Criminal Harassment Case (2016), re: The Desiree Capuano Website

When he returned, Hopkins told me the prosecution has added a charge of "unlawful exportation of firearms knowing it to be unlawful" (CCC s. 103). This is actually much more serious than the original, section 104 charge. Section 103 carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, whereas section 104 is only a maximum of five years. Also, section 103 has a statutory minimum sentence of three years, whereas section 104 has no statutory minimum. And, most importantly at that moment, if you're merely accused of violating section 103, then you are presumed to be ineligible for release on bail (CCC s. 515(6)(a)(vi)). By changing the section 104 charge to section 103, Tomasson ensured I would be denied bail. You see how crooked and petty those BC prosecutors are?

I again tried to inform Hopkins that I didn't require authorization to take my firearms to the US. I told him I had verified that with the RCMP prior to doing so. But he would have none of that. He did that thing BC lawyers do where they block out everything you say if it's not consistent with what they want to believe. This is around the point I started to suspect he was nothing more than a puppet for the prosecution.

There's a ridiculously terrible statute in the Canadian Criminal Code which states that for certain offenses (one of which is criminal harassment), if a witness or the prosecution requests it, then the court must order that a lawyer be appointed to do the cross-examination of that witness rather than the self-represented accused cross-examining the witness personally CCC section 486.3(2).

I say it's a terrible law because it makes it too easy for sociopaths like Desiree and Myhre to abuse, and to deny a defendant a fair trial. At the 486.3 hearing, I argued that my experience, so far, has been that the lawyers I have worked with have been more interested in helping the prosecution suppress evidence that would either make the prosecutors and/or RCMP look bad or prove that they know Desiree was lying, and I believe any appointed lawyer is going to do the same thing at the trial. I cited specific examples of such (e.g. Hopkins and Bauman).

Holmes said she is sure I believe that, but she doesn't see any evidence of it - even though I gave her concrete examples of the previous lawyers doing exactly that. She granted the 486.3 appointment - essentially ensuring that only the issues the prosecutor wants brought up on cross-examination will be put before the jury.

In one of my meetings with Myhre, I had pointed out that if a lawyer is appointed under 486.3, that will pretty much give control of the defense to the prosecution because Desiree's testimony is, like, 90% of the case. Myhre smiled and said "Yeah, that's right."

In addition to requesting a lawyer be appointed to do the cross-examination of Desiree, Myhre also requested she be permitted to testify from behind a screen so that she would not have to see me while she testifies. You know, because she's so traumatized from all those years I kept her locked up in the basement and tortured her!

Just like with appointing a lawyer to do the cross-examination, this is another horrible, easily abusable law CCC section 486.2(2). And again, I say it's a horrible law because it's just too easy for lying, manipulating sociopaths like Desiree and Myhre to pretend to be traumatized, and to need the protection of the screen.

Myhre's arguments in support of the use of a screen was that Desiree was so emotionally destroyed from my years of torment that if she were to have to see me, in the courtroom while she testified, she would freeze up or panic or freak out or something.

More likely, if Desiree were to see me while testifying, she would be too distracted to concentrate on her melodramatics and theatrics. Also, Myhre knew the presence of the screen would help the jurors to see Desiree as a helpless victim that needed protection from me.

I didn't really oppose the use of the screen, though. My objective in having Desiree testify was to get her to have to admit all the stuff I say about her on the website is actually true, and that all the stuff she said in the news media was lies. Whether she admits that from behind a screen or within view of me is irrelevant.

Holmes granted Myhre's request for the screen.

Before going into details of some of the interesting parts of Desiree's testimony, let's first have a look at some of the notable perjury she committed because, as you can see, there was a fuck of a lot.

1. During the time Gabriel and I were living in Phoenix, in 2006-2007, she had no contact information for me or Gabriel TR 2017-06-12 p36l17-18, even though we were in regular contact with Desiree's mother and her mother had been to our home.
2. In November 2011, the California family court ordered her to return Gabriel to my custody without even hearing from her TR 2017-06-12 p37l39-43, however she was actually present for the hearing and did make submissions. In fact, she alluded to that during cross-examination TR 2017-06-12 p28l2-18.

3. She was agreeable with the custody and visitation order the California family court imposed, granting me sole physical custody of Gabriel with her having visitation during school breaks TR 2017-06-12 p38l5-6.

   But in reality, she completely opposed and fought the custody and visitation proposal until she hired a lawyer and the lawyer advised her she had absolutely no chance in hell of getting custody of Gabriel considering she had been out of his life for nine years, recently abducted him, and tried to get custody based on false claims of me hiding Gabriel from her for nine years.

4. Most of the emails from me were demanding, threatening, and insulting TR 2017-06-12 p45l42-46. But the emails in question were all on the website, and continue to be to this day, and they clearly show Desiree was consistently the initiator of any hostilities and insuslts.
5. Most of my emails to her also had Gabriel included as a recipient TR 2017-06-12 p48l9-10. But again, those emails were, and are, all publicly available on the website and they show I rarely included Gabriel on them.
6. My emails to her made her "feel scared" that I would do some unspecified thing, and that she would have to "somehow fix whatever damage was caused" TR 2017-06-12 p52l32-37; p56l23-43. And yet again, those emails show that all I ever did was expose the truth about what a bad person she is.

7. She had never contacted any regarding me to try to cause complications for me TR 2017-06-12 p58l26-28. But guess what? Her emails show that she repeatedly alluded to contacting my associates. Also, records subsequently obtained from Global Affairs Canada, prove she contacted them, making false claims against me to try to get me arrested and deported, even before any hearings in the California family court GAC Case Note, dated 2011-11-01.

   And I stress, this was before any hearings in the California family court, while Desiree still had temporary emergency custody of Gabriel in Arizona based on her false claim I had absconded with him and hidden him from her for nine years.

8. She had never, and would never, try to interfere with my contact with Gabriel TR 2017-06-12 p59l21-30. But her own emails and testimony in the family court prove that she consistently refused to allow Gabriel to visit with me unless the court explicitly ordered her to do so. She also admitted to listen to and recording my telephone calls with Gabriel, and refusing to allow Gabriel to talk to me on the telephone.
9. My name is not really Patrick Fox, that it's an identity I had stolen, and that I was somehow using that to try to abscond with Gabriel when she "allowed" him to visit with me TR 2017-06-12 p60l8-9; p76l1-5. But in numerous emails she akcnowledges that my true, legal name is Patrick Fox.
10. I had suddenly and without notice, started using the "identity" of Patrick Fox in the summer of 2014 TR 2017-06-12 p61l9-20. However, at other times, and in her RCMP interviews she acknowledged I had informed the California family court in 2011, that my birth name was Patrick Fox.
11. She and/or her employer had successfully gotten the website shut down by the hosting provider (GoDaddy) in 2014, and that's why I had moved it to my own server TR 2017-06-12 p71l35-39. But the complaint email GoDaddy forwarded me in 2014 shows that her complaint was only about sending her unsolicited emails from the domain name. The complaint had nothing to do with, and made no mention of the website. As for getting the website shut down, that's just nonsense. It simply didn't happen.
12. She had filed a complaint with the Phoenix Police Department, about the website, in 2014 TR 2017-06-12 p71l45-10. Again, this complaint only alleged I had been sending unsolicited emails to her associates, not about the website. The Phoenix Police report was, and is, publicly accessible on the website.

13. She did not know, prior to 2014-12-17, I had any firearms. But at the same time, she also falsely claims that as of that date I had explicitly told her I had firearms TR 2017-06-12 p75l32-36.

    However, in her RCMP interviews she talks about me having firearms in Arizona, in 2006-2007, RCMP Interview, ¶298-302.

    Later, on cross, she admitted to knowing I had firearms while I was living in Phoenix in 2006-2007, but tried to back-pedal by saying 2014 was the first time she knew about me owning or having the ability to purchase firearms TR 2017-06-15 p50l9-10.

14. I did not own any firearms when her and I were together TR 2017-06-15 p14l16.

    I got my first handgun, a Beretta 92FS, when I was 19. That's seven years before I met Desiree. From that point until today, there have been very few moments in my life in which I did not own at least one firearm.

15. There was a period of time in the Spring of 2014 when she simply didn't respond to my emails TR 2017-06-13 p10l17-19. She actually made this false claim repeatedly throughout her testimony TR 2017-06-14 p51l19-28; p65l21-26; p66l22-27; p66l32-34; TR 2017-06-15 p5l9-12; p5l41-47; p6l24.

    However, the emails on the website show there was never a period of time in which she didn't respond to my emails to her.

16. For a long time, I had "bullied" her and "pushed her around" and she had passively accepted it until she finally decided to "stand up for herself" in 2015 TR 2017-06-13 p10l29-35; p15l16-21; p15l36-42; TR 2017-06-14 p24l8-15. But again, the emails on the website show that until she initiated hostilities and became consistently belligerent, I was always polite and professional with her.

17. She questioned my "ability to rationalize what's real and what's not", and that if I could figure out a way to do it without going to jail I "would absolutely shoot her" TR 2017-06-13 p13l6-11. But, not surprisingly, the emails show that she was the one consistently making delusional claims about what was and wasn't stated in previous emails, or about what had or hadn't happened.

    Also, and this part is amazingly critical: In her victim impact statement, she admitted that she never actually believed I would go to Arizona to harm her.

18. I obtained the pictures of her, which I published on the website, from a "camera roll" feature of Facebook, and that she hadn't posted those pictures on Facebook TR 2017-06-13 p20l13-19. But Facebook doesn't have a "camera roll" feature. Apple does. And there's no way I could have gotten unauthorized access to her iCloud account.
19. I had gone after her other son, Sage, to try to harm her, and that she's terrified for the safety of Sage, because I published pictures and information about him on the website TR 2017-06-13 p20l34-35; . But it was actually Desiree who had published those pictures and information about Sage, on her public Facebook profile . A copy of her Facebook Timeline is on the website.
20. I had published pictures of Sage, in his underwear. Desiree explicitly testified that those are not pictures she published on Facebook. She continued to claim I had taken them from some "camera roll" without her knowledge TR 2017-06-13 p22l9-17. But, in fact, they're right there, on Desiree's Facebook Timeline! She published them on her public Facebook profile in 2009 Facebook Timeline.

21. I had CC'd Gabriel on almost every email I sent her TR 2017-06-13 p24l44-45.

    However, the emails which are all on the website, show that I CC'd Gabriel on 80 and Desiree CC'd him on 38 messages. Not quite "almost every" email I sent her.

22. She was under court order to provide reasonable visitation with me and for that reason she had to continue to maintain communication with me TR 2017-06-13 p38l7-9. And later, on cross-examination, she frequently makes this same false claim when she is repeatedly asked why she kept engaging me, why she didn't just ignore the emails TR 2017-06-14 p5l16-18; p40l37-41; TR 2017-06-15 p4l31-36, p4l40-42; p6l5-9; p37l3-4; p37l34-36; p38l1-4.
23. She had filed multiple complaints with the hosting provider regarding the website TR 2017-06-13 p63l2-7. But in fact, she had never filed a single complaint with the hosting provider regarding the website.
24. She had filed a complaint with the Phoenix Police Department regarding the website TR 2017-06-13 p63l8-11. But in fact, she had only filed a complaint alleging I had sent unsolicited emails to her associates.
25. When she filed the complaint against me, with the RCMP, in 2015, she informed them I was crossing the border illegally using a fake identity TR 2017-06-13 p63l19-24. But there's no mention of that in their report or in her interview.
26. She didn't contact the news media until spring 2016 TR 2017-06-13 p64l13-15; p66l8-12. However, her interviews with CBC and KVOA occurred in January 2016 and were published in February 2016. After that, she did countless print, radio, and television interviews.

27. All of the emails to me which were admitted as evidence, were written by her.

    However, some of them were actually written by whatever guy she happened to be with at the moment TR 2017-06-14 p20l10-11; p25l31-33; p28l24-25; p31l28-29; p33l4-5; p34l1-3; p34l33-35; p36l31-38; p37l2-3; p37l38-40; p40l19-21; p42l19-21; p45l34-36; p46l29-32; p46l40-43; p49l44-46; p65l47-p66l3; TR 2017-06-15 p2l47-p3l1; p4l5-6.

    This is extremely relevant to the trial because it means I wasn't even communicating with her but, rather, with some other, unknown third party. And that being the case, each of those emails would be inadmissible as evidence unless that unknown third party came to testify about them.

    At one point in the trial, Lagemaat told me Myhre had told him Desiree informed him she didn't write some of the emails in question. I told him I'm aware of that, it's usually obvious which emails aren't written by her based on the wording and grammar.

28. "Over the course of the six years" leading up to the criminal harassment charge, she frequently felt "incredibly sad, terrified, humiliated, disgusted, sick, concerned, furious, and fearful" as a result of the my emails to her TR 2017-06-14 p4l11-17.

    However, I hadn't reestablished contact with her until 2011, then from July 2015 onwards, I had no contact with her. So that's only a four year period, not six years. And prior to Desiree initiating hostilities in early 2012, all of my emails to her were polite and courteous - even after she had abducted Gabriel to Arizona, recorded my phone calls with him, and refused to allow me to see him!

29. Almost all of my emails to her from 2011 through 2015 were "demanding, insulting, aggressive, mean and hostile" TR 2017-06-14 p4l18-22.

    This is, quite simply, nonsense. Go ahead, check the emails on the website. I have never been demanding with Desiree. My requests have always been polite and professional, yet she always insists they're "demands". At the same time, have a look at her emails, and you will see she never requests anything - she always demands.

30. At times, I directed insults, aggression, meanness, and hostility, at her other son, Sage TR 2017-06-14 p4l23-29.

    And yet, there is not a single email where I have ever directed any aggression, meanness, or hostility towards Sage.

31. She was obligated to read and reply to the emails I sent her because of our outstanding child custody case in the California family court TR 2017-06-14 p5l14-16.

    Total nonsense. In July 2014, I forfeited all parental rights in order to show Gabriel that in the absence of an explicit court order she would not allow any visits and would do everything she can to prevent me from having any contact with him.

    At the start of her second day of cross-examination, Desiree completely contradicted these claims by finally admitting she actually had full control over visitation TR 2017-06-15 p2l29-30. But amazingly, even though she admitted this at the start of the second day of cross, in subsequent questioning on cross, she revert to claiming she was required under court order to maintain contact with me TR 2017-06-15 p4l31-36.

    Fucking amazing! She could say one thing; then completely contradict it; then completely contradict that by repeating the first claim; and nobody gives it a second thought. They just accept both completely contradictory, mutually exclusive responses as being true. Two plus two does, indeed, equal five.

32. She had passively put up with abuse from me for years before she finally started standing up for herself in 2014 TR 2017-06-14 p8l20-32; p29l40-42.

    Later, on cross, she again claimed January 2014 is when she started with the insults, or "banter" as Lagemaat put it TR 2017-06-14 p51l29-39. Not coincidentally, that is also when the emails which were used in the trial start from. In other words, she knew none of the emails prior to January 2014 would be shown to the jury, so she could make whatever false claims she wanted to about them. But, unfortunately for her, those emails are all on the website, so everyone can see that she was lying.

    Do I really need to point out that the emails on the website prove that the reality was actually the opposite - that it was Desiree who was consistently hostile, insulting, abusive, et cetera, for years and that I was the one who put up with her bullshit until I finally get fed up - after I was deported, lost custody of Gabriel, and had to succumb to her every demand just to be able to have contact with Gabriel - and all I did was publish the website to expose her bullshit.

    On cross, Desiree continued to claim she had passively accepted my abuse for years, as she put it "lying down", she testified she "felt like she was getting beat up every day with the emails" TR 2017-06-14 p19l45-47. However, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the emails, all of which were on the website, prove that is completely false. The emails prove it was consistently Desiree who initiated and escalated the hostilities and attacks.

33. Most of my emails to her were not about Gabriel TR 2017-06-14 p13l27.

    And once again, the emails on the website prove that almost every email thread I initiated was related either to Gabriel's needs or our family court proceedings.

34. She was not manic depressive/bipolar TR 2017-06-14 p17l15-19 and has never sufferred from depression TR 2017-06-14 p17l27-30.

    However, she had already been diagnosed with bipolar disorder (as well as delusional disorder) when she was committed, under court order, to a psychiatric facility in 2000. Lagemaat made no mention of that commital or diagnosis?

35. I had a history of using multiple fake identities TR 2017-06-14 p18l11-12; p26l15-17.

    However, there is no record of me ever using any names other than Patrick Fox and Richard Riess. Both of which were my true, legal name at the times I used them. Desiree knew I was born Patrick Fox, changed my name to Richard Riess when I ran away from home as a teenager, then changed it back to Patrick Fox when I went to Canada.

    Interestingly, it is actually Desiree who has a documented history of using fake names or identities, including providing the police and the criminal court a fake name when she was arrested and convicted in Santa Monica in 2000. Lagemaat questioned her about that and she admitted to it in her testimony TR 2017-06-15 p51l20-37. She admitted she had knowingly and deliberately given the police and the court a fake name in order to hide her real identity. And by identifying herself as Virginia Tomlin at the criminal proceedings and sentencing, she was committing perjury.

36. She repeatedly tried to remove Gabriel from the email thread titled "Your loving home and parental teaching and guidance" TR 2017-06-14 p19l45-47.

    However, the email thread, which was and still is on the website, shows that she included Gabriel in every one of her responses.

37. The reason she continued to respond to my emails was because I was including Gabriel in the recipient list, and she wanted to show him she was standing up for herself.

    In one particular instance, Desiree explicitly testified she kept the argument going because I was CC'ing Gabriel on it TR 2017-06-14 p67l37-40. However, in reality, Gabriel hadn't been included in a single one of the messages that made up that thread "The motivation for your behavior", 2015-05-07.

38. When questioned about whether she had contacted my rabbi, Desiree stated she hadn't, even though she claimed in an email she had just read in, that she had TR 2017-06-14 p26l29-39. She then claimed that what she said in the email was a lie, but moments later claimed she didn't actually say she contacted my rabbi, just that she suggested she had.

39. From 2011 through 2014, she did not respond to the majority of the emails I had sent her TR 2017-06-14 p51l23-27; TR 2017-06-15 p5l41-p6l3. She even had the audacity to claim most of her responses during that time were "very civilized" and respectful. The emails on the website prove both of those claims are false Mail Page.

    She actually went on to claim that most of her emails to me during that time were limited to our family court issues TR 2017-06-15 p6l10-16, and that even during that time there were insults and threats from me but that she did not respond to them TR 2017-06-15 p6l20-24.

40. From 2011 through 2014, she did nothing to engage me, and yet I "just kept escalating" TR 2017-06-14 p51l23-28. But of course, again the emails on the website prove that is completely false.
41. In November 2012, I tried to have all her visitation with Gabriel revoked TR 2017-06-14 p52l4-6.

42. She never threatened to destroy my life, threatened my life, or made any threats at all TR 2017-06-14 p60l6-14; p60l33-34. To begin with, that's actually false, there have been numerous emails from Desiree where she blatantly threatened me emails dated 2011-11-04; 2011-11-09; 2012-01-20; 2012-02-08; 2012-03-30; 2012-09-10; 2012-09-10; 2012-10-05; 2013-02-17; 2013-05-06.

    Moreover, even if she hadn't threatened me, which she clearly did, she actually followed through on those threats.

43. I "required" her to drive two hours, from Tucson to Phoenix, on a work day, to drop Gabriel off at the airport so he could visit me in Vancouver TR 2017-06-15 p3l40-43.

    First of all, she is the one who refused to inform me she had moved from Phoenix to Tucson, so as far as I knew, she was still living in Phoenix.

    Second, I repeatedly told her she didn't need to transport Gabriel to the airport herself, that I would arrange for a car to pick him up emails dated 2015-05-05, 1:38pm; 6:30pm; 2015-05-06, 3:41pm.

44. She didn't start engaging me with insults and in the so-called "back and forth banter" until the end of 2014 TR 2017-06-15 p5l10-14; p35l41-43.

    However, the emails on the website show that her provocation and belligerence goes as far back as 2012 - right around the time I discovered and asked her about her arrest for marijuana possession.

    Later, when Desiree was again insisting she didn't start engaging in the banter and insults until late 2014, "long after the website went up" as she put it, Lagemaat pointed out to her that the emails he's been questioning her on, started in January 2014 TR 2017-06-15 p36l33-47. Her response was some nonsensical gibberish about the website not being online in January 2014.

45. I had thought about shooting her and said I was going to shoot her TR 2017-06-15 p5l20-22; p5l36-37. But I never once said I thought about shooting her, or that I am going to shoot her. In fact, if anything, it was our son who had thought about shooting her - he was the one that asked the question email, dated 2015-01-11.
46. The pictures I obtained from her Facebook profile were not publicly accessible. She claimed they were only in a so-called "camera roll" feature which only her family had access to TR 2017-06-15 p13l14-24. When, in fact, the pictures were all publicly accessible on her Facebook profile and Facebook didn't have a "camera roll" feature.

47. She told the family court judge, in 2002, that she was going to be living in Florida, not in Phoenix, and would be keeping Gabriel in Florida during her custody periods TR 2017-06-15 p15l19-26.

    But the court reporter's notes from that hearing show that Desiree actually told the judge she was going to move back to Phoenix and stay with her mother. Get/post the court minutes from the 2002-02-06 hearing

48. She filed a kidnapping report against me, with the police, during the nine year period she claimed I had been hiding Gabriel from her TR 2017-06-15 p15l47-p16l2.

    But then, literally moments later, she contradicted herself by testifying she did not file a kidnapping report TR 2017-06-15 p16l17-20.

49. She contacted CPS and the police, during the period she claims I was hiding Gabriel from her TR 2017-06-15 p16l17-23.

    However none of the police agencies, nor Child Protective Services, in the Tampa, Phoenix, or Los Angeles areas have any record of any calls from her relating to me or Gabriel.

50. In November 2011, the California family court "made Desiree return Gabriel to me" based solely on the California court having jurisdiction under the UCCJEA TR 2017-06-15 p27l40-46; p28l8-12.

    But the issue of jurisdiction only had to do with which court (California or Arizona) would have the case, not which parent would have custody or which state the child would reside in.

    The California court's decision to order Desiree to "return Gabriel to my care, without delay", was based on Desiree abducting Gabriel, taking him to Arizona, then trying to get custody by falsely claiming I had been hiding Gariel from her for nine years.

    She was later questioned on this further, after I referred Lagemaat to the family court documents proving she was lying, and she became flustered and started talking gibberish TR 2017-06-15 p49l1-18; p49l29-43.

51. At the November 2011 family court hearing, custody wasn't determined. Only Gabriel's home state under the UCCJEA was determined TR 2017-06-15 p28l15-16.

    Fascinatingly, she stated this, literally, moments after stating that at the November 2011 hearing the California court ordered her to return Gabriel to my care TR 2017-06-15 p27l40-46. Yes, this completely contradicts what she just said two minutes ago.

52. At the November 2011 family court hearing, her claim I had absconded with Gabriel and hid him from her for nine years was not even brought up TR 2017-06-15 p49l19-22.

    But in fact, it was brought up - by her! And the judge asked her, if that's the case then why didn't she, at any time in that nine years, simply contact the Torrance courthouse where we had an active custody case? Desiree responded she didn't know she could do that. The judge unflinchingly rejected that response and the entire claim.

53. She never claimed to fear for her life until after the email where I said I thought about shooting her TR 2017-06-15 p35l44-p36l12.

    The first problem with that statement is I never said I thought about shooting her, that's a creation of her own imagination.

    The second problem is the email she's referring to was sent on 2015-01-11, however all her subsequent emails to me, various police reports she filed, and her statements at her order of protection hearing, all prove she had no fear for her safety following that message.

    It was not until she spoke to CBC News in January 2016 that she started claiming to be afraid for her safety.

This list is not exhaustive. Some of the lies were repeated many times throughout her testimony, so I may not have linked every instance. Some of her lies were less significant, so I didn't bother listing them here.

And believe it or not, that's just four days of testimony. I kid you not, there was only about four hours of testimony. That many instances of perjury in about four hours. And if you click any of the links in that list, they will bring you to the exact points in the transcript, which includes my comments which include links to the physical evidence proving she was lying. This is not just me making empty, unprovable claims that Desiree was lying, there is no "he said, she said" here, the proof is right there.

At one point, on direct-examination, Desiree completely contradicted her years of insisting I am a compulsive liar and can't be believed, by testifying I "generally don't lie" TR 2017-06-13 p14l8.

This is an excellent example of Desiree's chronic habit of saying whatever supports what she's claiming from one moment to the next, with no regard for the fact that it completely contradicts what she said five minutes ago. She will say anything to support whatever lie she's telling at any moment.

Later, on cross, Lagemaat caught Desiree contradicting her prior testimony on direct and confronted her on it. On direct, Desiree had testified I generally don't lie, but on cross, she testified that I am a liar TR 2017-06-14 p41l17-18. Then later, on cross, she again claimed I "lied about everything" TR 2017-06-14 p48l41.

As is typical for pathogical liars, Desiree claimed her earlier statement was misunderstood, that it only referred to my statements about what I intend to do against her TR 2017-06-14 p41l19-25. That's an example of what I mean when I say pathological liars, like Desiree, always try to be vague and ambiguous, so if they later contradict themselves they can say that's not what they meant by the previous statement.

Desiree also testified, on direct, that she was so traumatized by my years of abuse and torment that there were days she wasn't able to get out of bed, wasn't able to go about a normal routine. She claimed she was scared and always looking over her shoulder TR 2017-06-13 p27l30-41.

She later testified that there were many times she questioned whether she had the strength to keep going and whether she would ever be able to get her life back TR 2017-06-13 p34l4-13.

It must have been so traumatizing for her to have to continue to engage me, against her will, in arguments SHE initiated.

Desiree also testified, on direct, regarding the emails where she imposed excessive, unreasonable, and unnecessary constraints and requirements on Gabriel being able to visit with me, that she was only trying to control the situation for the first time in her life TR 2017-06-13 p35l2-6.

But the many emails between us over a period of years, show that Desiree always tries to control the people around her and to have the upper hand. It is simply insane to think there is ever a time Desiree is not trying to control and manipulate everyone around her.

Desiree further testified, on direct, she hadn't actually read any of the blog posts prior to the trial TR 2017-06-13 p43l23-27.

This is extremely significant because she cannot claim to have an objective fear for her safety (as is required by the criminal harassment statute) based on things she was not even aware of! At that point, every blog post which she hadn't read should have been excluded as evidence. But it wasn't!

Desiree testified, very emotionally, and at great length, about being terrified of me owning firearms.

On direct, Myhre presented Desiree with an email from me "The ugly proof", 2014-12-17, where I make reference to my Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) TR 2017-06-12 p74l20-p75l29.

Myhre then asked Desiree if, prior to that email, she knew I "had guns in Canada"? It's very significant that he stated "in Canada", because obviously Desiree has known I've had firearms most of my life, and they knew I could prove that. She had already admitted in her RCMP interviews, that she knew of me having firearms when I lived in Arizona.

Myhre is trying to create the impression that I've only recently owned guns because if I've owned guns all my life and never harmed anyone, including Desiree, then why would she suddenly now be afraid? Also, they're trying to create the impression I brought the firearms I acquired in Canada, back to the US, so I could use them to harm Desiree. If the jury knew I already had other guns in the US, then bringing the Canadian ones to Los Angeles wouldn't really be an issue.

Desiree responded, she knew I had taken Gabriel to the shooting range when he visited me, but she didn't know I "had guns" TR 2017-06-12 p75l32-33.

Myhre then deliberately mislead the jury and Holmes by saying: "So we see [Patrick] explicitly told you why he was telling you about the guns" TR 2017-06-12 p75l34-35. But in the email he's referring to, I never told Desiree anything about any guns. I only told her I have a firearms license.

Myhre asked Desiree if learning I had guns caused her any concern, and Desiree responded "Terribly, yes" TR 2017-06-12 p75l41-43. But that's completely illogical and irrational because:

1. I've had firearms all my life, Desiree has known that, and it's never been an issue for her; and

2. Desiree lives in a state which has almost no firearms restrictions or regulations at all. So, if I had any interest in going to Arizona and shooting her, I could, upon arrival in Arizona, legally purchase a hadngun in less than 30 minutes with no background check, no registration, and no record of the purchase/acquisition.

   So why would me owning firearms, in a foreign country which has ridiculously excessive firearms regulations and restrictions, a country where every handgun I own must be registered to me and my home address, cause her any concern? Does she, or this fucking twit Myhre, really think if I wanted or intended to go to Arizona and shoot her that I would use one of the registered Canadian handguns, instead of an unregistered one I could so easily pick up within 25 miles of her home?

   All of this was already covered in an article I posted on the website back in January 2015 "My Ex-Husband Wants to Kill Me! Or, At Least That's What I Keep Telling People ", 2016-02-13, long before these charges.

Desiree then tried to rationalize her claimed fear, by saying I sent her a Florida birth certificate in the name Patrick Fox, but then I sent her a gun license that says I can purchase firearms in Canada under a name that's not mine TR 2017-06-12 p75l45-p76l3. But the name on the PAL is "Patrick Fox"; my name is Patrick Fox; the photo on the PAL is my face Possession and Acquisition License. What the fuck is she talking about?

Desiree went on to claim "The ability to do things with those firearms and not have them traced back to Richard Riess is very easy" TR 2017-06-12 p76l3-5. But why would anyone WANT to trace them back to "Richard Riess"? That's not my name. If her fear is that if the firearms were to be used for some nefarious purpose, then wouldn't she want them to be able to be traced back to the person who owns them, who they're registered to? And isn't that person me, Patrick Fox? The US and Canadian governments know me as Patrick Fox; the BC government prosecuted me as Patrick Fox; they kept me in jail and prison for seven years under the name Patrick Fox; even this very trial is occurring under the name Patrick Fox!

And what does she mean by "traced back to"? Contrary to popular belief, it is extremely rare (if not impossible) to say with certainty that a particular bullet was fired from a particular gun "The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed", 2022-05-25; "How Good a Match is It? Putting Statistics into Forensic Firearms Identification", 2018-02-08; "Devil in the grooves: The case against forensic firearms analysis", 2023-05-25. Moreover, if a person shoots someone with a pistol, then fires another hundred rounds through it, that will sufficiently modify the potential markings in the barrel such that they cannot possibly be matched to the bullet in question. Or, the person can simply replace the barrel with a new one see, for example, the Beretta website. Most barrels don't have serial numbers, and purchasing a barrel doesn't require ID or any "background check", it's considered an accessory, just like magazines, grips, or ammo. You could, hypothetically, buy a replacement barrel; pop it into the pistol; do whatever bad thing it is you intend to do; take the replacement barrel out, putting the original one back in; throw the replacement in the ocean; then any forensic analysis would positively eliminate your pistol as the weapon used. Of course, I'm speaking hypothetically - I would never counsel anyone on how to get away with a crime.

As always, none of what she's saying makes any sense whatsoever!

The preceding testimony of my firearms occurred at the very end of the first day of direct-examination. I believe Myhre kept it for the end of the day so it would be fresh in the jurors' minds when they left for the day, so they could dwell on it over night.

The following morning, the second day of direct-examination, Desiree continued to talk about her fear of me owning firearms under the "identity" Patrick Fox. She claimed I had "indicated" in an email, I had been entering the US on a regular basis under that fake identity and now I "owned firearms" TR 2017-06-13 p5l11-26. But again, this is completely irrational because:

1. "Patrick Fox" is not an "identity", it's my name. The moment I stopped using the name Richard Riess and reverted to Patrick Fox, I notified her in writing of it. I've never tried to hide anything from her, and I knew she would immeidately notify Homeland Security of it.
2. Being that I already owned multiple handguns in the US, why would a few more in Canada make any difference?

Then, again toward the end of the day, Myhre had Desiree express her concerns about me owning firearms. She said she believed I was crossing into the US on a regular basis, under a false identity, with no issues. I "had access to guns and owned firearms" under that fake identity which could "probably be tossed if [I] neede to" TR 2017-06-13 . She went on to say she had seen how quickly I could get to Los Angeles, that I had contacts in Los Angeles that would help me, and that she lives a six hour drive from Los Angeles TR 2017-06-13 p68l26-31. And then, to really drive the point home, she said she knows how much I despise her; all the times I said the world would be a better place without her in it; and that I wouldn't stop until she's dead. There were many comments, she said, that scared her TR 2017-06-13 p68l31-36.

And that was Desiree's testimony on direct, about me owning firearms.

On the second day of cross-examination, Lagemaat referred Desiree to her testimony on direct, where she said she was "terrified" to learn I had guns. Desiree responded, "That he owned them? Yes" TR 2017-06-15 p13l44-p14l1. But in fact, on direct, she did not refer to me "owning firearms", she only referred to me "having firearms" TR 2017-06-12 p75l30-43. She's trying to change it now because she knows she's been caught in a lie and we have the recordings of the RCMP interviews to prove it RCMP interviews: 2016-06-10, ¶10; 2016-06-17, ¶10; ¶239; ¶248-255; 2016-07-13, ¶298-318.

But why is she making such a distinction between me "having guns" and me "owning guns"? What IS the distinction? If I own the gun is it somehow more lethal than if I merely have the gun? Does she believe her claimed fear is somehow more rational if I'm the owner of the gun? Am I the only one thoroughly confused by this reasoning (or lack thereof)?

Lagemaat then pointed out to her that she knew I had guns previously TR 2017-06-13 p14l2-3. But even though we have audio and video recordings of her admitting to the RCMP that she knew I had firearms in the US before I went to Canada, she still had the nerve to lie and so "No".

Now here's something fascinating: Lagemaat knows about all of the RCMP interviews. He knows she repeatedly admitted to knowing I've owned firearms for years before going to Canada. She just brazenly lied, unequivocally testifying that she had no knowledge of me having firearms prior to the email I sent her in December 2014. And yet, he didn't confront her on that! She just committed perjury and he could easily prove it, but he ignored it.

Rather than confronting Desiree on the perjury she just committed, Lagemaat proceeded to ask Desiree about the firearms I had when her and I were together. But again, Desiree adamantly insisted I "never once" had firearms when we were together TR 2017-06-15 p14l4-9. Admittedly, she never showed any interest in them and never came to the range with me, but there's no way she could have been completely ignorant to them being in the apartment.

Lagemaat probably knew Desiree was lying about me having firearms while we were together, so he pressed her on it further. Desiree became uncomfortable. She probably suspected we had proof of those firearms. So, she used her typical technique of throwing in an unsolicited non-sequitur in the hopes of distracting everyone and changing the topic. She responded, "He did not own firearms while we were together. He was using a fake social security number at the time" TR 2017-06-15 p14l16-18. What does using a fake social security number have to do with whether or not I owned firearms while Desiree and I were together? Absolutely nothing. The point is to throw something shocking out there and hope the other party gets distracted and starts pursuing that new topic. Ah, pathological liars are so predictable.

Later, on cross, Lagemaat brought up my possession of firearms again. He reminded Desiree that on direct she had claimed when she received the email from me containing my PAL, she was alarmed to learn I had firearms and that was the first time she know I had firearms TR 2017-06-15 p50l4-8. Desiree responded, it was the first time she knew I owned firearms or had the ability to purchase firearms TR 2017-06-15 p0l11-12. But why would it be more alarming for me to own firearms than to have firearms? Wnd just what is the difference between owning something and having something? I a firearm which I own more lethal than a firearm I have? I just don't understand her reasoning process. Nor do I understand why Lagemaat didn't question her on what the difference is between owning something and having something.

Lagemaat then pointed out to Desiree that she knew I had a firearm in 2005-2006 when I was in Arizona. Desiree admitted she knew I had a firearm at that time, but she went on to say you can get a firearm in Arizona without a license or "legal permission" TR 2017-06-15 p50l11-15. Again, she was throwing in unrelated, unsolicited information to try to distract from the topic at hand, which was the fact that she lied about knowing prior to December 2014, that I had firearms.

Lagemaat was not tricked by her attempt to deflect. He continued to press her on the issue of her knowing previously that I had firearms. Desiree knew she was burnt. She interrupted Lagemaat and emotionally stated "His having guns scared me". Typical! She's caught lying and she's not being believed, so she pretends to cry and pulls the "I'm just a scared, defenseless woman. I don't know what to do", routine. But it didn't work. Lagemaat said, "That's not the question I'm asking" TR 2017-06-15 p50l13-22. And Desiree went into a rambling explanation, repeatedly saying she didn't know if I owned that firearm, she just knew that I was carrying it that day; she didn't know if I purchased it, or if I was carrying it for someone else TR 2017-06-15 p50l24-31. But again, whether I purchased it or acquired it any other way; whether I owned it or borrowed it temporarily; if the point is that she's afraid for her life because she believes I intend to shoot her, then what difference would any of that make. How can the jury possibly believe any of this? And how can Lagemaat not confront her on the ridiculousness of what she's saying?

Then, the most unbelievable thing happened. Desiree actually repeated the outrageous claim she'd been making in her RCMP interviews. She testified that all she knew was that her mother saw me with a gun, in a bar, lining up bullets on the table TR 2017-06-15 p50l31-33. This is outrageous because Arizona law at the time prohibited bringing a firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol ARS §4-244(29), and prohibited the staff of such establishments from allowing a person with a firearm to remain on the premises ARS §4-244(30). I had pointed this out to Lagemaat, so he knew that what she was saying could not possibly be true, and yet he, again, chose not to confront her on her perjurious testimony.

In closing this line of questioning, Lagemaat confirmed with Desiree that it was not quite accurate for her to say that when she received my PAL was the first time she was aware I had firearms. But Desiree continued to insist it was the first time she knew I was able to purchase them legally TR 2017-06-15 p50l34-38.

Lagemaat retorted that that's not what she had said on direct. That on direct-examination she had said when she received my PAL was the first time she was aware I had firearms. Desiree responded, "That he owned firearms." Lagemaat had caught her lying again. He said to her, "So now you're changing it to the first time you knew he owned firearms." Desiree knew she had been caught in another lie, so she agreed she had said "had firearms", but she tried to play it off as having used the wrong wording TR 2017-06-15 p51l6-16.

Quite possibly, the single most significant statement Desiree made in all of her testimony was when she admitted that throughout all of those email threads, she was deliberately trying to keep me communicating with her in exactly the manner I was TR 2017-06-14 p50l36-p51l4.

What's more, she admitted she was doing it for the express purpose of trying to get information from me.

So, consider this: She was deliberately provoking me, trying to anger me, so that I would say mean things to her, so that she could then use those mean statements against me. That being the case, how the fuck could my communication with her possibly be considered criminal harassment - or any kind of harassment? I was, quite literally, doing exactly what she wanted me to do; what she was encouraging me to do.

As soon as the jury heard this, how could they possibly even consider finding me guilty?

And notice, if you will, that neither Lagemaat, Myhre, the judge, nor any of the Canadian news media made a single mention of this admission.

Lagemaat confronted Desiree with a number of emails she had sent to me, where she was sarcastic, insulting, and even admitted she had no fear of me and didn't take me seriously TR 2017-06-14 p5l44-p6l27; p10l6-p11l6; p12l9-20; p12l37-41; p15l42-p16l2; p18l10-20.

This is very significant because a person (Desiree) cannot reasonably claim they are being harassed and are fearful of another person (me), when their own emails show they were deliberately trying to provoke that other person.

Desiree also repeatedly admitted that some of her insulting, belligerent responses were because she "was angry" TR 2017-06-14 p8l5-15, not because she was afraid for her safety. At one point, Desiree very clearly and unequivocally stated that all of my communication with her, all of my emails to her "really angered" her TR 2017-06-14 p25l18-29.

In the course of this line of questioning, Desiree insisted she was fearful of me based on our communication, even though she continually and deliberately provoked and insulted me. But in at least one instance, she admitted her fear was not that I would do anything to her physically TR 2017-06-14 p16l3-9. But then, realizing that admission discredited the allegation against me, she went into one of her rambling nonsense responses about the fear being "for the rest of her life, her sanity, her livelihood". What the fuck does that even mean? And why didn't Lagemaat ask her to clarify? What would she respond? That her fear was that the truth about her would get out and no one would want anything to do with her because she's an evil sociopath who would accuse you of rape just because you didn't agree with her on something?

At one point, Desiree insisted that even though she may have been provoling me, it was "nowhere near the level she had been dealing with for years" TR 2017-06-14 p29l31-43. But Lagemaat pointed out to her it was really just a difference in verbiage. I call her a "fucking cunt"; she calls me women's names. Either way, it's all just insults intended to belittle and offend the other party.

Then, in an incredible show of amazing stupidity, Desiree said "But I also never put up a website about him..." TR 2017-06-14 p30l4-5. I say that's an incredible show of amazing stupidity because, while she may not have published a website about me, she did go on international news media saying false things about me. How the fuck is that any different? The only difference is the medium! And even then, most of the news coverage was published on the news agencies' websites so, essentially, she DID "put up a website" - except that instead of putting it up herself, she did it through the news media. So I ask: 1) is she really that stupid; or 2) is she really that much of a pathological liar; and 3) how could Lagemaat not confront her on this fact?

At one point, Lagemaat confronted Desiree with an email she sent me, where she was particularly condescending and sarcastic. Lagemaat suggested to her that it was all a game to her. And after some evasion, Desiree admitted that yes, it was a game to her TR 2017-06-14 p38l29-41.

After confronting Desiree with a number of her email responses to me, in which she was provocative, antagonistic, insulting, and sarcastic, Lagemaat repeatedly "suggested" to her that really our communication was nothing more than banter, back and forth. We were both trading insults, using words to try to hurt the other. At times, Desiree agreed with that TR 2017-06-14 p24l16-37. But at other times, Desiree insisted it wasn't banter, she was fighting for her life and her freedom TR 2017-06-15 p8l43-p9l2.

Lagemaat repeatedly pointed out to Desiree that in her emails to me she often expressed anger and hostility, but never once gave any indiciation of being fearful e.g. TR 2017-06-14 p27l44-p28l6. And if her responses to me only contained anger, hostility, and antagonism then how the hell could I have thought she was fearful based on our communication?

In response to Lagemaat's suggestion that she was angry, not fearful, Desiree stated she did tell me she was fearful in the email entitled "Cease and desist" TR 2017-06-14 p28l13-16. However, in that email she was only referring to me allegedly sending unsolicited emails to her associates, not to the website or our email correspondence. Moreover, Lagemaat pointed out to her that even after sending that "Cease and desist" email, Desiree continued to email me, provoking and antagonizing.

At one point in the cross-examination, Lagemaat pointed out that Desiree was actually angry with me, not fearful; and Desiree agreed TR 2017-06-14 p47l23-25. But then, realizing that fear for her safety is a required element of the offense of criminal harassment, Desiree responded that while she was not afraid of physical harm, she was "afraid every day of what [I] was going to do ... the fear of [her] life, of everything going on, is always there" TR 2017-06-14 p47l26-34. What, exactly, she was talking about, I have no idea. But, since all I've been doing is publicly exposing her bad acts and her offensive beliefs, then what she's saying is she's afraid of people finding out who she really is. And that is not the fear envisioned by the criminal harassment statute.

At another point in the cross, Lagemaat again suggested to her that based on the emails she was sending, she was not afraid. Desiree then responded with some nonsensical rambling about being afraid of what would happen if she didn't continue to engage me TR 2017-06-14 p52l22-p53l2.

And then there was the point where Desiree admitted that throughout all of the back and forth emails and arguments, she always felt safe that I would never get overly angry, that I would never escalate beyond words TR 2017-06-14 p63l24-31.

For years, Desiree had been claiming I took Gabriel from her in 2002, then disappeared with him and hid him from her until 2011. She actually stated that in a sworn declaration in the Arizona family court in 2011, when she had abducted Gabriel and tried to get emergency custody of him in Arizona based on that claim. A sworn declaration is made under oath, which means a false statement therein is perjury.

Desiree also made that claim in sworn declarations and testimony in the California family court, in 2011.

And, Desiree made that claim in the news media in 2016. Then, the world being full of stupid people who automatically assume the woman is the victim and the man is the aggressor, automatically believed her.

On the second day of cross-examination, I reminded Lagemaat about a letter Desiree sent me in 2011 letter from Desiree, and asked him if he intended to question her on them. He agreed that was a good idea and would do so. But I got the distinct impression, had I not brought it up, neither would he.

One major concern I had about the letter was that Desiree might deny she wrote it. But fortunately, she had already admitted in the California family court that she had.

In the letter, Desiree said "What changed for me, what made me stop fighting...". Lagemaat confirmed with her that she was referring to fighting for custody of Gabriel, and that she had made the decision that it would be better for Gabriel to be in my care and custody TR 2017-06-15 p22l27-p23l24. In the letter, Desiree goes on to say "...so I let you have him" TR 2017-06-15 p23l36-39. These admissions contradict Desiree's claims that I had "taken" or "withheld" Gabriel from her.

Desiree also spoke, in the letter, about some of the times she had spoken with Gabriel on the phone, while Gabriel and I were living in Phoenix in 2006-2007. In particular, Desiree referenced a couple of times Gabriel had asked to see her, but she "had to think of some way to say no". Lagemaat questioned her, at length, about how it is that her child was supposedly missing for years, then suddenly her mother is in physical contact with Gabriel, and Desiree herself speaks to him on the phone, so clearly she knew where Gabriel and I were at those times, and yet she made absolutely no attempt to get to where Gabriel is or to contact the authorities TR 2017-06-15 p24l36-p25l8.

In response to that questioning by Lagemaat, Desiree falsely claimed that days after those phone calls, I had disappeared again TR 2017-06-15 p25l9-22. But Desiree had already admitted, in her RCMP interviews, that her mother had been to mine and Gabriel's apartment in Phoenix, and that on one occasion, Gabriel had spent the night at Desiree's mother's home RCMP Interview ¶200.

In the letter, Desiree also said "I could search him out, that is true, but why would I do that?" Lagemaat asked her what she meant by that, because that statement is a clear admission that Desiree knew she could have done something to try to find us (if we were, in fact, missing as she'd been claiming). But as she says: "Why would I do that?"; "Why bother?" TR 2017-06-15 p26l22-39 Realizing there's no way she could lie or manipulate her way out of this one, Desiree did what all pathologically lying, sociopaths do in that case: she tried to misdirect, by being melodramatic and portraying herself is a powerless victim who was completely under my power. And when it appeared that wasn't working, she tried faking humility.

But Lagemaat wasn't swayed by her performance. He continued by reiterating that she hadn't actually tried to search for Gabriel, contrary to what she had testified earlier. Desiree responded by falsely claiming she did call CPS, Homeland Security, and "all kinds of people". Then Lagemaat pointed out she didn't call the police. Desiree refused to give a direct answer, instead saying she didn't make a missing person report with the police TR 2017-06-15 p26l40-p27l3. Likely, she was trying to avoid answering whether she had contacted the police because: 1) she earlier testified, unequivocally, that she did contact the police; and 2) she probably suspected we had proof there was no record of her contacting the police.

Lagemaat later asked Desiree very directly "Did you search [Gabriel] out?" But she continued to try to be evasive, claiming she had tried to find his location, but did not try to establish contact TR 2017-06-15 p27l21-25. Which is, of course, complete bullshit because she already admitted to: 1) knowing exactly where Gabriel and I were, for extended periods of time, on multiple occasions; and 2) being in direct contact with Gabriel on numerous occasions.

So, with that letter, I was able to get Desiree to admit under oath, that everything she had been claiming in the news media, about my taking Gabriel from her and hiding or withholding him from her for nine years was all just lies, complete bullshit, to manipulate people so Desiree could get what she wants from them.

One of my goals with getting Desiree on the witness stand was to get her to admit she does have a drug problem, or in other words, that she's a drug addict. To that end, I urged Lagemaat to question her about her acceptance of the Arizona Prop 200 program for her marijuana possession charge.

On the second day of his cross-examination, Lagemaat led Desiree into that line of questioning. He asked her what had happened with that charge. Desiree, not realizing she was being led into an admission, arrogantly stated the charges were dropped because she completed the Prop 200 program TR 2017-06-15 p28l27-p29l29.

So what's the significance of completing Prop 200? Nothing! The significant part is that she applied and was approved for Prop 200. Because Prop 200 requires the accused to admit to guilt of the offense and, more importantly, Prop 200 requires an acceptance that the accused has a drug problem. So, by admitting she applied for and received Prop 200, Desiree was admitting she had a drug problem.

And what do people who don't use drugs call a person with a drug problem? A "drug addict"!

Desiree unwittingly admitted, on the record, that my claims of her being a drug addict are actually true.

Lagemaat confronted Desiree with a number of emails where she made veiled threats, and he pointed out she was doing to me the same thing she was accusing me of doing to her. And, would you believe, Desiree actually responded that the difference is while she may have threatened those things, she never actually did it TR 2017-06-15 p10l4-17.

Wait! So, for years she was threatening to call Homeland Security on me to have me deported. And while she was threatening that, she was actually filing countless false reports against me with them. She made a concerted effort to get me arrested, detained, and deported from the US so she could get custody of our son after the family court refused to grant her custody. She filed numerous false and frivolous uttering threats, and criminal harassment claims against me with the Canadian authorities trying to get me arrested and detained even after I was deported to from the US, because our son still wanted to live with me. She went on international news media falsely claiming I had been publicly threatening to murder her and neither the Canadian nor the US authorities were taking her seriously.

Desiree claims she never followed through on her threats against me, but then, Lagemaat subsequently questioned her on having me deported from the US and she admitted, quite proudly, that she did contact ICE to get me repeatedly deported TR 2017-06-15 p29l40-p30l11; p32l2-33. Then, she later admitted to laughing about it during an RCMP interview TR 2017-06-15 p33l2-16.

So, she actually did all that stuff to me, and yet she has the nerve to testify under oath that while she may have threatened me, she never actually did anything to me! Holy fuck, this woman is the devil!

While questioning Desiree on her efforts to repeatedly get me deported from the US, Lagemaat asked her if she found it amusing TR 2017-06-15 p32l34-41. First, Desiree denied that she found it amusing, but then claimed it was amusing "in an ironic way". What she meant by that, I have no idea. "Ironic" means the outcome was the opposite of what would be expected. So, is Desiree saying she reasonably expected I would not be deported (perhaps because she knew I was a US citizen), and the fact that I was deported was humorously unexpected to her?

Lagemaat then asked her about the RCMP interview she gave, wherein she was laughing and joking with them. He asked her if she found it amusing during that interview. Desiree must have realized that admitting she was laughing and joking with the RCMP, about having my deported, would make her look extremely cruel and vindictive to the jury. She became evasive, tried to deflect, said she was "dumbfounded that [I] would try to go to a courthouse". Lagemaat persisted. Initially, Desiree denied that she laughed, but then admitted to it. Though, she tried to downplay it by claiming it was not in amusement but rather astonishment TR 2017-06-15 p32l42-p33l12.

In that same RCMP interview, Desiree had made a comment, while laughing openly, that she would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the courtroom, when ICE came in to arrest me RCMP Interview ¶514. Lagemaat asked her if she wished she could have been in the courtroom, watching, when ICE arrested me. Desiree probably realized how callous that recording would prove her to be, so to avoid having it played for the jury, she responded that she would have loved to have seen it.

The way in which Lagemaat questioned Desiree on her statement about being a fly on the wall was truly terrible. First, he gave the jury no indication that it was something she explicitly stated during a police interview. Second, he diluted the wording so much that it didn't show any of the petty vindictiveness and callous indifference with which it was utterred by Desiree.

Repeatedly, throughout her testimony on cross, Desiree made statements which showed her main, if not her only, interest was "beating" me or "winning" against me. These inadvertent admissions usually came at points where she had become overly agitated.

Following the admission that she would have loved to have been present during my arrest by ICE at a family court hearing, Desiree admitted she would have seen that as a "small victory". To which, Lagemaat pointed out she was again speaking in terms of winning, and that this was all just a game to her TR 2017-06-15 p33l27-32.

And when Lagemaat pointed out to Desiree that what she was accusing me of is really just the same things she has been doing to me, Desiree responded she defended herself and she "won" because she was right and she was telling the truth; and the one time she did it to me I "lost" because I was lying TR 2017-06-15 p31l18-45. So again, we see Desiree's real objective is "winning" the "battles" against me. Battles which she, invariably, started.

Then later, on cross, Desiree became angry with Lagemaat's suggestions that this was a game to her and that it was really just about winning and beating me. In her agitation, she admitted that she did call ICE on me and that her intention was to get me removed from the country, and that as a result she did "end up with custody". She then went on to complain that "even then [Patrick] got visitation" TR 2017-06-15 p35l34-39. I believe that shows her real and only intention with trying to get me arrested and deported was always only about causing me to lose custody of Gabriel. It never had anything to do with her gaining custody of Gabriel or wanting to be in Gabriel's life. Contrary to all her baseless accusations, I've never done anything to interfere with her being in Gabriel's life. And other than fighting with me, she's never done anything to indicate she had any interest in actually being a parent.

When Desiree went on the news media, she insisted my claim that she used to be a stripper was a lie. She also denied it in her police interviews. In one RCMP interview, she even pretended to have no knowledge of the strip club she had worked at, saying "...and it listed some stripper club that I worked at apparently" RCMP Interview ¶614.

Even during direct-examination, Desiree deliberately mislead the jury by testifying "...it had the name of a strip club that I apparently worked at..." TR 2017-06-12 p55l22-23. By saying "apparently worked at", Desiree was implying she was not familiar with the particular strip club, and certainly that she had never worked at that strip club.

While the fact that she may have been a stripper isn't really that big a deal, the fact that she denied it in the news media and accused me of spreading lies about her was.

So one of my goals was to confront her on the witness stand with the proof that she was actually a stripper, to prove that I was the one telling the truth and she was the one lying.

When Lagemaat was questioning Desiree about her prior criminal history, Desiree knew I had the police reports of the time she was arrested at the strip club Police Report - I had already posted them on the website. She, very begrudgingly, admitted that she had been arrested at the strip club where she was working as a stripper TR 2017-06-15 p34l22-37.

What's truly fascinating about Desiree's denial of this fact is that even after I published the police report on the website, she still continued to deny it. And what's even more fascinating than that is that even though the police report was on the website, everyone continued to believe her and refused to even acknowledge the police report existed.

Desiree often accuses me of using fake identities and fake names, although she has never once actually been able to state what any of those fake names or identities was and she has never been able to provide any evidence to support those accusations. Even throughout her testimony, she repeatedly stated I've used "so many names" TR 2017-06-14 p26l16-20.

But, at always, this is just another example of Desiree accusing me of what it is she was doing.

On cross-examination, Lagemaat asked Desiree who Virginia Tomlin is? Desiree knew we had the proof, including her own written admission in emails from her email thread, 2012-02-08. So, she didn't bother trying to be evasive about it. She readily admitted the name Virginia Tomlin was an "alias" she used when she was arrested because she did not want the criminal record to be associated with her real name TR 2017-06-15 p51l20-23.

But wait, it doesn't stop there. Lagemaat asked her where she got the name Virginia? She responded, it was the name of a friend of her when she was growing up. Lagemaat says: "So, it's a fake name". And Desiree, in her amazing arrogance ... or stupidity ... openly admits, so there is no misunderstanding, that yes, it was "an alias" because she did not want the criminal activities she was engaging in, and the arrest and conviction based on those activities, to be associatied with her real name TR 2017-06-15 p51l24-30.

So, let's consider this. California Penal Code section 148.9, makes it a criminal offense to provide a false identity (e.g. name) to a police officer upon arrest. And I would have to think, if it's an offense to provide a false identity to the police when being arrested, it must also be an offense to provide that false identity to the court when being prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced. But unfortunately, as yet I've not found a statute for that.

Nevertheless, there are two significant points about this admission.

1. Desiree is admitting she did, in fact, commit yet another criminal offense. And she's admitting it with no sense of remorse or guilt.
2. Desiree is admitting that she, herself, is the one guilty of having a history of using fake "identities" to deceive and to evade the law. The very thing she keeps accusing me of doing.

Another interesting point about Desiree's interaction with Lagemaat on this issue is that she keeps referring to "Virginia Tomlin" as merely an "alias", not a fake identity. But whenever she refers to me using any name other than Richard Riess, she calls it a "fake identity". So again, we see her narcissistic, double standards:

• when she uses a different name in order to deceive the authorities and evade prosecution, it's an alias;
• but when I change my name (as she puts it), it's a fake identity, which I'm using for nefarious purposes ... even though I immediately notified her and all relevant authorities of the name change.

Following my arrest and detention on these charges in 2016, Desiree created a GoFundMe campaign, requesting money to "hide all her public records; to be able to move, change her name, and fix the damage caused by years of debilitating harassment and abuse" GoFundMe page [cached].

On direct, Myhre had questioned her briefly about the GoFundMe campaign, but he did not ask her what she used the money for TR 2017-06-13 p66l45-p67l8. Myhre probably figured, by bringing it up on direct, then Lagemaat would have no need to bring it up on cross.

But on cross, Lagemaat did bring it up. He started by asking Desiree why, if this ordeal was as terrible for her as she's been making it out to be, she didn't just change her name TR 2017-06-15 p38l15-25. He was leading her into a trap. In her GoFundMe campaign, she claimed she needed the money to, basically, hide her history, change her name, and start a new life under a new identity. But clearly she didn't do that.

Desiree appeared to be flustered, started giving nonsensical responses and volunteering unrelated information. She said she looked into it and changing your name is public record TR 2017-06-15 p38l26-32. However, if a person changes their name to get away from unwarranted harassment or abuse, they can request the record of the name change be sealed. Either Desiree didn't really look into it or she's withholding that bit of information to make her lie more believable. She claimed changing her name wouldn't work because I would find out about it TR 2017-06-15 p38l33-36.

So, Lagemaat asked Desiree why she asked the public to give her $10,000 to change her name? At this point, Desiree became very evasive, claiming $10,000 is the minimum amount GoFundMe allows you to ask for. But then, she changed her response to $10,000 is the typical GoFundMe limit. Lagemaat pointed out that's incorrect because on GoFundMe you choose the limit. So then, Desiree changed her response again, now claiming that's the amount that was suggested to her TR 2017-06-15 p38l36-44. Desiree then rambled on about having to continuously promote the campaign on social media and that she never did any of that. I believe she was trying to misdirect again, move the topic away from the GoFundMe campaign.

Lagemaat brought her back to the point, telling her she had asked the public for $10,000 to change her name, but she already knew changing her name wouldn't help. Desiree responded that she would have to seal all of her records, and Lagemaat asked her why she didn't just do that TR 2017-06-15 p39l8-17.

And here's where things get surreal. By this point, Desiree knew she was fucked. She's been caught defrauding the public and she's going to have to admit to it. In response to Lagemaat asking why she didn't just seal all her records, Desiree just kept repeating "I don't know how" TR 2017-06-15 p39l18-19.

Then, it got even more whacky. Lagemaat asked her if she ever Googled how to seal public records. Desiree responded she had and "it's really confusing", and "would take a lawyer" TR 2017-06-15 p39l20-22. The reason I say that's whacky is because you can't seal public records. It's simply not possible. There is no facility or procedure to do so. You can seal court records, but only if you can convince a judge that there is a legitimate reason to do so. Any other public records would be up to whatever entity maintains those records, be it the DMV, a utility company, a credit reporting agency, et cetera. Then there's the issue of cached copies of that data scattered about the internet. What Desiree is saying here is complete nonsense and it proves she never actually looked into it.

Lagemaat pointed out to Desiree that she was asking the public for money to change her name and start a new identity in order to get away from my harassment and abuse. He said he assumes her intention would be to take Gabriel with her, that she's not going to leave Gabriel with me when she disappears. Desiree promptly responded she didn't have any thoughts of hiding Gabriel from me TR 2017-06-15 p39l35-40. Obviously, Desiree can't admit that was her intention because she's trying to convince the jury that she never has and never would interfere with my access to Gabriel and that I am the one who has withheld Gabriel from her. But what she's saying now would make no sense. If she changed her name in order to hide from me, but allowed me to maintain contact with Gabriel then I would be able to find out her new information based on Gabriel's location, school records, et cetera.

Lagemaat pointed out that what Desiree was saying she intended to do couldn't have worked. It would be impossible for her to disappear with Gabriel, while still allowing me to have contact with Gabriel. So then, Desiree did what Desiree does when someone points out her lies make no sense: she pretended to cry and claimed she was just scared TR 2017-06-15 p39l41-p40l6. But again, scared of what? Manipulative women do this all the time. They know that if they cry (or more accurately, appear to cry) most people will give in and console them and give them what they want.

But Lagemaat was not swayed. He persisted. He reminded Desiree she had stated on direct that she was not going to run and hide TR 2017-06-13 p6946-47. He continued to ask her what she intended to use the money from the GoFundMe campaign for, since she had already stated she would not "let me win", she would not run and hide, and she already knew she wouldn't be able to "seal" all her public records. All Desiree could say in response was that you still have to repeatedly ask people make your goals TR 2017-06-15 p40l7-14. Whatever that means.

At one point, Desiree testified GoFundMe does not allow you to create a campaign to seek money for a lawyer TR 2017-06-15 p41l26-27. But then a few lines later, she admitted she used the money she received to pay her lawyer TR 2017-06-15 p41l38-39. Lagemaat seized on this. He said: "So you didn't do with it ... what you said you were seeking it for, correct? So you lied" TR 2017-06-15 p41l40-45. Desiree literally just admitted to committing fraud. Lagemaat should have pursued that, he should have clearly stated "So you committed fraud, you defrauded the public." But he didn't. He just moved on.

Desiree's response to Lagemaat confirming she had lied and defrauded the public, was to falsely claim she was, at that time, also trying to get the order of protection. She claimed her belief was that the order of protection was the first step to take the website down, and so that's what the money went to TR 2017-06-15 p41l46-p42l3. However, that's all lies because Desiree had already obtained the order of protection a year prior to creating the GoFundMe campaign. Lagemaat should have noticed that and confronted her on it. Why did Lagemaat ignore so many of Desiree's lies?

While being questioned about her GoFundMe campaign, Lagemaat suggested to Desiree that if dealing with me and my supposed attacks on her, was as terrible as she's making it out to be, she would have changed her name, sealed her records, found the money for a lawyer, and been done with it TR 2017-06-15 p39l23-26.

Without missing a beat, Desiree launched into her crocodile tears and fake sobs, protesting: "Why? Why can't he just stop? Why do I have to change my name? Why do I have to go into hiding? Why do I have to become somebody else just for him to not do this?" TR 2017-06-15 p39l27-30.

Let's consider:

• All this prolonged dispute between Desiree and I started when she came to Los Angeles in August 2011 and abducted Gabriel to Arizona, then immediately applied for emergency temporary custody in Arizona, claiming I had been hiding Gabriel from her for the past nine years.

  My response to that was to go to the California family court, where we already had a custody case, and request a home state determination. The California and Arizona judges conferred and, because Gabriel had been living in California constantly for the past four years, they agreed California was the home state and had jurisdiction.

  Desiree did not abduct Gabriel and file for emergency custody in response to anything I had done.

  And yet, Desiree keeps insisting I started all these legal disputes and caused her to spend some $10,000 on lawyer's fees.

• In September 2011, while holding Gabriel in Arizona, Desiree applied to the Arizona family court for an order prohibiting all contact between me and Gabriel.

  After failing to obtain that order, Desiree applied for a restraining order against me, prohibiting me from having any contact with her or Gabriel.

  Desiree didn't do either of those in response to something I had done.

  And yet, to this day, Desiree insists she has never once tried to interfere with contact between me and Gabriel.

• While Desiree was holding Gabriel in Arizona in 2011, she monitored and recorded his calls with me, and punished him for saying things to me which she didn't like. She admitted in the family court that she had been monitoring his calls.

  Desiree did not monitor Gabriel's calls in response to anything he or I had done.

  I've never monitored or recorded Gabriel's communication with Desiree. I provided him his own mobile phone, which he was free to use for whatever purpose he wanted, including talking to Desiree.

  And yet, Desiree insists she never monitored our calls and that I am the one who has been monitoring her calls with Gabriel.

• In September 2011, while Gabriel was in Desiree's care, she was arrested for possession of marijuana. She withheld that information from me. Then, in November 2011, while Gabriel was in her care, her fiance Kristopher Lauchner was arrested for passing counterfeit notes while Gabriel was with him. When she showed up at the scene of the arrest, to get Gabriel, the police searched her purse and found more marijuana, but they did not arrest her, for the benefit of the children. She withheld that information from me.

  And yet, Desiree insists I was putting Gabriel in danger because I could be arrested and deported at any time.

  In February 2012, I found out about those arrests, through my own research. I asked Desiree about them. She was immediately belligerent and insisted it's none of my business and I'm "not her prosecuting attorney". She refused to discuss it.

  In response to her withholding critical information related to Gabriel's safety and wellbeing while in her care, I requested a hearing in the family court. Desiree chose not to attend. The judge suspended her visitation until we could have a full hearing regarding the drug use and criminal activity going on in her home.

  And yet, Desiree insists by doing that I was "interfering with her visitation".

• I then found out, again through my own research, about Lauchner's extensive, violent criminal history and meth use. I tried to express my concerns to Desiree but she became belligerent and insisted Lauchner was a "wonderful person".

  In response to finding out about Lauchner's history and Desiree's adamant support of him, I presented my concerns to the family court and requested an order that Lauchner not be present during Gabriel's visits with Desiree in Arizona.

  And again, Desiree insisted I was trying to interfere with her visitation.

• In 2011 and 2012, Lauchner repeatedly threatened me, including with physical harm. Given his violent history, I had to take such threats seriously.

  In response to those threats, I sought a restraining order against Lauchner.

  And Desiree insisted I was doing it to cause problems for her and Lauchner.

• In October 2012, I found out about Lauchner's contemporaneous arrest for shoplifting an AR-15, unlawful possession of a firearm (by a convicted felon), and possession of meth; as well as a search warrant being executed on Desiree's and Lauchner's home. The house they were residing in belonged to Lauchner's family.

  I asked Desiree about it. She was belligerent and insulting, and threatened to call "the feds" on me.

  In response to finding out about the ongoing, escalating criminal activity and drug use going on in Desiree's home; her refusal to discuss it; and that Lauchner would likely be returning the their home if/when he was released from custody; I requested a hearing in the family court, requesting to suspend Desiree's unsupervised visitation until we could have a full hearing to determine Gabriel's safety and wellbeing while in her care.

  Desiree insisted I was trying to take away all her visitation.

• In September 2011, Desiree started filing countless false allegations (including that I was a fugitive and was trying to take her child and flee the country) against me with Homeland Security, the FBI, and foreign consulates, in an effort to get me arrested, detained, and if possible, deported.

  Desiree was not doing that in response to anything I had done. She was being proactive. She was trying to escalate the dispute.

  This continued until January 2013 when Homeland Security arrested me and gave me the option of fighting the allegations while remaining in custody, or being deported to Canada. I was deported.

  Desiree insists she didn't call DHS until late 2012, and then it was only because, she claims, I was trying to have all her visitation revoked and flee the country with "her son". But official records show she had been calling them regularly since 2011.

  Following my arrest by DHS, as a direct result of Desiree's false allegations, Desiree immediately applied for emergency custody of Gabriel, based on me being in custody. Following my deportation, Desiree immediately filed for permanent, sole custody of Gabriel.

  In March 2013, we had a family court hearing scheduled in Los Angeles. I returned to Los Angeles for the hearing, which unbeknownst to me had been cancelled due to Desiree being granted sole custody following my deportation. When I arrived at the courthouse, the court called Desiree; Desiree called Homeland Security; ICE came to the courthouse, arrested me, and deported me again.

  And again, that was not in response to anything I had done.

• Following my deportation and Desiree receiving sole custody of Gabriel, she refused to allow Gabriel to visit me. And she refused to get him a passport so he could travel between Canada and the US.

  And guess what: Her refusal was not in response to anything I had done.

  And yet, she insists she never tried to interfere with my contact with Gabriel and that I am the one who has consistently interfered with her contact.

• In October 2013, the family court judge ordered Desiree to get Gabriel's passport so he could visit me during his upcoming winter break. Desiree stated she didn't think she'd be able to get it in time, even though I had been asking her to get it for months and she had been adamantly refusing. The judge told her that's her own problem because she's had plenty of time to get it already.

  By the end of November she still hadn't gotten the passport, then she asked me to have my lawyer go to the courthouse, at my expense of course, to get a document she required for it. I refused, because it was, once again, a problem she, and she alone, created.

  And once again, her refusal to get Gabriel's passport, and her procastinating on it even after the court ordered her to get it, was not at all in response to anything I had done.

  Desiree's response was to blame me for her not being able to get the passport in time.

• A year after being deported as a result of Desiree's very deliberate actions; after losing custody of my son as a result of being deported; after the California family court refusing to allow Gabriel to return to my custody even though that is what he wanted, because I was deported; after Desiree continuing to lie about anything she felt like, and simply pretending to cry in order to get her way; only after all that, I created the website to show everybody the truth about the kind of person she really is.

  Creating the website was a direct response to all the stuff Desiree had done to me and Gabriel over the past three years.

And yet, in Desiree's mind, she believes she has not done a single thing wrong, she has not done a single thing against me. She honestly believes everything she has done has been completely justified. And at the same time, she is incapable of realizing that anything I have done has been in response to the things she initiated.

Desiree asks why she should have to change anything? Why I can't just stop? But she's the one that started this fight. She's the one that kept escalating her attacks. And her escalations weren't in response to what I did, they were because she wasn't getting what she wanted.

Although nothing Desiree has ever done against me has been in response to anything I had done, she did state one time that everything that has happened has been because I refused to allow Gabriel to go to San Diego with her for a week in the summer of 2011, after having been completely absent from Gabriel's life for nine years and only having had two brief visits with him in the couple months prior to that trip. Really, what sane parent would have allowed someone who was, essentially, a stranger to take their 10 year old child on a week-long trip out of town.

While questioning Desiree about her GoFundMe campaign, Lagemaat asked her whether there was some governing body who could order the website to be taken down. Desiree responded, yes, and that that is the governing body she would have to go through since I refuse to take it down by court order TR 2017-06-15 p41l6-13.

Now, first of all, there was no court order requiring me to take down the website. Desiree has the delusional belief that the Sahuarita Municipal Court, which issued her order of protection, ordered me to take down the website, but it did not. One: It didn't have the authority to because I wasn't under it's jurisdiction because I wasn't in the US; Two: It didn't have the authority to because it lacked jurisdiction to even hear the matter because Desiree and I already had a family court matter in the Superior Court; and Three: A municipal court does not have the authority to order a person to stop speaking truthfully about another person in a public forum.

Lagemaat then asked Desiree why she hadn't pursued that avenue. Desiree responded, it's a very long and complicated process TR 2017-06-15 p41l14-17.

But would you believe, Desiree was lying again. It's neither long nor complicated. If a US court had, in fact, issued an order declaring there was anything illegal about the website, or ordering me to take it down, all Desiree would have had to do is present that to the hosting provider (who, by the way, is also based in Arizona). The hosting provider's policies prohibit any content which violates any laws of the US. Upon receiving a copy of that supposed court order, the hosting provider would have suspended the hosting plan.

Now, let's say if such a court order didn't exist (as it doesn't). Then Desiree would have no legal standing and the hosting provider would simply say: No! And that would be the end of it.

So, as you see, nothing long and complicated about it.

But the real question here is why Lagemaat didn't pursue this further?

Whenever Desiree was confronted with one of her emails containing statements which would tend to prove she was not afraid, she would typically claim she was being sarcastic. At one point, when she responded in this way, Lagemaat said "I'm sorry, I have problems distinguishing what's sarcastic and what's not" TR 2017-06-14 p27l34-35.

Desiree then responded to Lagemaat's statement, "and I'm sure he [Fox] did, too" TR 2017-06-14 p27l36. So, she's acknowledging that she believes I probably had difficulty determining which of her statements were sincere and which were sarcasm.

That's significant because if you look through our emails, you will see that there were many times Desiree would make vague, ambiguous statements or allegations but when I would ask her to clarify she would refuse. Her admission here, seems to support my belief that when she makes those vague, ambiguous statements she is being deliberately vague and ambiguous. That's a common ploy for pathological liars and manipulators because it makes it easier for them to later claim "that's not what I meant".

A number of times during the cross-examination, when Desiree realized she was caught in a lie or she couldn't think of a lie to explain something, she would start talking total nonsense gibberish. This is a common tactic for her and one way you can tell when she knows that everyone else knows she's full of shit.

For example, at one point, Lagemaat confronted her with an email she sent, wherein she alluded to my mother being a "trashy prostitute" TR 2017-06-14 p7l23-p8l8. While Lagemaat questioned her about why she would say that, she started talking idiotic nonsense, not making any sense. Look at the transcript, for fuck sakes! The link is right above.

At one point, when Lagemaat caught Desiree contradicting herself in her testimony, first saying that she believed I was obsessed with her, then saying she believed I had hatred for her, Desiree became flustered and responded "hatred borders obsession, they're one and the same" TR 2017-06-14 p27l1-7. Obviously, her statement is gibberish. Hatred can lead to an obsession, but "hatred" and "obsession" have two totally distinct meanings. This is a common tactic for white trash, compulsive lying, idiots - when they think they've been caught in a lie they panic and say any ridiculous, moronic thing to distract the other person who will hopefully forget what he was talking about.

Throughout his cross-examination, Lagemaat did not make a single reference to the recording of the RCMP interview where Desiree was laughing with them about our email communications, the website, having me deported, et cetera.

Prior to the trial Lagemaat consistently agreed with me that it will be crucial for the jury to hear that interview. He said it is going to be a significant part of the defense because it shows she was not afraid for her safety and did not really take any of this seriously.

By the time of the morning recess on the second day of cross-examination, Lagemaat still had not made any mention of the recording of the interview. So I questioned him on why he was not playing it for the jury. He assured me he was going to. I told him I know the recording is going to be very embarrassing for the prosecution, and I understand that he'd be reluctant to do something which might significantly embarrass the prosecutors. He pretended to be offended and insisted he would never jeopardize a client's case to protect the prosecutor from embarrassment.

And yet, here we are, at the end of his cross-examination, and he's made nary a reference to the recording.

Although I can't prove it, I'm quite certain after my conference with Lagemaat, he informed Myhre I was not going to let the recording of the interview go.

So when Lagemaat reached the end of his cross, a little before the lunch break, Myhre raised the possibility of there being a dispute regarding Lagemaat's cross. He offered the judge a couple of cases which, while not controlling, could provide Holmes some guidance on how to handle it. One of the cases (R. v. Faulkner, 2013 ONSC 2373) ruled that in a 486.3 appointment, the appointed attorney has control over the cross-examination; whereas the other case (R. v. Thornton, 2014 ONSC 6688) ruled in a 486.3 appointment, the self-represented accused retains control over the cross-examination.

And then, after a little boring, uninteresting discussion between Myhre, Holmes, and Lagemaat, we stood down for the lunch recess.

When we returned from lunch, Lagemaat informed Holmes that he had about 10 minutes left on his cross-examination, that there was nothing further I wanted Desiree questioned on, and that there were no disputes arising from me regarding his cross. That is, of course, total bullshit! He never even came to see me or spoke with me during the lunch recess and he knew I was adamant about playing the recording of Desiree's RCMP interview.

Lagemaat then continued to cross-examine Desiree, but made no mention of the recording.

When he finished his cross, we stood down for a few minutes so Lagemaat could have one final conference with me. During that discussion, Lagemaat asked me if there was anything else I wanted Desiree questioned about. I told him: Fuck yeah, the recording of her RCMP interview. Lagemaat tried to convince me he had tried to get the recording in by asking her some questions about it, but because she didn't contradict the statements she meade in the interview, there was no legitimate basis for confronting her with it. I was quite annoyed. I told him it's not about what she said during the interview, it's about her demeanor, her laughing and joking about the same things she's pretending to cry about on the witness stand. It'll show the jury that her tears are fake, that she's lying. Lagemaat insisted the only way he can play the recording is if she makes statements in her testimony which contradict the statements she made to the RCMP. That is, of course, bullshit.

I began to suspect Desiree had been coached by Myhre to not make any statements which contradict what she said in that interview, so that Lagemaat would not have a basis for playing the recording for the jury.

When we reconvened, Lagemaat told Holmes "there is one piece of evidence [I] was hoping would go in", and that he "knew that all along". He went on to say he had tried to impeach her on it several times but she had accepted it - that is, she did not deny it TR 2017-06-15 p53l2-9. He says he tried to impeach her on it "several times" but, in fact, it was only one time TR 2017-06-15 p33l2-16. And, while questioning her on it, Lagemaat significantly downplayed her demeanor during the interview. He phrased his questions as: "Were you amused?"; "Did you laugh?"; and "Do you wish you could have been in the courtroom?"; which really doesn't convey to the jury that she laughed loudly and repeatedly. It was not a little chuckle or a nervous laugh. Here, have a listen for yourself:

Lagemaat then proceeded to explain to Holmes about the recording of the RCMP interview where Desiree was laughing and joking with them. He claimed he had questioned her on it, but because she did not deny laughing at times, Lagemaat was not able to confront her with the recording. Holmes repeatedly asked him, specifically what things did he cross her on which she admitted to, but Lagemaat was evasive. He eventually admitted it was about Desiree wishing she was in the courtroom when ICE came in to arrest me TR 2017-06-15 p53l11-41. I suspect Lagemaat was worried that if the recording was played, it would be obvious he was trying to downplay the extent of Desiree's laughter.

Holmes looked through her notes for the questioning Lagemaat was referring to and, when she found it she said: "...you asked her was she amused and she said she probably laughed, but not in amusement" TR 2017-06-15 p54l8-17. From Holmes' description, it seems Lagemaat's efforts to downplay Desiree's demeanor worked.

Holmes then asked me for my arguments on the matter. I explained that throughout the recording, there are frequent statements Desiree makes where her demeanor and character are extremely contrary to what she is presenting on the witness stand.

One point I brought up in particular, was where Desiree talks about punching herself in the stomach to try to force a miscarriage of Gabriel TR 2017-06-15 p55l17-24. Myhre later argued that that topic would not be relevant because it is so far removed from the issues on trial TR 2017-06-15 p58l31-36. But Myhre and Desiree are the ones that brought that up on direct TR 2017-06-13 p38l44-p39l17. On direct, they made it seem that I had been spreading false claims about Desiree trying to force a miscarriage by punching herself in the stomach, which caused our son to be born three months premature and blind in one eye. Desiree claimed, on direct, that she had no idea where I had gotten such a story from.

I also referred to Desiree's statements in the RCMP interview, where she unwittingly admits to withholding contact and visitation with Gabriel to try to force me to do what she wants TR 2017-06-15 p56l5-17. And again, this is an issue Myhre and Desiree brought up on direct TR 2017-06-13 p9l6-30. So again, I was merely trying to respond to things they had brought up on direct for the sole purpose of manipulating the jury. But again, Holmes claimed it was not relevant TR 2017-06-15 p56l33-p57l3.

That's the typical bullshit Canadian prosecutors and judges do. The prosecutor brings up things which have no relevance to the matters at hand, but which, based on how they're presented, make the defendant look extremely bad. Then, when the defendant tries to respond to them, or to provide proof they're not true, the prosecutor and the judge say it's not relevant and don't let the defendant pursue it. How come the judges never say it's not relevant when the prosecutors bring it up? Only when the defendants try to respond to it?

I emphasized that, in addition to the inconsistencies in her statements, perhaps the most critical aspect of the recording is Desiree's overall demeanor while talking about the same things she's been testifying about at the trial. While testifying, she often appeared to cry, and appeared to express fear, but in the RCMP interview she was laughing and making jokes about the exact same matters TR 2017-06-15 p57l16-26.

I argued that in a case like this, the credibility of the complainant is very significant. And for that reason it is critical for the jury to see how she talks about, and what she really thinks about these matters TR 2017-06-15 p55l25-35.

And finally, I proposed rather than making a decision based only on mine and Lagemaat's descriptions of what the recording contains, perhaps Holmes could listen to some of the more pertinent parts of the recording first, then make a decision about whether they should be presented to the jury TR 2017-06-15 p57l40-45. Holmes ignored the request.

Even though Myhre just admitted the recording of the interview was relevant and it would be proper to cross-examine Desiree on it, Holmes still claimed they were "struggling a little bit with what the issues are". She correctly summarized my arguments as: on the witness stand Desiree was reduced to tears when discussing certain things, but in the interview she was laughing when discussing those same things. But now she was asking for more specific, concrete examples TR 2017-06-15 p59l1-7. Really, if the prosecutor is saying he agrees it would be appropriate to cross Desiree on these points and he doesn't oppose it, then why would the judge need concrete examples? Oh well...

So, I reviewed some specific parts of the interview transcript with her, pointing out where Desiree laughed loudly or openly, and where she quickly flipped back and forth between crying and laughing TR 2017-06-15 p59l25-p61l8.

And finally, I pointed out that the interview recording shows how Desiree repeatedly flips between laughing to crying and back to laughing within moments, suggesting there's really no sincerity to any of her displays of emotion, it's all just an act TR 2017-06-15 p61l23-38.

Following my submissions, Holmes asked Lagemaat, now that he's heard my arguments in some detail, what his suggestion is. Lagemaat reiterated that he ran the cross-examination the same way he would have if he was representing me, but he again insisted if the court orders him to then he will these additional lines of cross-examination TR 2017-06-15 p61l39-46. When you think about it, what Lagemaat is saying is that even though it's been established the recording of the interview contains some very relevant information, if it's up to him he will still not confront Desiree on it.

Then Myhre said "It seems to me most of that is ... not irrelevant ... so, if Mr. Lagemaat is willing to do it ... I am not opposed" TR 2017-06-15 p62l12-17. If I didn't already know Lagemaat was colluding with Myhre to keep the recording out, my mind would be blown. I've never heard of a situation where the prosecutor was arguing in favor of the defense presenting critical, exculpatory evidence that's going to make the prosecution look bad; and the defense lawyer was arguing in favor of excluding it. After reading and/or listening to this part of the trial, how can anyone possibly question whether Lagemaat was colluding with the prosecution? My guess is the BCPS offered Lagemaat something in exchange for not bringing up that recording, and that's why he's fighting it so hard.

And now it was time for Holmes to decide who, either me or Lagemaat, has ultimate control over the cross-examination. Having reviewed the cases Myhre provided her (Thornton and Faulkner), Holmes concluded she agreed with the court in Thornton. That a lawyer appointed under section 486.3 is not in a solicitor-client relationship with the accused, and is appointed for the protection of the potentially vulnerable witness, not for the benefit of the self-represented accused. Holmes concluded the 486.3 appointment is not to restrict the accused person's right to present the case in the way that he wishes to put it before the court TR 2017-06-15 p62l23-p63l7. Holmes did also point out, though, that the appointed counsel is still subject to the ethical duties of ensuring the lines of cross-examination are relevant and consistent with the rules of evidence TR 2017-06-15 p62l29-35.

While delivering her decision on the question of who has control of the cross-examination, Holmes also explicitly pointed out "it is clearly Mr. Lagemaat's view that the various lines of cross-examination Mr. Fox spoke of were either not proper or were ... not of advantage to Mr. Fox" TR 2017-06-15 p63l17-20. But given that Myhre has acknowledged the relevance of the evidence and lines of questioning, even saying it would be proper to question her on some of them, it seems again what Holmes is saying is Lagemaat is either incompetent or colluding to assist the prosecution.

Now that it's been decided I, not Lagemaat, have control over the cross-examination, Holmes asked whether the court has an obligation to listen to the recording and make an assessment whether cross-examining on it would assist me.

Lagemaat argued that he believes that's really the only way we could proceed, is for "the court" to listen to the recording because the transcript does not convey Desiree's demeanor. Myhre argued that for the judge to advise me based only on listening to the recording, would be a "dangerous area for the court to go into" because Holmes doesn't have all the context that Myhre and Lagemaat do. Myhre then urged Holmes to encourage me to rely on Lagemaat's advice TR 2017-06-15 p63l36-p46l20.

This is fascinating because it seems that both Lagemaat and Myhre have completely changed their positions. Now Lagemaat is arguing that the court should listen to the recording and advise me on whether to proceed with cross-examining on it. Perhaps Lagemaat is grasping at straws, hoping that if Holmes listens to the recording she'll advise me against crossing on it. And Myhre is now arguing against Holmes listening to the recording and advising me. I think Myhre knows if Holmes hears the recording she's going to agree that it proves Desiree is a lying, manipulating cunt and that the jury needs to hear the recording. I think Myhre is hoping Lagemaat will still be able to talk me out of crossing Desiree on the recording.

Holmes concluded that although she would not allow me to play the entire recording, I can select whatever segments I want played TR 2017-06-15 p64l37-p65l9.

So Holmes decided, because I am self-represented, it is my decision whether to cross-examine Desiree on her demeanor during the interview. But in closing, she did advise me that Lagemaat is "a very experienced lawyer" and in his professinal view it is not suitable to proceed with those lines of questioning. Holmes warned me that I may be making an unwise decision, that perhaps what I understand as Desiree making light of things might actually be nervous laughter stimulated by strong emotion or fear. She also cautioned me, for those reasons, further cross-examination could, potentially backfire on me. And a bunch of other warnings, blah, blah, blah TR 2017-06-15 p65l2-p66l8.

Holmes then suggested we take a 10 minute break and advised me to think a little bit more about these questions. She said if I still want to pursue them then Lagemaat will do so, so long as they are relevant TR 2017-06-15 p66l9-21.

When we reconvened, Lagemaat proceeded with the cross-examination on the recording of the RCMP interview.

And that concluded Lagemaat's cross-examination on the recording of Desiree laughing and joking with the RCMP.

After completing this cross, Lagemaat came over to me and said "That was a very good idea, playing those recordings." Yeah, no fucking duh, asshole! Thanks for fighting so hard not to.