Corruption and Incompetence in the Canadian Justice System

The BC prosecutor (Mark Myhre) tried to make it seem as though I had been sending thousands of unwanted emails to Desiree over years, while in fact there was almost as many sent from Desiree to me. Almost all of the emails pertained to the ongoing child custody dispute between us, and Desiree's ongoing refusal to accept her parental responsibilities and to cooperate in our son's best interests.

Although I chose to represent myself, the court forced a lawyer (Tony Lagemaat) on me to do the cross-examination of Desiree. Lagemaat colluded with the prosecution to try to suppress evidence and neither Lagemaat nor Myhre informed the court or the jury of the copious amount of perjury Desiree was committing in her testimony.

Regarding the firearms offense, firstly, all of my firearms were legal and registered. When I was in the process of moving back to Los Angeles, in the Spring of 2016, I brought my firearms back there with me - as I was legally permitted to do. But the prosecution needed to link firearms to the criminal harassment charge, to make it seem more scary, so they claimed I shipped them, covertly, to the US and in order to do that I had to have taken them to the shipping store. Even though there was not one piece of evidence my firearms were ever at the shipping store, I was found guilty.

Although I have no status in Canada and am not legally authorized to work in Canada the court imposed a three year probation order prohibiting me from leaving BC. I applied to have the condition removed and when the judge (Heather Holmes) said no, I informed the court I intended to turn myself in to CBSA for the purpose of being removed (deported).

The next day, I turned myself in to CBSA at the Douglas port of entry (POE) and was effectively removed from Canada.

A few days later, the prosecutor (that greasy bastard, Mark Myhre) got a warrant for my arrest and the US authorities sent me back to Canada for prosecution.

CBSA, the RCMP, and the prosecutor (that other greasy bastard, Bernie Wolfe) colluded to destroy the video evidence of me at the Douglas port of entry. Then, CBSA and Wolfe colluded for six months, even lying to the court, claiming there was absolutely no record of me presenting myself at the Douglas POE and therefore I must be lying about having done so.

However, I obtained documents from IRCC showing that I did, in fact, present myself as I had been saying - and proving that CBSA and Wolfe had been lying to the court.

At the trial, the CBSA Officer, Meagan Polisak, perjured herself on a number of issues, including claiming that at a port of entry the burden is on CBSA to prove a person is not a Canadian citizen and, if CBSA cannot prove that, they must allow the person entry to Canada.

Starting on 2018-12-30 my probation order came into effect. Amongst other things, the order prohibited me from publishing anything related to Desiree. The prosecutor (that sleazy bastard, Chris Johnson) alleged that in March 2019 I violated that condition by putting the website online. I argued the website was actually put online in 2018, before the probation order came into effect and, as such, could not possibly violate the probation condition because I wasn't even on probation at the time.

Both Johnson and his only witness, Detective Jennifer Fontana, admitted they had no knowledge or evidence of when the website was acually published - whether it was before or after the probation order came into effect.

I pointed out there was another condition on the probation order which required me to take down any websites or material related to Desiree within 24 hours of my release from custody, but that I wasn't charged with violated that condition so it was not relevant. The judge (Nancy Phillips) agreed. I argued the prosecutor is more than welcome to prosecute me for that violation if they wish.

When I was interrogated by the police I was consistently sarcastic, joking, and satirical with them. did not take any of it seriously. I had been expecting them to come and arrest me because the website was still online.

Leading up to the trial, while I was being detained in jail, I made multiple requests to the prosecutor (that ever more sleazy, Chris Johnson) to be provided the disclosure material. Johnson ignored my disclosure requests. Then, three days before trial, the prosecution gave me over 100 pages of disclosure and over 2 hours of untranscribed recordings of my interactions with the police on the day of my arrest. No witness list was provided.

At the start of the trial, I and Johnson informed the judge (Gregory Rideout) that I had only received the disclosure three days prior and had not received notice of the prosecution's intention to call any witnesses. The judge didn't care about any of that and said I should have raised these issues prior to the trial.

The only witness Johnson called was Detective Kyle Dent, who was the detective that interrogated me. Dent and Johnson knowingly and deliberately mislead the court by presenting all of my statements to Dent as being serious and sincere, even though they knew they were not. And, since I had only received the disclosure material less than 72 hours before the trial I had had no time to prepare to cross-examine Dent.

At this trial I testified and the reality came out that, in fact, I wasn't the person who put the website online, and since it's been up I've had no involvement in it. The website was put online while I was still in custody in 2018, so it would have been impossible for me to have had any involvement in that. In addition, all the updates to the site, since then, have occurred while I was in custody - so, again, it would have been impossible for me to be the person making those updates.

And, since I don't have any ownership or control over the website, I have absolutely no ability to take it down!

At this trial, I cross-examined Detective Kyle Dent regarding his testimony at the previous trial (in 244069-7-B) and Dent effectively admitted he had lied (committed perjury), and that he and the prosecutor Chris Johnson deliberately mislead the court regarding my statements to him.

Nevertheless, even though it was proven that I could not possibly have put the website online or had any involvement with it, the judge (Kathryn Denhoff) found me guilty.

After entering her verdict and her Reasons for Judgment, while Johnson was making his sentencing submissions, the judge revealed that she was mistakenly under the impression I had access to the internet and to my email from within the jail. This is a major issue because that means her guilty verdict and her refusal to believe my testimony about it not being possible for me to have been involved in the website because I was in custody at all times relevant, was based on that false belief. But do you think the judge would declare a mistrial or reconsider her verdict? Hell, no!

In this case, I was accused of failing to report to the probation office as directed - even though I actually DID report exactly as directed. The probation order explicitly stated I was only required to report one time, within 72 hours of my release. And I did exactly that. But the probation officer (not the court) insisted I come back and report a second time two days later. I said I would not. A few days later, the probation officer obtained a warrant for my arrest, from the court, based on the false allegation that I failed to report as directed.

I was also accused of failing to take down the website within 48 hours of my release, even though the website was actually already offline prior to, and at the time of my release.

And, I was accused of publishing new or additional information about Capuano on the website - even though the physical evidence, in the form or network access logs of the Vancouver Police Department's computer network proved that no one within the VPD even attempted to access the website on the days the police claim they were able to access it.

Prior to the trial, the prosecution stated they would not be relying on any information from my phone, which was seized at the time of my arrest. Then, on the first day of the trial, the prosecutors, Tara Laker and Ryan Elias, announced that they did intend to call an expert witness to testify about information found on my phone. This caused an unnecessary and unjustified 30 day delay in the end of the trial. It was later discovered that the police had actually extracted the data from the phone and searched it about three weeks after the time authorized by the search warrant, but the judge (Jennifer Oulton) ignored that and ruled the search lawfull nonetheless.

The VPD's IT Manager, Johnny Lam, testified regarding the network access logs. First, on direct-examination, he admitted that the party within the VPD who testified she was able to access the website on 2022-05-16, would have had to have gone through the proxy server (which would mean there should have been entries for it in the access logs, but there were not). As soon as Lam said that, Elias promptly realized that completely destroyed their entire case against me and proved the VPD witnesses had committed perjury. The prosecutors asked for a recess. The judge granted it. The prosecutors stepped outside with Lam. Then, after the recess, Lam did a 180 and testified that ealier he was mistaken and that that particular user would not go through the proxy server. This was, of course, a lie. When I cross-examined Lam, he literally stated in response to every question, that he has no knowledge of that - even though, as the IT Manager, it was exactly his job to know the answers to the questions I was asking (for example, about how certain users access the internet, whether the server he falsely claimed the user in question goes through is actually just a file server, not a proxy, gateway, or NAT server). Lam also contradicted his own testimony a number of other times. Yet, the judge, ultimately, accepted the parts of Lam's testimony which would incriminate me, and ignored everything else.

This case is also extremely critical because at the bail hearings the prosecutor, Adam Flanders openly admitted: 1) that the BC government is playing a game of chicken with me; and 2) that due to the media coverage I, and my cases have received, it is imperative that the government not be the one to blink in that game of chicken.