Probation Violation Case (2019), re: Leaving BC; Being Within 100 Meters of the US border

In order to truly appreciate the utter ridiculousness of this case we have to go all the way back to 2017, to the sentencing hearings in the criminal harassment case (244069-2-KC) against me.

During the sentencing submissions, the prosecutor Mark Myhre provided the court a list of proposed probation conditions. Amongst those were a condition that I not leave BC without the permission of my probation officer, and that I not be within 100 meters of the US border.

I pointed out that that creates a problem because I have no immigration or citizenship status in Canada IRCC FOSS and GCMS reports and, upon my release from custody, I would expect to be removed (deported). Based on Myhre's proposed conditions, I would be in violation by virtue of being deported. Surely, I argued, I cannot be penalized because CBSA deported me.

Myhre, that smug prick, scoffed and said, with his perpetual half-smirk, that if that were to happen, if CBSA or IRCC were to remove me from Canada, or if they were to tell me to leave Canada then he, obviously, wold not prosecute me for violating these conditions because, in that circumstance, I would not be leaving BC voluntarily.

Justice Heather Holmes, the judge presiding over the case, ignored all of my submissions and granted the prosecution everything it was seeking - including the probation conditions that I not leave BC and not be within 100 meters of the US border. I also brought up the fact that if I comply with the condition to not leave BC then I am necessarily violating the condition that I obey all laws because I am not authorized to remain in Canada. Holmes disregarded it.

On December 30, 2018, I was released from Fraser Regional Correctional Centre (FRCC), upon the completion of the prison sentence.

Because I have no status in Canada, I am not legally authorized to work. Nor am I elligible to receive any government assistance (not that I'd want that - if anything, I want the government to stay the fuck out of my life). So, I'm unable to work, legally. I'm unable to support myself at all. Also, with all the biased, one sided, and false news coverage of me, Desiree and the website, even if I was legally authorized to work, there's no way anyone in Canada would hire me. I was homeless and living on the couple of credit cards that hadn't expired yet.

My yahoo probation officer, Brandon Cowan told me to apply for social assistance (welfare). I told him I'm not elegible for any government assistance because I have no status in Canada. Of course, being a smug, self-righteous prick, he was convinced that I am a Canadian citizen becuase that's what the prosecutor told him. So, I applied and, after much investigation by the Ministry of Social Development and IRCC into my status (or lack thereof), my application was denied based on me not having any immigration or citizenship status in Canada Social Services denial. When I showed that to Cowan, do you think he acknowledged that maybe he might have been wrong about me being a Canadian citizen? Ah, hell no! He said nothing, the miserable bastard.

I then proceeded to try to have the conditions about not leaving BC removed. There were a couple of hearings before Justice Holmes, with Mark Myhre on behalf of the prosecution.

I provided documents from IRCC and CBSA, showing that they acknowledge I was born outside Canada and had never received Canadian citizenship. I also provided recordings of telephone calls with CBSA 2019-03-06 phone call and IRCC 2019-02-18 phone call, wherein those agencies acknowledged I had no status in Canada. And, I provided the documentation from the Ministry of Social Development showing they had communicated with IRCC and that IRCC had informed them I had no status in Canada, and that for those reasons I was ineligible for any government assistance (see above).

Myhre argued that all the evidence he has seen would support the claim that I am a Canadian citizen. He relied on the perjury and false claim of US citizenship conviction from Arizona. He claimed to have spoken with someone from IRCC and from CBSA who both stated as far as they're concerned I am a Canadian citizen - however, he claimed that both parties were not willing to put that in writing or to testify. He claimed he spoke with Steve Riess, who he insisted is my father, and Steve Riess offered to provide a DNA sample, however Myhre refused to accept that offer. I also insisted on having a DNA test of myself and Steve Riess done, but both Myhre and Holmes refused. I requested Riess be called to testify, but again Myhre and Holmes refused.

Nevertheless, Holmes praised Myhre and told me it is clear I am trying to manipulate CBSA and IRCC, just like I'm trying to manipulate the court and the system. She denied my request remove the conditions, claiming the evidence I had provided was insufficient for her to conclude I am not a Canadian citizen.

I told Myhre and Holmes that regardless of the outcome of the hearing, I intended to turn myself in to CBSA within the next week to be removed.

The following morning, March 15, 2019, I reported to my probation officer, Abeed Bhimji (Cowan had moved on to other things, I suppose), just as I was required to do twice a week. I told Bhimji about the outcome of the hearing the day before. I told Bhimji I intended to turn myself in to CBSA within the next week, for the purpose of being removed.

I then went to Starbucks and settled up some last minute affairs and solidified my plan. I was prohibited from leaving BC (and by extension, Canada), but I was not prohibited from entering a port of entry that is within BC, as long as that port of entry is not within 100 meters of the US border. I knew that the law was that if a person is encountered by CBSA within Canada, other than at a port of entry, the burden is on CBSA to prove the person is removable or inadmissible; however, at a port of entry the burden is on the person, NOT CBSA, to prove they are admissible. Every person who enters an area designated as a port of entry MUST present themselves for inspection and the burden is on them, NOT CBSA, to prove they are admissible before they may leave the area designated as a port of entry and return to Canada (that is, return to the rest of Canada other than the area designated as a port of entry). It's the law!

So, if I were to present myself to CBSA at an inland office, say the Vancouver office on Main Street, CBSA could not remove me unless they could prove I was inadmissible. However, if I presented myself to CBSA at a port of entry then CBSA would have to refuse to allow me to re-enter Canada unless I could prove I was a Canadian citizen - which I am not.

Essentially, I would be creating a situation whereby CBSA would effectively "remove" me from Canada by refusing to allow me to leave the port of entry other than to return to the US - the country they know I was born in and am a citizen of. And, I would be doing it in a way which would not violate the conditions of my probation.

I made my way to the Douglas border crossing.

Upon my arrival at the Douglas port of entry, a stern female CBSA officer stopped me, just north of the entrance to the secondary inspection building, assertively told me to put out my cigarette because, apparently, it's a major issue to smoke on federal government property, then she sternly asked me where I'm going. I told her I'm turning myself in to CBSA to be removed. I told her I have no status in Canada and have been convicted of an indictable offense. She told me to proceed into secondary inspection.

Inside the secondary inspection area, I approached the counter where Border Services Officer (BSO) Meagan Polisak was stationed. There was another, large male officer standing behind her. I explained my situation to Polisak: the criminal harassment conviction; not having status in Canada; the probation condition prohibiting me from leaving BC; that I had been deported from the US to Canada in 2013, even though I wasn't a Canadian citizen; that I was inadmissible to Canada. I provided Polisak a copy of the documents from IRCC and CBSA showing that I was born in the US and did not have status in Canada. She asked what I wanted from her. I said I wanted to know, if I presented myself to CBP on the US side was CBSA going to allow them to deport me to Canada again, or were they going to say no. Also, I wanted something from CBSA showing that I'm inadmissible so I can show that I'm not violating the probation order. Polisak took my phone and laptop bag and told me to have a seat in the waiting area.

After some time Polisak called me back over to the counter. She asked me if I had any documentation or proof that I'm a US citizen. I said I have a US birth certificate birth certificate but it's not on me at the moment. Polisak told me that without proof of US citizenship it's unlikely CBP is going to allow me to enter the US. I said, that's fine, I'll deal with that with CBP - besides, DHS is well aware of who I am. Once they run my fingerprint they'll have all of my information.

Polisak told me that yes, I AM inadmissible, but that she didn't think the US authorities were going to allow me to enter the US because I didn't have proof of citizenship on me. I said, "I understand, but to be clear, you're saying I am inadmissible to Canada; it will be illegal for me to leave this port of entry and return to Canada, is that correct?" Polisak responded "If you try to return to Canada I'll have to arrest you."

I thanked Polisak and left the secondary inspection area. Outside, I encountered another CBSA officer. I asked the officer where I go to return to the US. The officer directed me to a door in a breezeway, next to the primary inspection booths. I passed through the door and proceeded south, along the sidewalk.

Once on the US side, I proceeded directly to the CBP secondary inspection building. I entered, got in line and waited. When I got up to the counter I gave my driver's license to the CBP officer and explained that I was a US citizen but had been deported to Canada in 2013 under the name Richard Riess. Moments later, I was surrounded by five or six CBP officers and placed in handcuffs. Another officer came up, behind the counter and asked the first officer "Are you sure it's him?" The first officer motioned to the computer monitor. The second officer appeared to be satisfied.

I was taken to a tiny concrete room and told to strip down. I complied. The CBP officers checked my belongings, presumably for weapons and contraband. They found nothing of interest. I was asked what I was doing there. I said I was a US citizen and wanted to go before an immigration judge to resolve the issue of my citizenship once and for all. I was given my belongings and told to have a seat in the waiting area.

Eventually, another CBP officer, Geoffrey Obrist, approached me in the waiting area and tried to talk me in to simply returning to Canada. He said if I would just turn around and return to Canada we could ignore that I even presented myself to them. I said no. I wanted to go before an immigration judge and prove I'm not a Canadian citizen and that I was deported unlawfully. And besides, I said, I would rather be in custody in the US than to be "free" in Canada.

Obrist brought me to an interview room. What followed was a 3 hour video recorded interview CBP interview.

During the interview with Officer Obrist, I was very careful in how I worded my responses. Given my history with US DHS, particularly ICE, and how they would distort my statements, I needed to make sure they could not misrepresent me again.

I told Obrist my intention, or at least my expectation, was that I would be detained by DHS until I could go before an immigration judge and present the evidence that I am not the person I was deported as. I told Obrist I realized that meant I would be detained for a number of months but I wanted to get this issue resolved so I could return to Los Angeles and get on with my life.

At the conclusion of the CBP interview, I was put into a holding cell and later transported to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, WA. I remained there for two and a half weeks, until April 4, 2019.

On April 4, 2019, I was transported, by ICE, back to the Douglas port of entry, where I was handed over to the RCMP on a warrant for violating my probation conditions. I was transported to the Burnaby RCMP detachment and processed.

Subsequently, I was interrogated by Constable Jason Potts Potts interrogation, regarding the new charges. Potts seemed to show significant interest in how I obtained copies of the disclosure material from the criminal harassment case, which had been published on the website.

The next day I had a bail hearing, which I adjourned a couple of times. I knew I was a flight risk due to not having any status in Canada. Ultimately, I was, of course, denied bail.

At the bail hearing, Patti Tomasson appeared for the prosecution. In typical BC Prosection Service fashion, she lied and distorted the facts endlessly. For example, she told the court that at the prior appearances I had said I was looking for a lawyer and I had chosen not to represent myself (that is false, I had consistently stated I would be representing myself); she claimed the prosecution was seeking a publication ban to protect my intersts, but when I fought against there being any publication bans, she finally admitted it is the prosecution that wants a publication ban; she insisted I have a Canadian passport and that in the material I had asked her to provide me there was a copy of that passport (that is false, the document she was referring to was an emergency travel document issued to ICE, based solely on information provided by ICE, to facilitate my one-time deportation to Canada). And, of course, Tomasson relied heavily on Holmes' ridiculously delusional Reasons for Sentence (RFS) from the criminal harassment case - you know, the one where Holmes portrays me as being comparable to Jeffrey Dahmer and she fails to mention a single bad thing Capuano has done to me. But, of course, as the BC judges keep pointing out to me, the BC prosecutors are fair, objective, and honorable. Yeah, right.

At the bail hearing, I stated to the judge, James Sutherland, that I do not believe I will be granted bail, due to being a flight risk, and that I was only having the hearing as a formality TR p4l28-p5l8. I also made it clear I would not, under any circumstances, ever take down the website and that once the probation orders expire everything will go right back to how it was before he probation began TR p44l28-40.

Sutherland asked me why I was so adamant about the website, why I couldn't just put it behind me and move on. I stated "Because she took my child away from me. There is no forgiving that. You can't put that behind you and move on." TR p44l28-37

And, in typical BC justice system fashion, Sutherland completely ignored everything which was in my favor, and all the bad shit Desiree had done to me and our son. As always, it was all about what I had done to poor little Desiree, with no consideration for anything she had been doing to me and our son for years prior to me getting fed up and fighting back Reasons for Judgment (RFJ) on bail.

At a number of pretrial appearances, I pointed out to the judge, David St. Pierre, that because I have no immigration or citizenship status in Canada, I am not legally authorized to be present in Canada, and so, a probation condition which prohibits me from leaving BC necessarily forces me to violate the law by remaining in Canada illegally. He would not have it.

Wolfe argued fervently against me bringing up anything to do with my citizenship or my lack of status in Canada, claiming it was not relevant to the charges and that I was just trying to confuse the issues. I argued that it is most certainly relevant because if I am a Canadian citizen then I cannot legally be deported or denied admission to Canada, which would mean my claim of being denied readmission at the Douglas port of entry must be nonsense. But if I am not a Canadian citizen then it means I am in the country illegally, I am barred from entry because I've been convicted of an indictable offense (criminal harassment), and it would be illegal for CBSA to allow me to re-enter Canada from the Douglas port of entry. Which means that my claim of being denied readmission is not only plausible, it is the only legal thing that could have occurred when I turned myself in to CBSA at the Douglas port of entry.

Amazingly, St. Pierre agreed with Wolfe, that my citizenship and lack of immigration status in Canada was not relevant and I was prohibited from bringing it up during the trial.

The trial date was set for August 12-16, 2019. The case was assigned to prosecutor Bernie Wolfe.

Given my experience with Legal Aid lawyers, I decided to represent myself again.

In the disclosure material provided to me by the prosecution, there was evidence of the RCMP requesting video footage of me from CBP, and from other sources, but no mention of any requests for video footage from CBSA.

Leading up to the trial, I submitted numerous requests to CBSA to obtain the video footage of myself at the Douglas border crossing on March 15, 2019. That footage would prove that I presented myself to CBSA and was denied re-entry. And, based on that, I could not have violated the conditions of my probation. CBSA ignored my requests.

At numerous pretrial conferences I informed the court I did not believe I would be ready for trial by August 12, because I was still pursuing evidence. On Friday, August 9, I informed the court I was still trying to obtain the video footage of myself at the Douglas border crossing and requested an adjournment. At that point, Bernie Wolfe informed the court that he had been informed that CBSA had destroyed all the video of me at the border. I was very disturbed by that - that video was critical evidence that proved my innocence! How the hell could CBSA destroy it? My request for an adjournment was denied. The trial would begin on Monday.

Then Wolfe called RCMP Constable Tyler Hawkins, who was one of the two officers involved in the investigation. On direct, Hawkins testified about the findings of his investigation, but made no mention of his efforts to obtain the video footage from CBSA.

On cross, I questioned Hawkins about why he promptly requested video footage from CBP but NOT from CBSA? Hawkins responded that he didn't think it was relevant - the purpose of his investigation was to prove I had left BC TR 2019-08-13 p3l39-p4l14.

I asked Hawkins "Did you even request the video from CBSA? Certainly after my interview you must have considered it relevant, since I stated in the interview that I had presented myself to them before I proceeded to CBP." Hawkins became flustered and said he does remember requesting the video from CBSA but he can't remember exactly when. He said he'd need to check his records. I said "Okay, so check." Hawkins thumbed through his notes but failed to find anything related to requesting CBSA video footage. He said he'd need to check back at the office. I said "Okay, you can do that and we'll continue tomorrow" TR 2019-08-12 p50l33-p52l22. Court adjourned for the day.

I suspected Hawkins had never actually made a formal request to CBSA for the video. In which case I would cross-examine Hawkins on why, considering Hawkins had asked numerous other sources for their video of me. The goal would be to get Hawkins to admit that they knew the video proved my innocence and that's why they never took a copy. You see, whatever evidence the RCMP has in their possession must (legally) be disclosed to the defense. A common practice with the RCMP is to go to a site and review the video before taking a copy. If the video hurts their case they just don't take a copy and that way they don't have to disclose it to the defense. Technically, their required to inform the defense of the existence of such exculpatory evidence but, of course, they don't.

Alternatively, if Hawkins returned with some evidence that he had requested the video from CBSA then I would question him on why they never disclosed that to the defense. Either way, Hawkins had painted himself into a corner.

The next day, Hawkins produced a printout of an email he had sent to CBSA requesting any video they might have of me at the Douglas port of entry on March 15, 2019. The email was dated May 7, 2019 - almost two months after I was at the Douglas port of entry; almost two months after Hawkins had begun the investigation; and just over a month after I had told the RCMP that I had presented myself to CBSA before I proceeded to present myself to CBP. Hawkins could provide no explanation for why he had waited so long to request the video.

I would later come to learn, through freedom of information requests to CBSA, that CBSA policy required all security video footage which had not been requested and was not identified as being relevant to an investigation, to be deleted from their system between 30 and 45 days after the date of the video CBSA Directives on the Overt Use of Audio-Video Monitoring and Recording Technology, paragraphs 33-37. 45 days after March 15, 2019 was April 29, 2019 - eight days before Hawkins submitted the formal request. Had Hawkins requested the video before it was destroyed then CBSA would have been required to keep it for at least two years.

Did Hawkins deliberately wait until just after CBSA destroyed the video to submit his request for it? I believe he did, and I intend to prove that. CBSA is required to keep a log of every time their security video footage is reviewed. That log must include who viewed the video and why. I've submitted ATIP requests for copies of the relevant entries in that log but, so far, CBSA is being uncooperative.

Wolfe then called US CBP Officer Geoffrey Obrist to testify about his interactions with me at the Peace Arch port of entry on 2019-03-15.

There was nothing of particular interest in Obrist's testimony as he had no knowledge of my interactions with CBSA prior to me presenting myself to CBP. He had no knowledge of whether CBSA had denied me readmission to Canada or I had left voluntarily.

Next, Bernie Wolfe called RCMP Constable Kirsty Brown to testify for the prosecution.

On cross-examination, I questioned her on the timing of requesting video footage from CBSA. She was very evasive, claiming she wasn't sure or couldn't remember. She claimed that she did not know that I had presented myself to CBSA prior to turning himself in to CBP TR 2019-08-13 p44l35-p45l24.

On direct, Brown testified that CBSA had told her there was nothing documented about them having any interaction with me, at all, on or about 2019-03-15. Brown testified at length about her interactions with CBSA and her efforts to obtain any video footage, but that CBSA had insisted there was absolutely no record of anyone having any contact with me at that time TR 2019-08-13 p37l29-p38l12. In case you're not able to read between the lines, I believe this is a load of shit. I believe she knew about the video but, of course, she can't admit that.

On cross-examination, I confronted Brown on why she had waited so long to request the video footage from CBSA, yet she requested the footage from CBP as soon as she started the investigation. She became very evasive and falsely claimed she had sought the video from both agencies "simultaneously". I suggested to her that requesting the video from CBP in mid-March, and requesting the video from CBSA in mid-May is not exactly "simultaneously" TR 2019-08-13 p45l26-34.

During my cross, I also pointed out to Brown that it wasn't until a month after I had been arrested (by her) and incarcerated, that she had formally requested the video from CBSA. With incredible indifference, she agreed. Well, at that point I lost it! I said:

A month seems like an awful long time though? I mean, when a person is sitting in custody, when a person's life is being destroyed because of allegations, and there might be evidence out there that clearly proves that he's innocent, and you do nothing for a month -- pardon me for being a little upset.

TR 2019-08-13 p44l44-p46l2

Brown also testified on direct and on cross that at the time of, and subsequent to my arrest, she had been given an indication from CBSA that there was no "documented interaction" with me TR 2019-08-13 p38l44-p38l36, p45l3-7. This is, of course, more bullshit. I pointed out to her that in my interrogation by the RCMP, which she was well aware of, I had stated I had turned myself in to CBSA at the Douglas border crossing on 2019-03-15. And, in that interrogation, to encourage the RCMP to obtain the video footage (to use against me), I had lead them to be believe I had turned myself in and was not denied readmission - so they would want to obtain the video to further prove I left voluntarily (because I anticipated that CBSA was not going to release the video to me). Initially, Brown claimed she did not participate in the interrogation so she was not aware of what was said. But then I confronted her with her notes regarding the interview, wherein she mentioned me telling the interrogator (Jason Potts) that I had turned myself in to CBSA. Those notes were entered into the RCMP's information system, by Brown on 2019-04-05. Brown became very evasive and tried very hard to not give a clear answer as to when she became aware of that information. Eventually, she begrudgingly admitted that she was briefed on what was said in the interrogation "right after" it had concluded TR 2019-08-13 p46l42-p50l42. So, by 2019-04-04 she was aware that I had stated in the interrogation that I had turned myself in to CBSA, yet she still waited more than a month to request the video from them!

Why do you suppose the RCMP would wait so long to request video footage from another law enforcement agency when they believe that footage could prove their allegations? Because they knew that footage would disprove their allegations! They went to the Douglas port of entry; viewed the footage; saw that it proved I was telling the truth; then chose not to take a copy of it or to inform the defense of it's existence (the police and the prosecutors are only required to disclose evidence which is actually in their possession). Then, they deliberately waited until CBSA's policy required CBSA to delete the footage, before they made a formal request for it. CBSA's policy requires that any such video, which is formally requested, or which may be evidence in a legal proceeding, must be retained for at least two years - otherwise, it must be retained for at least 30 days but not longer than 45 days Directives on the Overt Use of Audio-Video Monitoring and Recording Technology, paragraphs 31, 33-37. So, had the RCMP formally requested the video or formally informed CBSA that the video may contain evidence in a criminal prosecution, prior to 2019-04-29 then CBSA would have had to retain it for at least two years which would mean I would have been able to obtain it and use it to prove my innocence.

And that about sums up the relevant parts of the RCMP's testimony. Basically, the government (CBSA) had, in their possession, video recordings which clearly proved I was denied readmission to Canada and, therefore, did not violate the probation conditions; and they deliberately conspired with the RCMP and the prosecutor to ensure that evidence would be destroyed before it could be used to prove my innocence in court. And this is what passes, every day, for "justice" in Canada.

Next Wolfe called my probation officer, Abeed Bhimji, to testify.

On direct, Bhimji testified that I was required to report to him, in person, at least every four days (Yes, believe it or not I was required to report, in person, twice a week! Like I'm, fucking, Ted Bundy or something.) TR 2019-08-13 p63l43-p64l7. He said I reported to him on 2019-03-15, then was required to report again on 2019-03-21 but that I failed to report at that time TR 2019-08-13 p66l25-30.

Bhimji stated, on direct, that when I reported to him on 2019-03-15 I didn't tell him anything about what had happened in court the day before regarding my application to remove the probation condition requiring me to remain in BC TR 2019-08-13 p67l43-46. He also stated I didn't tell him about my intention to turn myself in to CBSA to be deported TR 2019-08-13 p68l23-25. In support of this testimony, Wolfe admitted a copy of a probation department "Client Log" (or C-Log) record from Bhimji trial exhibit 8, which contained the single entry from Bhimji stating I didn't report on 2019-03-19. That report was the only C-Log entry disclosed to me by the prosecution.

Unbeknownst to Wolfe and Bhimji I had obtained a copy of my full probation department C-Log report, which contained all of Bhimji's (and my previous probation officer Brandon Cowan's) notes regarding his interactions with me trial exhibit 11.

On cross, I asked Bhimji whether he recalls stating the things mentioned above, on direct. He agreed that he did. I then confronted him with his notes from the C-Logs, from 2019-03-15, wherein he wrote about me telling him what had happened in court the day before TR 2019-08-13 p78l2-34, and about me telling him I intended to turn myself in to CBSA by the coming Wednesday (2019-03-20) TR 2019-08-13 p78l35-p79l7. With the C-Logs in hand, and a copy in St. Pierre's hand, Bhimji had no choice but to admit that I had informed him of the things he had just testified I hadn't, and that he had, therefore, lied in his testimony on direct.

Yes, my friends, my probation officer Abeed Bhimji committed perjury at my trial because he didn't realize I had a copy of my C-Logs, and so he and the prosecutor, Bernie Wolfe, thought he could say what he wanted and I wouldn't be able to prove he was lying, and, of course, the court would believe him over me. He, Wolfe, and St. Pierre all assumed the only material I had was what the prosecutor had provided me through disclosure TR 2019-08-13 p69l42-p70l2 - which didn't include Bhimji's C-Log entries from 2019-03-15.

It should be mentioned that Wolfe became very visibly troubled when he realized I had evidence other than what the prosecution had disclosed to me, which I intended to use against Bhimji. And rightly so, the fucking weaselly, slimy, greasy, lying bastard. Too many adjectives? Nah, you could never use too many adjectives to qualify a person like Wolfe.

Next, on the third day of the trial, Wolfe called RCMP Constable Jason Potts who conducted the interrogation of me on 2019-04-04.

On cross-examination, I asked Potts why, during his interrogation of me, he did not ask anything about whether I was deported or removed by CBSA when I went to the Douglas port of entry. He responded that either it didn't occur to him or he just didn't see the reason to ask about that TR 2019-08-14 p36l39-p37l6. I find that difficult to believe because if CBSA had denied me readmission (or deported/removed me) then I could not possibly have violated the probation conditions. The reason Potts didn't ask about that is because the RCMP already knew CBSA had denied me readmission and establishing that fact in the interrogation would have substantially weakened the case against me.

On the fourth day of the trial, 2019-08-15, Wolfe closed the prosecution's case.

At that point I told the court I am not ready to proceed with my defense because, given that CBSA had destroyed the video of me at the port of entry, I am still pursuing evidence to prove that I was denied readmission (and therefore, effectively removed by CBSA). St. Pierre's response was that usually evidence would come as someone under oath testifying about what had happened TR 2019-08-15 p11l24-26. What a load of bullshit! Are these judges really so delusional that they believe witness testimony can actually be considered reliable evidence? Are they so naive that they really believe people don't lie? Already, in this trial, I've caught Hawkins trying to cover up the RCMP's collusion with the posecutor and CBSA to conceal exculpatory evidence; I've caught Kirsty Brown trying to cover up the fact that the RCMP deliberately waited until after CBSA destroyed the extremely critical video evidence before they made a formal request for it; I've caught Bhimji outright lying on the witness stand about what I had said to him on the day I turned myself in to CBSA. And now this jackoff St. Pierre has the audacity to suggest that rather than seeking actual, physical, tangible evidence to prove my innocence I should rely on the testimony of other, equally corrupt justice system participants?

I requested the trial be adjourned to allow me time to obtain physical evidence to prove I did turn myself in to CBSA and I was effectively removed by them.

Wolfe argued against my request for an adjournment, saying that CBSA adamantly insists there is no record of me presenting myself to them on 2019-03-15. Wolfe knew he was full of shit and that he was deliberately lying to the court. That is evidenced from his rambling and stuttering while making his submissions TR 2019-08-15 p13l17-p17l33. Wolfe argued, repeatedly, that the lack of any record of me presenting myself can only mean I didn't present myself.

St. Pierre, in response to Wolfe's submissions, repeatedly has to point out to Wolfe that even though the prosecution does not have an obligation to help me establish my evidentiary burdern, they certainly have an obligation not to thwart me in attempting to obtain evidence for my defense TR 2019-08-15 p15l8-11, p17l20-23. The fact that Wolfe argued so fervently against an adjournment for the purpose of me attempting to obtain evidence to prove my innocence after CBSA destroyed the video evidence, shows just how corrupt and evil these BC prosecutors are. They know you're innocent, and yet they actively try to prevent you from seeking out evidence to prove you're innocent!

St. Pierre expressed concern that the prosecutor has no evidence (in the form of testimony from someone within CBSA), one way or the other, about whether I had turned myself in to them. Wolfe steadfastly insisted that "in the [prosecution's] case it is just completely irrelevant" TR 2019-08-15 p16l16-25. St. Pierre also expressed a strong belief that if I had been denied admission at the port of entry there would have to be some record of it TR 2019-08-15 p19l12-32.

Wolfe argued, at length, with St. Pierre, against allowing the trial to be adjourned. He very clearly did not want me to have an opportunity to possibly obtain further evidence from CBSA TR 2019-08-15 p13l17-p17l33. In retrospect, his reasons are obvious: the unquestionable, irrefutable proof that I turned myself in to CBSA and was denied readmission did exist and that evidence would clearly and irrefutably prove that CBSA, the RCMP, and Wolfe himself, had conspired to great lengths to conceal that evidence and had brazenly lied to the court about it.

After much back and forth, and strong opposition by Wolfe, St. Pierre granted my request for an adjournment to allow me more time to try to obtain the proof that I had turned myself in and was denied readmission. And I would certainly, fucking, hope so, considering there was concrete proof of that in the form of video footage, but that CBSA had destroyed that video footage!

Over the next few months the trial was repeatedly adjourned while I continued to try to obtain the evidence from CBSA, that I had turned myself in to them and was denied readmission. I sent numerous letters to the Field Office Supervisor at the Douglas port of entry; to the Administrative Superintendant of the Vancouver Office; and filed numerous Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests to their office in Ottawa. I consistently received either no response, or responses insisting no such records exist.

On 2019-12-10 I received a response from CBSA to one of my freedom of information requests. The request was for any log entries from CBSA's computerized field operations support system relating to any queries performed of my name, from the Douglas port of entry, between 4pm and 6pm Pacific Time, on 2019-03-15 TR 2019-12-11 ATIP response from CBSA, dated 2019-11-28. CBSA's response was that the records were being exempted and would not be disclosed. The obvious inference from that is that one or more such records did exist but that they were exempt under the Privacy Act. But, the mere fact that the records exist proved that someone at the Douglas port of entry had searched my name on 2019-03-15, between 4pm and 6pm, which is exactly the date and time I'd been insisting I was at the port of entry, turning myself in to CBSA. And, obviously, it would be ridiculous to think that someone at the Douglas port of entry would search my name in their information system if I was not there (or otherwise engaging in some interaction with them).

On 2019-12-11 the trial was scheduled to continue, but given the ATIP response I had just received, I requested a further adjournment to allow more time to obtain proof that I had turned myself in and was denied readmission.

Wolfe was noteably anxious when he found out about the ATIP response. He argued strongly against another adjournment. Since he, the RCMP, and CBSA had been insisting there was absolutely no record of CBSA having any interaction with me on 2019-03-15, this new evidence would begin to prove that they had been lying all along. Wolfe was not please - but fuck 'em, that greasy bitch. Throughout the hearing, Wolfe kept making ridiculous, frivolous arguments; claiming the ATIP response doesn't actually mean there were any matching records, and that even if somebody did search my name that doesn't mean I was deported TR 2019-12-11 p4l16-p5l45. He was desperate and pathetic. But then, he could be disbarred for the things he, the RCMP, and CBSA were doing.

Ultimately, St. Pierre agreed with me that the fact that someone searched my name at that exact time does strongly support my claim that I'd turned myself in to CBSA. He also repeatedly expressed serious concern about CBSA's refusal to allow one of their people to testify about whether or not I presented myself - and by extension, the prosecutor's refusal to even request that of CBSA TR 2019-12-11 p12l6-8, p12l32-43, p13l20-33, p19l41-p20l19.

On 2020-01-25 I received a response from IRCC to one of my ATIP requests ATIP response from IRCC, dated 2020-01-25. The response included my Global Case Management System (GCMS) report which included all of the notes the CBSA officer had entered into the system when I turned myself in to them at the Douglas port of entry on 2019-03-15. In other words, proof that CBSA, the RCMP, and the prosecutor had been lying about there being no record of any contact with me on that date! And it's not that they simply overlooked the GCMS report - the GCMS is the primary computerized information system CBSA and IRCC use for their information. It is the first place they would look to find information about a given person. They must have known it was there.

Then, on 2020-01-28, how having concrete, irrefutable proof that I did turn myself in to CBSA and proof that CBSA, the RCMP, and Wolfe knew about the CBSA officer's notes in the GCMS, I said in court, on the record and in front of all of the other lawyers and spectators in the gallery, that if Wolfe really believed I didn't turn myself in and was lying about that then he would want someone from CBSA to come and testify about it. And the fact that he has, so far, adamantly refused to even ask CBSA to provide someone to testify, proves that he knows I'm telling the truth and that he's the one that is lying. I pointed out that, if for no other reason, he would want someone from CBSA to testify about this so he can prove I'm lying and we can put this issue to rest TR 2020-01-28 p6l4-46. He was speechless, the dumb fuck! I made no mention of the fact that I had received my GCMS report from IRCC or of the CBSA officer's notes.

After calling out Wolfe at the 2020-01-28 appearance, he, and apparently CBSA, pulled a 180. At the next appearance, a status conference, on 2020-02-11, Wolfe told St. Pierre that it seems CBSA is now saying I did turn myself in at the Douglas port of entry on 2019-03-15; they would release the officer's notes to the prosecution; and they will allow the officer to testify. Yeah, right! Most likely, what happened was after the 2020-01-28 appearance Wolfe contacted CBSA and told them he ain't taking the fall for this.

But get a load of this: So, Wolfe tells St. Pierre "Golly gee, it turns out Fox has been telling the truth all along and it's me, CBSA, and the RCMP that have been lying to you for the past six months." I'm paraphrasing, of course. And you would think St. Pierre would be livid, right? You would think St. Pierre would throw a hardcover copy of Tremeear's Criminal Code at Wolfe, right? But no! He does NOTHING! He just says, "Okay so we're ready to proceed, then?" What the fuck is that? Do you see what I mean about "bullshit justice system"?

Have you had enough yet? Are you sick of reading this shit? Well, don't stop now - this is where things really get good.

During Officer Polisak's direct-examination by Wolfe, neither she, Wolfe, nor St. Pierre, was aware I had obtained a copy of my entire GCMS report, including Polisak's notes.

On 2020-03-14, CBSA Border Services Officer Meagan Polisak testified.

Polisak's Testimony on Direct

Meagn Polisak
CBSA Border Services Officer

In her testimony on direct, Polisak falsely claimed that when she spoke with me on 2019-03-15, I told her TR 2020-03-04 p31l13-18:

• I did not have any proof of US citizenship (that is false because I told her I had a US birth certificate);
• I had a Canadian passport (that is false because I told her I had, in the 1990s, applied for and received a Canadian passport under a fake name; I did not say I currently had a Canadian passport);

Polisak testified that she considered the information in CBSA's systems (i.e. FOSS and GCMS) to be reliable TR 2020-03-04 p32l7-12.

Polisak further falsely stated that when she spoke with me she believed I was a Canadian citizen TR 2020-03-04 p31l30-31. However, in the notes she made during and after the interview, she very clearly stated she was not able to determine whether I was or was not a Canadian citizen. Nowhere in her notes did she make any mention of believing I was a Canadian citizen. In fact, her notes are conspicuously vague on this matter trial exhibit 13, page 15. In her notes in the GCMS, Polisak flagged me as "Possible Inadmissibility" ex13, page 14, which unquestionably proves that she did not believe I was a Canadian citizen because a Canadian citizen cannot possibly be "possibly inadmissible" TR 2020-03-04 p31l22-27.

Polisak then falsely testified that when she looked in CBSA's information systems, that is, the Field Operations Support System (FOSS) and the Global Case Management System (GCMS), she did not see any evidence I am not a Canadian citizen TR 2020-03-04 p32l13-15. But that's a load of crap becuase both of those systems stated my place of birth as "United States of America"; and my citizenship as "Unknown" FOSS, GCMS. If IRCC believed I was a Canadian citizen and had legitimately issued me a passport, don't you think they would have my citizenship listed as "Canadian" in their information system?

Polisak falsely testified that when she looked at my FOSS report, she saw that the Edmonton CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, now IRCC) office had already "confirmed" I was a Canadian citizen TR 2020-03-04 p62l4-p63l14.

Polisak then falsely testified, on direct, that when CBSA denies admission to a person at a port of entry, they are required to prepare a section 44(1) report (a section 44(1) report is used to initiate removal proceedings) TR 2020-03-04 p32l34-39. In fact, the section 44(1) report is only required if the person being denied admission chooses to contest that denial of admission. If the person is denied admission and chooses to leave Canada then no section 44(1) report is required IRCC ENF4 - Port of Entry Examinations, page 24; IRCC ENF5 - Writing 44(1) Reports, Section 8.1, page 21. Also, the IRPA explicitly states that if an officer believes a person is inadmissible, the officer may prepare a section 44(1) report - not that the officer must prepare a section 44(1) report IRPA s. 44(1).

So, clearly Officer Polisak was either lying or she is incompetent in her capacity as a Border Services Officer protecting Canada's borders.

Polisak then falsely stated that following her interaction with me I was not denied admission to Canada TR 2020-03-04 p33l12-20. But for her to not deny me admission, while I was within an area designated as a port of entry, after acknowledging in her notes that she was not able to determine whether I am or am not a Canadian citizen, would be an egregious breach of conduct. If a person shows up at a port of entry and tells the CBSA officer they are not a Canadian citizen, they have no status in Canada, and they've been convicted of criminal harassment; and CBSA's records show that the person was born in a foreign country and never granted Canadian citizenship; CBSA absolutely cannot simply allow that person to walk right on in to Canada!

Wolfe then concluded his direct-examination of Polisak.

I Blindside Wolfe and St. Pierre Again

At that point I informed the court and Wolfe that I had some official documents which I obtained from sources other than through the prosecution's disclosure, for example from DHS, Global Affaris Canada, and of course IRCC, which I wanted to cross-examine Polisak on. Both St. Pierre and, especially Wolfe, became noticeably concerned about this (probably anticipating another Bhimji fiasco coming) TR 2020-03-04 p33l35-p41l31. Wolfe asked that Polisak be excused "because I think we might be walking into some interesting exchange".

Wolfe then started whining about the possibility of the documents not being admissible because there might not be anyone to authenticate them TR 2020-03-04 p34l47-p36l9. But that's irrelevant because I wasn't seeking to admit them as evidence - I was seeking to question Polisak on them. Wolfe was only grasping at straws because he was concerned I had evidence that was going to prove Polisak, and possible himself, was lying.

During the discussion of the documents I wanted to confront Polisak with, St. Pierre again reminded me that he had already ruled I could not pursue lines of questioning regarding my ctizenship. However, on direct, Wolfe asked Polisak numerous questions about my citizenship, which St. Pierre allowed. Again - typical Canadian "justice". So, at this point, I argued that evidence which proves I am not a Canadian citizen, and which Polisak had at the time she interviewed me, is now relevant because it proves that she lied, it attacks her credibility as a prosecution witness TR 2020-03-04 p37l42-p39l32.

Wolfe and St. Pierre realized I raised a valid basis for now introducing evidence of my citizenship and place of birth. So, Wolfe jumps in and tries to confuse things by "helping me out" by explaining what's meant by "relevance" TR 2020-03-04 p38l23-28, as if I'm some imbecile who's never read any books on Canadian law. Fucking condescending prick!

St. Pierre ultimately had to concede that for the purposes of impeaching Polisak the issue of my citizenship and place of birth would have to be allowed TR 2020-03-04 p39l37-p40l5. After all, it was that dumbass Wolfe who first brought the issue up in his direct-examination.

I had requested copies of the documents be made so I could present them to Polisak, Wolfe and St. Pierre during my cross. St. Pierre said it may be premature for that and to let's see what kind of answers I get from Polisak first TR 2020-03-04 p40l6-20. That's not ideal though, because it means we'd have to stop the cross-examination briefly while Wolfe goes and make the photocopies, which gives Polisak and Wolfe an opportunity to think up responses to the unanticipated questions.

Polisak's Testimony on Cross-Examination

And now for the good stuff!

First, I asked Polisak about the requirement of preparing a section 44(1) report when a person is denied admission at a port of entry. She was very evasive and would only say that sometimes, for example if the system is down, then the officer might not prepare the report. I explicitly asked her if, for example, someone shows up at the border, is denied admission and they don't challenge it - that is, they accept it and leave - then is it possible nothing would be entered into the system? Wolfe promptly objected, asking how can the witness answer that. He also said he is "objecting to that question". What the hell is that? It's a perfectly legitimate question regarding CBSA's standard operating procedures. Also, he was the one that brought up the requirement of preparing a section 44(1) report when a person is denied admission. Ultimately, all Polisak would admit to is "We try our best to put something in every time. If there is a system outage, it's not always possible." TR 2020-03-04 p43l31-p44l37 What greasy motherfuckers! Why can't Canadian law enforcement and prosecutors just tell the truth?

I then questioned Polisak on her claim I had told her I had a Canadian passport in the name Richard Riess. On direct, she had testified I had told her I had a Canadian passport. On further quesitoning, she admitted she really had no recollection of it, but that in her notes it stated I was issued a Canadian passport TR 2020-03-04 p45l24-47.

I then brought up the GCMS report. Remember that Wolfe, St. Pierre, and Polisak did not realize I had a copy of the full GCMS report. I told St. Pierre there's a lot more information in the GCMS report than what is in the notes Wolfe had provided me. Wolfe claimed he had never seen these documents before. He was visibly shaken. Wolfe said he wouldn't mind making a copy or two. Wolfe went off to make copies and shit his pants (figuratively, not literally).

I proceeded to question Polisak on her earlier testimony that she considers the information in CBSA's systems to be reliable and correct. She agreed. I then asked her about her earlier testimony that when she looked in the system she did not find any evidence that I am not a Canadian citizen. She maintained that to be the case. I then asked, to be completely clear, whether she considers the information in the GCMS to be reliable TR 2020-03-04 p54l47-p55l18. She sensed I was leading her into a trap and started being evasive. She now claimed "It's all information that's put in there by an individual that believes it to be factual." TR 2020-03-04 p56l12-17 To which, St. Pierre suggested to her that the information is just what people have told the officer and she doesn't know whether it's actually accurate. And she agreed TR 2020-03-04 p56l18-41. So, on direct, when discussing information in CBSA's system which helped the prosecutor, she considered CBSA's information reliable; but on cross, when presented with information from the same system, which refutes the prosecutor's allegations, she doesn't know whether the information is accurate! Fucking bullshit!

Further to the above, it must be emphasized that by interjecting as he did, St. Pierre was essentially highjacking my cross-examination and leading Polisak to the statement he wanted. It was not Polisak that independently stated the information may not be reliable, it was St. Pierre that suggested it to her and she agreed TR 2020-03-04 p56l18-41. Again, I say, fucking bullshit!

I then questioned Polisak on her prior testimony, on direct, about someone from the Edmonton CIC office previously "confirming" I was a Canadian citizen. In reality, the report she was referring to did not say they "confirmed" anything, it said only that the one CBSA officer had "concluded" a person with the name "Richard Riess" was born in Sudbury, ON. I questioned Polisak on whether she agrees that to "confirm" and to "conclude" are two very different things. St. Pierre tried to downplay the difference, but to "confirm" would mean that some investigation was done and the matter was proven; to "conclude" means the person merely came to an assumption based, possibly, on nothing at all. Begrudgingly, Polisak agreed that "confirm" and "conclude" are two very different words, and that her statements in her sworn declaration and her testimony were false. She lied under oath, she committed perjury. And, of course, during this line of questioning, since it potentially had to do with my place of birth, St. Pierre admonished me about bringing up the issue of my citizenship (even though the prosecutor brought it up first, on direct) TR 2020-03-04 p56l44-p57l10, p58l5-21, p59l38-p60l10, p62l8-p63l20.

I asked Polisak whether other CBSA officers would have access to her notes in the GMCS when they search my name. She said yes TR 2020-03-04 p63l22-28. So, she acknowledged that she put false and misleading information about me into GCMS, and that other CBSA officers who may deal with me in the future will see her notes and accept them as being "reliable". By admitting this, Polisak is admitting that the "Remarks" or "Notes" put into FOSS and GCMS, by CBSA personnel, are inherently unreliable, and are now proven to be potentially false.

I then proceeded to question Polisak about when she reviewed my FOSS record, because in the FOSS record it expressly states "Country of Birth" as "United States of America", and on direct she had testified that when she was investigating me she did not see any information which would lead her to believe I am not a Canadian citizen. She insisted that when she looked at the FOSS record she only had access to the "Remarks" field entered by someone at the Edmonton CIC office. She claimed she did not see or have access to the "Country of Birth" field TR 2020-03-04 p64l3-p66l29. This is, of course, highly improbable considering she was a Border Services Officer at a port of entry, which means a large part of her job is to determine the admissibility of foreign nationals. For her to not have access to the "Country of Birth" and "Citizenship" fields would make it almost impossible for her to perform her fundamental duties.

Then, I questioned Polisak about my GCMS record. She acknowledged that the record appeared to have been created in January 2019, which was two months prior to her encountering me at the Douglas port of entry TR 2020-03-04 p65l17-22. I then turned her attention to the "Country of Birth" field of the GCMS report, which stated "United States of America". I asked her if that's the type of information in CBSA's system which she would consider "reliable". She responded, that information wasn't there when she looked at it, that only the "Remarks" section of the FOSS record was in the system. I reminded her that the GCMS record states it was created in January 2019 - before her interaction with me. She just continued to insist it wasn't there when she looked at it in March 2019. She was very obviously lying, so I asked her, are you saying you simply didn't see the information, or are you saying it wasn't there at all? She responded, that when she looked in GCMS on 2019-03-15, there was no GCMS record for me at all. I asked her "Are you saying that the information in the "Created Date" field, of 2019-01-18, has been falsified? She said "I'm not saying that." TR 2020-03-04 p65l23-p66l29

I then tried to ask Polisak if she would consider this information from the supposedly "reliable" CBSA systems, that is my country of birth, evidence that I am not a Canadian citizen. Wolfe promptly objected. I explained that it is relevant because it refutes her testimony on direct about not seeing any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen. But St. Pierre said, no it wouldn't because this is knew information I'm putting before her which she didn't have access to at the time she dealt with me at the Douglas port of entry TR 2020-03-04 p66l30-p67l8. But that is false. The point is she did have access to that information at the time she encountered me - it was clearly established the GCMS record was created in January 2019 and the FOSS record was created in 2008. This was not "new information". This is a perfect example of how the judges in BC ignore the evidence that is inconsistent with what they already believe and only hear that which supports the ruling they intend to make. I told St. Pierre I believe this information directly contradicts what she testified about earlier. But he responded that she was very clear about what came up in the FOSS note TR 2020-03-04 p67l11-26. Yes, she is absolutely, unquestionably lying! There is absolutely no way the information was not in GCMS at that time, or that she only had access to the other officer's "Remarks" in the FOSS report. But St. Pierre would not hear it - apparently, in Canada a justice system participant's verbal testimony trumps actual, physical evidence.

I asked Polisak what is meant by the subcategory type "possible inadmissibility" in my GCMS record. She acknowledged that she was the one that set that, but she was evasive about why or about how it would apply to me TR 2020-03-04 p68l46-13. This is significant because, as she testified, a Canadian citizen is always admissible to Canada and cannot be denied admission. So, if she believed I was a Canadian citizen then how can she flag me as "possibly inadmissible". She did not have and explanation for this.

I then asked Polisak about the burdens of proof at a port of entry. Polisak correctly stated that if a foreign national presents himself at a port of entry, the burden is on them to prove they are admissible. But then, realizing this destorys the prosecutions case and proves that I must have been denied admission on 2019-03-15, she promptly added that if somebody says they're a Canadian citizen then it's on CBSA to prove they're not TR 2020-03-04 p69l12-35. At first, I thought I mis-heard what she had said because it was so completely wrong and outrageous. At a port of entry, if a person claims to be a Canadian citizen, the burden is still on them to prove that - it doesn't shift to CBSA just because the person claimed to be a Canadian citizen. I asked Polisak if she could repeat that because, surely, she did not say what I thought she just said. She then stated, if she doesn't believe a person at the port of entry is a Canadian citizen, then CBSA has to prove they are not a Canadian citizen. I asked her, "are you saying that if a person shows up at the border and they claim that they're a Canadian citizen, but you don't believe that they're a Canadian citizen, the burden is on you to prove that they're not a Canadian citizen and they can enter if you're unable to prove that they're not?" She responded "That's correct." TR 2020-03-04 p69l37-43 I thought, for sure, I must be losing my mind, there's no way a CBSA officer would say something so ridiculous on the witness stand. I asked her if she's sure it's not the other way around, because based on what she's saying, any foreign national could show up at the border, falsely claim to be a Canadian citizen and as long as they didn't have a birth certificate or passport on them, then CBSA would have to let them enter Canada TR 2020-03-04 p69l44-p70l3. Polisak became evasive and wouldn't give a straight answer.

We then stood down for the noon recess.

When court reconvened, before Polisak was brought back in, I told St. Pierre I'm extremely concerned about the testimony she gave before lunch, about the burden being on CBSA to prove a person at a port of entry is not a Canadian citizen TR 2020-03-04 p71l11-36. St. Pierre responded that when I interacted with Polisak I wasn't at a port of entry, I was at the CBSA office at the Douglas border crossing TR 2020-03-04 p71l37-41. Huh? What the fuck does he think the Douglas border crossing is? It's a port of entry! St. Pierre claimed to understand "port of entry" as being just the booths that you first drive up to when you cross into Canada - not also the structure slightly to the north of that where the secondary inspection area is TR 2020-03-04 p71l41-45. He was, of course, wrong about that. St. Pierre continued to express his belief that the CBSA offices at the Douglas border crossing is not considered the "port of entry" and that when you're in that office you're not considered to be within an area designated as a port of entry TR 2020-03-04 p72l28-p73l15. He seemed to think that just because the building is within the Canadian borders and on Canadian land then it cannot be considered a port of entry. Again, he was completely wrong about that.

I then continued my cross-examination of Polisak. I started by asking Polisak, is the building which the CBSA office is in at the Douglas border crossing, is that considered part of the "port of entry"? She stated directly "Yes" TR 2020-03-04 p75l4-8. I then asked Polisak, if a person enters the area designated as a port of entry, are they considered to be within the port of entry and not admitted to Canada yet? She said "Correct" TR 2020-03-04 p75l9-p76l10. So this establishes that when I was speaking with Polisak in the secondary inspection area, I was considered to be within the port of entry, which means that the port of entry rules and burdens of proof applied - not the inland rules and burdens of proof.

I asked Polisak whether, when she dealt with me on 2019-03-15, she had checked my CPIC record. She said she had. I asked her if she remembers what the CPIC record stated as my country of birth. She claimed she did not remember. I then asked to present a copy of the CPIC record to her, but St. Pierre promptly interrupted and warned me again about lines of questioning regarding my citizenship. And again, I told him it's not about establishing my citizenship, it's about proving Polisak lied about having not seen any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen. Also, Polisak had testified that "all those other agencies" (e.g. IRCC, CBSA, RCMP) seem to agree that I am a Canadian citizen, but in fact, the records from all of those agencies all clearly state I was born in the US TR 2020-03-04 p78l27-p79l5.

Polisak was then removed from the courtroom again, so St. Pierre can chastise me about the irrelevance of my citizenship, even though, given Polisak's testimony, it seems the question of my citizenship and lack of status in Canada is actually crucial because, if I'm a Canadian citizen then what Polisak is saying is perfectly plausible: I cannot be denied admission and she did not deny me admission. But if I'm not a Canadian citizen then her testimony is completely implausible because there is no way CBSA would allow me to leave the port of entry and return to Canada TR 2020-03-04 p79l18-44. St. Pierre also seemed to be saying it is okay for the prosecutor to question Polisak about particular things she saw in the official records she looked at, but it's not okay for me to question her about other things she, necessarily, must have seen in those same records. Ah, come on, man! What kind of bullshit is this? But seeing that St. Pierre was not going to allow further questions related to my citizenship or place of birth, I again argued that the questioning is to prove that Polisak lied in her testimony and, therefore, she cannot be considered credible. But Canadian judges refuse to accept that a law enforcement officer would ever be dishonest, no matter how much direct, concrete proof you provide of them already lying on the witness stand.

So, Polisak returns and I continue my cross.

I return to the topic of my GCMS report and what Polisak saw when she accessed it. She testified that she only had access to the "Remarks" field of the NCB entry of the FOSS report. That is, the comments entered by CBSA Officer Steve Jacob on 2008-05-21, claiming he concluded Richard Riess was born in Sudbury, ON. I pointed out to Polisak some of the other information in the NCB entry section of the FOSS report. She claimed she does not recall seeing any of that, that only the other officer's notes came up. So I reminded her that she had stated in her notes, her sworn declaration, and her testimony, that the Edmonton CIC office had entered those notes. She agreed. So I asked her, if she had only seen the officer's notes then how did she know they came from the Edmonton CIC office? That information was not included in the notes, it was stated elsewhere in the report. I suggested, she could have only known that if she had, in fact, seen the other parts of the FOSS report. She said "That's right". I asked her, is it likely then you did actually see the other parts of the report? She agreed that's possible, but that she just didn't put it in her notes so she doesn't recall seeing it. I was flabbergasted! How could these people get away with so brazenly lying on the witness stand. I said, "but it is in your notes, it says Edmonton CIC in your notes!" She simply said "Right" TR 2020-03-04 p86l31-p87l41. Honestly, that's it! She basically just admitted to repeatedly lying on the witness stand about what information she had access to and saw when she spoke with me; she admitted to committing perjury; she was caught brazenly lying over and over in her testimony; and all she says is "Right". And St. Pierre does NOTHING! And Wolfe does nothing! Is there any question left about why I'm putting all this time into publishing this bullshit?

I then asked Polisak whether, when she dealt with me on 2019-03-15, she explicitly stated to me that I was inadmissible. Now realizing that I may actually have physical proof of what occurred, she claimed she doesn't recall TR 2020-03-04 p90l24-43. When asked that by Wolfe, on direct, she said she did not tell me I was inadmissible or deny me admission TR 2020-03-04 p33l16-20. But now, knowing that I've already caught her in multiple lies and confronted her with proof of those lies, she claims she doesn't remember if she told me I was inadmissible.

I asked Polisak if I had shown her a copy of my Florida birth certificate during our interaction. She claimed she did not recall TR 2020-03-04 p93l10-17.

Polisak had agreed that the FOSS record appeared to have been created in 2008. This is significant because it means in 2008, long before I was deported to Canada, CBSA and IRCC, formally acknowledged I was born in the US and had never applied for or received Canadian citizenship. Then, in 2019 when they created my GCMS record - after numerous investigations by CBSA, and after allowing DHS to deport me to Canada - they, again entered my "Country of Birth" as "United States of America", thereby acknowledging again that I was born in the US and have never applied for or received Canadian citizenship. The fact that, eleven years after creating the FOSS record, and numerous investigations by CBSA and DHS, they again formally stated my country of birth as the US means that it could not have been a mistake - it was very deliberate, because they know, as they have all along, that I was born in the US and am not a Canadian citizen!

You may be thinking now that it would have been better for me to not persist in getting someone from CBSA to testify. Without Polisak's testimony the prosecutor wouldn't have had enough evidence to get a conviction. I could have simply testified to what happened on that day, that is, turning myself in; being denied readmission; then having no legal choice but to leave the port of entry by leaving Canada, effectively removed by CBSA. But that would have been pointless. My goal all along was to get CBSA on the witness stand - not to win the case. I couldn't care less about being convicted of a breach of probation charge in a pissant country like Canada. Nobody gives a flying fuck about Canada. The goal was to get CBSA on the witness stand and get them to either admit they know I'm not a Canadian citizen but they illegally allowed DHS to deport me here anyway, or get them to commit perjury in a way that can be proven. And through Polisak's testimony I accomplished that.

Now that all that was said and done, it was my turn to testify.

Of course, I didn't have to testify. I knew I was going to be found guilty no matter what. As I've said before on this website, having published proof of the corruption and misconduct going on in the justice system, and making the prosecutors and judges look like utter twits, there is no way any BC judge will ever rule in my favor. Also, this would be my opportunity to make that arrogant, squishy bitch Wolfe look like more of a fool. How could I pass up that opportunity?

I started out by "telling my side of the story", otherwise known as "the truth" about what happened on 2019-03-15 TR 2020-03-06 p105l36-p116l26. Nothing particularly interesting to bother mentioning here.

Of course, during my direct testimony, the issue of my place of birth came up again - you know, seeing as how Wolfe brought it up first - and again, St. Pierre argued that it's not relevant TR 2020-03-06 p110l24-p113l26.

St. Pierre asked me what arguments I had brought up before Justice Holmes when trying to have my probation conditions removed, and I told him essentially the same things and evidence I've brought up in this trial. Wolfe then stands up and says he has a copy of Holmes' ruling in that matter if it would be of benefit to the court. I respond that, yes and I have a copy of the transcripts TR 2020-03-06 p113l27-p114l9, in the event St. Pierre wants to see what actually occurred at that hearing, rather than the grossly misrepresented claims Holmes made in her Reasons for Judgment. Wolfe and St. Pierre ignored my comments.

St. Pierre asked me if I agree that Polisak had testified that she didn't tell me I had to leave Canada. I pointed out that because I was at a port of entry I could not be told to leave Canada because at that point I was not in Canada TR 2020-03-06 p115l32-p116l8. It wouldn't have made any sense to tell a person who is at a port of entry, and therefore not in Canada, to leave Canada. You can tell them to leave the port of entry or you can tell them they may not enter Canada, but you can't tell them to leave Canada because they're not yet in Canada.

My Testimony on Cross

Wolfe started his cross by trying to trap me into admitting that my failure to report for probation was a direct result of my deliberate actions and that I would have known that those actions would cause me to fail to report. I quickly saw where he was going with his questions and headed him off. I said "Are you --", and he quickly got angry and said "You can't ask me a question!" So I rephrased it as a statement: "I believe where this is going is to get me to admit that it's my own fault that I was in custody, and therefore I should be held responsible for not reporting for probation." I went on to say, though, that regardless of the circumstances which caused me to be in custody, the fact is I was in custody. And because I was in custody I was physically precluded from being able to report for probation TR 2020-03-06 p120l1-p121l7, p121l36-p122l11. The charge was bullshit right from the beginning and Wolfe's arguments were nothing more than frivolous.

Wolfe then tried to get me to say that I knew I was violating the probation order once I crossed over the border. But I testified that is incorrect because I did not go within 100 meters of the border, nor cross the border until after I had been advised I was inadmissible. And, because I was informed I was inadmissible I was not legally authorized to leave the port of entry by returning to Canada. Wolfe responded "So you say." To which I responded "So I say." And to which he then responded "So you say." TR 2020-03-06 p122l25-46

I then pointed out to Wolfe that I have a list of lies that Polisak had told while testifying, and I challenged him to find a single lie that I have ever told. He refused to respond TR 2020-03-06 p122l47-p123l4.

Wolfe continued to try to get me to say I had knowingly violated the order by crossing the border. And I continued to reply that I don't believe I was violating the order because under certain circumstances, for example if I were deported, then that would not be violating the order. Wolfe replied he's not interested in a hypothetical TR 2020-03-06 p123l5-23.

Wolfe pointed out that Polisak was clear in her testimony, that she never ordered me to leave Canada or denied me admission. I pointed out that Polisak was very clear on that one detail, yet she seemed to have forgotten everything else that happened on that day TR 2020-03-06 p123l24-32. It's very telling when a law enforcement officer remembers, in vivid detail, the one point the prosecution needs, but forgets absolutely everything else that happened on the given day. It's because they're full of shit!

Wolfe pointed out that in Polisak's notes there's no reference to her denying me admission. And I pointed out that in her notes there was not a single mention of whether I was admissible or inadmissible, which I find very peculiar TR 2020-03-06 p123l36-40. He really is a bumbling fool, this Bernie Wolfe. I'm amazed that the Ministry of Attorney General willingly pays him $196,050 a year to make such a fool of himself.

Wolfe tried to get me to agree that Polisak had testified that the RCMP, CBSA, and IRCC all seem to agree I am a Canadian citizen and that she also concluded such. I responded that I find it interesting that even though Polisak testified to that, as we've seen, all of the official records from each of those agencies very clearly state I was born in the US, which would mean I am not a Canadian citizen TR 2020-03-06 p123l44-p124l13.

I then said to Wolfe "And as for her concluding that I'm Canadian, I don't remember seeing that in here. Can you tell me where she says in her notes that she concluded that I'm a Canadian?" To which Wolfe promptly and very sternly responded "No!" TR 2020-03-06 p124l20-24 As I said, a bumbling fool.

Wolfe then asked me about me telling Bhimji that I intended to turn myself in to CBSA to be deported. I responded that Bhimji first falsely stated on direct that I did not say that, then on cross I confronted him with his C-Log entries, proving that he had lied on direct, then he admitted I did tell him that TR 2020-03-06 p125l2-11. So here's Wolfe relying on testimony from Bhimji which I subsequently proved was perjurious. Could this guy be any more incompetent?

Wolfe then suggested to me that when I went to the border I was not deported. I agreed that I was not "deported", because you cannot be deported while you are at a port of entry because at that point you are already outside the country. You can't be deported if you're not in the country TR 2020-03-06 p125l19-34.

Wofe then "suggested" to me that when I went to the border on 2019-03-15, I was really just fed up and annoyed with Holmes' decision to deny my application to remove the conditions. I tell him I accept that that is his suggestion however he would be grossly mistaken. I tell him I wasn't in the slightest bit annoyed by Holmes' decision; that I had expected she would deny the applicaiton. The application was merely a formality. And I say that the decision to turn myself in at that time was not spontaneous. I had been planning it for weeks TR 2020-03-06 p126l47-p127l23.

Next, Wolfe reviewed some of the statements I made to Potts during the interrogation. I pointed out to Wolfe that I knew I was talking to what I believed, based on my prior experience with them, was a corrupt law enforcement agency, so I was deliberately providing false and misleading information in order to manipulate them into obtaining the video footage from CBSA. Wolfe asked "so, were you lying to Potts?" I responded "Yes. Absolutely. I was deliberately manipulating him and saying things to try to influence them to do things." TR 2020-03-06 p128l41-p130l22 I'm not so sure St. Pierre liked this very much but, oh well, fuck 'em.

Wolfe said "You were really unhappy with the judge [Holmes] who accused you of manipulating [indiscernible] and playing games. And that was on the 14th when she rendered her decision. The 15th, you got in a snit and you went across the border." To which I responded "Is that a question?" Oh the fucker got right mad at that point. How dare a self-represented, snot-nosed little punk like me be so smug and self-assured during his cross-examination! All he could say was "Sir!" TR 2020-03-06 p131l6-22

I said: "Okay. The first part of the question, about being angry with Holmes. I was angry with Holmes not for her ruling against me. As I said, I anticipated that. I expected that was going to happen. I was angry at what I believe was amazing hypocrisy that they would accuse me of playing games when, for example, what happened here with CBSA, with them insisting that there are no records that I presented myself for five months, until I call out Mr. Wolfe on it. Then, all of a sudden, within a few days, oh, yes, they admit that the records do --" TR 2020-03-06 p131l23-p132l3.

Wolfe then pulled out Holmes' Reasons for Judgment on the application to vary the probation order, and turned to paragraph 7. I responded, how about we look at the transcript of the hearing rather than just at what Holmes said afterward TR 2020-03-06 p132l42-47. That is, why don't we look at what really occurred at the hearing rather than Holmes's unreliable, biased recounting of her opinion of what happened. Wolfe and St. Pierre ignored me.

During the discussion of paragraph 7, I said that this is a perfect example of how the courts ignore evidence which is inconsistent with the ruling they want to make. Wolfe interrupted me, and I snapped at him "Well, please, I'm the witness, if I may finish." What happened next is uncertain because the court microphones didn't pick it up TR 2020-03-06 p133l7-28. Again, I'm pretty sure St. Pierre did not like this very much.

Anyway, there was more of this back and forth, this witty banter that went on but this page has gotten far, far too long so if you want to see more of the exchanges between myself and Wolfe during his cross-examination, the entire official transcript with my painfully insightful commentary is at the link you just passed.

Wolfe had been trying to create the impression the reason I left the country was because I was angry with the outcome of the hearing to remove my probation conditions, and so I could evade the conditions. So I pointed out that I believe I am at least reasonably intelligent and methodical and, if it was my intention to flee, I would not have first turned myself in to CBSA, then immediately afterward turned myself in to CBP. I would have simply left without telling anyone and without turning myself in TR 2020-03-06 p134l42-p135l35, p136l31-43. Clearly I either wanted to get caught or wanted to not violate the probation conditions.

Wolfe reviewed the part from my interrogation by Potts, where I'd said eventually the probation orders will end and I'll go back to my country of origin and I'll say fuck the court, and fuck Mark Myhre, and fuck everything else, and I'm going to go right back to running the website TR 2020-03-06 p138l1-31. Perhaps St. Pierre did not like this either but, again, I say so the fuck what!

Wolfe said "Well, if you go back to the States, you can continue to harass Capuano." And I responded "Oh, and I have every intention of doing so. Just like I told Myhre and everyone else, the probation will eventually end. The moment it does, everything is going to go back to normal. Once those conditions are gone and I won't be violating them, of course I'm going to go back to it." TR 2020-03-06 p138l32-41 Yeah! Fuck you and fuck your probation conditions. Once the probation ends there is fuck all anyone can do about me maintaining the website because the website is not illegal.

Wolfe then asked me if I agree that the purpose of the probation conditions is to protect Capuano. I tell him I don't see how the conditions protect her from anything. I ask him to tell me how a probation condition can possibly protect her. He said, well if they do or don't, that's why you can't cross into the US. Again, I ask him how that protects Capuano? TR 2020-03-06 p139l2-16 My point was that a probation condition prohibiting me from doing something only enables the justice system to punish me after I've done it. So it does nothing to protect anybody. It only allows for additional punishment after the harm has already been done. A probation condition prohibiting me from leaving BC does not prevent me from leaving BC, it only results in a prosecution after I've already left BC. So how does that protect anyone? Is it possible Wolfe is as much of an idiot as I firmly believe he is?

And after some argument, Wolfe said to me, could you not foresee the statement could very well wind up being used as it's being used right now? I said, yes. Wolfe said "And yet you say you were content to lie to Potts and manipulate him?" And I said "Yeah. Because the purpose was to get them to request the video from CBSA..." TR 2020-03-06 p144l11-35.

And here's where it all comes to a head: Wolfe says "I'm going to suggest to you that you're manipulating the court today." I respond "It's possible. I don't believe I am...". Wolfe: "Just as you were manipulating Potts to suit an agenda not related to the reason you were arrested?" And my response...wait for it:

Perhaps, Mr. Wolfe, this whole thing is just some ridiculous scheme on my part to try to gather as much evidence of corruption and injustice in the local justice system as possible so I can publish all of that.

TR 2020-03-06 p145l2-13

And at that point St. Pierre immediately stepped in and said: "We're going way, way outside of what I consider to be the relevant issue is whether the explanation that's provided by Mr. Fox provides a reasonable basis for a violation of a court order. That's it." TR 2020-03-06 p145l16-26

And with that Wolfe was spent! He'd blown his and was ready for a nap. I openly admitted, in court, on the record, that this whole thing was just a big scheme for me to be able to gather proof of the corruption going on in the system, and there's fuck-all they can do about it. I've obtained mounds of evidence against Wolfe, CBSA, Bhimji, the RCMP. I was content. I accomplished my object (and that's really what it's all about, right? Set the object then pursue it, nothing else matters!) Some people say, yeah but you spent all that time in jail. Worth it!

Even though I had testified, we agreed Wolfe would provide his closing arguments first. That would be beneficial for me so I can hear his arguments before deciding what to include in mine.

In his closing, Wolfe commented that it doesn't matter if you're Lithuanian or Irish or Jamaican or American, a probation order applies regardless TR 2020-03-06 p152l23-27. He's trying to confuse the issues. It's not, and never has been, an issue of citizenship or ethnicity. It's an issue of lawful presence, of immigration status. If a person is not authorized to be present in Canada, is not authorized to work in Canada, and is not authorized to receive any government or citizenship benefits (e.g. basic health care), then the court cannot impose a probation condition which requires that person to remain in Canada! How the fuck is the person supposed to live? Literally! How is the person supposed to make money to buy food and shelter? This was brought up before Justice Holmes, but in her self-righteous arrogance she simply didn't give a shit.

Most of Wolfe's closing is just a one-sided, skewed rehashing of what his witnesses said - of course, only the parts of their testimony which help his case.

But, particularly, during his closing, Wolfe stated "I would urge the court not to make any finding with respect to that [my citizenship or immigration status] because it fits into Mr. Fox's bigger agenda." TR 2020-03-06 p154l41-43 Yes, it absolutely does! That agenda being to prove that the US deported a US citzen to Canada, and that Canada allowed them to deport a person to Canada who was not a Canadian citizen; then the Canadian courts imposed an order on me forcing me, under threat of imprisonment, to stay in Canada even though I have no status in Canada. Is there anything wrong with that agenda? All I'm seeking to do is to expose the truth about what's been going on!

But the reason Wolfe urged the court not to make any findings with respect to my immigration status is because the prosecutors, Justice Holmes, and CBSA have setup this house of cards which, if it is formally decided I am not a Canadian citizen (which it already has been by IRCC), then it's going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. And it's going to make a lot of people look very, very stupid, petty, and vindictive.

At one point, Wolfe rambled on about me having contempt for the court, and the authority of the court and it's orders, blah, blah, blah TR 2020-03-06 p155l4-26.

After what seemed like hours or even days of listening to this jackass drone on and on about how I'm such a bad, corrupt, evil person, he was talking about what I claim happened after I dealt with Polisak and he said "Well, we don't know what happened there..." and at that point I lost it. I turned to him and said, loudly, "We would know if we had the video, wouldn't we?" TR 2020-03-06 p156l12-21 I love how in the Canadian justice system the police and prosecutors can simply destroy evidence that irrefutably proves your innocent, admit they destroyed it, then at the trial pretend like that evidence never even existed and claim that you're lying about what happened!

Immediately following my outburst, St. Pierre said "One of the curious artifacts in this thing was that the, you know, databases are referred to and the CPIC record, it looks like, at least you presume she must've looked at it. The probation order you'd think would be somewhere on there. It boggles my mind that probation order was never discussed, which has clear terms in it." TR 2020-03-06 p156l22-28 He then went on to say "But it really matters not..." TR 2020-03-06 p156l35-36. What the fuck! I completely disagree. I does matter. It matters immensely. Because it shows that Polisak was full of shit. She was lyng more than my ex-wife (I'm kidding, it would be physically impossible to lie more than my ex-wife).

Then there was some discussion between St. Pierre and Wolfe, where St. Pierre is saying that even if he accepted my testimony that I turned myself in to CBSA, I was within Canada and I wasn't ordered to leave Canada. St. Pierre just completely ignores the fact that I was within an area designated as a port of entry TR 2020-03-06 p156l35-p157l44.

After Wolfe finished his endless drivel, I began my closing arguments.

I first reiterated the fact that when a person is present within an area designated as a port of entry it doesn't matter whether they entered the port of entry from the US or from within Canada. Once the person is within the port of entry they are within the port of entry, period. This must be so because CBSA will not always be able to verify whether the person entered from within Canada or otherwise. So the presumption must be that they entered from outside Canada. St. Pierre said "Well, I disagree with you. There's no evidence of that." TR 2020-03-06 p158l12-20 There's no evidence of that because it's an issue of law, not an issue of fact, you jackass! Both Wolfe and St. Pierre know I'm right about this. Why do you think it is that neither the prosecution nor any of the judges have, at any point through the trial or the appeals, has ever referred to a single legal authority to suggest my position is incorrect?

I further explained that if a person is inadmissible due to not being a Canadian citizen and having a criminal history, then they are inadmissible, period. It does not matter whether they entered the port of entry from within Canada or not. Polisak, having looked in the computer and seen the criminal history and the fact that I was born in a foreign country and not issued Canadian citizenship, there is simply no plausible way she could have thought I was admissible. And her claim that she did not see the country of birth field on the three separate reports is simply unbelievable TR 2020-03-06 p158l21-32.

St. Pierre argued with me about my position that at the port of entry every person is to be presumed to be a foreign national seeking entry to Canada, regardless of whether or not that is the case. He pointed out that the CBSA office at the Douglas border crossing is used for much more than just vetting people entering Canada. He said my argument just doesn't make any sense, the CBSA office just happens to be located at the port of entry but it's there for a lot of other purposes TR 2020-03-06 p158l33-43.

St. Pierre went on to say, even if Polisak had said you're not admissible to Canada, and you're already in Canada, and even though you're bound by an order not to leave, you're reasonable response to that would be just to walk across to the US TR 2020-03-06 p159l3-10. I don't understand how it is that St. Pierre is having such difficulty grasping the idea that when a person is within a port of entry they are considered, for the purposes of CBSA and the immigration laws, to be outside of Canada. Once you enter the port of entry, then to go from the port of entry back into Canada you are required to obtain authorization from CBSA. The fact that CBSA might not enforce that very strictly doesn't mean the requirement doesn't exist.

St. Pierre then argued that I wasn't seeking entry to Canada, I was seeking to leave Canada, so a requirement that I be admitted by CBSA wouldn't apply anyway TR 2020-03-06 p159l36-39. But as I had tried over and over to explain to him, it doesn't matter if the person is actually seeking entry - once they enter the port of entry, the presumption is that they are a freign national, seeking entry to Canada. That means that CBSA is required to presume that every person within the area designated as a port of entry is a foreign national, regardless of whether or not they are, and that they are seeking entry to Canada, regardless of whether or not they are. I just don't see what's so hard to understand about all this. How can a person who has such difficulty comprehending something so simple rise to the level of being a judge?

I, again, explained that once a person enters the area designated as the port of entry, they are considered, for the purposes of the immigration laws, to be outside of Canada. St. Pierre responded that if I make the submission that I was considered to be outside of Canada, one of the probation conditions was to remain in Canada, so I would be violating that condition TR 2020-03-06 p159l40-p160l7. Oh my fucking God! Seriously? One more time: The port of entry is, physically, in Canada; when I was at the port of entry I was still, physically, in Canada; but for the purposes of applying and enforcing the immigration laws, that specific, clearly defined area which is designated as a port of entry, is considered to be not inside of Canada. It is physically inside Canada; but for the purposes of immigration laws it is considered to be outside of Canada. There is simply no way St. Pierre does not understand this. He must have been ordered by somebody to find me guilty no matter what.

Then St. Pierre asked me, so you're saying you'd be treated differently if you went to a CBSA office in Vancouver, for instance? There would be a totally different analysis? I responded, yes. He asked, Why? And I explained, again, that when a person is encountered by CBSA within Canada other than at a port of entry the burden is on CBSA to prove the person is inadmissible; but when a person is encountered by CBSA at a port of entry the burden is on the person to prove they are admissible. St. Pierre responded "That just doesn't make any logical sense." TR 2020-03-06 p160l14-30 The issue is not the CBSA office, the issue is the port of entry. In this case, the CBSA office just happened to be located within a port of entry. Even if I was speaking with Polisak outside the CBSA office, in the parking lot, I would still have been within the area designated as the port of entry and CBSA would still have been prohibited from allowing me to leave the port of entry by returning to Canada.

Then St. Pierre said, so your argument is that after you spoke with Polisak and she told you you were admissible, you were required to leave the country? I said, essentially yes, just like when I turned myself in to CBP, and they said "You're not admissible to the United States", so my options were to go back to where I came from or sit in custody and wait to go before an immigration judge. And St. Pierre responded, "Okay. There you go. You had options ... You could've stayed and complied with the order and fought that order from within Canada." TR 2020-03-06 p160l42-p161l15 But he was mistaken, I was saying I could have fought the denial of admission to the US because I'm a US citizen. I have absolutely no basis for fighting a denial of admission to Canada, because I am absolutely, unquestionably inadmissible to Canada and have no immigration status. Has he even been listening to anything I've been saying?

I told St. Pierre if I were to remain in Canada I'd be relegated to living on the streets because I'm not authorized to work or receive government assistance. St. Pierre responded, "that's your reason for doing it, because the probation order is going to have some negative collateral effects, and most probation orders do have some sort of impact on folks. But is that a reasonable excuse under the law?" TR 2020-03-06 p161l16-30 Oh fuck off! He clearly had already made up his mind about this and has been ignoring everything contrary to that. To begin with, literally forcing a person into a situation where they are unable to legally provide for and support themselves for three years, is hardly "some negative collateral effects". But moreover, the reasons I did what I did (i.e. turning myself in to CBSA to be deported) was not illegal, it did not violate the conditions of the probation order. The judges are just pissed off because they see it as, I've found a way to get around the order without violating it.

I told St. Pierre I believe it would be a reasonable excuse under the law if the condition necessarily required me to violate the law. If I comply with the condition then I'm remaining in Canada illegally, in violation of the law; if I comply with the law by leaving Canada, I'm violating the order. St. Pierre agreed with me, but pointed out I had already brought that issue up before Justice Holmes TR 2020-03-06 p161l34-44.

I told St. Pierre I don't believe I left voluntarily because once Polisak told me I was inadmissible there was no choice left for me. St. Pierre responded "You told me you had a choice. You had a choice to remain in Canada and fight that." I said "No, I'm saying on the U.S. side when I turned -- when I presented myself to CBP." TR 2020-03-06 p162l15-25 I could not stay in Canada and fight the denial of admission because I had no legal basis on which to fight it. You see, he wasn't even listening to me. He picked out bits and pieces of what I said and smashed them together to create the "factual basis" he wanted.

But St. Pierre persisted. He said "but basically what you're telling me ... is that you had certain options. Once you were given the information that you're inadmissible in Canada you have certain options. One of them is to leave thereby breaching your order. One of them is to remain in Canada and to fight the designation or to deal with that designation while you're inside the country of Canada." TR 2020-03-06 p163l33-42 Oh my God! Where is this yahoo getting this? I never said that at all. I said the opposite of that! I said I could fight my denial of admission to the US - because I have a legal basis for that: I am a US citizen, I was born in the US. I never said I could stay in Canada and fight the denial of admission to Canada. I explained this to St. Pierre, but he seemed to ignore it and just said, yet again, "You're not outside of Canada yet ... when you walked out of that building you're saying there's several things you could've done. One, you could turn and go to the U.S. Two, you could've turned left and just go back to Canada." I replied "But had I turned left and gone back to Canada I'd be breaking the law, and that other CBSA officer there surely would've stopped me...". Believe it or not, at this point, St. Pierre asks "Breaking what law?" TR 2020-03-06 p164l9-24 Holy fucking Christ, man! Is this for real? Is this really happening? I say "The immigration law. Because if I'm inadmissible, then I cannot walk out of the CBSA building and then just walk north into Canada again." And this went on, back and forth, for a little while. If you're head is not already spinning from this and you want more, look at the transcript.

I tried responding to Wolfe's claims about me having contempt for the system but St. Pierre repeatedly told me that's not relevant. Eventually, I said to him that if the prosecutor is allowed to make such claims against me, on the record, then I must be allowed to respond to those claims, on the record TR 2020-03-06 p165l39-p166l17. And why is it St. Pierre doesn't tell Wolfe that's not relevant when Wolfe was making those claims against me? Why is it only not relevant when I try to respond to them? Hypocrisy, man! Bloody hell, hypocrisy!

At one point, St. Pierre seemed to be suggesting that one of my options upon leaving the secondary inspection area would have been to not say anything to the CBSA officer standing outside the building and just proceed north, back into Canada TR 2020-03-06 p167l44-p168l4. By doing that I would have been violating the immigration laws. Was St. Pierre really suggesting I should have violated the law and re-entered the country illegally?

I then pointed out the inconsistencies in Polisak's testimony, arguing that she should not have been considered credible. But not surprisingly, St. Pierre downplayed those inconsistencies saying he believes her testimony was, essentially, that she doesn't have much recollection of the events TR 2020-03-06 p168l24-p170l46.

I pointed out that, given the circumstances, it would have been a huge problem for CBSA to knowingly allow me back into the country. St. Pierre responded "Well, you're under a Canadian court order to stay in Canada. I hardly think it would be a problem for Canada Border Services to say look, you've got to stay in Canada." TR 2020-03-06 p171l45-p172l6 However, St. Pierre is mistaken. In MCI v. Cuskic, 148 CCC (3d) 541, the Federal Court of Appeal held that a probation order must not be a basis for deferring a ciminal alien's removal. St. Pierre is a judge, it is his job to know this!

I then pointed out that Polisak's memory of our interaction was, apparently, very weak and that had CBSA not played games for 5 months, falsely claiming there was no record of me turning myself in, then perhaps Polisak could have testified much sooner, while her memory was still fresh TR 2020-03-06 p172l11-38. This is, obviously, a hint that the case should have been dismissed based on CBSA's misconduct, but St. Pierre missed it.

And finally, I told the court that, if I had access to the law library and to appropriate legal research material I could provide authorities to support my positions regarding the preseumptions that a person within a port of entry is a foreign national seeking entry to Canada, but that I don't have access to those resources at that time TR 2020-03-06 p173l29-41. I left it for St. Pierre to decide how to address that. He did nothing.

After my closing arguments, Wolfe made some arguments in reply.

He said, there's a circularity to my reasoning; which amounts to I'm illegal so I must go; I must go because I am illegal. I pointed out to him that's not circular reasoning, that's the same thing stated two different ways TR 2020-03-06 p174l3-16. I don't think he liked me correcting him. But perhaps if he wasn't such an idiot people wouldn't have to correct him.

Wolfe continued to insist I am not inadmissible, that I am a Canadian citizen. He argued that Polisak's "evidence" (meaning her "testimony") was that if I was inadmissible that would have been marked in her notes. He ignored the fact that in her notes she didn't state I was admissible or inadmissible, she completely neglected to make any mention of that. I responded that Polisak's testimony on that matter is irrelevant because the actual, physical evidence, that is IRCC's, CBSA's, and the RCMP's official records all unequivocally state I was born in the US and have not received Canadian citizenship TR 2020-03-06 p174l17-p175l12. Witness testimony cannot and must not be permitted to override physical evidence - otherwise reality means nothing! Neither St. Pierre nor Wolfe responded to that. They just gave that arrogant, blank stare that the Canadian prosecutors and judges give when you present them with actual, physical evidence and reality which contradicts their delusional fantasies.

And with that, thank God, the fucking trial was finally finished. We stood down for the afternoon recess.

When we reconvened, St. Pierre read his Reasons for Judgment.

Nevertheless, let's have a look at St. Pierre's Reasons for Judgment (RFJ) so you can see how full of shit these Canadian judges are and how they completely disregard evidence.

St. Pierre says the issue that remains is whether I knowingly, recklessly, or with wilful blindness, involuntarily engaged in the conduct which would constitute the particular violations, and if so, whether I had a reasonable excuse for doing so RFJ ¶4-5. St. Pierre continues to ignore the issue of subjective mens rea, which the prosecutor is required to prove in cases of violations of probation orders. Subjective mens rea means that the accused must not only have engaged in the particular conduct but that he did so intending to violate the probation order. For example, if I have a probation condition which prohibits me from, say, leaving BC, but the prosecutor tells me that if I'm deported or told by IRCC or CBSA to leave Canada then he would not consider that voluntary and would not prosecute me; then if I turn myself in to CBSA for the purpose of being removed and CBSA actually removes me or orders me to leave; then I would have a sincere belief that my actions did not violate the order and the subjective mens rea requirement would not be met. In this case, the prosecutor was required to prove that when I was within 100 meters of the border and when I crossed the border, I did so believing that I was violating the conditions of the probation order. However, that issue never came up once during the trial, nor in St. Pierre's RFJ. St. Pierre only referred to the reasonable excuse requirement.

Since, following my discussion with Polisak, I knew I was inadmissible and it was illegal for me to return to Canada, I believed I had no option other than to leave the port of entry by returning to the US. Therefore, there was no subjective mens rea.

St. Pierre acknowledges that I did, in fact, speak with a CBSA officer outside the secondary inspection area, and that she directed me to secondary RFJ ¶15. That means I was, in fact, ordered to secondary inspection and my interaction with Polisak was, in fact, a formal inspection under the IRPA, contrary to what Polisak had stated in her testimony. That first interaction with the officer outside would constitute the primary inspection.

St. Pierre then says Polisak testified that I had not been directed to secondary inspection by any pedestrian booth attendant RFJ ¶16, however he had just acknowledged in paragraph 15 that I had. St. Pierre repeatedly mentions that I had entered the port of entry from within Canada, but that is meaningless. Once you've entered the port of entry it doesn't matter where you entered from, it only matters that you are now there.

St. Pierre acknowledged that Polisak testified that she could not determine that I was not a Canadian citizen RFJ ¶17. There are two points significant to that: 1) determining that I am not a Canadian citizen is only relevant within Canada other than at a port of entry; and 2) her statement that she was not able to determine I am not a Canadian citizen means she was also unable to determine that I am a Canadian citizen. And if a person is at a port of entry and CBSA is not able to determine that they are a Canadian citizen (or otherwise entitled to enter Canada), then CBSA must not allow that person to enter Canada.

St. Pierre said "At no time, she testified, did she direct or advise him or require him to leave the country of Canada." RFJ ¶18 But as I explained, at length in my arguments, a person who is physically present within an area designated as a port of entry is already considered to be "outside of Canada", so Polisak could not have told me, while we were at the port of entry, that I must "leave Canada" she could only tell me that I cannot enter Canada. This was covered extensively in the trial. St. Pierre has just completely ignored it and is pretending to believe that while I was at the port of entry I was within Canada - in order to support the verdict he had already intended to make.

St. Pierre also said, "In fact, [Polisak] said that she had no valid reason for doing something like that given her inquiries." RFJ ¶18 But that is obviously complete nonsense. It was well established during the trial that all of the federal government records which Polisak admitted she checked, clearly stated I was born in the US and there was no indication I had been granted Canadian citizenship. And Polisak's testimony that she did not see, or have access to, the country of birth fields of each of those records is just completely ridiculous. The main part of her job was dealing with foreign nationals seeking entry to Canada - she would absolutely need access to that information in the FOSS and GCMS systems.

St. Pierre claims I agreed that Polisak did not take me into custody and did not explicitly order me to leave the country RFJ ¶19. He is neglecting to mention that I also said the reason she did not order me to leave the country is because I wasn't, from her perspective, in the country - I was in a port of entry. St. Pierre goes on to say I felt I had no legal basis to remain in Canada and I felt compelled to leave the country. St. Pierre is acknowledging, in other words, that I lacked the requisit subjective mens rea. And without the subjective mens rea, a person cannot be guilty of breaching a probation condition. But let's not let irrelevant things like the law interfere with the law!

St. Pierre talks about Constable Brown's efforts to obtain the video footage and any records of me turning myself in, from CBSA RFJ ¶23. But he makes no mention of the RCMP waiting until after the video footage was destroyed before they made their request for it. Also, St. Pierre falsely claims that the RCMP received no response from CBSA, to their requests for any records of me presenting myself RFJ ¶23. In fact, CBSA had responded repeatedly, consistently falsely claiming there were no such records. St. Pierre praises Brown for performing her due diligence in trying to obtain the records from CBSA RFJ ¶24. This is typical Canadian justice system bullshit. First, Brown deliberately waited until after she knew CBSA would have deleted the video before she requested it. Second, Brown's efforts to obtain records from CBSA were only in response to the prosecutor hounding her about it, and the prosecutor's hounding was only in response to me hounding him about it and me complaining to the court about it. Had I not pressured Wolfe for it he would not have pressured Brown for it and she would not have pressured CBSA for it. So, no, Brown was not performing her due diligence, she was covering her ass because if she did nothing then I could have used that fact in my defense. But of course, a Canadian judge would never see it this way.

St. Pierre refers to Bhimji's testimony. He says Bhimji certainly did not give Mr. Fox (that's me) permission to be outside the province RFJ ¶26. But not a single mention of the fact that I caught and confronted Bhimji on two critical lies in his testimony on direct! It seems to me that if a justice system participant, such as a probation officer, gets caught lying on the witness stand, then his entire testimony should be discarded (and he should be fired from his position of public trust and banned from working in the justice system), but that is not how justice works in Canada. Apparently, it's only lying when the accused does it.

St. Pierre again criticized CBSA for their conduct in withholding and lying about the existence of records proving I did turn myself in to them as I'd been claiming I had RFJ ¶30. At least he's acknowledging there was some misconduct there. But again, he praises the RCMP in their efforts to obtain those materials (see my comments about paragraph 23, above). Just so much grabass and back slapping amongst the members of the Vancouver justice system.

St. Pierre falsely states that CBSA can "remove" any foreign nationals from their office at the port of entry RFJ ¶34. That is false because a person at a port of entry cannot be "removed" (or deported) because at that point they are not already in Canada. You can't remove someone who is not currently in the country. The equivalent action at a port of entry would be to deny the person admission. This was explained ad nauseam in my arguments, but clearly St. Pierre completely ignored it.

St. Pierre goes on to say that Polisak testified that if a person is denied admission at the port of entry it is documented RFJ ¶34. But he fails to mention that on cross, Polisak admitted that that's not always done. Also, both the IRPA and CBSA policies explicity state the preparation of a section 44(1) report (initiating removal proceedings) is optional when the person does not contest their denial of admission. In other words, the absence of such a paper trail is really indicative of nothing.

St. Pierre then says "That makes sense, her evidence. I accept that evidence. I mean, all of that makes logical sense." RFJ ¶34 This is the premise of Canadian justice - the laws mean nothing; precedence means nothing; if the individual judge believes something "makes sense" then that is how he will rule, regardless of the law. Really, I'm not making this up, it's all right here in the transcripts and the Reasons for Judgment. St. Pierre didn't care what the laws were or how they were supposed to be applied at a port of entry, he completely accepted Polisak's testimony because it "made sense", even though it was completely contrary to the laws.

St. Pierre completely misrepresents what I had said in my testimony regarding the events following my interaction with Polisak RFJ ¶36. St. Pierre is intermingling my interaction with the CBSA officer who directed me to secondary, before I spoke with Polisak, with my interaction with the CBSA officer I encountered after I spoke with Polisak and was informed I was inadmissible. In addition, St. Pierre falsely claims I said to the CBSA officer outside the secondary inspection, after being told I was inadmissible, "Well, I guess I have to leave because I do not have any -- I am inadmissible in Canada"; but what I actually said in my testimony was "There was an officer standing there. I explained to him that I had just been told that I'm inadmissible. How do I get back to the U.S. -- the U.S. side or CBP, from there?" This shows how much attention the judge actually pays to the defense testimony and evidence.

St. Pierre says "The issue is essentially ... as simple and as complicated as --, does that scenario amount to a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the order?" RFJ ¶37 But he is incorrect. The scenario does not raise an issue of reasonable excuse, it raises an issue of subjective mens rea. Once I was advised I was inadmissible I knew I was prohibited from returning to Canada and, as such, my subsequent departure from Canada could not be considered voluntary. One of the major differences between a reasonable excuse defense and a subjective mens rea defense is that in the case of reasonable excuse, the burden is on the defendant to prove that reasonable excuse; whereas in the case of subjective mens rea, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that subjective mental state. And the prosecutor did not even attempt to prove it - the issue of subjective mens rea did not come up at all throughout the trial.

St. Pierre continued to insist that even if he accepted my testimony that Polisak had told me I was inadmissible, I had a choice: I could have left the country; or I could have stayed in the country and fought the denial of admission or been arrested RFJ ¶38. So St. Pierre is saying my choices were I could have complied with the law and left the country; or I could have broken the law and returned to the country and been arrested. St. Pierre actually was suggesting I break the law!

St. Pierre says "There is no evidence that he was involuntarily removed from the country or asked to leave or directed to leave." RFJ ¶40 This is horseshit! There is never a record of a person being asked or directed to leave Canada from a port of entry because at that point they are not considered to be in Canada! There could only be a record of them being denied admission.

St. Pierre then said that I voluntarily performed the action of walking myself across the border RFJ ¶40. But if I was told by a Border Services Officer, while I was at the port of entry, that I am inadmissible, then it would have been illegal for me to continue into Canada! There is absolutely no way St. Pierre can be so obtuse that he does not realize this. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but, come on, someone must have pressured St. Pierre to find me guilty no matter what. There is simply no way St. Pierre could have the opinions he did at that 2019-12-11 hearing, yet now claim to have the beliefs he does.

And finally, we reach the end of this part of the fucking narrative. Holy fucking shit, this is so much fucking typing! But if these God damned bastards would stop being so corrupt, and lying and cheating, I'd have nothing to write about.

The prosecutor assigned to the BCSC appeal was Jennifer Horneland. She was outstandingly uncooperative throughout the process.

The appeal kept getting adjourned, at my request, for a little over two years because the BCPS kept arresting and imprisoning me, so I had no access to legal research material to prepare my arguments TR 2020-09-09 p3l47-p4l14.

Finally, in September 2022, the appeal hearing proceeded, even though I expressed to the court that I still did not have access to legal material and so, could not possibly be ready to proceed TR 2020-09-09 p2l35-p3l3. Horneland, of course, argued that it's my own fault that I'm not ready and that I've had more than enough time to prepare. How she figures any amount of time would be sufficient, in the absence of legal research material, I have no idea. She also argued that I've had all the material required to proceed, for over a year TR 2020-09-09 p4l19-p5l2. She would seem to be saying she believes the only material required to proceed with the appeal is the prosecution's book of arguments and supporting case law.

The main arguments I raised at the hearing were:

1. I was not prepared to proceed with the hearing because at NFPC and FRCC I did not have access to immigration related cases to prove my claims about CBSA's duties and burdens at a port of entry were correct, and therefore, that Polisak was lying and St. Pierre and Wolfe were wrong on the related laws.
2. St. Pierre should not have considered Polisak's testimony credible at all, because she was making such outrageous and clearly false claims on the witness stand. Any reliance on Polisak's testimony, in St. Pierre's should be considered erroneous.

Edelmann asked me whether I intended to pursue the issue of subjective mens rea, which Marion Brown had added as a ground of appeal during the 684 application. I informed Edelmann I had no knowledge or understanding of subjective mens rea, so I wouldn't be able to argue it anyway, however I would like the court to consider it.

Horneland focussed her arguments mostly on the issue of reasonable excuse. And she, of course, misrepresented much of what I was claiming and arguing.

Subjective Mens Rea vs. Reasonable Excuse

After listening to what seemed like a day and a half of Horneland going on about reasonable excuse, and referring to R. v Goleski, Edelmann raised the issue of subjectvie mens rea, asking her why this case is being treated as a reasonable excuse case and not a subjective mens rea case. What followed was a lengthy discussion between Edelmann and Horneland about subjective mens rea, and the prosecution's burden to prove that before the burden shifts to the accused to establish a reasonable excuse.

At one point, Edelmann asked her, if the CBSA Officer put a gun at my head and ordered me across the border then how would that be any different than if an armed CBSA officer tells me at the port of entry that I'm inadmissible and cannot enter Canada? TR 2022-09-09 p62l41-p63l13 Horneland had no response.

Later, Horneland continued to quote from Goleski and Zora, until finally Edelmann pointed out to her that even in those cases, the Supreme Court of Canada is saying that the prosecution is still required to prove subjective mens rea BEFORE the defense is required to prove reasonable excuse TR 2022-09-09 p69l34-40; p70l5-8. From this duscussion, it seemed clear Edelmann believed the prosecution had failed to prove, and St. Pierre had failed to consider, the issue of subjective mens rea. And that being the case, I must be given a new trial.

As I listened to the preceding interaction between Edelmann and Horneland, regarding subjective mens rea I finally understood what it was, and it's significance to my case.

Even though Edelmann clearly agreed the prosecution failed to prove, and St. Pierre failed to consider, the issue of subjective mens rea, he ultimately ruled against me, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction Reasons for Judgment. In his Reasons for Judgment, Edelmann acknowledged St. Pierre failed to mention subjective mens rea, but falsely claimed it was established on my own evidence RFJ ¶8. In fact, all of my evidence showed a lack of subjective mens rea! All of the evidence showed I went out of my way to make sure I did not knowingly and intentionally violate the probation conditions.

In his Reasons, Edelmann also incorrectly applied the immigration laws - just as St. Pierre had. He applied them as though I was "within Canada, other than at a port of entry". Basically, he disregarded all of my arguments on that matter and then expressly made no mention of them in his Reasons for Judgment RFJ ¶11-13. The reason he would deliberately not mention my arguments is because then he would have to provide his legal analysis about why my arguments were wrong. And since he knows my arguments were actually correct, he would look like an incompetent fool (or a corrupt judge who doesn't follow the law) if he publicly disagreed with them.

Obviously, considering the BCSC decision to be bullshit, I then filed an appeal of that decision in the BC Court of Appeal.

When appealing an appeal decision from the BC Supreme Court to the BC Court of Appeal, you do not have a right to appeal. You must apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. I applied for permission to appeal the Supreme Court's decision, had the hearing, with David Layton representing the government, but the BCCA denied my application. I wasn't exactly surprised.

And that ends the appeal process of this case!