Prosecution Finally Admits the Desiree Capuano Website Is Not Harassment and Not Illegal

In July 2015, Desiree filed a criminal harassment complaint against me with the RCMP after I published some information about her boyfriend on the website. The RCMP investigated and recommended a charge of criminal harassment. The BCPS reviewed the evidence and determined there was no criminal offense being committed.

In response to the criminal harassment complaint, the RCMP investigated whether there was any public safety concern regarding my firearms license and my possession of multiple firearms. They ultimately concluded there was not.

In January 2016, Desiree went to CBC News, falsely claiming I had publicly threatened on the internet and in emails, that I would murder her and that the police were refusing to do anything to protect her from me. CBC ran a story about Desiree's claims and about the website B.C. man Patrick Fox aims to 'destroy' ex-wife with revenge website, B.C. man aims to 'destroy' ex-wife with revenge website. That led to a couple months of significant media attention on the website.

Even after all the media coverage, the BCPS still insisted there was nothing illegal about the website and refuse to prosecute me.

In May 2016, I returned to the US, and posted an article on the website telling all the tyrannical, fascist feminists and soccer-moms who were so outraged about the website that they can go fuck themselves because the BC justice system can't do shit about the website, because there's nothing illegal about it Yes! These Websites Are Still Here, Bitches!.

Shortly after that, the BCPS decided the website does actually constitute criminal harassment, and started a prosecution against me for it.

Mark Myhre, Prosecutor

I was denied bail and detained pending the trial. Mark Myhre was assigned as the prosecutor. After observing the amazing incompetence and even more amazing arrogance of the defense lawyers available to me, I decided to represent myself.

In June 2017, the criminal harassment trial took place. Desiree testified over four days, and during that testimony committed over 200 instances of perjury. For many of those instances of perjury, the prosecutor and the lawyer forced on me to cross-examine her knew she was lying but they refused to inform the judge or the jury. The prosecution relied exclusively on content from the website.

I was convicted of criminal harassment and subsequently sentenced to three years and ten months in prison.

For full details about this case, see the Case Page for 244069-2-KC.

Following my release, upon completion of my prison sentence, I published all of the disclosure material, transcripts, recordings, et cetera, from that criminal harassment case and trial, to publicly expose:

1. how full of shit the Canadian criminal justice system is; and
2. how evil, petty, manipulative, and full of shit Desiree is.

All that information found it's way onto the Desiree Capuano website.

Chris Johnson, Prosecutor

A couple months later, I was arrested and eventually charged with violating a probation condition prohibiting me from publishing anything about Desiree. The prosecutor (Chris Johnson), argued that I must take down the website in order to protect Desiree from ongoing harassment and torment caused by it's ongoing existence. I demanded, that being the case, that they prosecute me for criminal harassment again. I argued that if the website is still online and continuing to cause Desiree harm, then I must be prosecuted for criminal harassment. The BCPS refused.

I was denied bail and detained pending the trial. The trial occurred nine months later. I was convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison.

For full details about this case, see the Case Page for 244069-6-B.

After completing that sentence in August 2020, I was released from prison. The website remained online.

An article was posted to the website pointing out that the BC justice was "impotent", "ineffectual", and "powerless" to make me take down the website Dear David Eby. A month later, I was arrested and charged with violating the probation condition requiring me to take down the website within 48 hours of my release from prison. Again, the prosector, Chris Johnson, argued that I had to take down the website because by keeping it online I was continuing to commit the offense I was convicted of in the first case. And again, I argued that if that's the case then I demand to be prosecuted for criminal harassment. And again, the BCPS refused.

I was denied bail and detained pending the trial. I was convicted and sentenced to 16.5 months in prison.

For full details about this case, see the Case Page for 244069-7-B.

Upon completing that sentence in August 2021, the website remained online.

Five days after my release, I was arrested for violating the probation order by failing to take down the website within 48 hours of my release from custody.

Not surprisingly, the prosector, Chris Johnson, argued that I must take down the website because it continues to subject Desiree to harassment and that by keeping it online I am continuing to engage in the very conduct I was convicted of at the first trial. And of course, my response was that if that's the case then fucking prosecute me for criminal harassment, asshole! Though maybe not in those words. And again, the BCPS refused to prosecute me for criminal harassment.

I was denied bail and detained pending the trial. I was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison.

For full details about this case, see the Case Page for 244069-8-B.

When I completed that sentence in April 2022, the website had gone offline a couple weeks prior. I neither admit nor deny having anything to do with it going offline.

A month later, I was arrested and charged with violating the probation order by:

1. failing to report for probation;
2. failing to take the website down upon my release from custody; and
3. putting the website back online.

The thing is, I did report for probation exactly as I was ordered to, and the website wasn't online at any point between my release and my subsequent rearrest.

Prior to the trial, I obtained network logs from the VPD's IT department proving that no one from the VPD even tried to access the website on the days they claimed they verified it was online. In other words, it proved they were lying.

And once again, the prosecutors (Elliot Poll, Tara Laker, and Ryan Elias) made a big show of how it is imperative that I take down the website and stop subjecting Desiree to all this harassment. And again, I insisted that if that's the case then I demand to be prosecuted for criminal harassment. And again, they refused.

And once again, I was denied bail and detained pending the trial. I was ultimately acquitted of the charges for failing to report and for failing to take down the website, but convicted of the probation violation about putting the website back online. I was sentenced to 15 months in prison, which worked out to be less than the amount of time I had already been detained on those charges.

For full details about this case, see the Case Page for 244069-10-BC.

In 2020, after the BCPS indicted me on the probation violation charge (244069-6-B) but refused to approve the criminal harassment charge, I filed a Freedom of Information request for them to disclose the reasons they decided not to prosecute. They refused, falsely claiming the matter was still before the court.

In June 2024, I resubmitted the Freedom of Information request. By this time all prosecutions and appeals related to the website had been disposed of. But again, the BCPS refused to disclose the information. I appealed their decision to the BC Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Section 15(4) of the BC Freedom of Information Act, requires that if the police recommend a charge and the BCPS declines to prosecute, then if a party with an interest in the case requests to be informed of the reasons the BCPS chose not prosecute, then the BCPS must disclose those reasons. It's clearly stated right there in the fucking statute, for fuck sakes!

Shortly after submitting the appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the BCPS agreed to release the information to me.

The "presumption of innocence" means that in a criminal proceeding the accused is assumed to be innocent and the burden is on the government to prove the person is not innocent. The burden is never on the accused to prove he is innocent.

If the prosecution was able to overcome the presumption of innocence at the first criminal harassment trial, then why would they not be able to overcome it at a second trial which is based on an allegation that I continued to engage in the same conduct I was already convicted of; based on the same evidence as the first trial; and based on my own admission that I had continued to engage in that same conduct?

I openly admitted I am the one who put the website back online. If the website actually constituted criminal harassment then that's a confession that I'm guilty of committing criminal harassment. And since I've already been convicted of it based, according to the prosecution, on the website then I must have known that putting the website back online, or keeping the website online, constituted criminal harassment.

Therefore, the prosecution's concern about whether they would be able to overcome the presumption of innocence is unfounded. Based on their own insistence, the website constitutes criminal harassment and I admitted to putting the website back online. That destroys any presumption of innocence.

The "burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means the government must prove that I actually engaged in the conduct which constitutes the offense. Of course, "reasonable doubt" is a bullshit term which is entirely subjective. What one person considers "reasonable" may not be what the next person considers reasonable. So they say what makes it "reasonable" is that it's what the majority of people within the society would consider reasonable. But then, what if the entire society is unreasonable? But that's a discussion for another time.

Anyway, in 244069-6-B, the police and Johnson admitted at trial that they have no evidence of when I engaged in the prohibited conduct or whether it occurred while I was on probation. Proving I engaged in the conduct prohibited by the probation order while I was actually on probation is one of the most important things Johnson was required to prove. The police and the BCPS knew all along they would not be able to prove that. So they knew there was no way they would be able to get a conviction under the law. Moreover, they knew the conduct occurred before the period of probation began, so they knew I hadn't even committed the offense they charged/prosecuted me with/for. So their knowledge that there was no way they would be able to meed the burden of proof did not stop them from prosecuting me and keeping me in jail until the trial.

In 244069-6-B, 244069-7-B, 244069-8-B, and 244069-10-BC, the police and the prosecutors admitted at those trials that they have no evidence and no knowledge of whether I had any involvement with, or control over the website since I've been on probation. There was no evidence that I was the one running or keeping the website online. On a number of occasions, I pointed out it could be Capuano keeping the website online in order to cause me to keep being arrested and imprisoned. Proving I was the one actually keeping the website online was a critical element the prosecution was required to prove and they knew all along they would not be able to prove that.

And yet, knowing they would not be able to prove I had any involvement with the website since I'd been on probation did not stop them from prosecuting me and from keeping me in jail until the trials.

In 244069-10-BC, I was accused of failing to report to the probation office as ordered, even though I did report exactly as ordered, and the physical evidence proved I did. The prosecution had that evidence right from the beginning. They knew I didn't fail to report. I was also accused of violating probation by failing to take down the website within 48 hours of my release, even though the website was already offline prior to, and at the time of my release. The police acknowledged that at the time of my arrest, so the prosecution knew I hadn't committed that violation. And finally, I was accused of putting the website back online, even though the VPD's network logs proved nobody from within the VPD attempted to access the website on the days the police claimed they were able to access it. Those network logs were disclosed to me by the prosecutor, who got them from the police, so the prosecutor knew the police were lying about being able to access the website.

Clearly, the fact that the BCPS would not be able to meet the burden of proof was not a concern in each of those cases. They fought for (and obtained) my pretrial detention and prosecuted me anyway.

Knowing a few BC prosecutors socially, outside the legal system, I can say with certainty that they are delusional enough that they actually believe this. They will prosecute a person that they know is innocent, while simultaneously believing they are upholding justice and doing what is right. They will brazenly lie to the court, portraying a harmless person as an evil, violent, sociopath in order to get them denied bail, while honestly believing they are doing what's necessary to protect society.

Given the proof that's provided in the two subsections above, I don't believe it's necessary to say anything further to show that the BC prosecutors do not believe they have a fundamental obligation to act as ministers of justice or to see justice done. And if you're not convinced of that at this point, you really need to have your head examined.

At the first trial, Desiree committed an outrageous amount of perjury. I would say she lied more than she told the truth. For many of those lies, the prosecutor and the lawyer forced on me against my will to conduct the cross-examination of her, knew she was lying but they refused to confront her on it, and refused to inform the jury or the judge about it.

At a subsequent trial, I would be able to confront Desiree on the witness stand, in front of the jury, with the proof of her lies from her testimony at the previous trial. I would have the transcripts of her testimony and the physical evidence proving her testimony was false Affidavit of Patrick Fox, re: Ineffective Assistance, Collusion, Perjury. At a new trial, Desiree would not be able to lie and pretend to cry, in order to manipulate the jury by exploiting their compassion and decency, as she did at the first trial, because the jurors would see that she's a pathological liar, a sociopath. Her testimony would be meaningless and, if anything, the jurors would probably despise her.

So the BCPS knows that at a new trial, the jury will not believe Desiree. Hell, the jury would probably agree Desiree deserves whatever shit falls on her. And, the BCPS knows that a new trial will publicly expose proof of all that perjury she committed and the fact that they knew she was lying and actually encouraged it.

Tony Lagemaat,
Defense Lawyer

At the first trial, a lawyer (Tony Lagemaat) was forced on me by the court, to do the cross-examination of Desiree. This was done on the prosecution's request, under section 486.3(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code. That section states that for certain types of offenses (of which, criminal harassment is one) if a witness or the prosecution requests it, then the court shall appoint a lawyer to do the cross-examination of that witness rather than the self-represented accused cross-examining the witness personally. The purpose of this law is to protect so-called "vulnerable witnesses" from being subjected to further trauma, on the witness stand, by the very person who allgedly tormented them.

So, at the first trial, Lagemaat was appointed to do the cross-examination and he colluded with Myhre to not persue certain lines of questioning, to not confront Desiree on her perjurious testimony. For example, he refused to point out that in all of the email threads which Myhre was relying on to create the false impression I was the aggressor, it was actually Desiree who always started the hostilities. And he refused to question Desiree on her being committed to a psychiatric hospital and diagnosed with bipolar and delusional disorders. He refused to question Desiree on the RCMP interview where she was laughing and joking with the police about the same things she was pretending to cry about on the witness stand.

But at a new trial, there would likely not be a 486.3(2) appointment and I would likely be able to cross-examine Desiree personally because almost immediately after the first tiral ended, Desiree filed a civil suit against me. Section 486.3 only applies to criminal proceedings, so by filing a civil suit against me, Desiree was declaring that she was willing to be cross-examined by me and that doing so would not be traumatizing to her.

And, the prosection's concern with me conducting the cross-examination myself is that they can't control what questions I'd ask; they can't prohibit me from pursuing certain topics; and they absolutely would not be able to make me suppress evidence that proves Desiree is a lying, manipulating, sociopath who will say anything and pretend to cry to get what she wants.

But more importantly, when confronted with proof that she lied at the previous trial, and the prospects of:

1. being charged with perjury; and
2. being publicly exposed in court, by the news media, for having lied about pretty much everything;

there is no doubt she would turn on the prosecutors and Victims Services counsellors and admit they encouraged her to lie.

The BCPS was well aware that at a new criminal harassment trial there would not be another 486.3 appointment so they would not be able to control the cross-examination.

Although Desiree is a complete moron, surely she is smart enough to realize that at a new trial I would confront her with proof of all the lies she told at the first trial. And obviously, she would not put herself in that situation. If she goes to Canada to testify, and all her prior perjury is exposed in open court, the BCPS may be pressured to prosecute her for it, considering all the fuss that had been made based solely on her false allegations. And if they charged her with perjury while she's there to testify, she might be denied bail - considering she's a foreign national and has no ties to Canada. There is so much proof of her perjury that she would certainly be convicted and, having manipulated and abused the Canadian legal system for her own selfish, petty purposes, the judge might give her an unusually harsh sentence.

After Desiree's willingness to testify at the first trial, and her eagerness to participate in as many news media interviews as possible - as long as the interviewer was on her side - she would not be able to claim the reason for her refusal to testify again was because the whole experience was too traumatic for her. It would be obvious that her reason was because she knew she would be exposed for lying at the first trial and in all those news media interviews she had done.

The BCPS knew Desiree would not be willing to testify at a second trial. And without her testimony, in front of the jury, it would be awfully hard to get a conviction for criminal harassment.

As referenced above, defense lawyer Tony Lagemaat colluded extensively with Myhre to hide evidence, to not confront Desiree on her perjurious testimony, and to not pursue certain lines of questioning.

At a new criminal harassment trial, proof of all of that would be exposed in the process of attacking Desiree's credibility on cross-examination. The prosecutor would object to me presenting any evidence even hinting at the BCPS's complicity in Desiree's perjury, but I would respond that the evidence in question is critical for establishing Desiree's credibility and showing the extent to which she will lie to manipulate people, and the fact that it also happens to implicate Myhre and Lagemaat is incidental to that. I would say to the jury that Lagemaat and Myhre are not on trial here and whether or not they had any involvement in Desiree's perjurious testimony is not relevant to these matters. But regardless, the proof of their involvement would be publicly exposed and on the record.

You might be thinking that I've already exposed all that, here on this website, so what difference would it make also exposing it in the courtroom? Because the Canadian lawyers, prosecutors, judges and news media are so fucking delusional and in such a profound state of denial, that they refuse to accept the existence of anything on this website, and any evidence which exists outside the courtroom doesn't exist, as far as they're concerned. They seem to actually believe that the universe exists inside the courtroom, not vice versa.

Heather Holmes, Judge

Contrary to what the prosecutors have argued and insisted at every one of my hearings since 2019, Justice Heather Holmes, who was the judge at the first criminal harassment trial, never actually ruled or found or claimed the website, on it's own, constituted criminal harassment - or harassment of any sort.

All Holmes said in her Reasons for Sentence was that the website combined with the email communication constituted criminal harassment.

There has never been a ruling that the website constituted any form of harassment. And there has never been a finding, by any court, that there was anything illegal about the website.

Hell, even the Arizona based hosting provider looked into it and concluded there's not even anything about the website which would violate any of their own policies.

So, since I've not had any contact or communication with Desiree since 2015, a new criminal harassment trial would have to be based solely on the website, whereas the first criminal harassment trial was based on the website AND the email correspondence between Desiree and I.

The evidence at the first criminal harassment trial consistently mostly of email messages from me to Desiree, not content on the website. A new criminal harassment trial would have to be based only on the website because there hasn't been any communication between Desiree and I since then. And the BCPS knows that based only on the website, there is absolutely no way they could get a criminal harassment conviction under the law.

On a side note: regarding communication between me and Desiree, she has actually posted numerous comments on my YouTube channel, to which I have responded. However, because she did it under a different name and didn't identify herself as Desiree, and because she initiated the communication, she can't claim I violated the 'no contact' order.

And the end result of all of this, if a second criminal harassment trial were to occur, is that the administration of justice would necessarily be brought into disrepute.

If a person can:

1. engage in particular conduct, knowingly, deliberately and with malice, causing serious harm to another person;
2. then have a trial and be convicted of a crime, based on having engaged in that conduct and based on particular evidence that he did engage in that conduct;
3. then be sent to prison for a number of years based on that conviction;
4. then after being released from prison, engage in exactly that same conduct which he was previously convicted of, thereby continuing to cause that other person serious harm;
5. then consistently and openly declare to the police, the judges, and the prosecutors, that he was currently continuing to engage in that same conduct, and also provide the police and prosecutors physical evidence that he was still continuing to engage in that conduct and, therefore, continuing to cause serious harm to that other person;
6. then have another trial for having continued to engage in that same conduct which he was previously convicted of;
7. but at that second trial, which is based on the same evidence and the person's own confession, be acquitted ...

Yes, that would necessarily and without question bring the administration of justice into disrepute! And, it would make the BC prosecutors and judges look like a bunch of monkey's asses.