Legal Battles - Canada vs Patrick Fox
Contact
Patrick Fox
Torrance, CA     90503
fox@patrickfox.org

Affidavit of Patrick Fox, re: Ineffective Assistance, Collusion, Perjury

Synopsis

Below, you will find my sworn affidavit in support of my claims of ineffective assistance against the lawyer, Tony Lagemaat, who was forced on me at the trial, to do the cross-examination of my ex-wife, Desiree Capuano.

Even though the affidavit is, technically, supposed to be about Lagemaat, you will notice that each of the claims raised herein actually implicate both Lagemaat and the prosecutor, Mark Myhre. Essentially, what I'm saying (and proving) is that Lagemaat knowingly colluded with the prosecution to suppress critical evidence and to offer Desiree's perjured testimony.

For each claim, I provide links to the physical evidence proving Desiree was lying and that Lagemaat and Myhre knew she was lying.

You might be thinking, "This is outrageous! How can this happen in such a wonderful, fair, and just society as Canada?" Well, unfortunately, my experience (and from talking to hundreds of other accused parties over the seven years I'd spent in jail in Canada) has been, this is the norm in Canada. For all their self-righteous, arrogant criticisms of injustices in countries like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, the Canadian justice system is no different.

PDF
This is the 1st affidavit
of Patrick Fox in this case
and was made on 29 January 2019
CA44915
Vancouver Registry
Court of Appeal
Regina

v.

Patrick Henry Fox
Affidavit of Patrick Henry Fox

I, Patrick Henry Fox, Software Engineer, of 555 Homer Street in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, make oath and say that:

1.

I am the appellant in this matter and I have personal knowledge of the matters deposed to in this affidavit, except where the same are said to be based on information and belief, in which event I verily believe them to be true.

Capuano's Perjurious Testimony

2.

Prior to trial, both Tony Lagemaat and Mark Myhre (Crown Counsel) told me directly and in person that they each had reviewed every page of the website upon which the criminal harassment conviction is based, and all of the content on that website, including every email between myself and Capuano which was published on the website, and every email between myself and Capuano which Mr. Myhre had printed from me prior to trial. In addition, Mr. Lagemaat stated during cross-examination, that he has "seen all of the emails" TR 2017-06-14 p5l42.

3.

Based on Mr. Lagemaat's and Mr. Myhre's respective admissions that they had reviewed every email between myself and Capuano and all of the content on the website, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that any content on the website which proved Capuano was committing perjury must have been known to Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre. And that by knowing of such content at the time of the trial Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was committing perjury while she was in the act of doing so.

4.

Capuano falsely testified, repeatedly, she continued to engage me in communication and to allow our son, Gabriel, to visit me in Vancouver because she was required to under order of the family court TR 2017-06-13 p38l7-9; p67l15-18; TR 2017-06-14 p5l16-18; p40l37-41; TR 2017-06-15 p4l31-36, p4l40-42; p6l5-9; p37l3-4; p37l34-36; p38l1-4.

However, Capuano admitted in her testimony, she "had full control over visitation and determining that visitation" TR 2017-06-15 p2l29-30.

Also, the minute entries from the July 2014 family court hearing show I voluntarily waived all parental rights minute entry, dated 2014-07-21, and Capuano was, therefore, no longer required to allow ANY visitation or communication between myself and Gabriel.

After admitting she had "full control over visitation" Capuano continued to testify she was required, under court order, to communicate with me and to allow Gabriel to visit me.

I had discussed Capuano's false claims that she was required, under court order, to communicate with me and to allow Gabriel to visit me, with both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre prior to trial because Capuano had also falsely stated such in her RCMP interviews. Also, Capuano stated in her RCMP interviews that I had waived all parental rights in the family court order in July 2014, giving her sole authority in all matters pertaining to Gabriel from that point forward. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew, at the time of Capuano's testimony, that her repeated claim of being required, under court order, to communicate with me and to allow Gabriel to visit was false.

Mr. Lagemaat failed or refused to confront or to cross-examine Capuano with the proof that her testimony was false. Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

5.

Capuano falsely testified I published pictures of her son, Sage, in his underwear, and that she did not publish the pictures to Facebook TR 2017-06-13 p22l9-17.

Mr. Myhre had moved on from talking about the pictures of Sage without referencing the pictures of Sage in his underwear TR 2017-06-13 p22l7-8.

But Capuano expressly remained on the topic of the pictures of Sage and explicitly emphasized the pictures of him in his underwear TR 2017-06-13 p22l9-10.

Capuano was also very deliberate to point out that she did not publish those pictures to Facebook TR 2017-06-13 p22l16-17.

The above referenced testimony immediately followed very emotional testimony by Capuano about how Sage has been harmed by being on the website; how it wasn't fair to Sage because he's a 12 year old child and has done nothing to deserve these attacks by me; and about how any pedophile could find him on the website. Capuano also repeatedly testified she did not publish any of those pictures on Facebook TR 2017-06-13 p20l13-p21l22.

However, it was actually Capuano who did publish the pictures of Sage in his underwear, on her public Facebook profile in 2009. Capuano then left those pictures on her public profile for seven years, until she made her Facebook profile non-public in February 2016, after the CBC story ran (see also, the televised segment).

In February 2016, after I was interviewed by CBC, but before they ran the story, I made a copy of Capuano's public Facebook profile which I later posted to the website. The copy of Capuano's Facebook Timeline, which I put on the website, proves it was actually Capuano who published the pictures of Sage in his underwear, not me.

As soon as I spoke with Mr. Lagemaat, following Capuano's false testimony about the pictures of Sage in his underwear, I told Mr. Lagemaat Capuano was lying and informed him of the copy of her Facebook Timeline on the website, which would prove she's lying. Mr. Lagemaat acknowledged he was aware of and had seen the Facebook Timeline. Nevertheless, Mr. Lagemaat refused to cross-examine Capuano on the pictures of Sage in his underwear, or to confront her with the proof she had perjured herself regarding publishing the pictures.

Following Capuano's testimony regarding the pictures of Sage in he underwear, I had also informed Mr. Myrhe that Capuano had perjured herself, and I informed him of the Facebook Timeline on the website. Mr. Myhre stated he was aware of the Facebook Timeline.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

I also brought up this issue during my sentencing submissions, and a printout of Capuano's Facebook Timeline, showing the pictures of Sage in his underwear, having been published by Capuano in September 2009 was admitted as Exhibit 3.

When I confronted Mr. Myhre about this issue he insisted he was under no ethical obligation to inform the court of his witness committing perjury.

6.

Capuano falsely testified she wrote specific emails, upon which the allegations are based, but the emails were actually written by a third party 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.

In addition to the above emails in which Mr. Lagemaat directly and explicitly asked Capuano whether she wrote them and she explicitly and directly testified she did, in the following instances, Mr. Lagemaat either failed to directly ask Capuano whether she wrote the emails in question or he asked her and she failed to directly state she did write them. Nevertheless, Capuano's implication was that she had written the emails in question TR 2017-06-14 p20l39-42 (re p20l46-p21l3); p21l10-12 (re p21l15-20); p23l13-16 (re p23l19-33); p39l23-28 (re p39l33-p40l17); p64l38-41 (re p64l44-p65l4).

I told Mr. Lagemaat, prior to trial, that certain email conversations which the Crown was relying on were not actually composed by Capuano. Mr. Lagemaat replied he was aware of that; that it was obvious to him by the differences in writing style, grammar, vocabulary, brevity.

Near the end of Mr. Lagemaat's cross-examination, Mr. Lagemaat told me Mr. Myhre had told him that before the start of the trial Capuano had told Mr. Myhre that she did not write some of the emails in the Crown's book of evidence which purported to be from her.

By Mr. Lagemaat's and Mr. Myhre's own admissions they knew Capuano did not write certain specific emails which both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had offered into evidence as being emails written by Capuano. Neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre took steps to prevent Capuano from committing perjury by testifying that she wrote the emails; nor did they notify the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

When Mr. Myhre first questioned Capuano about the email thread with the subject "Gabriel's summer visitation 2015" email dated 2015-05-11 he asked her whether she "participated in" the email string, rather than asking her whether she wrote any of the specific emails in the thread or whether my responses were to emails actually written by her. I believe Mr. Myhre phrased the question in that way because he knew most of the emails had not been written by Capuano TR 2017-06-13 p32l20-21.

7.

Capuano falsely testified she never threatened me or threatened to destroy my life TR 2017-06-14 p60l6-14.

Capuano was very emotional when she testified to that effect.

I directed Mr. Lagemaat to numerous emails from Capuano to me from November 2011 through December 2013, wherein she and her fiance, Kristopher Lauchner, openly and repeatedly threatened me with physical harm; to take steps to have me arrested, detained and if possible deported from the US based on Capuano's false allegations; to file frivolous criminal charges against me; and to "publicly expose me" (which I understood to mean, and which Capuano later testified in the family court meant, to "publicly defame me" in the news media).

Mr. Lagemaat acknowledged he was already familiar with all of those emails. That being the case, Mr. Lagemaat must have known Capuano's testimony was false at the time she stated it.

I requested Mr. Lagemaat confront Capuano with the numerous emails wherein she and her fiance repeatedly threatened me. Mr. Lagemaat failed to do so.

Almost all of the threatening emails from Capuano and her fiance occurred prior to me being deported to Canada. At the time Capuano sent most of the threatening emails I was still living in Los Angeles; raising Gabriel with no assistance from Capuano; and struggling to secure stable employment after spending four years in DHS custody. Capuano was unquestionably in a superior position, financially and otherwise.

I believe it was critical to cross-examine Capuano on the emails where she threatened me because it would have shown the jury that Capuano was more often the one trying to intimidate and control me; that Capuano was the one who initiated any and all hostilities; that Capuano had been acting that way toward me long before I began retaliating in 2014 - AFTER I was deported and lost custody of Gabriel as a direct result of her filing false reports with DHS against me.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the many threatening emails from Capuano. Therefore, they knew at the time of her testimony that she was committing perjury. But both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

I also brought this issue up during my sentencing submissions, and the court did agree the emails contained clearly threatening content. The emails were admitted as exhibits at sentencing.

8.

Capuano falsely testified the California family court ordered her to return Gabriel to me, in November 2011, without having heard from her TR 2017-06-12 p37l39-43.

Capuano was, in fact, present at that hearing, by telephone, and addressed the court at length. The court rendered its ruling, ordering Capuano to return Gabriel to my care, AFTER hearing from both of us LASC Minute Entry dated 2011-11-08.

The minute entries from the hearing, which were on the website, prove Capuano's testimony was false. Also, later on cross-examination, Capuano admitted to participating in that hearing TR 2017-06-15 p48l41-p50l3.

Also, Capuano's emails from the days following that hearing show that she was present for the hearing and did address the court email dated 2011-11-08; email dated 2011-11-09.

Since the minute entries from the family court, and Capuano's emails, were on the website then both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of them. Therefore, they must have known at the time of Capuano's testimony that she was committing perjury. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

9.

Capuano falsely testified she had been "okay with the custody arrangement" imposed at the November 2011 hearing (though, actually, the hearing in question occurred in December 2011), because it was what Gabriel wanted TR 2017-06-12 p38l5-7.

However, on September 15, 2011, while Capuano was holding Gabriel in Arizona under a temporary emergency custody order she obtained on false pretenses, Gabriel told Capuano, while on a conference call between me, Gabriel and Capuano, that he wanted to live with me and visit her on his school breaks. Capuano's immediate response, in mine and Gabriel's presence , was to accede; but immediately the following morning Capuano appeared in court in Arizona, requesting an order of protection against me to prohibit me from having any further contact with her and Gabriel application for order of protection, dated 2011-09-16. Therein, Capuano testified that she believed I was a danger to both her and Gabriel, and she listed Gabriel as a protected party. The request for order of protection was denied by the court order, dated 2011-09-16.

The Arizona family court documents were publicly accessible on the website.

Following Capuano's false testimony, I informed Mr. Lagemaat of my conference call with Gabriel and Capuano and how she had reacted. I informed Mr. Lagemaat of the application for the order of protection and that a copy was on the website. Mr. Lagemaat failed to confront Capuano about the conference call or about her attempting to obtain an order of protection in response to Gabriel saying he wanted to live with me.

10.

Capuano falsely testified many of the emails from me in 2011 and 2012 were "demanding, ordering, threatening, insulting, mean, hostile and aggressive" TR 2017-06-12 p45l42-46.

The very emails to which Capuano was referring, which were on the website, prove this is false. In fact, Capuano was the one consistently initiating hostilities, threats, insults, et cetera. Most of my emails prior to 2014 were civil, helpful, and I frequently went out of my way to be accommodating. For example:

I believe the Crown soliciting this negative and false characterization of the emails from 2011 and 2012 gave them direct relevance for Mr. Lagemaat to cross-examine Capuano on them. I further believe that by not confronting Capuano with the proof her statement was false Mr. Lagemaat left the jury with the impression it was true.

Since both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had reviewed every email thread on the website then they both new at the time of her testimony that Capuano's statement was perjurious. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

11.

Capuano falsely testified I CC'd or included Gabriel on "most" and on "almost every" email I sent her TR 2017-06-12 p48l9-10; TR 2017-06-13 p24l44-45; TR 2017-06-14 p65l24-26; p67l37-40.

The emails Mr. Myhre printed for me, which I provided to Mr. Lagemaat, included the CC and BCC headers, so they prove these statements were false. In fact, out of the 1095 emails I had sent Capuano between September 2011 and May 2016, I had only CC'd Gabriel on 122 of them, and about half of those were conversations which Gabriel was part of (e.g. visitation scheduling); Capuano had also CC'd Gabriel on 38 of the 603 emails she had sent me over that time.

Since both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre received a copy of the emails printed for me by Mr. Myhre they knew at the time of Capuano's testimony that each time she made this claim she was committing perjury. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

12.

Capuano falsely testified she was scared as a result of my email with the subject "Last attempt at an amicable resolution", dated 2013-07-21 TR 2017-06-12 p52l32-37.

Capuano's own responses to that email prove she was not scared, in fact Capuano's own words in her response, dated 2013-07-21 were:

...do what you need to do. I am not scared and I have nothing to hide.
email dated 2013-07-21

Then, in another response a day later, Capuano wrote:

I no longer care. Take it back to court - I am not scared and I have nothing to hide.
email dated 2013-07-22

In addition to proving Capuano's claim of being scared by my email was perjurious, her responses in her emails also provided explicit authorization, in writing, for me to do exactly what I did with the website, which forms much of the basis of the allegations of criminal harassment. Prior to trial I had repeatedly raised this issue with both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre, insisting it cannot be considered harassment if I am merely doing exactly what Capuano had explicitly authorized me to do, saying she "didn't care", and she's "not scared" and she "has nothing to hide".

I insisted Mr. Lagemaat confront Capuano with her responses. He did not do so.

Since both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had reviewed Capuano's emails before trial they must have known at the time of her testimony that her statement was false - particularly since the email where she says she is not scared and has nothing to hide was included in the Crown's book of exhibits. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

Although the emails from Capuano, admitting she is not scared and she has nothing to hide were included in the Crown's book, they were, unfortunately, buried amongst the other emails in that thread and, I believe, would have been easily missed by the jurors unless explicitly brought to their attention, for example through cross-examination.

13.

Capuano falsely testified that when she wrote the email with the subject "Cease and desist", on 2014-04-28, she was fearful for herself and her son TR 2017-06-12 p56l23-43.

However, a Phoenix Police report from 2014-04-18; RCMP reports from April, June and July 2015; and Sahuarita Police reports from July 2015 through January 2016; all of which were on the website, show that Capuano never, during that time - from April 2014 through January 2016 - expressed any fear for her safety. Moreover, documents obtained since the trial, from agencies including Global Affairs Canada, prove that as far back as November 2011, Capuano has consistently and repeatedly been describing me to others as a "coward" and stating she does not believe I would harm her.

The above referenced police reports were publicly accessible on the website, so both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known about them at the time of Capuano's testimony. Nevertheless, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

14.

Capuano falsely testified Steve Riess is my father TR 2017-06-12 p58l10-13; TR 2017-06-14 p26l26.

As far back as 2011, and possibly even earlier, Capuano has periodically insisted my father is a man named Steve Riess from Ontario, and that I was born Ricky Riess in Ontario. Capuano's assertions to this effect usually occur in conjunction with her alleging I am not a US citizen, that I was living illegally in the US, and that I am not permitted to enter the US.

However, in January 2015, Capuano admitted in an email that she had sent my photo to Steve Riess and he was unable to identify me as his son. Capuano conceded in that email that Steve Riess is not my father email dated 2015-01-28.

Documents obtained since the trial, from CBSA and IRCC FOSS; GCMS records, show that the Canadian government acknowledges I was not born in Canada and am, therefore, not a Canadian citizen, further proving I am not Ricky Riess from Ontario and, therefore, Steve Riess cannot be my father.

Moreover, Ricky Riess from Ontario had been arrested in Toronto in the early 1990s. The mugshot and fingerprints from that arrest Toronto Police Mugshot Form do not match mine. The RCMP and the Crown have had access to that booking information since before the current charges had been filed. I also told Mr. Lagemaat about the fact that those fingerprints and mugshot prove I am not that person and, therefore, Steve Riess cannot be my father.

Also, numerous emails between US DHS, CBSA, and the RCMP email dated 2016-06-02; email dated 2016-06-15, which were known to Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre prior to trial, show those agencies acknowledging I am not a Canadian citizen and, therefore, cannot be the person who was born Ricky Riess, son of Steve Riess, in Ontario.

Capuano had stated, repeatedly, in her RCMP interviews that Steve Riess is my father, and that Mr. Riess is willing to do a DNA test to prove that. Prior to trial I told Mr. Myhre that I, too, would very much like to participated in a DNA test, to prove once and for all, whether Steve Riess is my father - with the one condition that the verifiable results be provided to me so I may publish them. Mr. Myhre responded "That's not going to happen."

I had discussed the circumstances of my place of birth and citizenship, at length, with Mr. Lagemaat, Mr. Myhre, and the RCMP, prior to trial.

Given all of the foregoing facts and evidence, which were all known to Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre prior to trial, then they must have known at the time Capuano testified that she was committing perjury by testifying that my father is Steve Riess. Nevertheless, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

15.

Capuano falsely testified she "certainly never contacted anyone" regarding me TR 2017-06-12 p58l24-28.

However, in numerous emails in 2012 Capuano claimed to have contacted my associates, rabbi, father, ICE, and the FBI rabbi: email dated 2015-01-12; ICE/FBI: email dated 2012-01-20; email dated 2012-10-05; my family: email dated 2012-04-01. And, in an email in February 2013 Capuano said she is going to contact "the Jewish community" to tell them Gabriel and I are not Jewish email dated 2013-05-06 so they would not help me in my legal challenges.

Moreover, in her own testimony Capuano admitted to contacting the person she claims to believe to be my father TR 2017-06-12 p58l12-15.

And in her RCMP interviews Capuano also stated she had contacted the person she believed to be my father and spoke with him at some length. By Capuano's descriptions to the RCMP, her conversations with my supposed father were decidedly conspiratorial and adversarial against me.

Further, documents obtained since the trial, from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada contain Case Notes from the Canadian Consulate in Los Angeles which detail a phone call they received from Capuano on November 1, 2011, wherein Capuano falsely accused me of numerous offences; she attempted to instigate an investigation which could lead to my arrest, detention and deportation; and admits to also taking similar steps with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Canadian Consulate case note. That call occurred BEFORE the California family court ordered Capuano to return Gabriel to me; BEFORE all the emails between Capuano and I; and years BEFORE the website was created. Although that document may not have been known to Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre at the time of Capuano's testimony, it nevertheless proves two critical points: 1) Capuano was committing perjury; and 2) Capuano began her attacks on me and her attempts to ruin my life long before any of my alleged attacks on her.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the emails and the RCMP interviews where Capuano admitted to contacting third parties about me, before trial. Therefore, they must have known when Capuano testified she "certainly never contacted anyone", she was lying. But neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre confronted Capuano with the evidence she was lying, or took steps to inform the court or the jury they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

16.

Capuano falsely testified that as of July 2014 she had not attempted to prevent communication or visitation between me and Gabriel TR 2017-06-12 p59l21-26.

However, on at least two occasions prior to July 2014 Capuano had formally sought an order in the family court prohibiting all contact between me and Gabriel. The first time was in September 2011, while she had abducted Gabriel to Arizona - Capuano had attempted to obtain an order of protection against me, naming herself and Gabriel as the protected parties application for order of protection. The second time was in January 2013, while I was in ICE custody as a direct result of Capuano filing a false report against me with them - Capuano had explicitly requested the California family court issue an order prohibiting all contact between me and Gabriel application for no-contact order.

The documents filed by Capuano, with the Arizona and the California family courts prove she did seek to prohibit all contact on both occasions. The family court documents were on the website, so both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of them at the time of Capuano's testimony.

There were other instances of Capuano deliberately interfering with, or prohibiting my contact with Gabriel, however it cannot be proven beyond a doubt that Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of them at the time of Capuano's testimony.

Although Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was committing perjury, neither of them attempted to inform the court or the jury of such.

17.

Capuano falsely testified I abruptly and without notice simply assumed the identity "Patrick Fox" TR 2017-06-12 p61l9-13.

And Capuano further falsely testified there was nothing linking the name Patrick Fox to my past TR 2017-06-12 p61l20-23.

However, by her own admissions, in her RCMP interview on 2016-07-13, Capuano stated I testified in the California family court in 2012 (though it was actually at the December 2011 hearing) that my birth name was Patrick Fox Capuano interview, ¶470.

Also, as soon as I reverted to using the name Patrick Fox, in 2014, I promptly informed Capuano and, upon request, I provided her copies of my government issued identification. I was completely open, honest and forthright with Capuano, at all times, regarding my name and identity. [Desiree even acknowledged it in an email thread she initiated on 2014-05-27 email dated 2014-05-27]

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had the transcript and the audio recording of the 2016-07-13 RCMP interview referenced above. In addition, Mr. Lagemaat also had my annotations to that interview. And both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had the emails where I informed Capuano that I would no longer be using the name Richard Riess; that I have returned to using my birth name, Patrick Fox; and where I provided her copies of my ID. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have know that Capuano was committing perjury when she testified. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

Further on this issue, I believe Capuano is deliberately pretending to confuse the issue of my name and identity.

18.

Capuano falsely testified she obtained her medical marijuana card in 2012 TR 2017-06-12 p65l42-43.

However, the actual card, the applications, and the supporting documents were on the website. They clearly show Capuano applied for the card immediately following her arrest for marijuana possession at the end of September 2011, and obtained the card in mid-November 2011.

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the medical marijuana card and application on the website. So they must have known Capuano's statement was false at the time she made it. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was providing false testimony.

19.

Capuano falsely testified Apollo Group's legal department was working with GoDaddy to have the website taken down TR 2017-06-12 p71l35-39.

However, the email dated 2014-07-30, from me to "abuse@godaddy.com", with Capuano CC'd, shows that the complaint was actually filed from the Capuano's personal Gmail email address (i.e. desiree.capuano@gmail.com) email dated 2014-07-30. Also, the emails show the complaint pertained ONLY to sending unsolicited emails from the DNS domain hosted by GoDaddy - the complaint had absolutely nothing to do with the website.

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of that email thread at the time if Capuano's testimony. They knew Capuano alone was the only participant in the complaint and that the complaint had nothing to do with the website. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying, yet they both refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying.

20.

Capuano falsely testified she filed a complaint with the Phoenix Police about the website TR 2017-06-12 p71l46-p72l10.

However, the Phoenix Police report of that complaint, which was on the website, proves Capuano was only complaining about me emailing her associates, not about the website.

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew about that police report at the time of Capuano's testimony. Therefore, they must have known she was committing perjury. Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

21.

Capuano falsely testified that as of 2014-12-17 she did not know that I had guns in Canada TR 2017-06-12 p75l32-33.

Capuano testified that prior to receiving the email with the subject "The ugly proof" on 2014-12-17, she did not know I had guns.

However, I had informed Capuano, prior to that point, that I had gotten Gabriel a Mauser K98 rifle email dated 2014-11-08.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew about the 2014-11-08 email wherein I informed Capuano of the Mauser. Therefore, they must have known she was committing perjury when she made this statement. Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

22.

Capuano falsely testified there were durations of time when she had ignored my emails and didn't respond TR 2017-06-13 p10l17-19; TR 2017-06-14 p51l19-28; p65l21-26; p66l22-27; p66l32-34; TR 2017-06-15 p5l9-12; p5l41-47; p6l24.

However, the email history and, in particular, the main email page of the website (included at Tab 8 of the Crown's book of exhibits) show there was never a period when Capuano ignored my emails and didn't respond.

In March and April 2014 Capuano did not respond to my emails but, by her own admission in her testimony, it was not because she was "ignoring" them or "trying a different tactic", it was because she had just discovered I had published all of her emails and she "did not want to give me anything else that I could use against her" TR 2017-06-12 p67l33-39.

I believe that would seem to be an acknowledgement by Capuano that her conduct in her emails was inappropriate and offensive.

23.

Capuano falsely testified, repeatedly, that prior to the period of the emails which were being presented to the jury, that is, prior to 2014, I was frequently and consistently verbally abusive and that prior to January 2015 she had passively accepted that abuse without reciprocating TR 2017-06-13 p10l29-35; p15l16-21; p15l38-42; p35l2-7; TR 2017-06-14 p8l20-23, p8l29-32; p24l8-14; p29l39-42; p38l33-40; p43l46-p44l4; p51l29-39; p52l18-21; p52l41-p53l2; p65l21-26; p66l22-27, p66l32-37; TR 2017-06-15 p5l47-p6l24; p35l30-43; p36l11-12, p36l18-20; p36l39-41.

However, those claims are entirely contrary to the actual emails between Capuano and myself from 2011 through 2013, as is proven from the following few email conversations during that time:

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of all of the emails from 2011 through 2013. They knew most of those email conversations began with me attempting to discuss a legitimate subject pertaining to Gabriel, then Capuano becoming belligerent and insulting for no apparent reason. I clearly expressed my desire, in open court, for Capuano to be cross-examined on many of those emails, prior to trial.

In spite of the foregoing, Mr. Lagemaat refused to cross-examine Capuano on ANY of the emails from 2011 through 2013.

Although both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the content of all of the emails prior to 2014, and therefore knew Capuano had committed perjury each of the 18 times she repeated this claim, neither of them made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

In addition to proving Capuano was perjuring herself with this claim, I believe cross-examining her on the emails from 2011 through 2013 would also have proven that the truth of the matter is that Capuano was the one attacking and insulting me for years, and I was the one passively tolerating it, and going out of my way to help and accommodate her; and that it was not until 2014, AFTER she had me deported and took away my child, that I began fighting back. But Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre insisted against presenting any of that to the jury. However, many of those emails were submitted by me at sentencing.

24.

Capuano falsely testified she questioned my ability to "rationalize what's right and what's not", and that she believed I would "absolutely" shoot her TR 2017-06-13 p13l6-12.

Capuano testified to that regarding the email wherein I mentioned that Gabriel had asked me if I would shoot her, which she received on January 11, 2015. However, the later Sahuarita Police reports; and Capuano's testimony at the order of protection hearing, in December 2015, show she did not express any concern about my psychological stability; my ability to rationalize or to distinguish between right and wrong; my morals; values or beliefs; my ownership of firearms; or her safety from me.

Capuano did not start claiming to believe I was "scary" or psychologically unstable, and to fear for her safety until after she spoke with CBC News in January 2016 - a year after receiving and responding to that email.

Prior to speaking with CBC Capuano repeatedly stated she believed I was too much of a coward to physically harm her. That very statement is documented in numerous police reports/interviews, Canadian Consulate case notes, news media interviews, and family court documents.

In her 2015-07-19 RCMP interview, at the end of paragraph 6, Capuano stated "And so he won't physically shoot me" RCMP interview, ¶6. In that interview, Constable Dupont asked Capuano if she feared for her safety, and she repeatedly qualified her response as "...IF he had nothing to lose…" and "...IF he could not get caught…" RCMP interview, ¶36. At paragraph 40, Capuano said "...the only physical threat he has made is that he would shoot me IF he could get away with it" RCMP interview, ¶40 I believe this shows Capuano wasn't sincerely afraid for her safety and didn't truly consider the content of that email threatening. Capuano continuously escalated her claims after that because she wasn't receiving the response she desired. It should also be noted, Capuano was misrepresenting what I had said in that email - I did not say I would shoot her, under ANY circumstances other than in self defense.

Throughout her testimony Capuano repeatedly claimed, falsely, to be afraid for her safety due to my statement in that email which she claims was an expression of my desire to shoot her TR 2017-06-15 p2l30-32; p5l15-24; p5l32-37; p35l44-46; p36l13-18.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of Capuano's statements in her RCMP interviews, her testimony at the order of protection hearing, and her statement to the Sahuarita Police. All of that material was on the website. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had seen that Capuano's claims with respect to that email had become more extreme each time her claims did not result in adverse consequences for me. And, that Capuano continued to exaggerate and escalate her claims until she reached the point of going on international news, claiming I said publicly, on the Internet, that I intend to murder her and that the courts and the police have been doing nothing to help or protect her.

25.

Capuano falsely testified that I obtained the pictures I published on the website, from a "camera roll" option "accessible through Facebook", and that she hadn't "posted" the photos to Facebook TR 2017-06-13 p20l17-19.

However, there is no such thing as a "camera roll" on Facebook. There is a "camera roll" feature in Apple iCloud and on Apple devices, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Facebook, and could not have been accessible to me.

And with respect to Capuano's claim she hadn't posted the photos to Facebook, the copy of her public Facebook profile which I put on the website Desiree's Facebook Timeline proves she DID post them to her public Facebook profile.

Having admitted to reviewing the entire website, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have seen the copy of Capuano's Facebook profile, including her numerous photo albums. And that being the case, they must have known she was perjuring herself when she testified she hadn't posted the pictures to Facebook. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

26.

Capuano falsely testified the pictures and information about Sage on the website "scared her so much"; that any pedophile or person who wanted to harm Sage could easily find him TR 2017-06-13 p20l34-35, p20l6-22.

Capuano's testimony was very emotional.

However, as I pointed out to both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre, Capuano never once requested I remove Sage from the website; there is not a single email from Capuano, or anyone acting on Capuano's behalf, expressing any concern about Sage being on the website. Capuano went as far as hiring a lawyer to try to get me to take down the blog post about her trying to induce a miscarriage when she was pregnant with Gabriel, but even then, not a single mention of Sage.

On the other hand, Capuano has repeatedly used Sage being on the website to exploit people's compassion and pity. I believe this shows that Capuano is more interested in how she can use her children for her own benefit, than in the safety and well-being of her children.

I believe Capuano's emotional performance on this topic was just an act to manipulate the jurors.

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying about being scared for Sage as a result of his picture and information being on the website, by her refusal to even request Sage be removed from the site. Yet Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying.

And, if nothing else, I believe Mr. Lagemaat should have, at least, cross-examined Capuano on why, if she was so scared for Sage and felt so bad for him, she did not even send me an email requesting I remove him from the website.

27.

Capuano falsely testified James Pendleton had filed a complaint about the website with the web hosting provider TR 2017-06-13 p60l39-41; p63l2-4.

However, Pendleton's complaint about the website was to the DNS domain registrar, Web.com, not to the web hosting provider. The domain registration has absolutely nothing to do with the website or with the hosting of the website. Nor would it have had any authority or ability to take any action related to the website.

Both Pendleton and Capuano work in advanced fields of computer technology (Software Engineer and Systems Analyst, respectively). The difference between a website and it's hosting, and a DNS domain and it's hosting is very elementary and, as such, both Pendleton and Capuano must have known.

The email from Web.com, at Tab 16 of the Crown's book, proves Capuano's statement is false email dated 2015-08-16.

This is a significant instance of perjury because it gave the jury the impression Capuano had actually taken reasonable steps to try to get the website taken down, however, in reality she and Pendleton had knowingly filed a complaint with the wrong service provider. And, I believe Capuano's and Pendleton's failure to then file a complaint with the correct service provider, the web hosting provider, shows that they were not really concerned about the website.

I had discussed these issues, at length, with both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre prior to trial. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano's statement was perjurious. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

28.

Capuano falsely testified there were multiple complaints made to GoDaddy about the website TR 2017-06-13 p63l5-7.

However, there was only one complaint filed with GoDaddy, and only about using the DNS domain at issue in this matter (i.e. desireeccapuano.com) to send unsolicited emails email dated 2014-07-30 - NOT about the website.

The email from GoDaddy proves this.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the email from GoDaddy prior to trial, so they must have known Capuano's statement was perjurious. But both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

29.

Capuano falsely testified she "interacted with Detective Tuchfarber" about the website TR 2017-06-13 p63l8-11.

In fact, however, Capuano's complaint to the Phoenix Police was only about me sending unsolicited emails to her associates, not about the website. This is proven by the Phoenix Police report which was on the website. Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the Phoenix Police report on the website. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was lying when she testified. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

30.

Capuano falsely testified that when she filed the "uttering threats" complaint in April 2015, she informed the RCMP that I was crossing the border using a fake identity from Florida; that my identity of Patrick Fox was not real; and asked them to explain how I was able to obtain a PAL TR 2017-06-13 p63l21-26.

However, the RCMP report of Capuano's complaint RCMP report, dated 2015-04-10, shows that none of what Capuano stated in her testimony actually occurred.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had a copy of all of the RCMP reports prior to trial, so they must have known Capuano's statements were false. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

31.

Capuano falsely testified she started contacting the news media in the Spring of 2016 TR 2017-06-13 p64l13-15; p66l8-12.

The proof that these statements are false is self-evident. Capuano contacted CBC in January 2016; the CBC story ran and was aired on February 18, 2016 B.C. man Patrick Fox aims to 'destroy' ex-wife with revenge website. Spring did not begin until March 20, 2016.

Capuano's false statement gave the jury the mistaken impression I was arrested within two months of her first contacting the news media.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew the CBC story ran on February 18, 2016 and that Capuano had been in contact with them since, at least, late January. Therefore, they both knew Capuano was committing perjury when she testified she had not even started contacting the media until Spring of 2016 - which would have meant some time after March 20, 2016. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

32.

Capuano falsely testified there was an appeal of the order of protection "at the municipal level" TR 2017-06-13 p65l29-30.

However, there was only one appeal of the order of protection, and it was in the Pima County Superior Court. The court upheld the order because I failed to appear for the oral arguments hearing due to being in DHS custody.

Capuano's false statement gave the impression multiple courts had reviewed the order of protection and upheld it based on the merits. Which was entirely false.

This is proven by the court documents for the order of protection proceedings which were on the website.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the court documents on the website. Therefore, they must have known at the time of Capuano's testimony that her statement was perjurious. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

33.

Capuano falsely testified I added the disclaimers about the website content not being written by herself and James Pendleton after the news media coverage in early 2016 TR 2017-06-13 p66l39-42.

The copies of the pages from the website, printed by the RCMP at the time of the July 2015 arrest prove this is false. The disclaimer was always present at the footer of each page on the website cached copy of website prior to news coverage.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of and had seen the pages printed from the website in July 2015. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was perjuring herself when she testified regarding the disclaimers on the website. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

34.

Capuano falsely testified she had concerns for her physical safety from January 2015 through May 2016 TR 2017-06-13 p68l11-14.

However, the Sahuarita Police reports; the RCMP reports for the July 2015 arrest; Capuano's statements at the order of protection hearing in December 2015; Capuano's sworn statement in support of the order of protection in July 2015; Capuano's statements on the Aaron Rand radio show in February 2016; all prove she was not afraid for her safety.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of and had full access to all of the artefacts listed above, so they must have known Capuano was lying. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was not being truthful in her testimony.

35.

Capuano falsely testified most of the emails I sent her were not about Gabriel TR 2017-06-14 p13l25-27.

The collection of emails on the website proves this was false. The main email page on the website shows that of approximately 390 email conversations started by me, at least 275 were about Gabriel and less than 115 were not related to Gabriel. And of the conversations which were not related to Gabriel, some pertained to legal proceedings for mine and Capuano's divorce; some were responses to allegations or claims Capuano had made against me; some were requests for information or for confirmation of matters relevant to our legal proceedings. And of those remaining, the few which might, arguably, be considered insulting or provocative all occurred AFTER January 2014.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had reviewed all of the emails between Capuano and myself and, as such, they must have known at the time of Capuano's testimony that she was perjuring herself. Yet both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that Capuano's testimony was false. Moreover, Mr. Lagemaat refused to confront Capuano with the proof she was lying by cross-examining her on the emails prior to January 2014.

36.

Capuano falsely testified I had used "four or five different names" TR 2017-06-14 p18l11-12.

There is no record or evidence of me ever using any names other than "Richard Riess" and "Patrick Fox". And I've been completely forthright about "Patrick Fox" being my birth/legal name and "Richard Riess" being the name I assumed/adopted in the early 1990s, and which I changed my name to under California common law California Common Law Name Change legal opinion, Attorney General, see also commonlaw.name/california.html.

Throughout her testimony, Capuano made repeated allusions to me using "so many" fake names and fake identities, typically for deceitful purposes TR 2017-06-12 p60l8-10; p61l12-23; p75l45-p76l5; TR 2017-06-13 p5l11-26; p63l21-26; p68l20-25; TR 2017-06-14 p26l16-20; p29l27-30; p36l13-16; p40l24-30; p42l13-18; TR 2017-06-15 p14l17-18; p16l7-8; p30l17-18.

I notified Capuano as soon as I reverted to using my birth name of "Patrick Fox"; and I, obviously, knew she would inform DHS immediately; obviously I was not trying to hide anything or deceive anyone.

Capuano's repeated comments about me having and using so many fake names and identities may have given the jury the mistaken impression I was of bad or questionable character. I believe Mr. Lagemaat should have confronted Capuano on her claims, to show the jury it simply wasn't true. That could also have shown the jury that Capuano was simply refusing to accept the reality that my real, legal, birth name is Patrick Fox.

37.

Capuano falsely testified she was "trying to remove Gabriel" from the email chain with the subject "Your loving home and parental teaching and guidance" TR 2017-06-14 p19l47.

However, in that email chain, there are 26 messages – 17 from me; 9 from Capuano – and Capuano included Gabriel in every one of her emails. There were no emails from Capuano, in that chain, where she did not include Gabriel. At the same time, there were 3 emails in that chain in which I did not include Gabriel.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had access to all of the emails between myself and Capuano, including the list of "CC" and "BCC" recipients. Therefore, they could easily have looked at any given email message to determine whether or not Gabriel had been included as a recipient. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was giving false testimony. Moreover, Mr. Lagemaat made no attempt to cross-examine or confront Capuano with the proof that her statement was false.

38.

Capuano falsely testified I "lied about everything" TR 2017-06-14 p48l41.

However, each topic Capuano has claimed I lied about, either I have been able to provide proof I was actually telling the truth; Capuano feigned to misunderstand or did not fully or correctly read/hear what I wrote/said; or Capuano added her own incorrect inferences to my statements. This is repeatedly and extensively proven in many of the email conversations between Capuano and myself.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had received Capuano's statements to the RCMP and the emails between Capuano and me, prior to trial. They had both seen the evidence proving that every statement I had made which Capuano insists was a lie was, in fact, true. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was committing perjury when she testified I lied about everything. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

39.

Capuano falsely testified that throughout 2011 - 2014, she did not engage me, yet I still kept "escalating" TR 2017-06-14 p51l27-28.

The emails from that time show that any escalation, whether of hostilities or retaliation, almost always occurred by Capuano; and when Capuano didn't respond with hostility, insults, or false accusations I never escalated anything. The emails also show that Capuano almost exclusively only responded to my emails when she mistook my statements as being unjustly accusatory, insulting, or confrontational - though that was almost always her own erroneous inferences.

I believe Capuano considers my creating the website and publishing the proof of her offensive conduct and her lies an "escalation", however the website was created in response to Capuano consistently getting away with lying in the family court; convincing people she has not done any of the offensive conduct the evidence on the website has been able to prove she HAS done; and exploiting people's compassion and decency through lies and false shows of emotion. I do not believe the website was an "escalation" at all - it was a reasonable and very withheld reaction to years of being harmed by Capuano's lies, manipulation, and cheating.

On the other hand, I believe Capuano repeatedly escalated matters, unprovoked, when she, for example: abducted Gabriel and took him to Arizona in August 2011; repeatedly took deliberate steps over a year and a half to have me arrested, detained, and deported from the US based on false allegations; deliberately created a situation (my deportation) which caused me to lose custody of my son, whom I had raised with no involvement from Capuano for nine years, and extremely limited my contact and involvement in my son's life due to him and I being forced to live in different countries; going on international news media, making false allegations about me; and falsely testifying, extensively, at the trial in this matter to get me convicted of a crime which, it should be obvious, was not committed, and then sentenced to three years in prison based on that false testimony.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had reviewed all of the emails between Capuano and myself. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was lying when she testified that I "kept escalating". Moreover, I have been very forthcoming, both before and after trial, with Mr. Lagemaat, Mr. Myhre, and the court about my belief that all I have ever done has been in response to Capuano's actions against me and Gabriel; and that if the entirety of the evidence, starting from 2011, not just the subset of evidence starting from 2014 - AFTER Capuano had already taken everything away from me and had me exiled to a foreign country with, literally, nothing but the clothes in my back - were presented to the jury then they would not have come to the conclusion that I engaged in misconduct, that Capuano was harassed, that Capuano had any fear for her safety, or that anything Capuano said could be believed. Yet, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to present any of that evidence which would have the shown the jury that it was consistently Capuano who escalated things and I who consistently had to react to those escalations.

And having reviewed every email and having repeatedly heard my perspective that Capuano has always been the one initiating and escalating hostilities and I have been the one reacting and retaliating to her acts, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying when she testified that I kept escalating. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying.

40.

Capuano falsely testified I had filed, in the family court, to have all her visitation and communication with Gabriel revoked TR 2017-06-14 p52l4-8.

The family court documents, on the website, show this is false Order to Show Cause; Declaration. In November 2012 I had only requested supervised visitation until the next scheduled hearing (four months away), and that was only because of Capuano's fiance's, Kristopher Lauchner, recent arrest; the police executing a search warrant on Capuano's home and finding a stolen assault rifle and crystal methamphetamine in the home; and Capuano's consistent history of trying to conceal and lying about the drug use and criminal activity going on in her home.

The family court documents on the website show there was never any other time I had sought to restrict or limit Capuano's access to Gabriel and that, in fact, I had repeatedly and consistently gone out of my way to assist and accommodate her.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had full access to all of the family court documents on the website. Therefore, they must have known at the time of Capuano's testimony that her statement was perjurious. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

41.

Capuano falsely testified Gabriel was included in all of the emails in the chain with the subject "More of what I know" TR 2017-06-14 p65l24.

However, of the 13 messages that make up that chain, Gabriel was only included in the first two. The testimony in question here, pertained to the twelfth message in the chain – sent from Capuano to me. Capuano was using the false claim that Gabriel was being included, by me, in the email conversation, as the reason for why she continued to engage me.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had access to all of the emails between Capuano and myself, including the full list of "CC" and "BCC" recipients. Therefore, they must have known exactly which messages Gabriel was included on and which he was not. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury. Moreover, Mr. Lagemaat failed to confront Capuano with the proof that her statement was false.

42.

Capuano falsely testified Gabriel was included in the email chain with the subject "The motivation for your behavior" TR 2017-06-14 p67l37-38; p68l9.

Capuano was using Gabriel being included as a recipient of the email conversation as the justification for why she continued to engage me. However, Gabriel was not included in a single message of that chain. There are 13 messages in that chain, and Gabriel is not CC'd or BCC'd on any of them.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had access to all of the emails between myself and Capuano, and therefore, must have known or could easily have verified whether or not Gabriel was included on any given message. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat not Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was providing false testimony. Moreover, Mr. Lagemaat failed to confront Capuano with the proof that her testimony was false.

43.

Capuano falsely testified she was prohibited under order by the family court from prohibiting Gabriel from communicating with me by email TR 2017-06-14 p68l12-20.

Communication between me and Gabriel by email was never discussed in, or addressed by, the family court - only communication by mail and by telephone. Nevertheless, as of July 2014 I had waived all parental rights LASC minute entry, which meant any and all prior orders related to communication were, as of July 2014, void.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew all of the family court documents were on the website and that they showed only communication by mail and by phone was ever addressed. Moreover, it was well known that I had waved all of my parental rights in July 2014. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known at the time of Capuano's testimony that she was lying. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying.

44.

Capuano falsely testified the only reason she "ever went to court and tried to cease communication" between between me and Gabriel is because of the emails like the one where I call her a "stupid fucking cunt" TR 2017-06-14 p68l21-24.

However, the family court documents on the website show that in September 2011, Capuano tried to prohibit all communication because, she claimed, she believed I was going to travel to Arizona and take Gabriel back to California application for order of protection, however, she sought that order the day after Gabriel told her he wanted to live with me, not with her. At that point there had not been ANY hostility or insults expressed between us.

The family court documents on the website show that in January 2013, Capuano tried to prohibit all communication because she claimed she believed that would help Gabriel transition to her home environment and way of life ex parte application for emergency custody, see Item 8 at the bottom of page 3. But, at that time Gabriel was only with Capuano because I was being detained by ICE due to her taking very deliberate and calculated steps to have me arrested, detained and deported.

The family court documents on the website also show that in September 2015, Capuano tried to prohibit all communication because she claimed she believed I was manipulating Gabriel against her application to suspend visitation, see Item 2(b) on page 3.

In fact, there is no record of Capuano ever seeking to prohibit, or even limit my contact with Gabriel due to the manner in which I spoke to her and my CC'ing Gabriel on any of my emails.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of and had full access to all of the family court documents on the website. By their own admissions, they had reviewed all of the content on the website, which included the family court documents. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was perjuring herself when she testified to this matter. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

45.

Capuano falsely testified she believed my emails showed I was "requiring she drive two hours during the work week from Tucson to Phoenix to put Gabriel on a plane" for his visit with me TR 2017-06-15 p3l41-43.

However, Capuano wasn't even living in Tucson at that point. She was still living in South Phoenix, near the airport. And even if she were to now claim that she had already moved to Tucson prior to that point, the fact remains there was no mention of her moving to Tucson until I brought it up, after Gabriel was already in Vancouver email dated 2015-07-06 - at which point Capuano admitted to moving while Gabriel was with me.

Moreover, Capuano testified that she continued to work at Apollo after moving to Tucson, and that she commuted from Tucson to Phoenix for work TR 2017-06-13 p42l18-22 - which would mean she was making the two hour drive on the weekdays anyway, and that by scheduling the flight on a weekend, as she was requesting, would have required her to make an otherwise unnecessary trip to Phoenix, which would have been much less convenient for her. And, if Capuano had actually moved from Phoenix to Tucson prior to Gabriel's flight then why wouldn't she have simply suggested I get him a flight from Tucson to Vancouver, rather than from Phoenix to Vancouver?

Moreover, if Capuano had actually already moved from Phoenix to Tucson prior to me making Gabriel's travel arrangements, then it is clear from our emails around that time that she was very deliberately withholding that information from me and I had no way of knowing she had moved to another city. Therefore, how could Capuano possibly hold me responsible for requiring she drive two hours from Tucson to Phoenix if she was deliberately misleading me to believe she was still living in Phoenix?

Also, in the email conversation in question, I repeatedly insisted Capuano did not have to transport Gabriel to the airport personally. I repeatedly stated I would arrange for a car (e.g. a taxi) to pick him up. Capuano consistently ignored that proposal, as though I had never stated it - but it's very clearly stated in the email conversation emails dated 2015-04-26; 2015-05-05; 2015-05-06.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre were very familiar with the email conversation in question. In fact, it is included in part, in both parties' books of exhibits. They must have known that either Capuano had not yet moved to Tucson, or had moved to Tucson but had expressly withheld that information from me. But either way, they must have known that her testimony that I was requiring her to drive two hours during the work week from Tucson to Phoenix was perjurious because either she wasn't living in Tucson or she hadn't informed me she had moved to Tucson. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

46.

Capuano falsely testified that from 2012 through early 2014 I had threatened her repeatedly TR 2017-06-15 p6l20-24.

However, the emails and Capuano's own admissions in the Sahuarita Police reports, the Phoenix Police report, the order of protection hearing and declaration, and the RCMP reports from April through July 2015 GO 2015-15750; GO 2015-32597, show that I have never, not once, threatened Capuano with anything other than what I had every legal right to do (e.g. pursuing legal action, or publishing true information about the thing she's done).

And, I believe it is critical to this point, that a threat to engage in some perfectly legal course of action against the other party, for example, seeking redress in civil or family court, is not "threatening conduct" as envisioned by Canada's criminal harassment laws.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre were well aware of the emails and the numerous police reports, court documents, and hearings in which Capuano admitted I had never threatened her with anything other than legal action and to publicly expose what I considered to be her offensive conduct - both of which are perfectly legal courses of action. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew at the time of Capuano's testimony that her statement was false. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

47.

Capuano falsely testified when she contacted the RCMP on 2015-06-30 she had only "asked for a home check" TR 2017-06-15 p10l32-34.

However, the RCMP report shows Capuano had actually, falsely told them she "hadn't heard from Gabriel since he'd been in Vancouver", and that "when she attempted to contact Gabriel's father, Richard Riess, she received responses from a man named Patrick Fox stating Riess does not exist, that Gabriel is with Fox and would be back in Arizona when he (Fox) 'said so'" RCMP report 2015-29196, page 3. Capuano deliberately misled the RCMP to believe Patrick Fox and Richard Riess were two different people; that she didn't know who Patrick Fox was; and that her 14 year old son was with a strange man in a foreign country.

Confronting Capuano on this would have been an excellent opportunity to show the jury that Capuano will make up outrageous lies, even to law enforcement, to get people to do what she wants and to abuse the justice system for her own pointless, petty purposes.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the RCMP report which was on the website and also included in the Crown's disclosure material. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was lying when she testified. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying in her testimony.

48.

Capuano falsely testified that Facebook had something called a "camera roll" option, which gave her "friends" access to the photos she posted to her Facebook profile TR 2017-06-15 p13l19-24.

However, there is no such thing as a "camera roll" option in Facebook. Apple iCloud and Apple devices have something called a camera roll but that is completely different and separate from Facebook, which is where Capuano testified I surreptitiously obtained the photos from without her knowledge or consent Google search results for facebook camera roll.

The proof of this matter was self-evident. The fact that Capuano was referring to something which does not exist should have been sufficient proof for both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre to know she was lying. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

49.

Capuano falsely testified that she made her Facebook data non-public in 2014, as soon as she learned I had created the website TR 2017-06-15 p13l39-40.

However, it was actually in February 2016, a couple of days after the CBC story aired/ran, that Capuano made her Facebook data non-public. I had made the copy of her public profile, which I put on the website, a few days before the CBC story was released.

The timestamps of some of the content in the copy I had put on the website prove the copy was generated in February 2016, which means as of that point, the content on Capuano's profile must have still been publicly accessible. I had explained this to both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre, and I had directed them to the copy of Capuano's Facebook profile which I had put on the website. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying when she testified. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying under oath.

50.

Capuano falsely testified I surreptitiously, without her knowledge or consent, took her private and personal photographs TR 2017-06-13 p18l36-42.

Capuano testified she had not "posted them to Facebook" and "they were just in the camera roll" TR 2017-06-13 p18l47-p19l1.

However, Facebook does not have a "camera roll" feature - that is a feature of Apple iCloud and Apple devices, which have absolutely nothing to do with Facebook. Nor does Facebook have a feature comparable to Apple's camera roll. Nevertheless, based on Capuano's testimony, she is saying she believed I used Gabriel's Facebook account, which she claims she believed was actually maintained by Gabriel, not by me, even though I had repeatedly informed her I was maintaining that account, to access pictures from her Facebook profile which were not publicly accessible. Capuano is claiming the photos were only accessible to her "trusted" Facebook friends - of which, I was not one.

However, Capuano's earlier testimony that originally ALL of her Facebook data was public and that at some point after the website was created she made it non-public (in February 2016) contradicts that TR 2017-06-15 p13l30-32, p13l39-40.

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre were both present for all of Capuano's testimony. So they both must have heard her contradictory statements. Moreover, Capuano's false statements about Facebook's "camera roll" feature are easily proven by the simple fact that such a feature simply does not exist. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre both must have known that Capuano was perjuring herself when she testified. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

51.

Capuano falsely testified she didn't know where I was TR 2017-06-15 p16l4-5.

However, that is contradicted by her earlier testimony that I was, at various times, in contact with, and in the physical presence of, her mother in Phoenix in 2005 - 2007 TR 2017-06-12 p36l8-13; p36l36-38; p36l39-44; TR 2017-06-15 p50l31-33.

Capuano also admitted in an RCMP interview that on one occasion in particular Gabriel spent the night at her mother's home in Phoenix while I returned to Los Angeles to get my motorcycle RCMP Interview of Desiree, ¶200.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre were present for all of Capuano's testimony, including the contradictory statements referenced above. Moreover, they both had reviewed Capuano's statements to the RCMP prior to trial. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was perjuring herself when she testified she didn't know where I was. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

52.

Capuano falsely testified that no custody determination was made by the California family court at the November 2011 hearing, that the hearing was only about which state was Gabriel's "home state" under the UCCJEA TR 2017-06-15 p28l15-16.

The minute entries of the hearing prove that is false LASC minute entry. The home state issue was discussed amongst the Arizona and California family court judges themselves and the determination was made, prior to the hearing, as required under the UCCJEA. At the time of the hearing, Gabriel was in Capuano's custody in Arizona, pursuant to a temporary emergency custody order she obtained in the Arizona family court in August 2011, based on her false claim I had been hiding Gabriel from her for the past nine years. Then, at the November 2011 hearing, the California family court ordered Capuano to return Gabriel to my care and custody "without delay" - that is, unquestionably, a custody determination and a change in custody status.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the minute entries of the family court which were on the website. Also, I had discussed the circumstances of the November and December 2011 family court hearings at length with both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre prior to trial. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying when she testified. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying.

53.

Capuano falsely testified that multiple times I had tried to remove her visitation with Gabriel and multiple times I had tried to interfere with her custody of Gabriel TR 2017-06-15 p30l45-47; p31l6-7.

However, family court documents on the website prove I never sought or requested to remove Capuano's visitation with Gabriel. The most I requested was that her visits be supervised, temporarily, until he next scheduled hearing, and that only because of my finding out about the drug use (crystal methamphetamine) and criminal activity (stolen assault rifle by a prohibited possessor) going on in her home, and her consistent and repeated attempts to conceal that from me and to deny that Order to Show Cause; Declaration.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had full access to the family court documents which were on the website, and I had discussed this very issue with both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre repeatedly prior to trial. Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was committing perjury when she testified on this matter. Yet neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

54.

Capuano falsely testified she told and asked me many times if we could work amicably on a resolution for Gabriel TR 2017-06-15 p30l43-44.

However, the court documents and the emails on the website prove that is completely false. There were only two times Capuano appeared to be amicable, and both of those times it was only because she believed she was completely defeated and had absolutely no chance of prevailing:

  1. At the December 2011 custody mediation hearing - but only because Capuano knew the family court was very upset with her for having abducted Gabriel in August 2011 (4 months prior), taking him to another state, and getting a temporary emergency custody order by falsely claiming I hid Gabriel from her for nine years. Capuano also had a lawyer representing her at that hearing.
  2. Upon my release from ICE custody in February 2013 - but only because the California family court had said at the hearing two weeks prior that upon my release I can request an ex parte hearing for Gabriel to be returned to my custody LASC munite entry and so, Capuano believed, again, that the family court was very upset with her for having deliberately caused my arrest and detention by ICE as a way for her to get custody of Gabriel, and that the family court was again going to order her to return Gabriel to my custody.

Otherwise, every single other court document and every email shows Capuano refusing to cooperate in Gabriel's interests; refusing to allow Gabriel to visit me unless it was ordered by the family court emails dated 2013-09-04; 2013-09-05; 2013-09-05 (or she falsely believed it was ordered by the court); refusing to get Gabriel's passport until it was ordered by the court email dated 2013-10-30; refusing to contribute to Gabriel's financial needs unless it was ordered by the court emails dated 2012-04-23; 2012-05-08; refusing to provide her medical insurance information for Gabriel's benefit until the court told her she must emails dated 2012-01-16; 2012-01-31; refusing to share information with me about Gabriel's education, medical care, health, et cetera emails dated 2013-02-23; 2013-08-05; 2013-08-23, because she "was not required to under court order".

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of and reviewed all of the emails and family court documents on the website. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was committing perjury when she testified to this. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

55.

Capuano falsely testified that multiple times I had gone after her for child support when she was the only one financially providing for Gabriel TR 2017-06-15 p30l47-p31l2.

The emails and court documents, which were on the website, prove that from November 2001 through August 2011, and from November 2011 through December 2012 Capuano did not provide ANY financial support for Gabriel at all. Capuano had provided a single payment in the amount of $75 in September 2012, for partial reimbursement to my friend, Liz Munoz, for some school expenses, and not a penny more emails dated 2012-12-04; 2013-07-22. Even in 2012, while I was unable to secure employment in Los Angeles, had sole physical custody of Gabriel, and both I and Gabriel were being supported by Miss Munoz, Capuano steadfastly refused to contribute ANYTHING to Gabriel's support or well-being, stating instead that if I cannot afford to provide for Gabriel then I should send him to live with her and I'll never have to worry about it again email dated 2012-06-29. At that time I had no income and Capuano's income was approximately $70,000US/year.

In contrast to Capuano's refusal to contribute any financial support for Gabriel when he is not in her physical presence or custody, following my deportation to Canada, as soon as I secured employment, in July 2013, and continuing until long after my incarceration on this matter, until there was no money left in my bank account (February or March 2017), I consistently transferred $125CDN per week to Gabriel's bank account, and I provided him a credit card to cover any and all support related expenses. The credit card had a limit of $6,000CDN, and Gabriel was authorized to use it for any and all support related expenses. That is also discussed in the emails between me and Capuano emails dated 2013-07-06; 2012-08-05; 2013-10-30; 2013-11-07; 2013-11-18; 2014-01-06.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of the emails and court documents which proved that Capuano had never provided any financial support for Gabriel while he was in my care or custody. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was committing perjury when she testified on this matter. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

56.

Capuano falsely testified she had already scheduled an appointment to see a doctor to apply for a medical marijuana card prior to her arrest for possession of marijuana on September 27, 2011 TR 2017-06-15 p30l38.

The copy of Capuano's medical marijuana applications and the supporting documents on the website prove this is false medical marijuana application; Scottsdale Police report (2011-09-27), page 6; Recording of arrest. Capuano made the appointment to see the doctor AFTER her September 27, 2011 arrest.

On November 1, 2011, before Capuano's application was approved, she was caught by the police, again, possessing marijuana illegally Scottsdale Police report (2011-11-01), page 8. This time in a public place, when she arrived at the scene of her fiance, Kristopher Lauchner's, arrest, to take custody of her children whom she had left in Kristopher Lauchner's care while he was committing crimes. On that occasion Capuano, again, lied to the police by claiming she already had a medical marijuana card. Capuano was not arrested at the time, for the sake of the children. This is all documented in the police report which was on the website.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of, and had reviewed Capuano's medical marijuana applications, and the Scottsdale Police reports of the September 27, 2011 and the November 1, 2011 arrests. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was lying when she made this statement under oath in her testimony. However, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre refused to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

57.

Capuano falsely testified that every time I tried to get sole custody of Gabriel and to revoke all her visitation and communication with Gabriel she won because she was right and she was telling the truth TR 2017-06-15 p31l29-31.

The California family court documents and recordings on the website prove this is false. First, they prove that I've never once tried to revoke or "take away", or even to decrease any of Capuano's visitation with Gabriel. Further, they prove that every time I sought any kind of change to the visitation agreement it was ALWAYS due to newly discovered evidence of criminal activity and drug use in Capuano's home, which directly impacted Gabriel's safety and well-being while in her care Orders to Show Cause, dated 2012-04-14; 2012-11-27.

The family court documents also show Capuano consistently lied just as frequently and just as easily in those proceedings as as she did in these proceedings Desiree's sworn declarations in the family courts, dated 2011-08-24; 2011-09-16; 2011-09-16; 2011-11-18.

All of those family court documents were on the website and had been reviewed by both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre prior to trial. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying when she made this statement. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had lied in her testimony.

58.

Capuano falsely testified that the one time she requested sole custody of Gabriel with no visitation or communication between me and Gabriel I lost because I was lying TR 2017-06-15 p31l31-33.

The California and Arizona family court documents, which were on the website, prove that is false. The documents prove Capuano did not try to obtain a court order prohibiting contact between me and Gabriel only time as she testified, but rather three times - in September 2011 Petition for Order of Protection, in January 2013 Request for Temporary Emergency Order, and in September 2015 Reqeust to Modify Visitation. The documents also show that I did not make a single false statement , or "lie", at any time in the family court proceedings. The three subjects which Capuano keeps insisting I lied about have, by now, been well established to be true: my place of birth; my citizenship; and my name. My real, legal, and birth name is Patrick Henry Fox, just as I have been stating, and that is proven by my government issued identification; I was born in the US, just as I have been stating, and that is proven by CBSA and IRCC documents; and, as a result of being born in the US I am, automatically, a US citizen, just as I have been stating. I do not believe there is anything else I have stated in the family court or in these proceedings which Capuano claims is false.

I believe I lost custody of Gabriel, in 2013, solely because I was deported from the US, not because I lied in the family court, nor on the merits LASC Minute Entries, dated 2013-03-13; 2013-03-20.

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had reviewed the family court documents prior to trial; they had seen my birth certificate and multiple pieces of government issued photo identification - in fact, Mr. Myhre himself had admitted them as an exhibit at the trial. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying when she testified about me lying in the family court.

Moreover, my losing custody of Gabriel occurred immediately following my deportation from the US; and since that time, even though Gabriel has told the court he wants to live with me, the court has refused to return custody to me.

59.

Capuano falsely testified I was present and living in "her country" (the US) illegally TR 2017-06-15 p33l33-37.

Contrary to Capuano's insistence, she has known since January 2000 that I was born in the US, and therefore am a US citizen. That is why we never applied for permanent resident status for me when we were together and Gabriel was born.

Although it might have been difficult to prove Capuano knew I was not an illegal alien, if Mr. Lagemaat had questioned her about it even a little, I believe it would have become apparent that she was lying to exploit the fact there is a removal order against me in the US Immigration Court - even though the order is based on a faulty perjury and false claim of US citizenship convictions. For example, if Mr. Lagemaat had questioned Capuano on why we did not try to get any type of legal immigration status back in 2000/2001; or why she never reported me to INS/ICE before she learned of the removal order against me; or why she believes ICE and the US Attorney's Office have consistently dropped all charges against me, related to illegal re-entry, even each of the times she called them; or why my fingerprints and mugshot don't match those on file with the Toronto Police for Ricky Riess; or the fact that she already admitted she sent my picture to Ricky Riess's father and he could not identify me as his son; her claim of believing I was an illegal alien and not a US citizen would have quickly lost credibility.

I had discussed the matter of my citizenship at great length with both Mr. Lagemaat and especially with Mr. Myhre prior to trial. And, I had discussed with both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre the very points which are listed in the previous paragraph. I had sternly informed both parties that if Capuano makes ANY reference to my citizenship or claims I was in the US illegally, then I will want her cross-examined on the matter to prove she did not truly believe, at any time, that I actually was an illegal alien.

Based on the foregoing, it should have been obvious to both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre that Capuano's claims of believing I was an illegal alien were false. And since she did state that belief before the jury, Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined her to determine if that stated belief was sincere and rational. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying.

60.

Capuano falsely testified I was trying to "take her kid" TR 2017-06-15 p33l34-36.

However, I was the one who already had custody of Gabriel. Gabriel had been with me his entire life up to that point. Capuano had never had custody of Gabriel, other than the three months she had abducted him to Arizona and obtained temporary emergency custody based on false claims in 2011. It is completely false to say I was trying to "take Gabriel from her" because I already had sole physical custody - I could not have taken from her what she did not have. If anything, Capuano was the one trying to "take" Gabriel from me - and that is, in fact, exactly what Capuano did, first in August 2011, then in January 2013 by creating a situation whereby I would be removed from the US, by force and against my will, and Gabriel would be required to reside with Capuano, also by force and against his will.

And, the family court documents on the website also prove I never did anything to interfere with, frustrate, or discourage any of Capuano's visitation or contact with Gabriel.

For the most part, the proof that Capuano's statement is false is self-evident, as explained above. The history of Gabriel's custody and the fact that he had been with me his entire life, was well known to both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre. As were the facts that Capuano had never had custody of Gabriel, and had not been present in his life, at all. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano's statement was perjurious at the time she made it. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

61.

Capuano falsely testified the drugs in her home were "stashed" TR 2017-06-15 p34l4.

However, the Glendale and Scottsdale Police reports, which were on the website prove this is false. The Scottsdale Police report of Capuano's arrest shows the marijuana, which was still very illegal in Arizona at the time, was in the night stand next to her bed, not secured Scottsdale Police report (2011-09-27), page 5. The Glendale Police report of the search warrant shows the crystal methamphetamine was in the garage, unsecured. Photos posted to Capuano's Facebook profile show that she, Sage, and Gabriel did spend time in the garage - where the crystal methamphetamine was being used Glendale Police report, page 12.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had full access to the police reports, which were publicly accessible on the website. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was perjuring herself when she testified the drugs in her home were "stashed". However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

62.

Capuano falsely testified that when Kristopher Lauchner was breaking the law "he was nowhere around"; she "couldn't even reach him"; he wouldn't answer the phone, he wouldn't come back to the house; he was gone all the time TR 2017-06-15 p34l5-8.

However, police reports on the website, from the time Capuano was engaged to and living with Kristopher Lauchner, and Capuano's own sworn statements and declarations in the family court, also on the website, prove that is false. On November 1, 2011, Lauchner was arrested outside the home; he had both of Capuano's children (including Gabriel) with him while he was engaging in committing felonies (passing counterfeit currency, forgery) Scottsdale Police report (2011-11-01), pages 8-9. Lauchner repeatedly possessed and used crystal methamphetamine in the very home Capuano claims he was not around when he was committing crimes - possession of crystal methamphetamine is a felony in the State of Arizona Glendale Police report, page 12. Lauchner, himself prohibited from possessing or handling firearms due to his prior felonies, stole an assault rifle, then brought and stored that assault rifle in the very home Capuano testified he was never around when he was committing crimes. Capuano admitted to the Glendale Police that she knew Lauchner had stored the rifle in the home; she also knew Lauchner had a long list of prior felonies and so, was prohibited from possessing the rifle.

In particular, Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined Capuano on the incident when Lauchner was arrested with Gabriel in his care, and her defense of Lauchner's conduct in the emails with the subject "Legal request" on 2012-02-20. This could have shown the jury that Capuano was aware of Lauchner's illegal activities and knowingly chose to support them and to put Lauchner before Gabriel, which contributed to my concerns for Gabriel's safety and well-being while in her care.

There is another police report and audio recording of an arrest of Lauchner, for shoplifting, on the website, where Lauchner attempts to call Capuano on the telephone Peoria Police report, recording of arrest. She did not answer the call.

There are numerous emails between Capuano and I, where I inform her of recent criminal activity I had discovered Lauchner was involved in (typically through public arrest records), and Capuano would become hostile and defend Lauchner's conduct email threads dated 2011-11-04; 2012-07-30.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of those emails and the police reports, which were publicly accessible on the website, so they must have known Capuano was lying when she testified. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

63.

Capuano falsely testified that "as soon as medical marijuana became legal, she got her card" TR 2017-06-15 p34l11-13.

However, Capuano's medical marijuana application, approval, and card, all of which were on the website, prove this is false medical marijuana application. Medical marijuana was legalized in Arizona in November 2010, but Capuano did not apply for a medical marijuana card until October 2011, almost immediately after she was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. Capuano continued to possess and use marijuana illegally from November 2010 through November 2011.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre had full access to and had reviewed all of the content on the website, including Capuano's medical marijuana application. Therefore, they both must have known Capuano was lying when she testified that she got her medical marijuana card as soon as medical marijuana became legal. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying under oath.

64.

Capuano falsely testified she she never called for fear of her life until the email that I said I thought about shooting her TR 2017-06-15 p35l44-46; p36l13-18.

However, the emails on the website; the Sahuarita Police reports; the RCMP interviews from July 2015; Capuano's declaration in support of her request for an order of protection and her statements at the order of protection hearing in December 2015; all prove this is false. The first time Capuano made any mention of being afraid for her safety - let alone afraid for her life - or of feeling threatened was AFTER speaking with CBC in January 2016 - more than a year after she had read and responded to the email in question. Also, Capuano's claims of being afraid for her life were purportedly made to the news media, NOT to any court or law enforcement agency. Though, in the CBC segment which aired and was published, it was only the CBC reporter, Natalie Clancy, who stated "Talk of shooting left Capuano fearing for her and her fiance's safety". There is no evidence that even at THAT point Capuano actually expressed any fear for her safety from me.

The fact is, Capuano did not claim to have any fear for her safety from me until more than a year AFTER reading and responding to the very email she testified was the basis for that fear. Moreover, Capuano never called, or otherwise initiated contact with any law enforcement agency claiming to fear for her safety from me [Editor's Note: Remember, her claim of being afraid was based on a statement that she made up, not no a statement I actually made]. In, and since, June 2016 it has been the RCMP and Victim Services that have contacted Capuano about proceeding with a criminal harassment charge against me - it was not Capuano who contacted the RCMP in June 2016, complaining of harassment or fear for her safety.

Also, Capuano admitted in her own testimony that she was only seeking the order of protection in Arizona because she believed it was required in order to get the website taken down TR 2017-06-13 p64l42-p65l1; TR 2017-06-15 p41l47-p42l2, not because she was afraid for her safety.

Capuano also discussed that in greater detail in her 2016-07-13 RCMP interview, at paragraphs 822-826 RCMP interview, ¶822-826.

And, as a point of fact, I never stated in that email, or at any other time, that I "thought of shooting" Capuano, or that I "would shoot" Capuano. That is Capuano's own clear and gross misrepresentation of the wording of that email. If anything, it was our son who had "thought of shooting" Capuano - he asked the question, and I was merely responding to his question.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of all of the emails, police reports, court declarations, and statements to the news media which proved Capuano did not, at any time, sincerely fear for her life from me. Therefore, both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying when she made this statement. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

65.

Capuano falsely testified she set the target amount for her GoFundMe campaign to $10,000US because that was the minimum she could choose TR 2017-06-15 p38l36-38.

Capuano then contradicted herself by stating she set the target to $10,000US because that was "the typical GoFundMe limit" TR 2017-06-15 p38l40-42.

Capuano then contradicted herself again by stating she set the target to $10,000US because that was what was suggested to her by someone. TR 2017-06-15 p38l43-44.

The proof that Capuano was lying about the GoFundMe limit is self-evident - she contradicted herself twice.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre were present for this testimony. They must have known Capuano was lying about at least two of the reasons she had provided. Yet neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was lying in her testimony.

66.

Capuano falsely testified she used the money she received through GoFundMe to obtain the Arizona order of protection TR 2017-06-15 p41l43-p42l3.

The proof of this being false is self-evident. Capuano applied for, and received the Arizona order of protection in July 2015. She created the GoFundMe campaign in June 2016 - immediately after I was denied bail - a year AFTER she obtained the order of protection. Also, there is no cost to a complainant/plaintiff for obtaining an order of protection.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew Capuano had already obtained the order of protection, a year before starting the GoFundMe campaign, and that Capuano did not renew the order of protection when it expired in October 2016. Therefore they must have known Capuano was committing perjury when she testified. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

67.

Capuano falsely testified that at the November 2011 California family court hearing her allegation that I had hidden Gabriel from her wasn't discussed TR 2017-06-15 p49l19-22.

However, Capuano's allegation that I had absconded with Gabriel then hid him from her for nine years was clearly stated in her declaration in the Arizona family court sworn declaration, ¶14, a copy of which was forwarded to the California family court. My response to that allegation was clearly stated in my sworn declaration in the California family court sworn declaration pages 11-12. At the hearing, Capuano explicitly raised the allegation again. She stated to the court, under oath, that over the nine years she had repeatedly contacted the sheriff in Pinellas County, Florida where she had been living, but they were not able to help her. The California family court judge told Capuano she and I had had an active child custody case before the the Torrance courthouse (of the Los Angeles County Superior Court) and that if her allegation were true all she would have had to do would be to call the Torrance court, tell them I had absconded with Gabriel, and a warrant would have been issued for my arrest. The judge asked Capuano why she had not once contacted the Torrance court in that nine years. Capuano stated she didn't know that that is what she could have done. Based on that response, the court determined her claim of me hiding Gabriel from her for nine years was not credible.

Also, it is my understanding, if the family court had believed there was ANY truth to Capuano's claim it would not have ordered Capuano to immediately return Gabriel to my custody on that day.

I had discussed this very point at great length with both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre prior to trial. In addition, I had written about it in a blog post in the website. And, the minute entries and documents from the family court also prove Capuano's claim was discussed at that hearing. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano was lying when she testified on this point. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had lied in her testimony.

68.

Capuano falsely testified the California family court ordering her to return Gabriel to my custody, in November 2011, was solely an issue of jurisdiction, not a determination on the merits TR 2017-06-15 p49l35-43.

The California and Arizona family courts conferring and determining that California was Gabriel's "home state" under the UCCJEA only meant that the California court had jurisdiction over the child custody proceedings. The "home state" determination has nothing to do with which state the court will decide it is in the best interests of the child to reside in. That can ONLY be determined on the merits.

This is proven by the minute entries of the California LASC minute entry and the Arizona MCSC minute entry family courts.

Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre, both being lawyers, must have known that a determination of which court (i.e. California or Arizona) will have jurisdiction to hear and decide a case is completely separate from which state and parent the child should reside with. Also, under the UCCJEA, the determination of jurisdiction is made, amongst the involved judges, outside of court - the determination of jurisdiction was made before the November 2011 hearing. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre must have known Capuano's statement could not possibly have been true. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

69.

Capuano falsely testified that I was in a bar in Arizona, with a firearm, lining up bullets on the bar TR 2017-06-15 p50l31-33.

However, Arizona law, at the time in question (2005 - 2007) prohibited bringing a firearm into an establishment which serves alcohol ARS §4-244(29), and prohibited the staff of such an establishment from allowing a person with a firearm to remain on the premises ARS §4-244(30). Capuano has been making this same false claim, under oath, in various courts, since 2011 - even though it has been proven false each time. And although it has been proven false, Capuano continues to revive it whenever there is a new audience.

The proof that this statement is false is elementary. The Arizona law prohibiting bringing a firearm into an establishment which serves alcohol was well documented at the time. Also, Capuano had raised this same claim in her declarations in the family court and I had responded as I have here. Based on that, the family court did not consider her claim credible. Therefore, Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre already knew, prior to trial, that this claim could not be true; that Capuano had already raised it, under oath, in prior proceedings only to have it determined to be false. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre attempted to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe that Capuano was committing perjury.

70.

Capuano falsely testified that when I emailed her a copy of my PAL was the first time she knew I was able to purchase firearms legally TR 2017-06-15 p50l34-38.

However, that testimony directly contradicts her prior testimony where she admitted that in Arizona there is no firearm registration or licensing, and that anybody can purchase a firearm without having to obtain "legal permission" TR 2017-06-15 p50l13-15.

Therefore, since Capuano knew I had lived in Arizona in 2000-2001, 2006-2007, then at any of those times I would have been "able to purchase firearms legally". Particularly since she admits to having knowledge of me possessing at least one firearm when I lived in Arizona in 2006-2007 TR 2017-06-15 p50l24-31.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre were present for all of Capuano's testimony. Therefore, they must have noticed her contradictory statements on this point. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano was committing perjury.

71.

Capuano falsely testified GoDaddy made me take the website down TR 2017-06-12 p71l35-39.

However, the emails between GoDaddy and myself, on 2014-07-30 prove that is false email dated 2014-07-30. Her complaint was only about sending unsolicited emails to her from that domain name, not about the website. Moreover, in my response to GoDaddy, I proactively informed them I would be moving any hosted services associated with the domain in question, so the complaint was moot. GoDaddy did nothing further and shortly thereafter I moved the domain to another provider.

Both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre knew of that email thread. Therefore, they must have known Capuano was lying when she testified. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre made any attempt to inform the court or the jury that they had reason to believe Capuano had committed perjury.

Failure to Pursue Lines of Questioning

72.

Capuano testified that she was knowingly and deliberately trying to keep me talking to her so that she could try to get information from me which she could use against me TR 2017-06-14 p50l36-p51l4.

Mr. Lagemaat should have pursued this further. Capuano admitting that she was deliberately trying to "keep me talking" so that she could get information to use against me should invalidate her claim of harassment. Harassment requires that the "repeated communication" or the "threatening conduct" be unwanted. But if Capuano was taking very deliberate and strategic steps to try to get me to continue the communication or the conduct in question then it cannot, reasonably, be considered unwanted. Particularly when Capuano is doing so for the express purpose of trying to get me to say things for the purpose of using them against me.

Based on this admission, Capuano is saying that what she was doing was very intentional and strategic and, as such, my conduct could not possibly have been harassment - I was merely doing exactly what she was trying to get me to do.

This admission alone, should have been sufficient for me to be acquitted.

73.

Capuano testified that she never read any of the blog posts on the website TR 2017-06-13 p43l23-27.

Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined Capuano on this admission. Any content on the website which Capuano had not seen could not possibly have contributed to her fear for her safety and, as such, could not have been relevant to the charge of criminal harassment. And, if the blog posts were not relevant then they should have been excluded from the Crown's book.

This admission by Capuano is even documented in Mr. Lagemaat's trial notes (p24, last 2 lines of the page), so he was clearly aware of it.

I believe it is also significant that when Capuano testified she hadn't read any of the blog posts, Mr. Myhre appeared surprised by that. He then confirmed by asking again and Capuano clearly stated "No" TR 2017-06-13 p43l23-27; p16l38-p17l3; TR 2017-06-12 p43l21-31. That suggests Mr. Myhre had been under the mistaken impression Capuano had actually seen the blog posts he was putting before the jury.

74.

Capuano testified, very emotionally, about me publishing pictures and information about her son, Sage, on the website and how that adversely affected him TR 2017-06-13 p20l20-p22l17.

However, Capuano never once made any attempt to request I remove Sage from the website. There is not one email from Capuano, making any reference to Sage being on the website. Mr. Lagemaat should have confronted Capuano on why, if she was so scared and upset about Sage being on the website she did not even ask me to remove him. This could have shown the jury that the reality is that Capuano is more interested in how she can use her children to gain people's sympathy, than in actually protecting or looking out for the safety and well-being of her children.

75.

In March 2000, Capuano had been committed to the Penn Mar Therapeutic Center in El Monte, California (a psychiatric hospital) under a court order. At that time Capuano was prescribed antipsychotic medication.

Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined Capuano on this. Mr. Myhre alluded to it, briefly, while reading in one of my emails to Capuano TR 2017-06-13 p13l39-44.

This could have helped to prove to the jury that Capuano has a history of mental illness, that she refuses to receive treatment for it, and that she refuses to acknowledge it.

If Capuano attempted to deny being committed to a psychiatric hospital under court order, Mr. Lagemaat could have confronted her with the court documents from her March 2000 arrest and conviction.

76.

Throughout her testimony, Capuano repeatedly stated she was afraid of me and of what she believed I would do, however she was consistently overly vague and did not once provide any indication of what, exactly, she believed I would do that would cause her to fear for her safety TR 2017-06-14 p47l26-32; p52l23-31.

Each time Capuano made such vague claims of being afraid for her safety Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined her on what, exactly, she believed I would do.

If Capuano responded that she believed I would continue to publish information about her on the Internet, then Mr. Lagemaat could have confronted her on whether or not all of the claims I had made about Capuano, on the Internet were true. And once he had proven that they were true, he could have pointed out that it seems what Capuano is really afraid of is everybody finding out the truth about her – not anything I would do.

If Capuano responded her fear was related to any email communication from me then Mr. Lagemaat could have pointed out that as of July 2014 she was no longer under any obligation to maintain any communication with me, and that as of July 2015, the first arrest for criminal harassment, there had been no communication from me other than 8 emails requesting she allow Gabriel to visit with me.

If Capuano responded she believed I would physically harm her, Mr. Lagemaat could have pointed out that there is absolutely no history of violence or aggression from me, and that, in reality, it has actually been Capuano who consistently "escalated" hostilities between us – not me. Mr. Lagemaat also could have confronted Capuano with her consistent and repeated statements to the police, the news media, and others, that she does not believe I would physically harm her because I'm too much of a "coward" to do anything like that.

This could have shown the jury that Capuano's claims of being afraid for her safety, based on some belief of what I might do, were unfounded, irrational and insincere.

77.

The Crown's book of exhibits included numerous blog posts from the website. However, neither Mr. Lagemaat nor Mr. Myhre questioned Capuano on any of those blog posts. The jury was lead to believe much of the content of those blog posts, particularly the claims and allegations made by me against Capuano, were false and, therefore, defamatory.

Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined Capuano on the accuracy and truthfulness of those blog posts to show that, in fact, the claims and allegations were all true. If Capuano attempted to deny the truthfulness of the posts then Mr. Lagemaat could have confronted her with the physical evidence – much of which was on the website (e.g. police reports, court documents, audio recordings) – proving the posts were actually true and Capuano was committing perjury.

Otherwise, the jury was left with the impression that the claims and allegations made by me on the website were false and that I intended to harm Capuano by disseminating false information about her. Rather than the reality, which was that I merely intended to inform the public of the truth about the offensive and very harmful things Capuano has done to myself and others.

Mr. Lagemaat should have emphasized that merely publishing the truth about a person's offensive conduct does not, and cannot, amount to harassment – it is, after all, no different than what the news media does every day.

78.

Mr. Lagemaat failed to cross-examine Capuano on why she did not file a complaint with the web hosting provider or the DNS hosting provider while I was in custody on this matter.

Since I was in custody, I was unable to respond to any emails. Had Capuano filed a complaint with either the web or the DNS hosting provider the provider would have required me to respond, by email, to the complaint and, failing to do so could have resulted in the respective service being temporarily suspended – effectively causing the website to be taken offline. It would have been a very quick, easy, and effective way for Capuano to get the website taken down.

I had pointed this out to both Mr. Lagemaat and Mr. Myhre. I believe Mr. Myhre would have had an ethical obligation to inform Capuano of this since the Crown's position was that the website itself constituted criminal harassment. Yet, Capuano still did not take this very simple step to get the website taken down.

Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined Capuano on why she chose not to file a complaint with the hosting providers, knowing that I was in custody and would not have been able to participate in the complaint resolution process. I believe this would have shown the jury that Capuano was not in the least bit serious about wanting the website to be taken down.

79.

Capuano testified that she had been in communication with lawyers, police in various states, and Child Protective Services (CPS) in Arizona and California, every six months, during the time she claims she did not know where Gabriel and I were (approximately 2002 through 2010).

However, according to extensive freedom of information requests I had filed with CPS and the Sheriff's Offices in Pinellas County, FL; Maricopa County, AZ; and Los Angeles County, CA; police departments in Clearwater, FL; Tampa, FL; Largo, FL; St. Petersburg, FL; Phoenix, AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Los Angeles, CA; Torrance, CA; there is no record of a single contact by anyone with Capuano's maiden or married names and relating to Gabriel.

Mr. Lagemaat should have cross-examined Capuano on this issue and, if she continued to claim she had been in repeated contact with such agencies, he should have confronted her with the proof that no record of such contacts exists. This could have shown the jury that Capuano was lying about having put any effort into attempting to locate me and Gabriel during the nine years she was absent from our lives.

80.

Mr. Lagemaat failed to cross-examine Capuano on why, if she didn't know where Gabriel and I were for nine years, she didn't simply notify the Torrance Courthouse, where we had an active child custody proceeding, that I had absconded with Gabriel.

This issue had already been addressed by the California family court in 2011, when Capuano claimed I had been hiding Gabriel from her for nine years and she didn't know where we were. Capuano had also used that claim in the Arizona family court, in August 2011, when she abducted Gabriel to Arizona, to get emergency temporary custody of Gabriel from me. In November 2011, the California family court asked Capuano why she didn't just notify the Torrance court that I had absconded with Gabriel. Capuano's response was that she didn't know that's what she could have done. Based on that response, the California family court decided her claim was not credible. Thereafter, Capuano abandoned that claim – until she spoke with the news media in February 2016, at which point she went on international news media, giving numerous interviews, claiming I had abducted and hid Gabriel from her for nine years.

Even though Capuano falsely testified that the California family court did not address this issue in November 2011, it does not change the fact that for nine years Capuano failed to do the one and only thing she would have had to do if there was any truth at all to her claim that I had hid Gabriel from her for nine years.

This could have shown the jury that there is no truth to Capuano's claims that I had absconded and hid Gabriel from her for any period of time, and that she was lying under oath. Moreover, it would have established a pattern of behavior with respect to Capuano claiming she had taken specific steps to resolve something when in reality she had done nothing at all.

This issue was also addressed on the website, in two blog posts I had written, wherein I point out that Capuano's own letters to me and her testimony in the California family court prove her claim was false. Mr. Lagemaat also should have cross-examined Capuano on those blog posts and the information contained therein.

81.

Capuano testified that I had created a fake LinkedIn account in her name, for nefarious purposes TR 2017-06-12 p55l6-p56l2; TR 2017-06-15 p10l8-9.

And that I sent multiple defamatory emails to a large number of her coworkers and associates TR 2017-06-12 p64l37-41; TR 2017-06-14 p11l6-10; p22l37-39.

Capuano also made those claims, repeatedly, in her statements to the RCMP 2015-07-19 interview, ¶6; 2016-06-17 interview, ¶193; 2016-07-13 interview, ¶614-630. She told the RCMP she had copies of the emails and the LinkedIn page and that she would forward those to the RCMP. However, she did not provide them to the RCMP. Nor were they ever received or used by the Crown. In reality, the emails and the LinkedIn page simply did not exist.

Mr. Lagemaat should have confronted Capuano on why she failed to provide the RCMP or the Crown any evidence at all to support those claims. Particularly since she had told the RCMP she had copies and would forward them.

This could have shown the jury that there was no truth to her claims I had sent multiple, mass emails to her associates and created a fake LinkedIn account in her name. But by not cross-examining Capuano on these claims, the jury was left with the impression they were true.

AFFIRMED BEFORE ME at the City
of Vancouver, in the Province of
British Columbia, on January, 2019


A Commissioner for Taking Affidavits
in the Province of British Columbia
Patrick Fox