of this Website and Emails from Fox.

So, this particular statement, by Clancy, very potentially puts CBC in position of liability should I pursue a claim of defamation against them.

Here, again, Clancy expresses as a statement of fact, that I sent an email to Desiree and our son "[detailing] his plan to hire someone to seduce her and take intimate photos for the website". In fact, that never happened. I never stated I planned to hire someone to seduce Desiree or to take intimate photos of her. CBC carefully framed the text that was displayed on the screen to create that impression. However, the part of the email which was out of the frame stated "What I'd like very much...". So, what I was stating, in that email, was what I "would like to do", not "what I planned to do". There is a world of difference between those two statements! For example, being a racist and a white supremacist, Desiree would like to kick all of the immigrants and Mexicans out of America - but that doesn't mean she intends to actually ever take steps to do that. Again, Clancy puts CBC in a position of liability here because her statement was not only false, but that particular statement generated a lot of animosity toward me.

Clancy also stated that I "posted" about "wanting to shoot Desiree". Again, that is an entirely false statement by Clancy. The email to which she refers actually said:

He [their son] once asked me if I would shoot you. I told him that murder is illegal and immoral and can result in spending the rest of one's life in prison. And that the rest of my life in prison is not a risk I'm willing to take. But otherwise, no, I would have no qualms about it; that that is how much I despise you for the things you've done and continue to do. He did not flinch; he didn't look anything other than indifferent; as best I could tell, he didn't care. The topic never came up again. That was during his visit last summer...There is nothing illegal or threatening about wanting to harm someone - as long as you don't act on it. I am reasonable and rational enough to know the difference, and to refrain from engaging in such activity.

And let me be absolutely clear on this point: I would never deliberately cause you physical harm, other than in self defense or defense of another...Also, I emphasize that [their son] brought up the question and I only responded to it truthfully.

email dated 2015-01-11

Nowhere in that email did I express a desire to shoot Desiree. All I said was that I would have no "qualms" - no uneasy feeling or pang of conscience as to conduct - about it. I then go on to explain that that is how much I hate Desiree, but I am extremely clear that I would never, actually, harm her.

Notice, also, that the text displayed on the screen as Clancy is referring to this email, is not actually the email she is referring to. Rather, the text being displayed is Desiree's quote from the order of protection hearing - they're showing you what Desiree falsely stated in court, while falsely telling you what I stated in an email.

And, as for including our son in that email - I am referring to a conversation I and our son had - particularly, my response to a question our son asked me. Therefore, our son already knows about the conversation because he was a party to it. In fact, our son was the one that initiated the topic by asking me if I would ever shoot Desiree. So how could that possibly be harmful to our son?

Clancy goes as far as to say "Talk of shooting left her fearing for her and her fiancé's safety". That's a riot! Desiree, the woman who was married to, and lived with Michael Capuano for nine years. Nine years of brutal domestic violence - mostly by Desiree against Michael! Desiree, the woman that was engaged to, and living with Kristopher Lauchner for the three years prior to her hooking up with her current fiancé, James Pendleton. Lauchner being the one with the extremely long, violent criminal history which included such charges as attempted murder, aggravated assault, stealing cars, illegal possession of assault rifles, and using meth! Lauchner who is back in prison, for committing even more crimes while he and Desiree were living together.

Yet, Miss Clancy would want you to believe Desiree would be afraid for her safety from me. A person with absolutely no history of violence or psychological/emotional instability. A person who lives 1,700 miles away, in a foreign country. A person who has owned firearms all his life but has never had an incident with them - even when he was with a psycho like Desiree. A person who has passed the RCMP background check to obtain his PAL. Consider, if you will, the logistics that would be involved in me actually attempting to shoot Desiree see the "Logistics" section of the post My Ex-Husband Wants to Kill Me! Or, At Least That's What I Keep Telling People. Clearly it would be an impossible task for me to pull off.

What value does this clip add to the story? What significance could it possibly have for the viewer? Only two: to gain their sympathy for Desiree; and to portray me as a vindictive, violent, and dangerous man.

You should also consider that Clancy knew I had a PAL and was, therefore, legally permitted to own firearms in Canada. In fact, we discussed it during my interview. Clancy even took a picture of my PAL. Yet, there is not one mention in the entire story, of the fact that I was considered safe and stable enough to be permitted to own handguns. And why would CBC deliberately leave that fact out of the story? Because it would increase the likelihood that the viewer would perceive me as a clean, stable, law abiding person?

Not surprisingly, there is no record of the RCMP recommending a charge of criminal harassment. There is, however, a record of the RCMP stating "There is no criminal offence being committed" RCMP incident report, page 4. Why would the RCMP recommend a charge of criminal harassment, while at the same time acknowledging the offence of criminal harassment never actually occurred?

Clancy also claims "the Crown [prosecutor] did not approve the charge, in part because Fox is in BC and she's in Arizona". The critical part of that statement is "in part"! Meaning there are, actually, other reasons as well. Reasons such as all of Desiree's allegations against me have been found to be false; she has been deemed non-credible because of her history of filing false charges against me and because her story changed repeatedly and often contradicted her prior statements; and, of course, because the offence of criminal harassment didn't actually occur. But Clancy chose not to mention those reasons because, of course, that would make Desiree look like the cruel, vindictive person and make me look like the victim.

And here Desiree is, again, laying on the shit! You have to admit, her performance was stellar! But, in response to her heartfelt statement "I don't know what it would take other than [Patrick] actually, physically shooting me, for them to think that I was at risk.", here's an idea: Actually telling the police the truth! You see, if you go to the police with a bunch of highly exaggerated allegations, then the police find out you're lying, they're not going to take you seriously. After Desiree spoke with the RCMP, and she told them I had threatened to shoot her, they spoke with the Sahuarita Police who told them that Desiree's fiancé, James Pendleton had just filed a report with them the day before, wherein he admitted that I had never threatened either of them Sahuarita Police reports, page 3.

I suppose it should not be surprising that Clancy and her propagandists at CBC left the Sahuarita Police reports out of the story.

As for Desiree, why would she truthfully tell one police agency one day that I have never threatened her, then tell another police agency the next day that I threatened to shoot her? Because by telling the Sahuarita Police the truth (that I never threatened her), she failed to get the response she was seeking. So, if the truth doesn't get you what you want, lie!

Based on attorney Kevin Westell's statements I would have to conclude he's a quack! A complete and utter tool! There are many attorneys who will say anything the news wants them to just so they can get on television. And Westell is clearly one of those attorneys.

Criminal harassment absolutely does not include so-called "psychological harm". Moreover, harassment necessarily requires an element of contact between the parties (CCC §264(2)). Publicly speaking, or writing about someone can never rise to the level of harassment when the statements are being addressed to the general public - not to the person claiming harassment!

Westell says "...if psychological harm is being inflicted by actions that are being communicated over a distance, it just simply doesn't matter that the person is far away". Except that nothing is being "communicated" between me and Desiree in this case. The statements and content of the website are directed at the general public - not at Desiree. And, in order for Desiree to be "psychologically harmed" by the website, she has to deliberately go to the website! Desiree can simply choose not to go to the website and she would not be "psychologically harmed" by it's content, right? Since Desiree is the one deliberately subjecting herself to the content of the website by deliberately going to the website then it cannot be said that I am harassing her - because she is the one initiating the supposed "communication".

I'm sure, if Westell has any competence as a lawyer, then he also mentioned that, but of course, Clancy would make sure that doesn't end up in the story. That would just be too unbiased for a story of this sort.

Westell goes on to paint a picture of me "hiding behind my computer", "stalking" Desiree, like some kind of deranged serial killer. But I have done nothing of that sort here. I'm not "hiding" behind anything. I've been completely forthright about my actions and my intentions. Granted, originally I didn't use my real name on the site - but that's because I didn't want people to know I once fucked a skanky ho like Desiree.

That is the image of me, Clancy was attempting to portray in the viewer's minds. However, you will notice Westall's statement is not in reference to me specifically, nor is it suggesting that I - or anyone else, for that matter - is actually hiding behind their computer and harassing or stalking anyone. Westall's statement is merely saying that to do so, to hide behind your computer and stalk and harass online, "is just so easy now". But Clancy knows that is not what the typical viewer is going to hear. It is her job, her profession to take a sentence fragment, like that one, and to surround it with other, potentially unrelated sentence fragments, to create a potentially false impression in the viewer's mind. An impression which will, hopefully, be in line with whatever message she is attempting to convince the viewer of.

Here Desiree is doing her best impression of the downtrodden, thoroughly beaten - though still persevering - victim. Notice the trembling sigh at the beginning - to give the impression of someone who believes they have exhausted all options and there is no one who will help them.

This shot is included in the segment, immediately following the clip of me explaining that the only things that might convince me to take down the website would be either Desiree reaching a point of being destitute and homeless, or her demise. The way CBC pieced it together, it creates the impression that Desiree's statement is in direct response to my statement. However, Desiree's interview was actually completed long before I was even interviewed. None of the video footage of her is in response to any of my statements or of watching my interview. Every expression, every apparent emotion that you observe on her face, and in her presentation, was done 1,700 miles away from me, in the safety of her own home, surrounded by Matthew Schwartz and a crew from KVOA, without any knowledge of anything I was going to say in my interview.

Once again, the purpose of this shot is nothing more than to gain the pity of the viewers. And by adding "...I won't let him win!" Desiree is portrayed as the underdog - and everybody loves the underdog. She is the little guy, who has been thoroughly beat down, for no reason, by the big, powerful villain, yet she won't give up! She will fight on! There is absolutely no truth or reality to that, but truth and reality have no place in a CBC human interest story.

And, again, notice the exaggerated expressions and the involuntary twitching at the edges of her mouth. Again, indications of a person who is gacked.

Why would CBC choose not to mention Desiree's drug use? They knew she had a marijuana card - a picture of it is right there on the website. They knew she was fired from her job a few months ago for being high at work. Did they not think that would be something viewers might consider relevant? Or was it that they didn't want viewers to know anything which might make Desiree seem less perfect?

Clancy makes a point of stating that the company that hosts the website won't take it down without a court order. That is correct. And it is exactly as it should be.

What Clancy fails to mention is that the website is not hosted in either Canada or the US. So, neither the Canadian nor the US governments or courts can do a thing about it. Clancy is trying to create the impression that the Canadian, the BC, and the various US courts and law enforcement agencies have been ignoring Desiree's plight; that the courts simply don't care about a poor, helpless, innocent woman. But the reality is that there is nothing those courts would be able to do about it anyway.

Clancy doesn't mention the website is hosted outside Canada because then the viewers would realize that even if a Canadian court did issue some kind of order, it would be meaningless. Just like the order of protection from Arizona is meaningless in Canada. Clancy is trying to create the impression that this poor woman is all on her own against this terrible man, and no one - not even the courts - are willing to help her.

The court order that would have to be obtained would have to be obtained from an Icelandic court. my decision to move the site to Iceland was very deliberate and was based on: Iceland's very liberal free speech laws; and, Iceland's history of not giving a shit about the US. And, even if an Icelandic court did issue an order compelling the hosting provider to shut down the site, it would just be a matter of moving it to another hosting provider - possibly in another jurisdiction. As you can see, it would be futile to try to make this site go away by getting court orders to force the hosting provider to shut it down. Really, what you would need is a court order compelling me to stop posting updates to it. But that would be a clear violation of my right to free speech. Also, since I lives on the coast, and only a few miles from the Canada/US border, all I would have to do is either step across the border, into Washington State, or go a few miles out, into international waters, and such an order would, again, be unenforceable on those actions that occur outside Canada.

But, again, these are realities Clancy does not want the viewer to be aware of. This is a simple story of a male bully (me) picking on a defenseless little female (Desiree).

Clancy tells you that Desiree says she can't even get a full time job. She does not provide, or even attempt to provide any reasons for why Desiree might not be able to get a full time job. She does not mention that Desiree was fired from her last job for being unreliable, not getting along with co-workers, being under the influence of drugs while at work, using drugs while at work, and frequently missing work. She wants you to believe the reason Desiree can't get a job is because of the website. She deliberately withheld Desiree's sworn statements in the family court where she admits that the termination of her last job had nothing to do with the website I Lied in the News About Losing My Job Because of this Website and Emails from Fox.

Clancy also doesn't mention that within the past year Desiree moved from Phoenix, AZ to Tucson, AZ - a city with a dramatically smaller job market, particularly for Desiree's specific line of work (Ccmputer systems analyst). If you search indeed.com for "Systems Analyst" in Phoenix and in Tucson, you will find there are only 1/10th the number of positions in Tucson. Meanwhile, the population of Tucson is about 1/4th that of Phoenix - meaning the employment opportunities for Systems Analysts are much, much higher in Phoenix than in Tucson (more than twice as many jobs per capita in Phoenix). Might that have something to do with why Desiree is unable to find a job?

Clancy also doesn't mention that the sole reason Desiree deliberately chose to move from a much stronger employment market, to a much weaker employment market was to be with her boyfriend (now fiancé), James Pendleton. Desiree deliberately put herself and her children in a potentially precarious position to be with a man.

As for not being able to afford legal fees, well, Desiree's representing herself in her family court matters - I can't imagine there's any reason she can't represent herself in a defamation suit. Not to mention, she did recently hire an attorney to handle her side of my appeal of her order of protection (coincidentally, the same attorney that appeared in the KVOA segment about the website). So, she can afford an attorney to try to keep her meaningless order of protection in place, but not to pursue defamation claims related to the website which she's claiming is ruining her life, putting her in a constant state of fear, and preventing her from getting employment?

Clancy doesn't mention that Desiree was working, full time, at Apollo Group for 7 years and, at the time of her termination in September 2015 - almost 2 years after the creation of the website - her salary was over $70,000. But at no time prior to the segment airing, did Desiree ever consider hiring an attorney to pursue a defamation suit. She also doesn't mention that somehow, after 7 years of full time employment, Desiree has not saved any money. Doing so would give the impression Desiree is financially irresponsible, which might adversely affect the viewer's perception of her.

Clancy closes the segment by suggesting that there is a distinct possibility the prosecutor may still pursue criminal charges against me. But that is a naive belief. She states the prosecutor said they "would take another look, if new evidence comes to light". In other words, all of the evidence which has been presented so far is insufficient, but if, by some miracle, some newly discovered piece of evidence which is more significant than anything they've seen thus far, were to be discovered, then they would "take another look" at the case. All in all, a completely meaningless statement, most probably made to shut the person up and make them go away.

The purpose of Clancy closing with a statement like this is to instil in the viewer's mind the belief that there may still be something that can be done to bring that horrible Patrick to justice. Perhaps if enough people complain and post angry comments about me on the CBC website then the prosecutor will take some action. Perhaps there is someone out there who has the one new piece of damning evidence which will cause the prosecutor to "take another look" at the case.

Yes, I have been contemplating filing a defamation suit against CBC for the damages he has encountered as a direct result of their misrepresentation of the story and of the facts. Will it make any difference? We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, go read some of the other articles that Desiree has been claiming are all lies.