Transcript of Trial Proceedings (2020-03-06)

Synopsis

I testify in my defense.

I repeatedly get into heated exchanges with the prosecutor Bernie Wolfe, and Judge David St. Pierre seems incapable of grasping the idea that the burdens of proof and the presumptions of citizenship are different when a person is within a port of entry (POE).

Wolfe keeps trying to provoke me during his cross-examination, to get me to admit to things but I'm just too cool to fall for his played out tactics.

At one point, Wolfe asks me "So you were lying to Constable Potts?" And I responded "Yes. Absolutely. I was deliberately manipulating him..." p130l19-22.

Toward the end of Wolfe's cross-examination, and his many failed attempts to rile me, he was going on about me manipulating Potts, and I say "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" p145l2-13. Then the judge immediately put an end the cross-examination. p145l16-27

It's always a good time when I testify, but I think this was one of my better performances. It's always fun dealing with a judge who is incapable of grasping fairly simple concepts, and an idiot prosecutor who is clearly in over his head.

Disable Commentary

Disable Highlights

PDF

BCSC File No. 30630

244069-5-BC

Vancouver Registry

In the Provincial Court of British Columbia

(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ST. PIERRE)

Vancouver, B.C.

March 6, 2020

REGINA

v.

PATRICK HENRY FOX

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL

BAN ON PUBLICATION 517 CCC

210192.Transcript.docx

J.C. WordAssist Ltd. (Vancouver)

Suite 614 - 808 Nelson Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2H2

Phone 604-669-6550

244069-5-BC

Vancouver Registry

In the Provincial Court of British Columbia

(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ST. PIERRE)

Vancouver, B.C.

March 6, 2020

REGINA

v.

PATRICK HENRY FOX

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL

BAN ON PUBLICATION 517 CCC

Crown Counsel: Bernie Wolfe

Appearing on his own behalf: Patrick Fox

210192.Transcript.docx

J.C. WordAssist Ltd. (Vancouver)

Suite 614 - 808 Nelson Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2H2

Phone 604-669-6550

Vancouver, B.C.

March 6, 2020

(DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE AUDIO, THERE ARE AN UNUSUAL NUMBER OF MISSED WORDS IN THIS TRANSCRIPT)

Judge:

Okay, thanks. Good morning. Mr. Fox is here and Mr. Wolfe is here. Okay.

Wolfe:

Yes, Your Honour, Wolfe, initial B., for the Provincial Crown, continuing with the case against Mr. Fox.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Yes, Your Honour, just for the record, noting the time. It's [indiscernible] 9:54. I apologize for the delay. I printed off a document for Mr. Fox from a disc, a DVD he had --

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- which he considers part of his defence. He now has -- I have a copy, and there are three copies for Mr. Fox. One, I expect, would be for Your Honour, one for him personally, and then what happens to the -- the remaining one remains to be seen.

Judge:

Okay. Thank you. Yes, so we -- the case for the Crown has -- is in. The -- they closed their case. Mr. Fox, you had indicated, if you were going to call some evidence on your behalf, and that you were going to take the stand, is that right?

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

That is my intention for today, but I would ask that I could have just a moment, please, 'cause when the sheriffs go through the box before I come up here, sometimes they get everything all mixed up, and so [indiscernible].

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

Just so that when I need to find something, later --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

-- they won't be scattered about.

Judge:

Yes, and the -- anything you wish to refer to, you should bring up with you.

Here, we see again, St. Pierre choosing to rely on witness testimony rather than actual, physical evidence. I tell him I have physical evidence that proves I did show Polisak the printout of my FOSS record, which states I was born in the US, but St. Pierre would rather rely on her testimony that she has no recollection of that. Okay, fine, she now claims she doesn't recall; but I have proof that it did occur. But to a BC judge, a law enforcement officer testifying that she doesn't recall means it didn't happen - regardless of what physical evidence the defense provides, proving that it did occur.

You'll notice a very consistent pattern with the testimony of most of the law enforcement officers in my trials - their memory is perfect when they're questioned by the prosecutor, but somehow they experience complete memory loss when questioned by the defense.

Fox:

Right. There is a preliminary matter, though, before I testify, that I want to bring up. One of the issues or one of the statements that I'm going to be making in my testimony will directly contradict Officer Polisak's testimony, and so it's something that should have been presented to her when she was testifying, but it simply didn't occur to me.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

And my understanding is that might raise a potential Browne v. Dunn issue.

Judge:

Potentially, but I mean the -- the import of that case is you don't really know what it's going to be until the end of the -- of all of the evidence. So, I mean obviously your -- your version of the event -- you'll let us know, but from the -- from the tenor of your submissions, which are not evidence, throughout this case, I think everybody gets a sense of what your --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- your position is.

Fox:

Okay. And I do have actual physical evidence to support what I'm going to be saying, which contradicts Officer Polisak.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

And so that's why I was a little concerned that this should have been presented to her at the time, but as I said it simply didn't occur to me because I was so focused on the issues -- that she was claiming that she hadn't seen certain stuff in the computer. I presented her, at the time, with a hard copy of the FOSS record. When I -- well, it was on my phone. And the -- I'll just save it for when I testify, or should I bring it up now?

Judge:

Yes. Yes, come on up. And you -- you did put to her a suggestion that -- that she'd said something to you based on the information available to me, then what I've seen -- that you would be inadmissible to Canada and she -- she denied that suggestion, so…

Fox:

Right, right.

Judge:

Okay. Thanks.

Fox:

What -- what I didn't bring up to her was -- or, what I didn't bring up at that time was that I showed her the FOSS record that was on my phone, which obviously on there it clearly says, "Country of birth: United States of America," which is what she was adamantly denying when she was testifying, that she had ever seen that information. And the reason --

Judge:

Much of it's going to be the -- the relevance is going to be dependent on -- on a number of different things, but you -- she -- she just -- she -- her evidence is that she didn't recall you presenting other documentation to her.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

So, in any event, I -- in fact, I think the gist of her evidence is she didn't recall, independently, much outside of what her notes had indicated. So --

Fox:

Right, and she did make a vague allusion to it in her notes, here.

Judge:

But in any event, are you going to -- are you taking the stand today, or not?

Fox:

Yes. Yes, I am.

Judge:

Okay. Come on up.

Fox:

Let me just gather the documents that I -- oh, I have also, Mr. Wolfe --

Judge:

Madam Registrar, do we have a -- did we make an extra copy of -- of 12? Or no? Do you have it?

Clerk:

[Indiscernible/background noise] the exhibit.

Judge:

You have the exhibit copy. Okay. Thanks.

Come on up. And you should bring any documents that you wish to refer to that are not exhibits.

Fox:

I have some notes here of issues that I wanted to make sure I didn't forget to mention. It's my understanding that I'm actually required to provide the Crown a copy of that, am I not, if I'm going to be referring to it?

Judge:

If you're going to refer to them?

Fox:

Yeah.

Judge:

To -- to jog your memory?

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

Mr. Wolfe -- Mr. Wolfe --

Fox:

Sorry, I should have given this to you earlier, but I forgot.

Judge:

He's -- he's done a bit of research on the evidentiary issues, it sounds like, but it's up to --

Fox:

This is all from when I was preparing for the criminal [indiscernible].

Judge:

It's up to you whether you want to press the issue with that.

Wolfe:

Oh, to me, I would -- I would take kind of a traditional approach here. Witness relies on his memory, he exhausts it. He can refresh his memory on anything. At that point, I might want to have a look at a note. I don't know that I need to be provided with it in advance. It's his case.

Judge:

All right. Fair enough. Come on up, Mr. Fox.

Fox:

Okay. Yes. Let me just -- I'm gathering the things I think I might need.

Judge:

Okay, and the -- is that -- screen need to be there?

Wolfe:

No, I don't think so. I put it up there, Your Honour, thinking at some point we would be looking at something, yes, but --

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

-- I can certainly take it down.

Judge:

Let's take it down, just -- it doesn't obstruct my view of -- of Mr. Fox, but it just -- thanks.

Now, Mr. Fox, do you prefer to swear an oath on a Bible or to make a solemn affirmation?

Fox:

I'll make the solemn affirmation only,because it's not a Jewish Torah.

Judge:

Yes, fair enough.

Fox:

Should I stand, or?

Judge:

Yes.

PATRICK FOX

the Accused herein, called
on his own behalf, affirmed.

Clerk:

Please state your full name for the record.

Fox:

Patrick Henry Fox.

Judge:

Okay. Thank you. You can have a seat if it's more comfortable for you. So -- and because you have no lawyer, Mr. Fox, sometimes -- you know, sometimes a judge will just ask some open ended questions to get you started, but it seems to me that you kind of know what -- you have some familiarity with the process, so if you want to tell us your version of the events, this is your time.

Fox:

Right. In this particular respect, I have no experience or very little knowledge of how to proceed. I was under the impression that I would just go into a narrative of my version of what happened on that day or what I believe --

Judge:

Sure.

Fox:

-- is relevant.

Judge:

Absolutely. Okay. All sort of under the umbrella of what we've discussed thus far about being -- you know, what is relevant in this case or not.

Fox:

Right. So, on March -- well, let's see --

Judge:

First of all, let me -- let me just ask you a few questions to --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

-- set the context.

QUESTIONS BY THE COURT:

Judge:

Do -- are you -- you deny that there was a probation order?

Fox:

I do not deny that. I -- I admit that, yes.

Judge:

Okay, and that it was in existence on the date, on March 15, 2019?

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

And on -- and on following days, in the following days.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay, go ahead.

EVIDENCE IN CHIEF BY THE ACCUSED:

Fox:

On March 14th, 2019, I had a hearing in the Supreme Court, to try to change the probation conditions, specifically, the condition prohibiting me from leaving British Columbia without my probation officer's consent. That request was denied, but I had told the court and the Crown, at that time, that regardless it is my intention to turn myself in or present myself to CBSA for the purpose of being removed from Canada, and that if I did it in that way, as long as the office that I presented myself to was not within 100metres of the border then I wouldn't be I violating probation.

Judge:

Okay, this -- and -- and you have to go just a -- a little bit slower, so --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

-- we can all take notes. You told the presiding justice, was it still Madam Justice Holmes?

Fox:

Holmes, yes.

Judge:

You told Madam Justice Holmes that after the denial of your application that you were going to present yourself to a Canadian Border Services office.

Fox:

I had actually stated that before she made her decision on the matter.

Judge:

Okay, and what did you say, exactly?

Fox:

I can get the transcript, if you want --

Judge:

No, no.

Fox:

-- to know the exact wording.

Judge:

No, not exactly. The gist of what you were saying.

Fox:

Okay. The gist of it was regardless of what decision you make today in this matter, it's my intention, I think I said within the next week or in the very near future, to turn myself in to CBSA, for the purpose of being removed from Canada. And I also stated that by doing it in that way I wouldn't be violating probation, and that I had already discussed that with Mark Myhre, the Crown counsel.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

If at any time I'm going too fast and you need me to pause, just let me know.

Judge:

Okay. Yes, okay, go ahead.

Fox:

So, then the next day, on the 15th, I reported for probation first thing in the morning. I met with Abeed Bhimji. He had testified here, back in August. I informed him about what had happened in court the day before, that --

Judge:

That was your probation officer? What was the name, again?

Fox:

Abeed Bhimji.

Judge:

Oh, yes, Bhimji, yes.

Fox:

So, I informed him about what happened in court the day before, that the request had been denied. And I told him also that it is my intention, within the next week or within the next few days, to turn myself in to CBSA, so that I would be removed.

Then, from there, I took care of some odds and ends here in Vancouver that I needed to settle up before I left, and then I made my way down to the Peace -- or, the Douglas border crossing, using public transit. I think Delta or White Rock or someplace like that, the farthest that the public transit would take me. From there, I walked to the Douglas border crossing. When I got -- well, that's not -- there was an officer standing outside, in the booth, before I went into the secondary inspection area. She very angrily told me to put out my cigarette. I can't smoke there, 'cause it's federal government property or something like that. Put out the cigarette. Explained the situation to her. She directed me into the secondary inspection area, told me to go to Counter A.

Then I proceeded to Counter A. That's where Officer Polisak was working. I explained the situation to Officer Polisak, that I'm a United States citizen, I have no status in Canada, I was born in the United States. I told her I've been in contact with IRCC and CBSA, numerous times. I have documents from IRCC and CBSA clearly stating that I was born in the United States, that I have no status in Canada, and that I'm not a Canadian citizen. Told her that I have these documents on my telephone and that I can show them to her. She didn't seem to have much interest in it, but I said, "No, please, I want to show these to you anyway."

And now here's where we're getting into that area that I thought might be a Browne v. Dunn issue. So, I showed her the FOSS record on my phone. Oh, at that same time, when I first got there, of course, I gave her my laptop bag and the phone, and she held both of those behind the counter, while she did her investigation. But I showed her the FOSS record on my phone. I showed her, explicitly, where it states, "Country of birth: United States of America." I showed her, also, the documents that I had from the Ministry of Social Development, where it has their commu -- or, shows -- it describes their communication with IRCC, where IRCC told them that a certificate of citizenship has never been issued for a Richard Riess or a Patrick Fox, for me, at all.

The two pieces of information being that I was born outside of Canada and that a certificate of citizenship has never been issued for me are more than sufficient, I believe, for an immigration official to infer that I am not a Canadian citizen and don't have status in Canada. Then, she told me to have a seat while she did her investigation or inquiries.

Before I proceed further on that, the -- the matter of the documents on my phone, if there's any question about the truthfulness of that or whether or not that really happened and the documents are on my phone, I would like to point out that we have the audio-video recording of my interview with CBP officer Geoffrey Obrist. In that recording, I also tell him about the documents on the phone and give him the phone. And he looks at it and he makes some comments about the "Remarks" section and also the Ministry of Social Development document. So, that should sufficiently prove that I did have those documents on me and I did present them to the officials. Unfortunately, CBSA destroyed the video of me on the CBSA side, so -- but then getting back to the chronology of the matter.

So, I sat down in the waiting area, for whatever time -- I think it might have been 15 minutes or so. Officer Polisak called me back to the counter, and she said that -- and here, this might not be a verbatim quote. I'm just paraphrasing, but as I remember it, it was something along the lines of, "Based on the information available to us or available to me, you appear to be inadmissible to Canada." That was sufficient for what I was seeking at that time. I just wanted to make sure that when I present myself to CBP, that CBSA was not going to do as they had done before and said, "Yes, you can deport him, here." And then I'd end up back here and just being going in this infinite loop, forever.

So, based on that, I asked her where I go next. She said go back out those doors. I went out those doors. 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? He instructed me to go through these other doors. I guess that would be the breezeway that Officer Polisak was referring to. And then he kind of followed somewhat behind me. I continued to walk down the sidewalk, toward the U.S. side. Periodically, I would check over and I would see that he was still there.

When I got to the actual physical border, it was somewhat of a happy moment for me to be back in the United States, so I relished that for a moment. Then I continued walking on to the CBP office. So, that is the chronology of what happened on that day, and --

Judge:

On March 15th.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

And that was all around 4:30 to 5:30, in that time frame. And I'm just looking over my notes, here, to see if I miss anything.

Oh, I had also told Officer Polisak about the audio recordings of my conversations with IRCC and CBSA, where they both acknowledged in the recordings that I'm not a Canadian citizen and that I have no status in Canada. Whether or not she listened to those recordings, I don't know, but I told her that they're on the phone and they're also on the website.

Fox:

And I see from my notes here that I covered everything that was in these notes. Uh, sorry, I'm just looking at this CPIC report, and I'm thinking -- I'm thinking of whether or not there's a way to -- that this would fit into my testimony.

Judge:

What is it about the CPIC report that you think is relevant?

Fox:

Well, it -- again, to refute or to rebut Polisak -- Officer Polisak's testimony. The CPIC report states, also, country of birth as United States of America.

Wolfe:

Sorry, I think [indiscernible].

Judge:

Yes. I was just asking you what -- about -- I'm try -- to determine relevance, firsts.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

But the -- but you say that the CPIC report has some indication on it that your citizenship status [indiscernible] your citizenship. Is that right?

Fox:

Right, right. And the reason it's relevant is only as it relates to Officer Polisak's testimony, because I believe that she had testified that she did see the CPIC report. And I did want to confront her with this at the time, but there was some -- and maybe I'm not phrasing this in the best way, but it seemed to me that there was resistance on the part of the court and the Crown.

Judge:

There's no resistance. It's -- I think her evidence, however, is -- is that she must have -- she must have seen it. She just has no independent recollection of seeing it.

Fox:

Oh, the CPIC report? Well, she would have had to have.

Judge:

Well --

Fox:

I mean she admitted to that, that she did see --

Wolfe:

Well, her evidence, though, said she could not recall.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And she indicated that she had access to databases, making a particular kind of query and that's -- that she said that she had access to whether or not a person had been arrested --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- in Canada. She could not give -- she did not give evidence about the depth of -- the -- the databases available to her through -- like it could be a global query. So, for example, she couldn't -- and she didn't indicate that she had access to Toronto Police Department -- or Toronto Police Services. It was in that context that she states she could determine or had information about whether or not somebody had been arrested.

Judge:

It -- yes, her -- her --

Wolfe:

So -- so we don't -- we -- we don't know particularly what she did or didn't see or how deep the -- that query drills down.

Judge:

No, she -- she was asked -- she was asked question by Mr. Wolfe that -- sorry, by -- by you, Mr. Fox, that, "Did you check my CPIC?" And her answer was, "I wrote in my notes that -- that both the names that you provided, Riess and Fox, have multiple convictions." So, therefore she assumed -- she presumed from that portion of her notes that she must have run you on CPIC. That was her evidence.

Fox:

Okay. Right, right. And the reason that I was -- that I had wanted to present it to her was because in her notes, that she had stated that "all of whom seem" -- and by "all of whom," she means IRCC, CBSA and RCMP, all of whom seem to agree that he is a Canadian, which is what she wrote in her notes. But then, the IRCC documentation and CBSA documentation, as we saw, clearly stated that I was born in the U.S. And then, also the RCMP documentation, which is the CPIC report, would also clearly state, country of birth as -- or place of birth as United States.

Judge:

Yes, I -- I guess we've had this discussion sort of many times is -- is your citizenship status.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

How is it relevant to the case that is against you?

Fox:

Here's how. CBSA is only an enforcement agency. And so, by their own admission to me in an email, previously, which I don't have unfortunately, now, but I could always get it, they're only authorized to act on or enforce orders or directives from IRCC. And if IRCC says that a person is not a citizen or --

Wolfe:

May I -- may I rise, here? This was a line of inquiry that might have been put to Polisak. And I appreciate that Mr. Fox is -- if I could just -- is at a disadvantage because he's representing himself, but I find that at this juncture he's explaining, for example, he -- I just wrote down, "CBSA is only an enforcement agency."

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

That is such bold -- like a statement --

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- in stark relief.

Fox:

That is how they phrased it.

Wolfe:

That really -- it really beggars the question about his ability to -- to say that, because he's not an employee of CBSA. There is no evidence from Polisak directly about the four corners of the authority of CBSA.

Judge:

No, and -- and I understand that. In fact, the -- what Mr. Fox is saying right now, I am not -- it's really not evidence. I think I'm just asking him a -- a question to establish relevance.

Wolfe:

Okay.

Judge:

And that -- and that's what I'm -- that's why I'm accepting what you're -- I mean I'm accepting what your words are with respect to the issue of relevance, but I'm not -- I'm not -- certainly not -- none of what you say has -- has -- is for the truth of its contents.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

I'm just asking you: With respect to the citizenship status that you had at the time, how is any of that relevant to whether you voluntarily breached the two conditions that you are alleged to have breached in this case?

Fox:

And I was just about to reach that --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- point in my explanation.

So, if I had gotten to the border and if CBSA had evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen, or more specifically not admissible, but they allowed me to be -- to return to Canada, or if they stated that, "No, you are admissible," that would be an egregious error on CBSA's part. And so, if they had this documentation from IRCC saying that I was born outside of the country, and then other documentation saying that I've never been issued a certificate of citizenship, and then they have me admitting that I was convicted of an indictable offence, plus convicted of a felony in the U.S., all of that would make me extremely inadmissible to Canada.

Judge:

Okay, let me ask you this question, which is going to be part of the evidence. Did -- what argument did you make in -- in from of Madam Justice Holmes, in order to seek your -- a change in the conditions that you were seeking, that you wanted to get?

Fox:

I showed or presented the FOSS record, showing that IRCC acknowledges that I was born outside of Canada, and the document from the Ministry of Social Development, wherein they state that I'm not a Canadian ci --

Judge:

Presented documents at that -- at that hearing.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

Yes, okay.

Fox:

And also the recordings of my telephone conversations with CBSA and IRCC.

Judge:

Okay, so the court considered the FOSS record, the documents that you were presenting, the recordings that you've spoken about here today?

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

That fair?

Wolfe:

And I do have a court certified copy of her ruling on that, which I can -- if it's convenient or it's relevant or appropriate, I can hand -- hand that up and produce it to Mr. Fox.

Judge:

Okay. And --

Fox:

I believe I also have the transcript of that [indiscernible].

Judge:

And -- and you presented these documents and -- and made an argument to Madam Justice Holmes, not -- not unlike the argument you're making here, that you're not a -- a Canadian Citizen.

Fox:

Correct.

Judge:

Okay, and -- and you made those arguments for the purposes of -- of justifying a variation in your probation order.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay, what -- what happened as a result of it?

Fox:

Justice Holmes had said that based on the information or based on the evidence that I'm bringing, it's insufficient for her to conclude that I'm not a Canadian citizen.

Judge:

Okay. And -- and your application was dismissed.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

And -- and you told her, regardless of her decision, that you were going to go ahead and -- and present yourself at the border.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

Well, I didn't say specifically at the border. I just said that I was going to --

Judge:

At a Canadian Border Service office.

Fox:

-- turn myself in to CBSA. Yeah.

Judge:

All right.

Fox:

And the reason that I chose going to the border as opposed to a much closer office in Vancouver, for example, is because of how a person is treated differently at a port of entry, where the -- the whole issue of the burden of proof, as we were talking about on Wednesday. If I had gone into a CBSA office in Vancouver, then the burden would have been on CBSA to prove that I'm -- that I'm not entitled to be in Canada, before they could arrest me or remove me. But at a port of entry, the burden then is on the person who is seeking entry to Canada, rather than it being on CBSA.

Judge:

Okay. And what else did you want to tell us?

Fox:

Well, I'm thinking that that might be all that is directly relevant to this matter. Because, really, I think the only part that is critical to all of this is what happened with Officer Polisak when I presented myself at the Douglas border crossing.

Judge:

Okay, and Ms. Polisak testified that -- that when you left her she had made no directions or instructions, or -- or she didn't issue any kind of removal order. Do you agree with that?

Fox:

She did testify to that, yes. I, however, have a list of --

Judge:

And do you agree that she didn't instruct or direct you to leave Canada?

Fox:

I disagree with that statement. I agree that she said that in her testimony, but --

Judge:

Said she -- the evidence was -- was that it was negative evidence. So, you said you you agree that she said what?

Fox:

I agree that she denied denying me admission, at that time.

Judge:

No -- yes, but do --

Fox:

Sorry, go ahead and ask the -- I forget the wording that you used a moment ago. I was just trying to be clear --

Judge:

She -- she testified that --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- at no time did she direct or instruct you to leave Canada. Do you agree or disagree with that evidence that she gave?

Fox:

I disagree with that evidence.

Judge:

Disagree. Okay, then, what -- if she didn't instruct you to leave -- or -- leave Canada, what did she say?

Fox:

Oh, well, I'm sorry. Okay, she didn't -- well, she didn't explicitly instruct me to leave Canada. She only told me that I'm inadmissible.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

But she didn't say, "You're inadmissible, and you must leave." But I think that that's a reasonable inference for a person to make, if they're at the border and a border officer tells them that they're not admissible. The only thing that they can do at that point is leave or get arrested.

Judge:

But you -- you agree you attended that office from within Canada.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay. All right.

St. Pierre says that Polisak's testimony was that at no time did she direct or instruct me to leave Canada, and he asks if I agree with that. I say I don't agree, because it is a reasonable inference that if you're within an area designated as a port of entry, and a border officer tells you you're inadmissible then that means you may not (leave the port of entry and) enter the country; the only thing you can do is to leave the port of entry by leaving the country.

This exchange shows that St. Pierre was still not, at this point, understanding that a person who is physically present within an area designated as a port of entry is considered, for the purposes of the immigration laws, to be outside of Canada (even though the area designated as the port of entry may be physically located within Canada) and seeking entry to Canada. And that because he is considered to be outside of Canada at that time, he cannot be directed or instructed to leave Canada - because he is not IN Canada! You cannot leave a place if you are not in that place. Because a person who is within a port of entry is considered to be outside of Canada, they can only be denied admission, or entry, to Canada.

In this respect, I'm not arguing a matter of law - I'm arguing a matter of physics: if you are not within a country then you cannot be told to leave that country.

Well, why don't I ask Mr. Wolfe if he has some questions for you, and you -- and if something comes up or if you forget that -- something that you wanted to say, you can always ask, you know, I'll -- I'll give you that opportunity, after Mr. Wolfe has asked you some questions.

Wolfe:

So, I -- I gave formal document notice to Mr. Fox by way of letter dated July 23rd, 2019, that Crown would seek to certify -- sorry, seek to tender a certified true copy of the oral ruling of Madam Justice -- the Associate Chief Justice [indiscernible] Holmes, dated March 14th 2019. Mr. Fox has referred to it. At this point, I think what I should do is hand up the certified true copy. I'll show it to Mr. Fox, first. I reckon -- probably more familiar with this case than anyone, and will immediately recognize the copy of the decision.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE:

Wolfe:

Do you -- do you rec --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

Is that something you recognize, Mr. Fox?

Fox:

I mean I wouldn't know off the top of my head, but okay.

Judge:

Is -- do -- do you -- I mean -- I mean you've probably read that decision before, but --

Fox:

Yes, but it's been -- it's been a while. I mean --

Judge:

Yes, okay.

Fox:

I'm going to assume it is an authentic document.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Well, the seal is right down on the bottom right.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

And -- and if you run your hand -- finger over it, you can feel --

Fox:

Yeah. Yeah, I'm not challenging or contesting the authenticity of it, at all.

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

I seek to have that filed.

Judge:

Right, ex --

Fox:

[Indiscernible] it's got your --

Judge:

This is Exhibit 14.

EXHIBIT 14: Decision of Madam Justice Holmes

Fox:

Thank you.

Judge:

And that is the certified copy of Madam Justice Holmes' decision on March 14th, was it? Okay. Do you have a -- do you have another copy, Mr. Wolfe?

Wolfe:

It -- probably be somewhere. Oh, I have a PDF.

Judge:

If you don't -- if you don't --

Wolfe:

But [indiscernible].

Judge:

Not a problem. You want --

Wolfe:

I will -- I will crank off a few copies.

Judge:

It's not an issue right now -- for now. I mean we can get -- we can get copies later --

Wolfe:

Yes, I'm so --

Judge:

-- but for --

Wolfe:

Yeah, and I apologize. That's not correct.

Judge:

Did you want to ask him some questions on that document?

Wolfe:

Perhaps later, but not at the moment.

Wolfe:

I just wanted to clarify something, if I could, Mr. Fox. His Honour initially asked you whether you denied the -- and I'll paraphrase, and if I get it wrong just let me know, please -- whether you denied the existence of the probation order. And you didn't contest that -- that it existed. It's the one that was binding -- or applied to you and governed you, if I can put it that way, on the 15th of March 2019. I've got it right so far, do I?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Thank you. And -- but a little more than that, you're familiar with the terms and the conditions, correct?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

If only by implication, because you brought on an application before the associate chief justice to vary your -- the conditions. You must be familiar with all of them, and that includes the ones that bind you to -- or oblige you to report as directed and then not be within a hundred metres of a United States border, and certainly not to leave the province of British Columbia without the written permission of the probation officer. And you -- you recall specifically those conditions and agree that -- I apologize this is a bit long, but -- but you recall those conditions, do you?

Fox:

I do.

Wolfe:

And those are the ones that are binding -- were binding on the 15th of March 2015, correct?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Okay, and you, as well, at some point [indiscernible/background noise] either by the -- the JPs who testified or [indiscernible] when Mr. Bhimji dealt with you, you were cautioned about the potential consequences of breaching that order, in other words might result in a new charge, or -- am I correct on that?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And not to appear to be to simple-minded about this, it may seem very unnecessarily detailed, but you -- you will agree with me that when you left the Douglas border crossing and walked, approaching the Peace Arch international border, at some juncture, you unavoidably would have been within a hundred metres of the U.S. border, agreed?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Okay. And in fact you walked right across it, dealt with Officer Obrist, and then ultimately you were given an expedited removal order [indiscernible] made subject -- you were made subject to that, correct?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And then transported to Tacoma, Washington, where you were housed, if I can put it that way, until -- until you were transported back to the Canadian border. Am I correct on that?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

You wanted to -- you dearly wanted to be in front of an immigration judge -- U.S. immigration judge, when you dealt with Obrist. I mean it's part of your objective, so that you could advocate for sort of permanent entry or -- or re-entering into the United States? Would that be a fair suggestion?

Fox:

Are you asking what was my reason for wanting to go before an immigration judge?

Wolfe:

Essentially.

Fox:

No, I would say that that is incorrect. The reason that I wanted to go before the immigration judge in the U.S. is to bring the new evidence that wasn't available to me at the time order of removal was made, proving that I'm not the person that they had deported me as --

Wolfe:

The bin --

Fox:

-- in the hopes of getting the removal order vacated.

Wolfe:

But -- but by -- but consistent, then, with an objective to get -- getting back into the United States. That has to be the endgame, no?

Fox:

I -- I would say that would be collateral.

Wolfe:

Not your primary objective? Why would you march across the border and deal with an officer and -- and make a claim which resulted in your detention, and want to be in front of an immigration judge, if you really just didn't want to get back to the U.S. of A.? On a permanent basis, because you were in the U.S. of A. for a little bit, but not under ideal circumstances, from your point of view, 'cause you're in a detention centre. That's not what you want. You'd like to get back to L.A. in California, no?

Fox:

Well, I would like to get back to Los Angeles, yes. But it would be incorrect to say that my sole motivation at the time was just to be able to get back to the U.S. and to Los Angeles. A significant motivation was also to prove that the order of removal and the perjury conviction were wrong, and to get those vacated.

Wolfe:

And -- and irrespective of the odds of that happening, because I don't know how one gauges that, but if that were to occur, then you could stay in the U.S., if you wanted.

Fox:

Well, I mean maybe, maybe not, because all I was interested in -- I was not interested in proving to them that I was a United States citizen, only that I was not the person that I was deported as. Now, from Officer Obrist's comments in his interview, simply proving that I'm not the person who was born Ricky Riess, and that I'm not a Canadian citizen, doesn't automatically mean that I'm a United States citizen.

Wolfe:

When you were -- can put this to you, that when you crossed over you dealt with Obrist, you anticipated you would be detained or held for a period of time?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And may I suggest to you that that's predicated, in part on a prior experience, when you were held for about two and a half weeks?

Fox:

Well, it's based on that experience, but also other experiences.

Wolfe:

Sure. So, that factors into your -- your prior experience. Whether or not other factors are brought into play, that's one [indiscernible] your personal experience -- your prior detention was not for overnight or a couple of days. It was for an extended period of time, right?

Fox:

I expected at that -- well, the immediate answer would be yes. The complete answer would be I anticipated that I was going to be in Homeland Security custody for at least a number of months. I expected that I would be in ICE custody until I eventually went before the immigration court and the matter was resolved. That could have been anywhere from six to 18 months, maybe even more.

Wolfe:

Sure. So -- so, the detention -- if we look at this -- if I can [indiscernible] try and use the analogue of dominoes, and I appreciate analogies are clumsy things, but you were the architect, if I can use that term, of -- of your detention for a number of days, which started on 15th of March 2019, extended until you were -- you were returned to Canada. Like it -- it flowed from first causes. Your first cause --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- was showing up with an intention and an objective. You could see it was going to --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- result in your detention, and it did.

Fox:

Are you --

Wolfe:

You can't ask me a question.

Fox:

I believe -- 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 -- I fully admit that, yes, it is my actions that resulted in me being detained, just like it is my action -- well, isn't my actions the problem here? That's a different matter. Uh, but the fact is I was in custody. I was detained and physically incapable of reporting for probation, regardless of why it happened, regardless of who was responsible for putting me in custody. And --

Wolfe:

Well, but you put yourself there, didn't you?

Fox:

Regardless, I was there. I mean --

Judge:

How lo -- I -- I'm -- I didn't understand this, earlier. How long were you in custody with the -- the U.S. [indiscernible]?

Fox:

It was only for about two and a half weeks.

Wolfe:

If -- correct me -- it would been have -- would have been from the 15th of March, when Obrist -- 2019 --

Fox:

Right.

Wolfe:

-- when Officer Obrist essentially said you come along with me, if I put it in kind of a cartoonish fashion, until Mr. Fox was then transported back to the Canadian border on the 4th of April 20 [indiscernible] --

Judge:

Yes, that -- okay --

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- when he was handed over by --

Judge:

-- yes, that's the date I forgot. That's right.

Wolfe:

-- her, if I recall, to a Hawkins and Brown --

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

-- on the Canadian side, correct?

Judge:

Thank you.

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And that -- and that, as you said, earlier -- well, actually, it -- it seems fair to me to suggest to you that your anticipated length of detention, months, however long, was actually quite short, by the return to Canada. It still extended to be a couple weeks or whatever, but it still flowed, you know, like -- like dominoes from your initial approach to Obrist [indiscernible]?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And -- and that was eminently -- if I may put it to you this way, eminently foreseeable that your detention would occur.

Fox:

Yes, it absolutely was. I absolutely knew before I went down there that once I got back to the United States, I would not be reporting for probation. Even if I was not detained --

Wolfe:

Yes.

Fox:

-- had I returned to the United States, I would not have been able to report for probation, because I would be physically out of the country, unable to legally return to the country. I had discussed that with Justice Holmes and with the probation officer, beforehand.

Wolfe continues to try to make an issue of the fact that it was my own deliberate actions that resulted in me being detained in the US and consequently failing to report. He says that my detention in the US would have been eminently foreseeable if I turned myself in to CBP so I would have known before engaging in the conduct that it would have resulted in me being detained and unable to report. I then sternly declared that it absolutely was eminently foreseeable, and I absolutely did know ahead of time that once I returned to the US I would not be returning to Canada to report for probation.

But it makes absolutely no difference that my detention in the US was the entirely foreseeable result of my own deliberate actions. If a person fails to report for probation because they are in custody then it doesn't matter why they are in custody. All that matters is that they are in custody and, therefore, they are physically precluded from reporting to the probation office. Wolfe absolutely must have known this so it begs the question: Why did he insist on fervently prosecuting such a ridiculously frivolous charge?

I would like to say, though, that my reason for wanting to -- to return to the United States was not to avoid the probation. It was because I can't work in Canada. And, sure, I can work illegally, as I was doing before all of this, but because I'm on probation if I violate any laws, then I'm violating probation, and could go back to jail.

Wolfe:

Sure, but -- but --

Fox:

It puts me in a fairly precarious position. That was the main reason that I wanted to go back to the U.S. is so I can live and support myself and, of course, be with my son and such.

Wolfe:

You -- you knew that you were violating the probation order as soon as you crossed over the border, right?

Fox:

No, I did not know that and I did not believe that, because --

Wolfe:

But the terms are clear, are they not?

Fox:

But as I had discussed with Myhre, and I believe it's in some transcripts, Myhre said that I would not be prosecuted for violating probation, if I was removed from the country or told by CBSA or IRCC or somebody that I have to leave.

Wolfe:

The -- the order's in black and white, and the terms are really clear. You understand that, correct?

Fox:

Yes. And I turned myself in at an office that was not within a hundred metres of the border.

Wolfe:

Sure, but then --

Fox:

At that point, I was told that I was inadmissible. Then, I left.

Wolfe:

So you say -- so you say.

Fox:

So I say.

Wolfe:

So you say.

Fox:

The difference between my testimony and Officer Polisak is I have a list of lies that she told over there that I'm going to be able to prove in my closing arguments. I challenge you, Mr. Wolfe, to find a single lie that I've told, ever.

Wolfe:

So, okay, just go back so I understand your answer to my question. When you crossed the border, you were certainly contravening a condition that says you can't be within a hundred metres of the U.S. border, correct?

Fox:

I did not believe that I was violating that order, because under certain circumstances the actions would not be considered violating the order. For example, if I was being removed by force. If two CBSA officers picked me up and carried me over --

Wolfe:

I'm not interested in a hypothetical.

Fox:

Well --

Wolfe:

I'm interested in what happened on the --

Fox:

Right.

Wolfe:

-- 15th of March.

Fox:

And so, the fact that a CBSA officer told me, at that time that I was inadmissible, I was under the impression that the probation conditions did not matter at that point.

Wolfe:

You'll agree with me Polisak was clear, in her answers, that she never removed you or -- or denied you entry. And -- and -- well, let's do in two stages. You'll agree with -- with me that that was her evidence, correct?

Fox:

I agree with you that, curiously, she had no problem remembering that one particular detail, yet she seems to have forgotten almost everything else that would have happened on that day, based on her testimony.

Wolfe:

So --

Fox:

That I agree with, yes.

Wolfe:

And -- and in her notes, there's no such reference.

Fox:

Interestingly, there's not a single mention in her notes about whether she told me I was inadmissible or admissible, which I found very strange. And wanted to cross her on that, but I forgot.

Wolfe:

But -- but it is in black and white in her -- in her notes that all of whom -- this is the fourth line, uh, all of whom -- and she's referring to IRCC, CBSA, RCMP, "all of whom seem to agree that he is a Canadian." And whether or not she's mistaken, her -- in memory, she [indiscernible] you will agree that she gave evidence that she concluded -- we won't split hairs on -- on confirmed or -- or -- confirmed or concluded that you were a Canadian. That -- that's the thrust of her evidence, correct?

Wolfe claims Polisak "gave evidence" that she concluded I was a Canadian. I disagree and point out that in her declaration it says nothing of the sort. She only claimed, falsely, that IRCC, CBSA, and RCMP "seem to agree I am Canadian". I point out that, in fact, the official records from each of those agencies clearly states I was born in the US, which disproves Polisak's claim that they "seem to agree I am Canadian".

I point out that Polisak stated in her notes/declaration, it cannot be confirmed that I am not a Canadian. The implication of that is that if it cannot be confirmed I am not a Canadian, then she has also not confirmed that I am a Canadian. If she had confirmed that I either am, or am not, a Canadian then that certainly would have been stated in her notes. I point out her statements seem to show that nobody really has any idea what's going on.

Fox:

Uh, let me respond to the first part. l find it interesting that you're referring to the same statement in here that I had been referring to earlier, about "all of whom seem to agree that he is a Canadian." However, all the documentation I've shown from those agencies all clearly state that they believe that I was born outside of Canada.

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible] talk about her --

Fox:

Therefore, I'm not --

Wolfe:

-- we're talking about her actions in relation to you and her actions in relation to --

Fox:

Well, right, but you brought the sentence up.

Wolfe:

I appreciate that.

Fox:

And as for her concluding that I'm Canadian, I nev -- I don't remember seeing that in here. Can you tell me where she says in her notes that she concluded that --

Wolfe:

No --

Fox:

-- I'm a Canadian?

Wolfe:

-- "all of whom seem to agree that he's a Canadian."

Fox:

Right, right. That's not her. That's her talking about other agencies, and I think that we have established, based on the documents from those agencies, that they don't agree that I'm a Canadian. Now, what she does say in there is, "At this point, it cannot be confirmed that the subject is not a Canadian, and his explanation of stealing Riess's identity cannot be confirmed." In other words, it seems like what she's saying is that nothing can be confirmed. Nobody knows anything about what's going on.

Wolfe:

Her evidence, in -- under oath was to [indiscernible/background noise] you are a Canadian. He claimed he was not. She found that odd. That was her evidence.

Fox:

[Indiscernible].

Wolfe:

That's consistent, you will agree, with her evidence that she did not remove or deport you or deny you entry, correct?

Fox:

I understand that that is what she stated under oath.

Wolfe:

Now, when -- when you dealt with Mr. Bhimji, you indicated to him that you were going to present yourself to the CBSA to be deported. Am I correct on that?

Fox:

Yes. And that is in his case notes that I confronted him about, while he was testifying. He first testified, on direct, that I never said anything to him about it, and then I confronted him with his case notes, proving that he was either mistaken or lied when he said that to you.

Wolfe:

So -- but -- but you also [indiscernible] appreciate that he described what he told you, that you -- which was your intention to go to the border, correct? To be deported.

Fox:

Well, he stated that when I confronted him with the proof that he was aware of that, that he stated that. Yes, first he tried to deny it.

Wolfe:

And in fact, when you went to the border you were not deported.

Fox:

Deported, well, no, because I was using the wrong terminology. I was denied admission.

Wolfe:

So you say, but --

Fox:

One cannot be deported from a port of entry, because when you're at the port of entry you're considered, for immigration purposes, to be outside of Canada.

Wolfe:

Well, the evidence thus far is you were within Canada.

Fox:

I was at a port of entry.

Wolfe:

And then you weren't deported.

Fox:

I was informed that I was inadmissible.

Wolfe:

So you say.

Fox:

That is what I say.

Wolfe:

So, the day after your application before Madam Justice Holmes is denied --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- 14th of March, you beetled right down to the CBSA border -- CBSA office and cross the border.

Fox:

I'm sorry, may you clarify what you mean by "beetled"?

Wolfe:

Yeah. Okay, so when you initially dealt with Bhimji, you indicated to him that you were going to leave on a Wednesday [indiscernible].

Fox:

I'm not sure that I had said specifically a day. I said within the next few days.

Wolfe:

Let's see about that. I might have it wrong. You never know. Sure.

Wolfe:

So, could we have Exhibit 11?

Judge:

The client log notes or --

Wolfe:

That's correct.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

It's under the "Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General client log."

Clerk:

And [indiscernible] that it is [indiscernible].

Fox:

Okay. Thank you.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I -- I know what you're referring to and I think I know where you're going with it. I'm just -- I don't want to be presumptive.

Wolfe:

So I'm going to show Mr. Fox page 14 of 107, and an entry dated 2019-03-15 90734, and direct him to the second [indiscernible]. And it reads, "Client reports he remains at Yukon shelter, considering turning himself to CBSA on Wednesday" [indiscernible].

Fox:

I'm sorry -- yes, I see that.

Wolfe:

"Client report he attended court yesterday, but was unable to have his condition amended." So, you didn't wait until the Wednesday.

Fox:

Well --

Wolfe:

You went --

Fox:

Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Wolfe:

-- the very next day, correct?

Fox:

First, I'd like to point out that this is just what Officer -- or is it Officer, or probation officer, I guess, Bhimji had put in his client log notes. It's not a transcript of what was actually said that day. He might have been mistaken, or maybe he --

Judge:

Yes -- no, the suggestion -- I guess Mr. Wolfe is asking did you -- you agree that you told him that?

Fox:

I do not agree.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I would -- and I'm sure we've all noticed by now, just from what I've been saying in these proceedings -- I'm very careful in what I say and I'm very particular and very specific. I would not commit to a specific day like that.

Wolfe:

So -- and I suggest to you that when your -- when your application to Madam Justice Holmes was denied, you were really annoyed with that, didn't want to wait until Wednesday, went the very next day [indiscernible] pique, on your part. You [indiscernible] the border, attempting to try and revisit -- something to -- to change your status, when your -- when your application had been denied [indiscernible]. You just really had had enough of the entire [indiscernible] right?

Fox:

I accept that that is what you suggest; however, you would be grossly mistaken, in that my intentions of -- well, first of all, I wasn't annoyed in the slightest bit about the judge's decision, because I expected that she was going to deny the request, anyway, even as I said at that hearing, in my mind this whole hearing, this procedure, is a formality because regardless of what happens I'm going to present myself to CBSA and get removed.

And it wasn't a spur of the moment decision. I mean I had been planning that for -- or intending that for the weeks leading up to it. There was no anger or annoyance about it.

Wolfe:

Could we have a look at Exhibit, uh -- with a transcript of the interview conducted by Constable Potts? Sixty-three pages. I know it was A on the voir dire, but I must say I don't recall what it -- well, actually it -- it's never been entered. It's now limited to cross, so I'm going to ask that it be marked as an exhibit in the trial.

Judge:

Okay, and this -- this is the -- the transcript --

Wolfe:

It was A on the voir dire, so now it would become 15 on the trial.

Judge:

Okay -- okay, [indiscernible] find that -- A on the voir dire, and now you want to use that document for the purposes of cross-examination.

Wolfe:

Correct.

Judge:

And that document, a couple of page transcript, and so that is Exhibit -- Madam Registrar, what did you say?

Clerk:

I have Exhibit A on the voir dire, the arrest script?

Judge:

And the -- the next exhibit is?

Clerk:

Is labeled as of "Arrest Script of Patrick Fox on April 4th"?

Judge:

Yes, I have that. What's our next exhibit number?

Wolfe:

It's not -- not the arrest transcript, but the larger document.

Judge:

No, Exhibit A, I have as --

Wolfe:

They can both go in. They -- I mean I don't know that I'm going to cross him on the arrest script.

Judge:

Exhibit A's the arrest script.

Wolfe:

Yeah. Oh, so it is. I had B as -- as that. My mistake. I'm so sorry.

Judge:

Okay. When you find your other --

Wolfe:

Or -- or C, actually, is what I have.

Judge:

-- other one.

Clerk:

Exhibit: C is --

Wolfe:

The big one'?

Clerk:

-- the big document.

Judge:

C is the thick one.

Wolfe:

Okay, that's the one I would like put to the --

Judge:

Exhibit C you want marked as the next exhibit, for the purposes of cross-examin --

Wolfe:

Sure.

Judge:

-- and that is -- where are we at?

Clerk:

Exhibit 15.

Judge:

Fifteen? Thanks.

EXHIBIT 15: Large document (was C on voir dire)

Wolfe:

Here, so if -- if Mr. Fox could turn to page 20 of 63?

Fox:

I'm sorry, these aren't numbered, the pages. No.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Oh [indiscernible] I direct you to a line?

Fox:

But if you refer to a particular paragraph number.

Wolfe:

Sure, line 457. I hope that's going to work out.

Fox:

Four fifty-seven, yes. Sorry.

Wolfe:

So, the -- this should begin with you saying, "In fact, I had gone to report for probation that morning of the 15th"?

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

Is that correct?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

[As read in]:

And then he told me that, uh, the RCMP was investigating something about a website or something, and that was around the time that I decided that, okay, this is enough. I've had it with this bullshit. This is fucking crazy. So, that was when I decided to leave. And then, I went to the border. Had I not been detained by Homeland Security, I would have contacted him and let him know, but I was detained.

So, that does indicate a degree of -- of anger about the entire situation you were facing then, including deny -- having your application denied, would you agree with that?

Fox:

It wasn't -- well, okay -- well, there's -- there's two responses that I would have to give, here. First, with respect to anger about the application being denied, it's more anger about, uh, the arrogance and the hypocrisy that I was -- and the -- the ridiculousness, in my mind, that I was facing with all of this, that I have all of this evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen, that I can't work in Canada.

The one and only government agency which is authorized to make determinations about whether or not somebody is a Canadian citizen is clearly stating that I'm not, and then I have this prosecutor and the judge saying that, "Oh, no, there's not enough evidence here, so you can just stay here in Canada, even though you can't work and you're going to be homeless for the next three years. We don't care. This is the situation you're going to be in."

If I was annoyed or angry -- I wouldn't even say angry, just annoyed. Like it -- it just fascinated me that this would be going on, that -- that there would just be such a blatant disregard for -- for any actual evidence. Every time Myhre would show up at these hearings -- Myhre being Mark Myhre, the Crown on the probation hearings -- he brought no evidence, at all, to support his claims that I was a Canadian citizen. He would just say, "All the evidence that I've seen seems to suggest that Mr. Fox is a Canadian citizen."

Wolfe:

Could I turn you to --

Fox:

But wait, wait --

Wolfe:

I'm so sorry.

Fox:

The other thing that we need to keep in mind about this interview with Constable Potts is I was dealing with -- or speaking with what I believe to be a corrupt law enforcement agency, and the reason I believe that they were corrupt is what they did with the video in this case, waiting until it would be destroyed. They did almost exactly the same thing with the original criminal harassment case, where CBC had video that if you look at the entire interview, it would have clearly proven that I was not guilty of criminal harassment. And so, the CBSA -- or, the RCMP played all these games to try to avoid having to get it, so they wouldn't have to disclose it. And then I would have to file an O'Connor application to get it, and --

Wolfe:

So -- so, were you lying to Potts?

Fox:

Yes. Absolutely. I was deliberately manipulating him and saying things to try to influence them to do things. Like, for example, I make absolutely no reference anywhere in this interview about whether I was admitted or not admitted, or whether I was removed or not removed.

Wolfe:

So, if -- so, if we look at line 114 of the transcript, it reads -- and this is you --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- and you remember saying this, and this is during the course of your interview with -- with Constable Potts -- or, Corporal Potts, "Judge doesn't care, so on the 14th" -- meaning the 14th of March 2019, correct? Yes?

Fox:

Mm-hmm, sure.

Wolfe:

Yes. Thank you [as read in]:

I had another hearing to try to remove that condition. I even brought recordings of my telephone conversations with CBSA and with IRCC. And in those recordings they clearly state that I have no status in Canada. And the judge then says I'm trying to manipulate the system and that I'm playing games, the way I was talking to them on the phone or something. And I'm thinking to myself, wait a second. I'm coming with clear, concrete proof of my claims. Myhre's coming with just like vague allusions…

It's probably a typo. It should be "allusions" with an A.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

[as read in]:

…and suggestions about stuff. I mean who the hell's playing games? So, she denied the request again, and I went, okay, this is just bullshit. This is fucking insane. Am I supposed to stay here for three years and be homeless and not work or anything?

You were really unhappy with the judge 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. Didn't care [indiscernible].

Fox:

Is that a question?

Wolfe:

Sir --

Fox:

Okay. The first part of the question, about being angry with the judge. I was angry with the judge 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 --

Wolfe:

You called -- sorry, called out --

Fox:

Oh, I called you out in court that day. I pointed out that if you really believed --

Wolfe:

Oh --

Fox:

-- what you were saying, then you would want them to testify. And the fact that you've done absolutely nothing to even get the identity of the officer clearly proves that you know that -- what the situation is and that I'm telling you the truth. But anyway, so I get subjected to that kind of --

Wolfe:

I'm sorry, but Polisak [indiscernible] justify [indiscernible].

Fox:

Yes, only when it meant that if she didn't it was going to look like you were involved in it somehow. But that's a whole other we'll deal with later. So, on the one hand I'm being subjected to that type of misconduct, or what we might called games, on the part of the justice system. And then, when I try to do in like manner, though, I get accused of playing games. I mean it would be almost like if I, now, accused Polisak of lying, and I come with evidence that she's lying, and then I get accused of playing games because I'm attacking her, after five or six months of CBSA lying and denying that any records exist of me presenting myself. And so that's what I was angry about, there.

Wolfe:

Sure. So [indiscernible/background noise] you then see --

Fox:

But wait, there was more to your question.

Wolfe:

Sure.

Fox:

You were saying, then, that because of that anger or out of that anger, I decided I was just going to go to the border and just -- just leave.

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible/overlapping speakers].

Fox:

Sure. Again, I would say no, not at all, because the going to the border, entering myself into CBSA part was very deliberate and very methodical, and I'd been intending to do it for weeks leading up to that point. I'm trying to think of where there might be some proof to support that. I know that the RCMP spoke with some folks at the Yukon shelter, and I think that one of them might have mentioned that I had actually been talking about that for some time.

Now, I want to emphasize, though, even though I had been planning it for some time, I had been planning to do it legally by -- and just as I had to Justice Holmes at the hearing. It is in the transcripts. There's nothing in the probation conditions that prohibits me from going into a CBSA office with the intention of being removed from the country.

Wolfe:

So, if we looked at her reasons at paragraph 7 --

Fox:

How about you look at the transcripts, so that you see what was actually said, rather than just looking at what the judge said afterwards?

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible] then have [indiscernible]?

Wolfe wants to refer to something in Holmes' RFJ from the variance hearing. But I say, rather than relying on what the judge said about the hearing after the fact, why don't we refer to the transcript of what was actually said in the hearing. In response, Wolfe made some smug, superior comment which, unfortunately the transcriber was not able to make out.

This shows that the court and the Crown are more interested in the false and misleading statements the judges make in their Reasons, rather than in the truth about what actually occurred and what was actually said in the proceedings. This is proof that their interest is in perpetuating their own lies and misconduct - NOT in truth or justice.

This also happened earlier, at p114l3-9.

It is critical that we determine what Wolfe actually said here. This shows that the Crown and the court are only interested in what the other judge said happened, not in what actually happened.

Fox:

Are we done with this?

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible].

Fox:

I'm just wondering if I should give it back.

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible].

Fox:

Oh, okay.

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible].

Wolfe:

So, Your Honour, I want to direct Mr. Fox's attention to paragraph 7 of the oral ruling of the Associate Chief Justice [indiscernible] 14th of March 2019.

Wolfe:

You will agree that this is her judgment in relation to your vary -- variation application [indiscernible]?

Fox:

On -- where's the -- date here is March 14th, yeah, sure.

Wolfe:

Okay.

Fox:

This is the same one I looked at earlier, right?

Wolfe:

Yes.

Fox:

Paragraph 7.

Wolfe:

Just have a look at paragraph 7 there.

Fox:

Yes, I'm very familiar with this, yes. This is the kind of stuff that I'm saying, on the one hand, at the sentencing for the criminal harassment case, I brought a huge amount of evidence proving that my ex-wife, for years, had been doing all this horrible stuff.

Wolfe:

So --

Fox:

Well, please, I'm the witness, if I may finish.

Wolfe:

I'm [indiscernible] if I haven't asked a question.

Fox:

Well, you were about to.

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] I asked you --

Fox:

I'm sorry.

Wolfe:

-- to look at paragraph 7.

Fox:

Okay, yes.

Judge:

Yes, what was your question, Mr. Wolfe?

Wolfe:

Yes, I just want [indiscernible] paragraph 7, and then I'll give you a question [as read in]:

Your own evidence to support your claim you're not a Canadian citizen is extremely weak. Then you played two recordings of telephone calls that you suggest confirmed your position that you are not Canadian. However, it's abundantly clear from those recordings that [indiscernible] a form of evidence [indiscernible] continue to manipulate or attempt to manipulate [indiscernible] in the same way. I conclude you're not [indiscernible] the court. In recordings, you can be heard putting propositions to the people [indiscernible] question [indiscernible] to those propositions were factual and accurate, and there was a serious reason to think that the I [indiscernible/background noise] true. You I then presented a response [indiscernible] necessarily based on these propositions. It's [indiscernible] your position [indiscernible] fact that the [indiscernible] calls were [indiscernible] clarify.

You recall reading that on Friday [indiscernible] --

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- [indiscernible] that relates to [indiscernible]?

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

Just hang on, just for a minute. Yes.

Clerk:

Your Honour [indiscernible] Mr. Wolfe [indiscernible].

Wolfe:

I'm so sorry.

Clerk:

I'm finding that [indiscernible] that [indiscernible].

Judge:

Okay.

Clerk:

In the [indiscernible] of leaving.

Judge:

That centre one's not as good.

Wolfe:

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

Do I need to repeat that, or are we good?

Judge:

No. Essentially, for -- for the record, you read paragraph 7 of Justice Holmes's ruling to the witness. And you want to ask him a question on that.

Wolfe:

I do.

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

Thank you.

Wolfe:

And so, you -- you're still maintaining your position that you were not irritated when [indiscernible] order [indiscernible] and you're angry about having been characterized in this fashion and -- and [indiscernible] just in flagrant violation [indiscernible].

Fox:

Seems to me that there are multiple parts to that question, so I'm going to address each in turn.

First, yes, I stand by what I was saying, that I did not go to the border out of anger or because I was angry with the judge's decision with respect to my request to change the probation order. I forget what the other points in your -- you had just asked about.

Wolfe:

Sure [indiscernible] --

Fox:

Oh, right, the flagrant disregard --

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible] that's correct, yes.

Fox:

-- for the -- right. No, I do not believe that, given the circumstances, that I was told by the CBSA officer that I am inadmissible, I do not believe that I violated the probation order, at all. I was very careful to do everything in such a way that it would not violate the order. For example, presenting myself at a port of entry rather than presenting myself at a CBSA office within the country, making sure that the port of entry, the building, the secondary inspection area, was not within a hundred metres of the border.

That was something that I had discussed with the CBSA officers when I was at the counter, there. And I had asked them about whether this was within a hundred metres of the border, and I explained about having the probation conditions, and I had a copy of the -- did I? I had a copy of the probation order on the phone. I don't know if I had a paper copy of it, but anyway I did it the same way I would always do anything where somebody like yourself might come and accuse me of doing something inappropriate. I did it in such a way that I did not violate any of the rules.

Wolfe:

Wouldn't you agree that you never had permission from officer -- probation officer [indiscernible]?

Fox:

Well, this is an issue that came up when he was testifying. And as I said to him, did I require his permission to be removed from Canada? And he said no. I did not have his permission to leave Canada, but then I did not leave Canada voluntarily.

Wolfe:

Sorry, did you have permission to [indiscernible] the [indiscernible]?

Fox:

No, I did not.

Wolfe:

And by crossing the border, you [indiscernible].

Fox:

I did not leave voluntarily.

Wolfe:

The compendious documents -- the documents that were filed [indiscernible] 13th [indiscernible]. At the last [indiscernible] you can recall [indiscernible] and [indiscernible] you recall [indiscernible] you cut and pasted [indiscernible].

Judge:

Yes. And before we get there, we should probably take a break at some point. Yes, so the -- just remember, Mr. Wolfe, that microphone is the one that's going to be picking you --

Wolfe:

Yes, so sorry.

Judge:

-- the best. Let's take -- let's take the morning break, then, okay? Just give me a shout when everybody's back [indiscernible]. Thank you.

Sheriff:

Order in court. All rise.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

PATRICK FOX,

recalled.

Judge:

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Fox. Come on up.

Wolfe:

So I'll continue, then, if I could, Your Honour.

Fox:

I'm sorry. Before we proceed with this may I make one comment or statement about the line of questioning that we've been going down the past few minutes?

Judge:

Sure. What…

Fox:

So with this idea about me being angry, going to the border, et cetera, trying to flee the probation, I would say that I think that we can all agree that I'm at least moderately intelligent and probably very methodical, and if my goal was to flee, I would think that I probably would have done things very differently. For example, I probably would not have turned myself in to CBSA and then CBP. I probably would have just entered the U.S. not at a port of entry. That would have almost a guaranteed success rate for me to be able to leave the country and get back to the United States.

I point out that, contrary to the impression Wolfe is trying to create, if it was my intention to leave Canada and return to the US, without regard to the probation order, I certainly would not have turned myself in to CBSA, then to CBP. I would have simply proceeded to the US, without informing the authorities. I point out that if I had just proceeded, without first turning myself in, then I would have certainly succeeded in leaving Canada and returning to the US.

Also, consider that earlier (p120l1-p121l7), in his cross-examination of me, Wolfe tried to get me to admit that I knew, before I went to the border, that presenting myself to CBP would result in me being detained. I openly acknowledged that. That further supports my position here, that I was not trying to "sneak" out of the country, or leave in some secretive way.

Judge:

But you're not being charged with fleeing or anything like that.

Fox:

Right, right. But that's --

Judge:

It's --

Fox:

That's what --

Judge:

The charge is pretty specific. It's just a breach of these provisions.

Fox:

Right. That's why I say it's along the line of questioning that we've been going with here.

Judge:

Okay.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE, CONTINUING:

Wolfe:

So -- so you weren't angry, is what you're saying, then?

Fox:

Not -- oh, no, I certainly wasn't angry about the judge's decision. I was admittedly angry about things like the hypocrisy I'd been encountering and what I perceived to be injustices and misconduct on the part of law enforcement and prosecutors. But --

Wolfe:

So -- so if you go to line 328 of the transcript.

Judge:

Okay. This is, you know -- this is Exhibit 15, line 328.

Wolfe:

And I guess we can start a little higher than that. Line 324 [as read in]:

I lost custody of my son, I got deported to a foreign country I had no status in that originally or initially I was working here illegally but it wasn't a big deal because if I got caught, I would just get deported.

Potts says, "Yeah." You say [as read in]:

But I can't work illegally now because I'm on probation. I can go to jail for it because if I break the law, that's a breach and so this evil woman does all this stuff --

That's your wife, right?

Fox:

Yes, Desiree Capuano. Ex-wife.

Wolfe:

Thank you. [as read in]:

And then completely cuts off all contact with my son. And yes, there's going to be hard feelings.

Potts says, "Yeah." And you say [as read in]:

And yes, this probation bullshit can go ahead and the court and Myhre can play their games for the next two years and eight months, but after three years it's going to end and I'm going to say "fuck the court" and I'm going to say "fuck Myhre" and I'm going to say fuck everything else and I'm going to go back to my country of origin and everything goes back to normal.

Wolfe reads from the RCMP interrogation, where I say that after three years the probation order will expire and I'll say fuck you to the courts, to Myhre, and to everyone else up here, and I'll return to the US and go right back to what I was doing before all of this.

And those were your words, right?

Fox:

Those are my words. And if you watch the video as opposed to just reading in here and putting your own --

Wolfe:

We did watch the video.

Fox:

I'm sorry?

Wolfe:

We did watch the video.

Fox:

Right, right. But what I'm saying is when you watch the video, you hear the tone in my voice. You'll see I'm not going to be angry. There's no anger. There is anger toward my ex-wife. That's why I created a website and published all that stuff. And as far as the -- let's say the injustices or what I perceive to be the injustices that have occurred against me in the criminal harassment trial, that's why you publish all of that corruption. To let the world know the kinds of injustices and corruptions that are happening. I don't see what any of that would have to do with whether or not I wanted to or did actually go back to the United States.

Wolfe:

Well, if you go back to the States, you can continue to harass Capuano.

Fox:

Oh, and I have every intention of doing so.

Wolfe:

Right.

Fox:

The probation is -- 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.

Wolfe:

Sure. So --

Fox:

Oh, I should also mention, though, I won't be in Canada, though, and so it will be out of Canada's jurisdiction. It will be just as it -- just as it was right from the beginning. It's an issue between two Americans that has absolutely nothing to do with Canada or anybody in Canada, but…

Wolfe:

You'll agree that from your perspective, a reasonable perspective, the wording of the probation order is to protect Capuano.

Fox:

The wording of the probation order is to protect Capuano. And how do those conditions protect Capuano?

Wolfe:

Well, whether they do or they don't, if you'll look at the wording of it, you'll agree that, for example, that's why you can't cross into the U.S., correct?

Fox:

How does that protect her?

Wolfe:

So that's not a protective order, then?

Fox:

I don't see how crossing into the U.S. or not or having a condition about that would protect her in any way.

Wolfe says the wording of the probation order is to protect Capuano. I ask him how any of the conditions on the order protect Capuano. Of course, he doesn't answer. He then says, that's why you can't cross into the US. And again, I ask him: how does that protect Capuano? I tell him I don't see how me crossing into the US or having a condition prohibiting me from doing so, would protect Capuano in any way.

All a probation order can do is enable the justice system to punish a person AFTER they've done something that violates it. A probation order does not stop a person from actually doing the things stated in the order! How is it that Canadian justice system participants are so delusional that they can't tell the difference between words written on paper and what's actually real? A probation order, or a restraining order provide absolutely no protection to or from anyone - all they do is enable the prosecution of the person after the fact!

Wolfe:

So just on a more technical line of questioning for you.

Fox:

Sure.

Wolfe:

You recall that the, do you not, that the appointment slip was put into evidence for your probation meeting with Bhimji?

Fox:

Sure.

Wolfe:

That's your signature. It's clear it's March 19th, 2019, right?

Fox:

March 15th.

Wolfe:

No, I mean the next reporting date was the 19th.

Fox:

Oh, sure. Yes.

Wolfe:

Right? And you executed it on the 15th.

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

For the 19th, correct?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Thank you. So clearly you didn't lose sight of that reporting date. You had to be aware of it on the 15th when you crossed the border, correct?

Fox:

Yes. I was aware of it, and, in the event I was still in Canada or still in Vancouver at the time that the next probation appointment was to occur, then I would've reported it.

Wolfe:

So you took a bus, public transit of some sort, to get you down to the Douglas border crossing, yes?

Fox:

Close to it. And then I walked the rest of the way.

Wolfe:

A couple of hours?

Fox:

I can't remember how long it took.

Wolfe:

May I suggest it took at least an hour?

Fox:

Oh, definitely more than an hour, yes.

Wolfe:

You never made any attempt to call Bhimji along the way to rebook that appointment.

Fox:

No.

Wolfe:

No intention of --

Fox:

At that point there was no guarantee that I wasn't actually going to be removed and that I would be back in the U.S. Perhaps I may have notified him after I had returned to the U.S.

Wolfe:

Perhaps.

Fox:

Well, I say "perhaps" because once I would be removed from Canada the probation order somewhat becomes moot at that point. I mean, I'm in a foreign country. There'd be no way to enforce it. This is an issue that Justice Holmes brought up at the probation hearing as well.

Wolfe:

Can I suggest to you that when you -- when you mentioned Bhimji -- and the word "deport" is used --

Fox:

Sure.

Wolfe:

-- in the log. It's an attempt by you to create a record that makes it appear that you're going to be deported or you don't have a legal status in Canada. It's like a sleight of hand on your part. Isn't that really what you're doing when you tell Bhimji you're going to be deported?

Fox:

Please clarify how that would be a sleight of hand. I'm not sure what you mean.

Wolfe:

Well, it's now in a provincial corrections probation officer's log that you advised him that you were going to go to the border, not for a visit, but to be deported. So now it's there --

Fox:

There was no secret about it. I said it to the court the day before that. I said to Justice Holmes and to Mark Myhre, this is my intention; I am going to turn myself in to CBSA expressly for the purpose of being removed from Canada. I wasn't trying to create some record to confuse anybody or to confuse the issue.

Wolfe:

Aren't you just trying to manipulate Bhimji when you tell him that the way you were trying to manipulate Potts when you gave your statement?

Fox:

I don't recall the conversation with Bhimji well enough to know if I was trying to manipulate him or if it was just something that came up in passing. But as for whether I was trying to manipulate any of them, again, I don't see how that has any relevance on whether or not I went to the border and left the country. I mean, you can ask the question. I'm not objecting to it and I'll answer it the best I can. I'm just saying I don't see how it's --

Wolfe:

No, I understand.

Fox:

-- in any way relevant.

Wolfe:

Sure.

Fox:

Also I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I seem arrogant or overly confident at all. That's not my intention. And I know I might come across that way sometimes when I'm speaking.

Wolfe:

No. No offence taken.

Fox:

I'm just very direct and I don't sugar coat things. If you ask a question, I'm just going to give you a direct answer. Unless of course I think I might incriminate myself, in which case I'm going to contemplate it for a moment and think well, should I say this, or…

Wolfe:

Sure.

Fox:

I just wanted the court to know so I don't seem like I'm being arrogant.

Wolfe:

Yeah. No.

Judge:

No, that's not -- that's not something that is -- arrogance is not normally a relevant factor for me to consider in any event, so…

Wolfe:

Absolutely. No offence taken.

So if I understand, one of the points you're making is that you have no status in this country, so you were deemed inadmissible and then you went across the border. Am I sort of -- forgive me if that's an oversimplification, but that seemed to be what you were saying.

Fox:

My response to that would be that my statements in that respect, just like my statements in almost every respect, are based on documents and physical, tangible evidence. The whole reason this dragged on for so long, you might recall, is because I was pursuing evidence because I didn't want to just testify and just have words because in reality people lie, and because of the perjury conviction I have before, I know that there's going to be questions about if I'm telling the truth. So to answer your question, according to IRCC, who is the only organization or agency authorized to determine whether or not somebody is or is not a Canadian citizen and may or may not work or have status in Canada according to them, I am not a Canadian citizen. I was born outside of Canada and I've never been issued a certificate of citizenship; therefore I have no status in Canada. It is not an inference or an assumption that I'm making. The document's right here; we went through it. The GCMS. It says right in there.

Wolfe:

So -- so on this point, then, if I could direct you to the transcript at line 34.

Fox:

I'm sorry. Thirty-four?

Wolfe:

Yeah. Thank you.

Judge:

Thirty-four?

Wolfe:

Yeah.

Wolfe:

And at 33 Potts -- it's about your -- your cup of coffee being black.

Fox:

Sure.

Wolfe:

It starts there. But: at 34 you say [as read in]:

Well, I've got two countries, both of which are saying I'm not a citizen of that country and was born in the other country, but I've got CBSA with their heads up their asses going, "We're going to do whatever Homeland Security tells us," so they're allow Homeland Security to deport me here, even though I've got documentation from IRCC and CBSA saying I'm not a Canadian citizen, so I've been better.

And that's what you said to Potts, correct?

Fox:

That is.

Wolfe:

And then if we -- we go over to line 190, and this is where you're at the CBSA. You're relating to Potts your trip to the CBSA office at the Peace Arch.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

He says at 188, "But I understand that. I had first gone to the CBSA office at Peace Arch."

You say, "Yeah" -- or he says "Yeah."

And you say [as read in]:

And I told him that I intend to leave. I'm going to back to America and I just want to know if Homeland Security contacts you, like, in an hour or something and asks about my status, you're going to play these stupid games where you say, "Oh, yes, as far as we're concerned he's a Canadian citizen and you can deport him," or are you going to finally stop with that nonsense and say that, no, he's not a Canadian and we're not going to accept him. So then I sat down while they investigated and stuff, and then the woman calls me over to the counter --

That'd be Polisak, right?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

[as read in]:

-- and says, "As far as we're concerned, you're a Canadian citizen and you'll always be admitted back to Canada." And I say, "What are you basing this on?" I mean, IRCC themselves have said -- you see --

Judge:

Where are you right now?

Wolfe:

Line 190, about four lines from the bottom of that segment.

Judge:

Yes. 190. Okay.

Wolfe:

Yeah. [as read in]:

And I say, "What are you basing this on?" And, I mean, IRCC themselves have said -- you see the documents right there. And she said, "Oh, well, we checked with California." And I say, "But California has no authority to -- to determine if I'm a Canadian citizen or not. Anyway, that's the kind of stupid bullshit.

Fox:

Yes. That is what I told -- that is what I told him. Would you like me to tell you why I told him that?

Wolfe:

No. My question is the -- the two references to your citizenship, one at 34 and then at line 190, are not consistent. You'll agree with that? Because on the one hand at line 34 it says "both of which are saying --"

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

"-- I'm not a Canadian citizen." And then at -- in the second -- which is listed at line 190. It's a whole bunch of text. You've got Polisak saying, "As far as we're concerned, you're a Canadian citizen." But that's not consistent, is it?

Fox:

You don't have Polisak saying that. You have me telling Potts that Polisak said that. And the reason to make these statements here is I don't want to RCMP -- at this point I don't want the RCMP to think that I went to the border and then I was denied admission because then there'd be no reason for them to request the video.

Wolfe:

Look, you're dealing with a cop. You've been arrested --

Fox:

Yeah.

Wolfe:

-- on a warrant in the first instance for a breach of probation, right?

Fox:

Yeah.

Wolfe:

And you're given a statement which is clearly -- could you not foresee -- you must have foreseen the statement like this with the outstanding charge might very well wind up being used as it's being used at the moment, right?

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And yet you say you were content to lie to Potts and manipulate him?

Fox:

Yeah. Because the purpose was to get them to request the video from CBSA, which ultimately they did but they did it exactly a week after CBSA -- CBSA's policy required them to destroy it --

Wolfe:

Can I --

Fox:

-- which is what I was trying to avoid because that's the situation that arose with CBC before. So I knew that they were going to play games with the video, and I wanted to make it seem like I was guilty or that the video would help to prove their case to make sure that they would go ask for it.

I say that I was content to lie to and manipulate Potts during the interrogation because the purpose was to make them think that I was guilty and that the CBSA video footage of me at the port of entry would help be inculpatory so that they would obtain the video from CBSA. I believed, based on prior experience with the RCMP, that if they thought the video would help my defense they would not pursue it or obtain a copy of it, so that way they wouldn't have to provide me a copy through disclosure. They've used that same tactic in the criminal harassment case, with video footage CBC had.

And, I knew that CBSA would not disclose the video to me directly. I mean, considering they baldly lied about there being no record of me presenting myself to them on 2019-03-15 for five months, for Christ's sake. I knew the only chance I had of obtaining that video footage was if the RCMP believed it would help prove I'm guilty of something and they requested it from CBSA. What a horribly corrupt country this is.

Wolfe:

I'm going to suggest to you that the -- the truth for you is a casualty to suit your own agenda, which is to get to back to the States to harass your ex-wife?

Fox:

First, you may suggest that. Second, if my goal was to get back to the United States for any purpose, to harass my ex-wife or whatever reason, then why wouldn't I just do that?

Wolfe:

Are you not --

Fox:

I mean, turning myself in to CBSA and then turning myself in to CBP would not be an effective way of me getting back to the U.S. Anybody could -- could know that.

Wolfe "suggests" that I have been lying frequently to "suit my own agenda" which is to get back to the US so I can continue to harass Capuano. I tell him he can suggest that. I point out that turning myself in to CBSA then to CBP is an incredibly ineffective way for me to get back to the US. Moreover, the supposed harassment of Capuano has been in the form of the website being online, so that has nothing to do with whether I am in the US or in Canada.

These kinds of statements by Wolfe show that he is just a complete, fucking retard! He's been trying to bully me and push me around at every turn throughout these proceedings but he's just a smug little prick. And it must really burn his ass that he keeps trying to make me look bad but really just ends up making himself look like a damned fool.

Wolfe:

I'm going to suggest to you that you're manipulating the court today.

Fox:

It's possible. I don't believe I am, but…

Wolfe:

Just as you were manipulating Potts --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- to suit an agenda not related to the -- to the reason you were arrested?

Fox:

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.

Wolfe:

Okay.

Fox:

Maybe.

Wolfe "suggests" that I am manipulating the court, just as I was manipulating Potts. I sarcastically say it's possible, but I don't think I am. Wolfe says I am doing it to suit an agenda not related to the reason I was arrested. I sarcastically admit that, perhaps, this whole thing is just "some ridiculous scheme" for me to be able to gather evidence of corruption for me to publish. Then St. Pierre promptly interrupted and put an end to the entire line of questioning. After that, Wolfe had nothing further.

For those of you who are like the prosecutors of the BC Prosecution Service and completely incapable of realizing what is openly happening right in front of your face, I just completely frankly stated, under oath, on the witness stand, that I am using these proceedings as a way to gather evidence of the corruption going on on the parts of the prosecutors and the judges, so I can publish it and expose them. I think St. Pierre caught it, but it seems Wolfe's painful amount of self-righteousness has wedged his head far too far up his ass for him to hear anything other than what he expects to hear.

Judge:

Here's the thing. We're going way --

Wolfe:

Yeah, I get that.

Judge:

-- way outside of --

Wolfe:

Yeah.

Judge:

-- of what I consider to be the --

Wolfe:

And I don't have much left.

Judge:

-- relevant issue is whether the explanation that's provided by Mr. Wolfe -- by Mr. Fox provides a reasonable basis --

Wolfe:

Yeah.

Judge:

-- for a violation of a court order. That's it.

Fox:

Yeah.

Wolfe:

And I'm just going to review my notes a little bit 'cause I don't think I've got much left.

I think I'm done.

Judge:

Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Wolfe.

Mr. Fox, do you have anything else that -- as a result do you have anything else that you wanted to say to me under oath before you -- I ask you to step down?

Fox:

Sure.

REPLY EVIDENCE BY THE ACCUSED:

Fox:

I'm trying to think of how to word it so that it would be something which would be relevant. I don't know if it's -- actually this is going to be relevant at all, but --

Judge:

And you're not making submissions now. You're giving evidence, right?

Fox:

Oh, yes.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

I believe that -- well, okay. This first part I don't believe. This first part actually happened. I was deported from the United States to Canada. CBSA had to allow the U.S. authorities to do that. I believe clearly they weren't supposed to allow that to happen, but they did. They had the evidence that I was not a Canadian citizen. They allowed it to happen. What's going on now, I believe, the reason, for example, that CBSA for five months or six months adamantly denied that there was any record of me being there and wouldn't let Polisak testify is because they cannot admit that they know that I'm not a Canadian citizen because then why the heck did they allow me to be deported here in the first place? And I believe that's what's going on with that.

Let's see if there's anything else relevant. I don't think so.

Judge:

So you're saying that the U.S.A. removed you and Canada allowed you back in. You're saying that they can't admit that you're not a Canadian citizen.

Fox:

Well, that would put them in a position of liability if were to admit that -- knowing that I'm not a Canadian citizen, they allowed Homeland Security to deport me here two times. And so that's why I believe Officer Polisak, even though she acknowledges everything else in the GCMS record and the FOSS record, was adamant that she didn't see that one country of birth --

Wolfe:

I don't think --

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

-- that was her evidence.

Judge:

That -- now you're getting into sort of argument, submissions.

Fox:

I'm just stating my belief.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

To explain why I believe that a federal government agency would go to such lengths to suppress evidence and to withhold evidence, keeping a person in jail for five or six months, knowing that they have this evidence but denying that they have it. I guess that's -- it -- I had a list of false statements that Polisak had made in her testimony, but it's over there.

Judge:

Well, you can get -- you can make submission on it, but do you have --

Fox:

Well, I was just going to --

Judge:

Do you have evidence to provide on it?

Fox:

Well, that's what -- I was hoping I could double-check to see if maybe there's something that I should -- some evidence that I should give to -- about that.

Judge:

Okay. Well, do you want to go get your notes?

Fox:

Thank you. Did you want to see it first, or?

Wolfe:

No, no. I will see whether or not it's receivable.

Judge:

I think these are just notes for yourself to -- you wanted to respond to some of the evidence that --

Fox:

Right. Correct. This is not something I'm going to be --

Judge:

Okay.

I try to propose relying on parts from the video recording of my interview by Obrist to support my claim that I had the IRCC/CBSA documents on my phone when I interacted with Polisak. St. Pierre seems to be resistant, preferring instead to rely only on testimony. I tell St. Pierre that I always prefer to rely on actual, physical evidence, not just people's statements. St. Pierre says it's his job to determine credibility issues. But if there is a video recording of the event in question then there is no need to determine "credibility issues". The proof is right there! There is no one person's word against another person's word!

This is a ludicrous characteristic of the Canadian justice system. Numerous times, in numerous cases, I have tried to present actual, physical evidence to support my claims and/or testimony, only to have the judges refuse, and tell me it's not necessary because I can just "give evidence" (meaning "testify") about it. That way, when the judge wants to rule against you he can simply say he found you to be not credible. Whereas, he can't really say the video recording of the actual event was "not credible". Yet, whenever the Crown has physical evidence, even just circumstantial, suggestive evidence, the judges never seem to have an issue accepting that. What a bullshit, corrupt system!

Fox:

-- admitting as an exhibit.

Does the Crown or the court challenge or question the authenticity of my statement that I had the FOSS documents on my phone at the time that I interacted with --

Judge:

Well, you can only respond to evidence that's already been given under --

Fox:

Oh, no, the reason -- the reason I'm asking is if there's no question, if it's accepted that yes, I did have the documents there, then I --

Judge:

How do we --

Fox:

-- wouldn't really require additional proof.

Judge:

How do we know that?

Fox:

Well --

Judge:

How do we know that?

Fox:

That's why I'm asking.

Judge:

Unless you tell us.

Fox:

Because there's video of me with --

Judge:

Well, you can give evidence --

Fox:

-- Obrist.

Judge:

-- as to what you did, what your actions were --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- during that interaction and that evidence is weighed and is considered in the light of all of the evidence.

Fox:

I understand that.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

But unfortunately I was convicted of perjury, and so I'm not considered a credible witness.

Judge:

Well, it's --

Fox:

Which is why I rely on physical other stuff --

Judge:

Well, it's my --

Fox:

-- like the video with Obrist.

Judge:

-- it's my job to determine credibility issues. Nobody raised your perjury conviction.

Wolfe:

No, I didn't.

Fox:

No, no, but you'd said before that you were going to.

Judge:

You're the one who raised it.

Fox:

No, a few months back --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- he brought it up. Okay. No, I guess that's it, then.

Judge:

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fox. Come on down.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

Judge:

I'm just wondering whether we should, you know, stand down till 2:00 before we --

Wolfe:

I think so. And I should go first.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

For sure.

Judge:

But let's -- let's get -- solidify a bit of the landscape here. But given the evidence of Mr. Fox there's some issues that we probably don't need to address as far as some of the essential elements.

Wolfe:

That's true.

Judge:

So let's stick to what -- what we need to address. In my view the -- Mr. Fox has -- there's no issue with respect to identity.

Wolfe:

No.

Judge:

There's no issue with respect to the date and time of the incidents, that being March 15th for the border cross and March 19th for the failure to report.

Wolfe:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

The allegations, in any event. There's no issue as to jurisdiction. The event -- the proof -- everybody agrees that the events took place in -- in British Columbia. There's no issue in my mind with respect to the conviction that happened in front of Justice Holmes and the -- and the subsequent probation order that was issued. Mr. Fox admits that he was bound by a probation order and he was bound by that order on the dates in question. He admits that.

Really what it comes down to is the -- whether -- and I think there's no issues that there was physically an act that -- which was prohibited by the prohibition -- probation order in that there was an attendance within a hundred metres and a crossing and a failure to report on the 19th. Really what it comes down to is the last -- I think essentially with the last -- I think the Crown has a prima facie case here. What it comes down to is whether the accused knowingly or recklessly or voluntarily performed or failed to perform.

Wolfe:

I see -- I agree with you so far. So the -- the case resolve down to intent, mens rea, whether he -- Mr. Fox knowingly intended to breach the order. The actus seems clear with respect to the three counts. And so he either knowingly did it or as subcomponents to the mens rea was either willfully blind or reckless with respect to intent, and I will have submissions on those points.

Judge:

Okay. And I think --

Wolfe:

Does that make sense?

Judge:

Yes, I think so. I think that the -- Mr. Fox is required to establish, at least on a balance of probabilities, the factual foundation for his -- for the -- you know, for his excuse. His reasonable excuse. And then, you know, going on from that I think, Mr. Fox, you have to establish that given those factual foundation it was reasonable -- there's a reasonable excuse for the non-compliance. I think that's -- I think that's where we're at as far as the submissions that need to be made. But let's do that at two o'clock.

Mr. Fox, are you prepared to make submissions at two o'clock?

Fox:

Sure. But I would be going after Mr. Wolfe, right?

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

And so it would be probably sometime after that.

Judge:

Yes. Okay. I'll see you -- I'll see everyone, then, at two o'clock, okay?

Wolfe:

All right.

Judge:

Thank you.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR NOON RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

Wolfe, initial B., for the provincial Crown, Your Honour. Recalling the Patrick Henry Fox case for submissions.

Judge:

Okay. Thank you.

Wolfe:

As we know, normally when evidence is called by an accused, the accused or the accused's counsel goes first when making submissions. In this case because Mr. Fox is self-represented I think it's fair if Crown goes first, actually.

Judge:

Sure. Fair enough.

Wolfe:

I asked Madam Registrar -- by the way, am I coming through clear on the recording system now?

Clerk:

We did. We worked on the sound system during the break.

Wolfe:

Thank you. I've asked Madam Registrar to hand you a copy for your personal use of the oral ruling by the --

Judge:

Yes, I've got that.

Wolfe:

-- associate chief justice.

Judge:

And that was marked exhibit -- what was it? Sixteen? No. Let me see.

Clerk:

Your· Honour, that will be Exhibit 14.

Judge:

Fourteen. Thanks.

Wolfe:

Yes. The Holmes decision is 14. Crown appreciates the court's direction with respect to what it determines is the pivotal, if not the sole issue --

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- to be decided. Along the way as this case has progressed, I've typed up an evidence summary. It may be of some use to the court. I would hand it up. It takes us right up to the end of Polisak's evidence.

Judge:

Okay. I

Wolfe:

If you care to have it, I can hand it up to the court. And I have a copy for Mr. Fox.

It has a staple in it, just so you know. Do you want the staple out now, or?

Sheriff:

That's okay.

Wolfe:

That's okay?

Sheriff:

Thank you.

Wolfe:

Sure. So this is one for the court.

Judge:

Thank you.

SUBMISSIONS FOR CROWN BY MR. WOLFE:

Wolfe:

Given the signal from the court about what the -- the issue is --

Judge:

Remaining issues are.

Wolfe:

Yeah. I think that, you know, one can look pretty quickly at the pages chronicling the evidence of the court clerks or justices of the peace and then Constable Hawkins' evidence --

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- and my submissions on that.

And then going over to Obrist at page -- beginning at page 5 and then Constable Brown at 6. It also includes some reference to the voir dire evidence, which is not instrumental at the moment. I've included Bhimji's evidence and also included -- and for the evidence summary I've included cross-examinations as well because that's really part of their evidence.

And then Officer Polisak's evidence is summarized at page 11. One can appreciate this is the summary.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

It's not a transcript and it's not verbatim. It's -- it's predicated on my notes when I listened to the witnesses.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I appreciate all of that. More importantly I appreciate that this is very much from the Crown's perspective.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Well, I mean to be fair. I don't kind of try and cherry pick the stuff, right? I mean, otherwise it's really not going to have a lot of value.

Judge:

I guess one of the -- I guess one of the questions I have might be one of the fundamental ones is even that -- if we were to take Mr. Fox's evidence at its height, which is essentially the difference between Polisak's evidence and his is that at some point she told him I -- "I believe that you're inadmissible from this country," and then sent him on his way. Even if I accept that at its height, does that still amount to a reasonable excuse?

Wolfe:

Not a bit.

Judge:

That's the Crown's --

Wolfe:

Not a bit.

Judge:

That's the crux of the whole thing.

Wolfe:

Yeah, not a bit. But that should be rejected. But even if from an analytical perspective one wants to consider that, I mean, my position is you reject it completely.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

It doesn't amount to a reasonable defence at all. You have an order binding him. You have an order which he willfully and flagrantly breached.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

We knew that --

Judge:

Many foreign nationals are given Canadian court orders when they're here and they commit an offence and they get a Canadian court order.

Wolfe:

It matters not whether you are Lithuanian or Irish or Jamaican or American.

Wolfe says it doesn't matter whether you're Lithuanian, Irish, Jamaican, or American, you're still required to comply with the conditions of the probation order. But he's just 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 in Canada, and has no authority to work in Canada, and is not eligible for any of the government "benefits" which he cannot also get on the free market (e.g. health insurance), then the court cannot impose a condition requiring him to remain in the province! First of all, doing so is compelling him to violate the law on an ongoing, perpetual basis by remaining in the country without authorization. This was all brought up before Justice Holmes, but because she was so arrogant and her head was so far up her ass she refused to remove the condition.

The order gathers its force of law through the compliance of the conditions precedent to the order being issued. The Supreme Court -- British Columbia is a court of inherent jurisdiction. We know that. It's not a statutory court. The order is made. If the formalities are made -- and not only that, I want to avoid any discussion about -- or submissions about collateral attacks.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Bird, Supreme Court of Canada, still the leading case on that, as I understand it. One is bound by the order. We know that Mr. Fox is bound by it. We know he's acknowledged it. We know that the terms are in black and white. We know that he understood the order. We know that he brought an application on before the associate chief justice and it was denied, and the oral I ruling has been filed.

If you have a problem with the order, apply to have it terminated. If you have a problem with the order, apply to vary it. But don't cloak your either indifference, contempt or hostility towards the order, don't cloak that with an idea that you may or may not have a foreign citizenship and say from that false premise, the Crown says, like dominoes, inject a lot of other premises that leads you to the false argument that you cannot comply with the order or you have to go or you have no business being in Canada. That's not a reasonable excuse; that's an exercise in creative writing. And it just does not amount to reasonable excuse in law.

This is the epitome of why people hate lawyers - and especially prosecutors - so much. Wolfe knows that every word out of his mouth is a lie; he knows that the Crown's entire case is all lies; he knows that I did turn myself in to CBSA and they did deny me admission. All of that is unquestionably proven by the fact that he, and CBSA, lied to the court about there being no record of me turning myself in to them on 2019-03-15 and carrying on that lie for five months. And during that five months, while he was insisting there was no record, he was consistently insisting in court that the only explanation for there not being a record of it is that I am lying about it. And yet, even though all of that has been proven, Wolfe still has the audacity to stand up in court and continue to insist that I've been lying about all this. And he does so knowing that his intention, his objective is to find me guilty and send me to prison! What a miserable, fucking, prick!

And then, after it was proven that Wolfe and CBSA were the ones that had been lying to the court for five months, and I had been telling the truth about turning myself in to CBSA, St. Pierre did absolutely nothing about it. He didn't even acknowledge that the Crown and CBSA had been lying. How can anybody honestly say that I'm being harsh by saying I hope they all get the most painful and miserable form of cancer and die slow, miserable deaths? Anyway…

I have submissions really that were a little more fully fleshed out because when I started writing this some days ago I -- I wasn't -- I would never presume anything regarding the court's perspective and how -- whether all the issues are live or some of them aren't. So the way I've written this is predicated on -- on having to prove all of the material elements.

Judge:

Yes, fair enough. We didn't know if Mr. Fox was going to testify or anything.

Wolfe:

No, you never know until you know, right? So that's a copy for Mr. Fox. I apologize. I have to sign this one for you. And then I have one for the court.

And if I may just take a minute to take you through that.

Judge:

Thanks.

Wolfe:

Your Honour will see that, you know, I've broken it down into three counts because that's what he's charged with, and then additional submissions at page 3. So we know the order was proven to exist, and then it lays out the JP's evidence. And we know the failure to report was proven by the probation officer. We go into Count 2. There was never any permission to leave the province of B.C., and Bhimji gave evidence he didn't get permission to leave at any time. There's a reference to Obrist's evidence, and then Hawkins. And we go into Count 3 about the failure to report. Sorry. Count 3 about crossing the border. Not being within a hundred metres.

So I lay that out. It's very clear from Mr. Fox's own evidence that he walked across the international border line.

The additional submissions really -- one of the things -- a couple of things that just come to mind, what I've written in there. Polisak said at one point in her evidence it was just a conversation. That's how she characterized it overall. That's true. That's obviously evident from her testimony that Mr. Fox presented himself. She had some dead time. Took him on. Dealt with his inquiry. Went onto a database, came back, reached a conclusion -- he's a Canadian

That is absolutely false! Polisak did state in her testimony, that she had concluded I was a Canadian, but at the time of her interaction with me on 2019-03-15 she made no such "conclusion". There is not a single reference to anything near that in the notes she entered in the GCMS, or in her sworn declaration. In fact, the subcategory she entered into GCMS was "Possible inadmissibility" - if she had concluded I was a Canadian citizen then she would not have flagged me as "possibly inadmissible" because, by her own admissions, Canadian citizens are always admissible. Moreover, in her notes she explicitly stated that it could not be determined that I am not a Canadian citizen - if she had concluded I am a Canadian citizen then you would think she would have mentioned that in her notes.

-- bade Mr. Fox goodbye, and he walked out the same door he came through. Nothing unsettles that. She made it clear she didn't order his removal, deportation, deny him entry. It was just a conversation.

The second that's really interesting from Crown's perspective regarding intent is that it seemed abundantly clear to Crown anyway that Mr. Fox fully anticipated, expected, that once he crossed the border and dealt with Officer Obrist he was going to be held, if not for months. He knew going -- he knew as soon as he was dealing with Obrist he was never going to make that March 19th reporting date and had no intention of making it. And that level of intention with respect to the failure to report charge, he was the architect of his detention. That level of intention is, in Crown's submission, the same level of intention with respect to the other two counts against him.

I go back to an earlier point. Cloaking his willful breaches with a supposition on his part that he has -- that he's inadmissible is subterfuge. He never was frog-marched across the border. There never was an order by anyone. But if you create the appearance -- in my submission it was evidence from Mr. Fox that he manipulated or attempted or wanted to manipulate Corporal Potts when he gave the statement. He lied to Corporal Potts with respect to a bigger agenda, a different agenda that relates to his American affairs.

Wolfe is full of crap. I was completely candid about why I was lying to and manipulating Potts (p144l25-35). It was to ensure the RCMP would obtain the video footage from CBSA, which would prove that I did turn myself in to them and they did tell me I was inadmissible. It had absolutely nothing to do with some agenda relating to my American affairs.

Wolfe knows that what he's saying is total bullshit, and he has absolutely no reservations about lying to the court or misrepresenting facts or sending an innocent person to prison. Forget all that honorable stuff you see in those crime dramas on TV. Prosecutors don't give a crap about truth, justice, or innocence or guilt. They will lie and cheat and scam to get a conviction and they won't lose a moment's sleep over convicting and imprisoning a person they know full well is innocent.

And that kind of subterfuge is consistent with his supposition, his construction about something to do with his citizenship or inadmissibility. I would urge the court not to make any finding with respect to that because it fits into Mr. Fox's bigger agenda.

For all Wolfe's insistence that I'm the one with some kind of agenda relating to my citizenship, it's actually the Crown and the BC government that have a huge amount at stake over the issue of my citizenship.

Since both I, and Capuano are US citizens and neither of us have any ties to Canada whatsoever, it raises the question of why the fuck the BCPS actually had me sent back here from the US so they could prosecute me for criminal harassment. I mean, since we're both American and I had already gone back to America then why not let the American authorities deal with it, right? And then there's the matter of the probation conditions prohibiting me from leaving BC or being within 100 meters of the US border. What the fuck kind of idiotic, moronic justice system imposes a condition that forces a person who has no immigration or citizenship status in Canada to remain in Canada?

So, for the Crown to admit that I'm not a Canadian citizen would be admitting their and the court's own overwhelming, painfully mind boggling ineptitude.

But consider this: At the criminal harassment trial in 2016, it was Crown Counsel Mark Myhre who admitted as an exhibit (Exhibit 2, to be precise), my Florida birth certificate. It was the Crown that brought up and produced the proof that I am a US citizen because at the time, they were trying to convince the jury that I could take off to the US at any moment and go harm Capuano. And then later, when me being a US citizen no longer serves their purposes, they turn it around and insist that I'm a Canadian citizen. That birth certificate has been on file with the BC Supreme Court since June 2016, as an exhibit in that trial, the trial Justice Heather Holmes presided over! That proves that both the Crown and Holmes have known all along that I was born in the US and am, therefore, NOT a Canadian citizen!

There is no limit to the bullshit and the corruption in the BC justice system!

What's only necessary here is to consider the strength of his actions, which were clear and certain.

He took that long bus ride down to the border. Never changed his date. Knew he was going to be detained. Expected it. Didn't care about the order. Says he wasn't in a snit or angry about losing the application before the ACJ. But that -- that answer has to be viewed in light of the sections of his statement which I put to him, which -- forgive my language, but I think it's quoting him at some point, saying "fuck the court." Well, that kind of contempt for an order speaks a kind of action he took the very next day, which was not when he was -- when he told Bhimji he was going to go based on the logs. It was the next day that he went down.

It isn't a matter of him planning something that was going to come eventually into fruition. He says -- you know, we listen to the video -- he wasn't angry when he was saying those words. Those words are uncharitable words towards the entire court process, the order, he being bound by them, his application having been denied. And if we view the entire context surrounding Mr. Fox and his actions going within a hundred metres of the border, leaving British Columbia and not reporting, the only thing that runs -- not the only thing, a golden thread that runs through that is an utter contempt for being bound by a court order.

I believe this sums up the Crown's and St. Pierre's entire case and position on this matter. What this all comes down to, really, is they can't believe I would have the nerve, the audacity to say "fuck the court" and "fuck the Crown". Whether or not I'm guilty of anything has absolutely no relevance in their minds. It doesn't matter whether Polisak denied me admission, or whether I left voluntarily or involuntarily. All that matters is that I could be so brazen as to openly say to the police, in a video recording, "fuck the court".

But you know what? It's not illegal to criticize the court or the justice system. It's not a crime to say "fuck the court". It's not even a crime to say "fuck you" to the judge's face. You cannot, legally, be prosecuted or imprisoned for saying such things. But, what all of these prosecutions against me, and all these transcripts, what they prove is that in Canada the judges and the prosecutors are fascist tyrants; they will prosecute you and imprison you for speaking your mind.

Nevertheless, I stand by my words: Fuck the court; and fuck Mark Myhre and all the other corrupt, lying, cheating Crown Counsel; and fuck the Legal Services Society and all those Legal Aid funded lawyers who are nothing more than puppets for the Crown.

To offer up the mirage of inadmissibility in light of Officer Polisak's evidence is a sleight of hand. The fact that she appeared to rely on her notes should not cause the court concern. It's a very significant thing for a border officer, in Crown's submission, to know whether they're declaring someone denied entry or being told they're inadmissible. That's like a big deal part of their job, in Crown's submission. It's not like, ah, I'll let you pay duty on that wine or not pay duty on the extra bottle of wine you bought across the border. That's like a significant thing. And she was clear in her evidence she never did that. And she -- rightly or wrongly, whether she read all of the records on FOSS or whatever, it doesn't matter. She came to that opinion, and the opinion was it's just a conversation, and he left.

Wolfe argues that it is a very significant thing for a CBSA officer to deny someone admission. And that Polisak was very clear in her testimony, that she did not deny me admission. However, if it's such a significant thing, then how is it that there's absolutely no mention in her notes about whether she denied me admission or granted me admission? Her notes also didn't state whether it was determine that I am or am not a Canadian citizen. How is it possible that that information is not mentioned in her notes - unless it was left out on purpose?

CBSA cannot officially admit I am not a Canadian citizen because they already allowed DHS to deport me here. But they also cannot officially state I am a Canadian citizen because their own records show that I was born in the US and have never applied for Canadian citizenship. So either way they're fucked! But then, I knew this all along and that's exactly why I held out and pushed for someone from CBSA to testify. I knew they would either have to admit their misconduct, which resulted in me being deported and exiled to Canada since 2013, or they would have to commit perjury (which is the route they decided to go).

Mr. Fox in his evidence says, I got out there and there was a CBSA officer. And we know that Polisak referenced the CBSA officer who was positioned there, she said he wasn't supposed to move, or she, depending who the officer was, and he had to be there for an hour. Mr. Fox says he checked over his shoulder. He was walking away after telling the -- if I remember correctly, the officer that he had been deemed inadmissible. Convenient. Convenient except for the fact that he walks across on his own after having encountered and dealt in direct -- encountered Officer Polisak, who lets him go with -- with no -- I mean, if he was ruled inadmissible, what would the next step be? We don't -- we don't know that. It's very interesting and convenient for Mr. Fox then to say, that other officer out there, I'll tell them I'm inadmissible; that'll perk him up, and then he'll look at me as I walk away and I'll be able to say I checked over my shoulder and he was looking at me. Well, we don't know what happened there. But nothing turns on that.

Fox:

We would know if we had the video, wouldn't we? Sorry?

Wolfe has been going on and on with bullshit claims and suppositions, saying that I've been lying and manipulating things and by this point I've run out of patience. I point out that we wouldn't have to speculate about any of this if we had the video footage from CBSA. If the Crown and the RCMP had done their jobs properly and obtained the video footage from CBSA at the same time they pursued the video footage from CBP, rather than waiting to request it from CBSA until after CBSA's formal policy required them to destroy it, then that video footage would clearly prove that everything I've been saying is true and that almost every statement out of Wolfe's mouth has been a lie.

But unfortunately the RCMP waited until exactly seven days after CBSA policy required the video to be destroyed, then they submitted the formal request for it.

Judge:

One of the curious artifacts in this thing was that -- is 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.

Wolfe:

Sure. And, you know --

Judge:

With this officer, I mean. Polisak.

Fox:

Am I allowed to respond?

Judge:

Not yet.

Wolfe:

Not yet. Sooner -- probably sooner than later.

Judge:

But -- but it matters -- it really matters not

St. Pierre expresses significant concern, possibly even disbelief, that Polisak checked my CPIC record but that my probation conditions were never discussed when she interacted with me. The conditions should have been stated in the CPIC record, so Polisak should have known that there was a condition prohibiting me from leaving BC and another prohibiting me from being within 100 meters of the border.

But then St. Pierre goes on to say it doesn't matter, though. I completely disagree! It does matter! It shows that Polisak was full of shit! She couldn't admit that she saw the conditions but just didn't feel like enforcing them. More so, she couldn't admit that she saw the conditions but enforcing them would have opened a can or worms that no one wanted to have to deal with (see the comments above for p155l29-44). So instead, she lied and claimed she didn't recall seeing them. And the issue of Polisak's credibility is central to the entire case because ultimately it comes down to her saying she didn't tell me I was inadmissible and me saying she did tell me I was inadmissible. And, if I'm inadmissible then I'm precluded from going from the port of entry back into Canada - which means the only thing I could do was go from the port of entry back to the US.

-- I mean, the issue -- the issue really is is that, you know, this officer's evidence that she didn't issue any direction or piece of paper that said he was inadmissible or advise him that he -- that he was inadmissible, that's her evidence. And that, as you say, they had a conversation and he left. My -- the -- you know, if that was -- if that's the evidence to be accepted, and you say it is because that's -- on a balance of probabilities you say that her evidence is --

Wolfe:

To be preferred.

Judge:

-- preferred because she's made notes, et cetera, that's pretty -- I would say pretty dispositive of the whole thing. If you took his evidence at this height, I don't know if changes things.

Wolfe:

It doesn't.

Judge:

Because that's the issue that I'm struggling with. And I'll hear from Mr. Fox. But I don't know if it changes anything because the fact is is that he presented himself from within Canada.

Wolfe:

Correct. That's correct.

Judge:

He wasn't seeking entry into Canada.

Wolfe:

No, he was in Canada.

Judge:

When you seek entry you get -- you go to a border person -- the booth was the evidence -- and they direct you, if -- if there was going to be secondary inspection on your entry application --

Wolfe:

That's right.

Judge:

-- to the office.

Wolfe:

She made it clear the booth, if you're coming from the south, is your first point of contact.

Judge:

Right.

Wolfe:

Whether you're a pedestrian or a car, there's sort of a breezeway place for pedestrians to check in is the first point. You're either getting in or you're going to secondary. It's one or the other.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

No one ever referred Fox to secondary, right? And we have his evidence he's coming in from the Canadian side. He rides the bus. It's more than an hour. He's coming in from whatever public transit system he took. And we -- that means we know he's coming from the north. And I'm not saying he was seeing Bhimji earlier in the day. He's in Canada; he's in B.C. He walks in. Anything other than that is a construction not predicated on the evidence or common sense. It doesn't change anything. You can't cloak not being bound by an order because you in your own head figure you're inadmissible. That's not a reasonable excuse; it's a capricious excuse. That's a bit of fiction. It's just not correct.

It's Crown's position that viewed either way there is no reasonable excuse and that the court should find Mr. Fox guilty on all three counts.

Judge:

Yes. All right. I'll hear from Mr. Fox and Mr. Wolfe can have a reply, if necessary.

So, Mr. Fox -- yes. I guess you can get a sense of what the -- the tensions are in the evidence and what the real issues are. What do you have to say about that?

SUBMISSIONS ON HIS OWN BEHALF BY THE ACCUSED:

Fox:

Well, first I'd like to respond to a few of the points that Mr. Wolfe brought up.

The first one, the issue of when I got to the port of entry, whether I was coming from within Canada or whether I had been coming from outside seeking entry to Canada, once you're in the port of entry, that's irrelevant because once you're in the port of entry you're deemed to be outside of Canada with respect to the immigration laws.

Judge:

Well, I disagree with you. There's no evidence of that.

I argue that it doesn't matter that I entered the port of entry from within Canada, because once a person enters the area designated as a port of entry they are considered to be outside of Canada for the purposes of the immigration laws, regardless of where they entered the port of entry from. St. Pierre says he disagrees and there's no evidence of that.

What evidence? It's a matter of law! Here's an idea: Let me have access to relevant case law from within the jail and I'll provide the legal authorities to support my arguments.

In the United States, a self-represented person who is in custody is provided access to the legal research source material he would require to prepare his defense. It's a fundamental, constitutional right. In Canada (or at least, in BC), a self-represented person in custody is provided access to fuck all! At NFPC there is a law library with absolutely no searchable case law; and criminal case law in book format (non-searchable) only up to 2011. There is absolutely no immigration case law. I have brought this issue up repeatedly over the past 7 years and the courts have consistently refused to get involved. That is what passes for justice in Canada.

Fox:

The thing is if a person is inadmissible because they are deemed to not be a Canadian citizen and they have a criminal history, that makes them inadmissible. It wouldn't matter, then, if I came from the north or the south. When Officer Polisak would look in the computer and she would see the convictions for criminal harassment, for perjury, she would see that I was not born in Canada, that's it. That's the end of it. It's -- I mean, it's not that the CBSA officer has to make a determination that a person is not admissible and that that would be a big deal for them.

Judge:

Yes, but your -- your -- what your submission presumes is it's that -- that particular office, anybody who walks into that office is -- that particular office's task is to determine whether those people are admissible to Canada or not. That doesn't make any sense. It's a Canada Border Services Office. It happens to be located at the Douglas border crossing for the sole -- for the major purpose of vetting people who are entering, but it's there for a whole bunch of other purposes.

St. Pierre argues that it "doesn't make any sense" that it is the task of the CBSA office at the Douglas port of entry to determine whether every person who enters the area designated as the port of entry is admissible or not. To begin with, I never said anything along those lines. I never said that CBSA was required to determine the admissibility of every person who enters the port of entry. What I said was that every person who is within the area designated as a port of entry is considered, for the purposes of the immigration laws, to be outside of Canada. So, if you are anywhere within the area designated as a port of entry, then for the purposes of applying the immigration laws, it is just as if you were standing six inches south of the actual, physical Canada/US border. That doesn't mean that CBSA must automatically put every one of those people through a thorough inspection before allowing them to leave the port of entry and enter or return to Canada. If the CBSA officer has no suspicions or concerns about a given person who is at the port of entry the officer can wave the person through or ignore them.

To say that every person who is present within an area designated as a port of entry is to be presumed to be a foreign national seeking entry to Canada means that a CBSA officer has the authority to stop and question any person who is within the area designated as a port of entry and to question them regarding their right to be in Canada. It also means that within the area designated as a port of entry, the burden is on the person, not on CBSA, to prove they are entitled to be present.

Moreover, I have not said that every person who walks into the CBSA office is presumed to be a foreign national seeking admission; I said every person who enters an area designated as a port of entry is presumed to be a foreign national seeking admission. The area designated as a port of entry includes not only the CBSA office, but also the surrounding land, from just north of the building all the way down to the actual border.

A CBSA officer at a port of entry is free to assume any given person is allowed to be in Canada and to not intercept that person. But if a person comes up to a CBSA officer and tells them they are a foreign national with no status in Canada, and that they've been convicted of an indictable offense; and then the officer looks in the computer and all the official records from IRCC, CBSA, and RCMP all state the person is a foreign national; then that should create a sufficient basis for the officer to presume the person is inadmissible. That is exactly what happened in this case.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

I mean -- and your purpose was to enter from Canada and to ask them or to seek some kind of declaration that you were inadmissible from Canada.

Fox:

Yes, that's fair.

Judge:

Okay. So if -- if in fact Officer Polisak said, you know, you're right, you're not -- you're not admissible to Canada, and you're already in Canada, what -- and you say the reasonable response to that would be -- even though you're bound by an order not to leave, that your reasonable response to that would be just to walk across to the U.S.

What the hell! It's not so fucking hard to understand. How is it possible that St. Pierre still fails to grasp what's happening?

First, ignore the fact that I was "already in Canada". I was within an area designated as a port of entry - I was not "in Canada". Is it really so hard to comprehend the concept that there can be a special, designated area (the port of entry) within a larger, general area (the entire country), and that certain laws are applied differently within that special designated area?

St. Pierre says "you say the only reasonable response to that would be -- even though you're bound by an order not to leave…would be just to walk across to the US". Do these fucking judges even listen when I talk? Do they only hear the parts that they'll be able to twist around or distort into something they can make incriminating? I mean, how many times did I say that Polisak telling me I was inadmissible meant that I was prohibited from leaving the port of entry and returning to Canada. When you are at a port of entry you are "outside" of Canada (at least with respect to the immigration laws). Once the CBSA officer told me I was inadmissible, leaving the port of entry and returning to Canada was no longer an option. Doing so would have been illegal.

Are you starting to realize what I mean when I say dealing with the prosecutors and judges up here is like taking crazy pills?

That's what you're saying.

Fox:

It is my understanding, and I guess we can disagree on this, but it's my understanding --

Judge:

I haven't made any determination yet. I'm just -- I'm just challenging the evidence.

Fox:

Well, no, no. I'm -- I'm saying we -- we have a disagreement, I guess, on what CBSA's burden is at the port of entry as opposed to the burden on the person presenting themselves to CBSA. It is my understanding that at a port of entry, regardless of whether the person came from outside of the country or came from within the country, once they enter that port of entry the burden is then on them to prove that they -- to prove to CBSA that they have the right or the authorization to enter Canada. If they were coming from within Canada already, then it would be -- they would have to prove that they have -- they have the burden of proving that they're -- they have the right to return to Canada.

From all of the immigration law that I've read, the Canadian and the U.S. immigration law, that is the same in both countries. That was my whole point of going to a port of entry. Once I entered the port of entry, then I would have to be able to prove that I have a right --

Judge:

You're not entering Canada at that point. You're just visiting a Canada Border Services office. You're not trying to enter Canada; you are in Canada and you always were in Canada.

Oh my God, dude! I swear, they only hear the parts they want to hear. Let me repeat it now for the hundredth time because this judge just doesn't seem to get it: The moment a person steps into an area designated as a port of entry, that person is presumed to be a foreign national seeking entry to Canada. From the perspective of the CBSA officers at the port of entry, that person is considered to be outside of Canada, attempting to enter Canada. It doesn't matter if that person entered the area designated as the port of entry from within Canada or from the US border. It doesn't matter if that person is actually seeking entry to Canada or not. It doesn't matter if that person is actually a foreign national or a Canadian citizen.

Really, dude! This is not nuclear physics. Is St. Pierre really this obtuse or is it just an act so that he can find me guilty and claim he simply didn't understand my arguments?

Fox:

I understand that. But as I've said, with respect to the immigration laws and CBSA, that port of entry is kind of a virtual bubble, if you will. And being within that building and in that space you're considered -- for the purposes of the immigration law and admission to Canada, you' re considered to be outside of Canada at that point. That's my understanding of it anyway. And that's why I chose to go to the port of entry.

Judge:

Well, see, if you make the submission that you're considered to be outside of Canada, you're -- the condition -- one of your conditions was to remain in Canada. So how is that -- how does that square with your -- with your theory that you're outside of Canada?

Fox:

Because you're outside of Canada within the context of the immigration laws. You're outside of Canada within the context of whether you would be considered admitted or not. You're still on Canadian soil. You're still within the boundaries of Canada. Some might say it's --

Judge:

And so you're basically saying that you'd be treated differently if you went to a Canada Border Services office in Vancouver, for instance, that there would be a totally different analysis?

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Why?

Fox:

Well, because then I would be -- for the purposes of the immigration laws I would be within Canada. Then the burden is on CBSA to prove that the person is removable before the could remove them.

Judge:

So you say if someone shows up at that Douglas border office the whole burden changes, even if they do come from within Canada?

Fox:

Yes. Then the burden is on the person rather than CBSA.

Judge:

That just doesn't make any logical sense.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

I mean -- well, you can convince me, but, I mean, on the face of it --

Fox:

Well, that's the thing. I can't convince you right now. I don't have -- I don't have a copy of the Immigration Act and such. I mean, there's not much I can do to bolster my argument at this point.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

They have that back at the jail, but I don't --

Judge:

Okay. Let's -- let's go to the point where -- say, if I accept your evidence that Ms. Polisak said something to the effect of, look, you're likely or you are inadmissible to Canada, so if that's the -- if that's the information that you required, there you go; that's my opinion; thanks for the talk; off you go. At that point -- at that point your essential argument is that you at that point were required to leave the country and to enter the U.S. Is that your argument?

Fox:

Yes. Just like when I presented myself to CBP and they said, you're not admissible to the United States. I mean, okay. So the options left are go back to where you came from or sit in immigration in custody in [indiscernible] before an immigration judge.

Judge:

Okay. There you go. You had options.

Fox:

Oh, yes. I could've --

Judge:

Okay. You could've stayed and complied with the order and fought that order from within Canada.

Fox:

[indiscernible] and live on the streets.

Judge:

Okay. That's --

Fox:

I understand that collateral.

Judge:

That's your reason for doing it. That's your reason for wanting to go because -- because it's going to have some negative collateral effects. By complying with this order it's going to have negative collateral effects, and most probation orders do have some sort of impact on folks. That's your reason for not complying with it. But is that -- is that a reasonable excuse under the law that it was going to cause me some grief, it was going to cause me some inconvenience, it was going to cause me some -- some -- a negative impact of some kind?

Fox:

I believe that it would not be a reasonable excuse under the law that it would cause me some type of hardship like that. However, I believe it would be a reasonable excuse under the law if the condition necessarily compelled me to violate the law.

Judge:

If the condition -- yes, but -- okay.

Fox:

A probation condition which would force me to break the law would be --

Judge:

Yes, and that's the argument that you made --

Fox:

I brought that up previously.

Judge:

-- in front of Justice Holmes to vary the order and that was a whole different burden that she was looking at, and she was looking at evidence to try to justify changing the conditions for you. And so she was looking at something completely different than what we are. You were providing to her evidence of -- with respect to your citizenship to establish that these conditions were not -- were not practically -- you weren't able to practically comply with them. That's not the -- that's not my task right here. I mean, I'm just -- I'm just trying to determine whether you -- you had a reasonable excuse with -- as it's known within the law and which is objectively reasonable to breach those conditions.

I bring up the fact that the probation conditions necessarily required me to violate the law because if I am inadmissible then by remaining in Canada I am in violation of the immigration laws. St. Pierre seems to be trying to confuse the issues by bring up the fact that I raised that issue before Holmes, but as he says that was a completely other matter, with a completely different burden and legal analysis. But, significantly, he doesn't really comment on the fact that by complying with the probation conditions I am violating the immigration laws; and by complying with the immigration laws, I an violating the probation conditions.

There is no limit to the ineptitude and the vindictiveness of the Canadian justice system. And it is a scary thing when you combine ineptitude, vindictiveness, and the power to lock people up in an 8 by 12 concrete cell for an indefinite length of time.

And what you're telling me is you had a choice. You had a choice to stay in the country and be -- and be inconvenienced or you had a choice to -- to leave.

Fox:

I don't believe that I left voluntarily because I believe the moment Officer Polisak told me that I was inadmissible, which I already knew I was inadmissible and the IRCC documentation shows that I'm inadmissible, so once she verbalized that to me, there was no choice left for me. I mean, my options --

Judge:

You told me you had a choice. You had a choice to remain in Canada and fight that.

Fox:

No. No, no. I'm saying on the U.S. side when I turned -- when I presented myself to CBP.

Judge:

Well, that's after you went to the U.S.

Fox:

Right. The reason I was bringing that up was I was showing that it's not necessarily going to be a big deal for the border officer to tell the person you're inadmissible, as the Crown was trying to make it seem like it would be this big deal and there'd have to be records of it and all. But that's not the case. When a foreign national gets to the border and the border officer says, no, I think that you're inadmissible; I'm not going to allow you to enter at this time, I mean --

Judge:

You don't think it's reasonable for that officer to note -- have some sort of notation as to that decision? Because you can imagine, if you think in the future, what if that person tries 800 times --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- to get into the country at various borders across Canada, you don't think it would be -- it would be -- you know, something that they would want to do is to notate their file as to people who come to the border are already the subject of an inquiry, are deemed to be inadmissible and then sent back. You don't think there'd be some notation of that somewhere?

Fox:

I would think that under normal circumstances that, yes, they would want to make notations about that. But I think that we've seen over the course of these proceedings that CBSA hasn't necessarily been following the appropriate or standard procedure.

Judge:

Well, one thing I agree with you on is that there's really no explanation, and it's not my job to sort of suss it out right now, and that -- you know, that your initial inquiries weren't met with any kind of positive response and it took so long to get this FOI, et cetera. There's really no explanation for that. But that's, again, sort of collateral to all the issues --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- that I'm dealing with.

Fox:

What -- I think it also has to be -- it has to be emphasized that CBSA doesn't make any determination about whether or not the person is admissible. In my case they didn't make any determination. Those determinations are made by IRCC. And it's already been made with respect to me. CBSA can look at the evidence when a person is coming into the country and say, well, based on this evidence we believe that you're inadmissible. You can appeal that or take that up with IRCC. In the U.S. it would be the immigration board, but here I believe it would IRCC.

Judge:

Okay. So -- but basically what you're telling me in that -- in that phraseology that you put it 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. That's what -- that's the gist --

Fox:

No, no.

Judge:

-- of what you just told me.

Fox:

Well, no, I disagree with the second part. It wasn't an option to remain in Canada because if I'm inadmissible, then remaining in Canada is not a legal option. If I had chosen to fight it, first I would need some legal grounds under the immigration laws to fight it. I have none. I have no status in Canada, so I have no basis to -- to fight being denied admission. But even if I tried to claim that I did, it wouldn't mean that I'm entitled to return to Canada. I mean, at best I would --

Judge:

You're not outside of Canada yet. You've -- you walked across the border.

Fox:

Returned to Canada meaning from the port of entry.

Judge:

Okay. But when you walked out of that building there's --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- 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.

Fox:

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 and said well, where are you going?

Judge:

Breaking what law?

Fox:

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.

Judge:

Okay. But you're saying that the officer in your evidence --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- said that you were inadmissible.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Never at no time directed you to go back to the U.S. You're saying that all she told you was that my inquiries show that you're inadmissible. That's what you told her. From then --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- from that point you have several decisions that you could make at that point. Is that not fair?

Fox:

It seems to me that the only legal option that I had at that point was to leave Canada. I don't see what other legal option I would've had.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

It would be as though -- I mean -- okay. Even though Officer Polisak -- or Polisak may not have explicitly said, you are legally required to leave Canada right now, it would be the same as if a law enforcement officer tells me, oh, you cannot go in there; that would be trespassing. He's not telling me don't go in there, but by telling me that I'm not permitted to enter a certain building it's implied that I must comply with that order, is it not? And that's how I would've saw it when Officer Polisak would have said to me that -- that based on what I've seen, it appears to me that -- or it appears to us that you would be in admissible. I mean, it doesn't seem to me, then, that it's necessary for her to say, now you must leave.

Judge:

Okay.

It seems clear to me at this point that St. Pierre is just playing stupid. It's already been explained that from within an area designated as a port of entry it would make no sense to tell a person they must leave Canada because, from in the context of the immigration laws they are already outside of Canada, and you, physically, cannot leave a place you are not in. It really seems like we're just beating the fuck out of a dead horse here. St. Pierre, clearly, just wants to find me guilty, no matter what. There is absolutely nothing I can do, and absolutely no physical evidence, or logic, or reason which is going to have any impact on him. I wonder if it has anything to do with my statement about this all being some ridiculous scheme to gather evidence of corruption for me to publish (p145l9-13). Ah well, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke, huh.

Yes. Anything else you want to --

Fox:

Oh, yes. I want to point out that a probation order was discussed, actually, when I was speaking with Officer Polisak. I'm pretty sure I had a copy of it in my laptop bag. If I did, it would still be in my laptop bag, which is in North Fraser Pretrial Centre's --

Judge:

Okay. But all I have to consider in this case is the evidence that's been given -- sworn evidence that's been given and the evidence that is exhibits. Admitted documents.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

That's the evidence.

Fox:

And I would've liked very much to be able to show more concrete physical evidence to prove that I had these documents with me --

Judge:

But, again, at the end of the day -- I'll help you out here so -- just to -- just so that you understand you're not prejudiced in any way. I don't see the relevance of any of that stuff to the issues that I have to determine.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

So that may assuage your mind with respect to the importance of those documents.

Fox:

In response to Mr. Wolfe's suggestions that I had a large amount of contempt for the probation order and perhaps even for the justice system as a whole, I would say that with what I've been through with criminal harassment proceedings, having gone back to the United States, having an investigation been done, it was determined that there was no crime committed, my firearms licence wasn't revoked or suspended or anything. I went back to the United States, then I was brought back here to be prosecuted for it. Supposedly the website was criminal harassment. The website's been back online for more than -- well, about --

Judge:

Again, none of that's relevant to what I have to do.

Fox:

My point is yes, I do have contempt for all of the -- for everything and everyone that has been involved in everything that I have gone through over the past few years with all of this.

Judge:

Fair -- fair enough. But, again, I'm tasked with one simple task and it's to provide you a fair trial on the charges that you're --

Fox:

Right. But if Mr. Wolfe is allowed to make statements like that, then I should also be allowed to make such statements in response to them, shouldn't I?

Wolfe:

Well, it's the context in which I made them.

Judge:

I mean, if it helps you at all, the -- the -- I'm not going to be using, you know, evidence that you've -- that you're angry with the justice system as any kind of -- buttressing any of the --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

-- evidence that goes to the essential element.

Fox:

And with respect to the failure to report charge I would say it would be no different than if I had been arrested for something here in Vancouver and then detained at North Fraser Pretrial Centre and failed to report because of that. l mean, the fact that I was being detained in a facility outside of Canada because of my own actions is no different than if I'd done something or gotten arrested for something on Hastings Street and I was being detained at North Fraser.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

Now, I would like to make some submissions about Officer Polisak's testimony. Let's see. So she testified that when she pulled up my information in the GCMS, she only had access to the remarks section of the FOSS record, but then later on cross-examination I was able to -- well, first --

Judge:

Let me -- let me help you --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

-- Mr. Fox. What if I -- what if I, you know, dealt with this case, you know -- as I say, is it -- is the analysis different if -- if I accept your evidence --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- that -- that you were told or you -- you came to believe somehow with your interactions with Officer Polisak that you were inadmissible or that you had some designation of inadmissibility in this country, is the analysis different?

Fox:

Are you asking would the analysis be different --

Judge:

I guess -- I guess it -- if she hadn't said any of that it might be an easier matter, but if -- if that was said, does it provide you the excuse -- and we've just talked about this and this is what you're on about --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- the excuse to leave the country. But right now you're giving me submissions just designed to -- to ask me to accept your version of the events --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- instead of hers on that -- on those points, on that.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

I see what you're saying. And I think I need to emphasize again that I do not believe that I left the country. I believe that I presented myself or turned myself in to CBSA and then I was effectively removed by the duly appointed authority, being the CBSA. Even though they may not have put me in handcuffs and dragged me to the border, at the moment that they told me that I'm inadmissible and I'm right at the border, then that was effectively removing me or denying me admission to Canada. So I don't believe -- I don't believe that it's a matter of I have to show that -- or justify leaving Canada. I don't believe that I left voluntarily. I went to CBSA voluntarily, and then from that point I don't believe that it was voluntary.

Judge:

Okay. What about Mr. Wolfe's point that, you know, when you left the building you said -- I guess your evidence was you said something to the officer who was standing out there, well, I guess I'm inadmissible, and then you started walking. What -- I mean, what -- if you had said nothing, presumably you could've walked right back into Canada and nobody would've said anything? Is that the --

Fox:

Well -- no, no. Because it's -- I didn't say to the officer, I guess I'm inadmissible. When I went outside and then he asked me where I was going, and I told him I have to return to the United States because I was told -- the officer inside told me I'm inadmissible.

Judge:

And that's -- that's the evidence that you gave. Yes.

Fox:

Well, I think I was more brief about it. I didn't go into details. And then I asked him, how do I return; which way do I go? And then he pointed me to the door. Now, other than him there was also a booth a little bit to the north of us, and I guess that was the booth probably that Officer Polisak was referring to. In that booth there was another officer that was working there. Had I not responded to that first officer, then I'm sure the second officer would've asked me.

Judge:

Okay. The -- now, you're -- you were on about -- you wanted to impeach the evidence of Polisak.

Fox:

Well, yes, I just wanted to point out a few of the inconsistencies -- or I would call them lies, but to be more diplomatic the inconsistencies in her testimony.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

To show that in my opinion I don't believe that certain parts -- or the important parts of her testimony are particularly credible.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

The first is when she was confronted with the FOSS record at first she said that she only had access to the remarks section. She didn't see all of the other stuff. Mainly she didn't want to admit that she had seen the country of birth part.

Judge:

I think -- to be fair, I think to properly characterize her evidence is that she only made notes of the remarks section and that she -- she -- she allowed that the whole document must've been available to her and she just can't -- she doesn't have any independent recollection of the thing.

Fox:

Well -- and then I questioned her about it more. Like --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

Because in her notes she explicitly mentioned the Edmonton CIC. And so I had asked her, did you see this other information in these other fields that were on the FOSS record, and at that point she said no, she only had seen the remarks section. So then I presented to her, well, how did you -- how could you have known that it came from the Edmonton CIC? And then she had -- she had said that's why I didn't put that in my notes. And I said, well -- but you did put it in your notes; it's right here.

I point out that Polisak lied in her testimony when she claimed that she only had access to the Remarks field of the FOSS report. St. Pierre then falsely claimed that what she had said was that she "only made notes of the remarks section" and that she said the whole document must have been available to her but she doesn't recollect. That is completely false.

In the transcript of Polisak's testimony (TR 2020-03-04):

at p59l8-13 she claimed "we can't get into a FOSS file";
at p59l30-35 she admitted that when she says "FOSS note" she is referring to the "Remarks" field;
at p65l45-47 she claimed when she searched my name the only thing that came up was "a FOSS note";
at p66l16-17 she claimed the only thing in GCMS was the FOSS note;
at p86l42-p87l2 she claimed the only information about me in the system, as of when she interacted with me on 2019-03-15, was "the FOSS note";
but at p87l7-16 she claimed the Remarks field was the only part she remembers looking at;
then at p87l27-41 I confront her with the fact that in her notes she explicitly referred to information from other parts of the FOSS report, which she could have only known about if she had seen those other fields. She responded, the information could have been there but she didn't put it in her notes so she doesn't recall. But then I pointed out to her that she actually DID put it in her notes, she explicitly stated it in her notes. Her only response was "Right".

I really don't see how you could any more clearly point out to a person that you just caught them lying under oath (except, perhaps, to actually say "Bam! I just caught you lying under oath! Suck it!").

But do you think that St. Pierre would acknowledge that Polisak, a law enforcement officer, lied? Of course not! Instead, he defends and supports her. Oh, it's not her fault; her memory of that day is fuzzy; poor little CBSA officer (p169l21-27).

At that point I was hoping to try to figure out a way that I could get her to also admit that she saw the other part, and that's where it would've been good if I had remembered that I had the -- I had showed her the PDF on my phone at the time, but -- and I would've been able to cross-examine her on that.

Judge:

I think the gist of her evidence is she doesn't recall much of the interaction other than what was revived -- her memory was revived by reading her notes. So there's -- there are necessarily going to be parts of your interaction that she just won't be able to testify about because she doesn't recall.

Fox:

Well, right. But with respect to the country of birth field in the FOSS report -- or FOSS record, that she explicitly stated that she did not see, that she didn't have access to it.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

That it simply didn't show up. And then I moved on to the GCMS record. In that one she flat out said that the information wasn't there when she looked at it because there's no way she'd be able to deny having access to the GCMS record. And then I presented to her the created date on that -- in that section of the record states 2019/01/18, which is two months before I was interacting with her. She had no explanation further for why the information wasn't there.

Having just pointed out that Polisak had lied under oath and that I had caught her and confronted her with proof that she had lied, St. Pierre proceeds to defend her by claiming that the gist of her testimony is she doesn't recall much of the interaction other than what she entered in her notes. He says there are, necessarily, going to be parts that she just can't recall.

But I tell St. Pierre, that with respect to certain information, such as the Country of Birth field in the FOSS record, Polisak explicitly stated it wasn't present, she didn't see it, and/or she didn't have access to it. Then with respect to the Country of Birth field of the GCMS record, Polisak explicitly stated the field was not there when she looked at it - even though the "date created" field stated it was created two months prior to her interaction with me.

I would suggest that the information was there in both cases. She simply -- I think -- it is my belief that she was instructed not to make any admissions about CBSA knowing one way or the other about my citizenship, and I think that's why she was being so evasive about those two fields.

Now, I also questioned her very directly and explicitly about whether everything her notes and in her declaration was true and correct to the best of her knowledge. She responded that it was.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

But then I pointed out to her the discrepancy between "confirmed" and "concluded" and in that the remarks that she had read did not say "confirmed" at all, it said only "concluded" even though she had written it down as confirmed, and they're two very different words.

Also on direct there was the issue that she had stated that I had a Canadian passport, but then on cross it was determined that I never -- or sorry, she stated on direct that I told her that I had a Canadian passport, but then on cross we came to find that I hadn't actually told her I had a Canadian passport but rather that I had applied for and received a Canadian passport under fraudulent pretenses.

Wolfe:

Actually I don't recall her giving the evidence that way. I'm sorry. I don't --

Judge:

Yes. I don't --

Wolfe:

My own note is that she --

Judge:

-- remember the fraudulent --

Wolfe:

He had a Canadian passport, Richard Riess.

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Passport, Canadian; Richard; Sudbury, Ontario. She gave a date of birth. I don't recall her saying that she elicited that from Mr. Fox or Mr. Fox said that.

Judge:

I thought that was her referring to the remarks section of the FOSS record.

Wolfe:

That's what -- that's right. Yeah.

No, I think you've got that wrong. That wasn't her evidence.

I tell St. Pierre, Polisak had falsely testified that I told her I had a Canadian passport. Wolfe disagrees with me, claiming he believes Polisak only said I had a Canadian passport, not that I had told her I had a Canadian passport. However, in the transcript of Polisak's testimony:

at p31l16-18 she explicitly stated, on direct, that I had told her I had a Canadian passport with the name Richard Riess on it;
at p38l37-39, in the absence of Polisak, I say that Polisak falsely stated I told her I had a Canadian passport;
at p45l24-47 I ask Polisak if that actually happened, if I actually told her I have a Canadian passport; now she states that in her notes it just says I had a Canadian passport; then she said that in her notes it just says I was "issued" a Canadian passport under the name Richard Riess;
at p53l24-42 Polisak admitted she can't recall how the topic of a Canadian passport came about; now she claims she called Passport Canada and they told her a person named Richard Riess was born in Sudbury, Ontario; then she claimed I told her I had assumed the name Richard Riess and applied for a passport in that name, under false pretenses.

Clearly, Polisak DID falsely testify about this, then change her testimony repeatedly.

Judge:

In any event, it's kind of --

Fox:

Right, right. Well, I'll move on from that, then.

On direct she also testified that she did not have any info indicating that I'm -- that I'm not a Canadian. But then on cross there were a number of items that I brought to her attention, some of which she admitted that -- that she had seen but she was always very evasive about it.

Wolfe:

I beg your pardon. That's not a proper characterization of her evidence.

Fox:

Right. I'm trying to --

Judge:

Okay. You can -- I'll give you a chance to reply, Mr. Wolfe.

Fox:

Well, I'm trying to think of the concrete examples. On the FOSS record, she was evasive about that. She denied that she had seen that. Later -- at this point, though, my evidence would be that I did show her the PDF file on my phone. I would love to be able to confront her with that, but I don't think that's going to be an option.

And then there was the CPIC report. I would have loved to show her the CPIC report as well, but that was -- I would -- to be direct, I would say that I was discouraged from doing that. Because in the CPIC report it clearly states that my place of birth is the United States of America.

Judge:

Yes, but here's the thing. None of that really goes to the question of admissibility. So -- so, you know, what is -- what seems to be accurate, however, is the officer's conclusion that there were a number of removals by the U.S. and that you didn't show up with any kind of valid documents to actually enter the U.S. and that she -- and that would seem to follow from that to be reasonable for her to advise you you're going to have trouble.

Fox:

Oh, yes.

Judge:

You're going to have trouble going down there because you have no passport and you've been removed several times.

Fox:

Yes. And my response to her, I'm not sure if it came up during her testimony or not, but my response to her -- oh, it's in her notes, I think -- was that that's my problem; I'll deal with that with CBP when I get there.

Judge:

Okay. But the issue of where you were born, that has -- how is that material to the admissibility question?

Fox:

It's about her credibility. It's about her stating that she had no evidence of some particular thing, but in reality she did have evidence of that thing.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

And if -- as a CBSA officer, if it can be shown that CBSA had evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen but they allowed me back in the country knowing that I have a criminal record, that's going to be a huge, huge problem for CBSA.

Judge:

Well, it -- it -- 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.

And here's an example of the incredible sense of self-importance that Canadian judges seem to have. St. Pierre actually thinks that CBSA would defer deporting an inadmissible criminal alien until the person's probation order expired, if that order had a condition prohibiting the person from leaving the jurisdiction.

To begin with, there is well established case law (MCI v. Cuskic, 148 CCC (3d) 541) that says that the purpose of probation is to re-integrate the offender back into society and so, if the offender is going to be deported at the end of their probation order anyway, then why spend the time and resources re-integrating him into the society he's going to be deported from?

Second, CBSA does not give a crap, and rightly so, about a probation condition requiring a criminal alien to remain within the jurisdiction. There own official policy (ENF10 - Removals, Section 12.2, page 32), adheres to MCI v. Cuskic.

Fox:

People get deported from Canada all the time when they have orders like that.

Judge:

They do, but there's no evidence that you were deported in this case, even from yourself.

Fox:

And another major problem I had with Polisak's testimony is that she was unable to remember so many of the things that I had asked her about. It seems really the only thing that she did remember very clearly apparently was telling me that I'm admissible or not telling me that I'm not admissible, however she phrased it, and whatever other points would've worked in favour of the Crown.

Judge:

Well, I agree with you that her memory was limited largely to what her notes were. And I think the gist of her evidence is, if -- if I would've told him, you know, he was admissible, that -- that would've been a material note. But I agree with you that her memory's limited to what her notes are.

Fox:

But her notes didn't even say that she told me that I was admissible. Her notes said nothing on it one way or the other.

Judge:

Well, okay.

Fox:

But the point I'm getting to with her -- the memory issues here is that if CBSA had not played these games for five months, claiming that there's no record of me going there and delaying all of this for an extra five or six or seven months, maybe her memory might've been better if she had testified back in August rather than testifying a year later.

I express my concern about Polisak's lapses in memory. In particular, the fact that her memory on the matters which the Crown asked about was excellent, but her memory on almost everything I asked about, and on all of the matters which would have been beneficial to my defense, was consistently very poor. Although, to be fair, it has been my experience that that seems to be the case with all of the Canadian law enforcement and justice system participants who have testified in my trials. They always seem to have excellent recollection in response to the Crown's questions, but then they always seem to have forgotten everything that would be beneficial to the defense. They really are just a bunch of lying sleaze bags.

So, I point out to St. Pierre that had CBSA not played those games for six or seven months, falsely claiming there was no record of me presenting myself to them, then Polisak could have testified back in August, five months after our interaction, rather than a year after our interaction, and perhaps her memory would have been better. St. Pierre agreed with me but, of course, did nothing.

Judge:

Okay. I'll take that into account. I mean, you know, when somebody shows up at your wicket there and says look, there's a chance I may not be admissible, I mean, it's reasonable for that officer to conduct -- to start an inquiry like -- and put down as -- as part of the -- as the subject inquiry "possible inadmissibility" and then conduct an inquiry. That's what she testified she did.

Fox:

Their own records right here that she had access to on that day had all the information that she would've needed to suspect that I am not a Canadian citizen and to perform an investigation and not allow me back into Canada until it was proven that I am a Canadian citizen.

Wolfe:

This isn't about what the witness didn't do.

Judge:

No. Fair enough.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

And nor is it -- is it an inquiry about allowing you back into Canada. You weren't seeking entry into Canada at that point.

Fox:

Right. I was seeking to be denied entry into Canada.

Judge:

Well, you weren't seeking entry. There was no inquiry as to whether you were eligible for entry into Canada. You visited the office and told them you may possibly be inadmissible.

St. Pierre again insists I wasn't "seeking entry to Canada". He says that because I wasn't seeking entry, there was no inquiry into whether I was "eligible for entry". But he is just as mistaken this time as he was all the previous times he brought this up. Please forgive my repetitiousness, but once again: Every person who is physically present in an area designated as a port of entry is presumed to be a foreign national seeking entry to Canada, regardless of whether they are actually seeking entry to Canada. So, it didn't matter that I was not actually seeking entry to Canada, the Border Services Officers were required to treat me as though I was a foreign national seeking entry to Canada.

By this point you must be starting to realize that the judges in Canada don't care about the actual law. At no point did Judge St. Pierre bother to look into what the laws, regulations, and policies are within an area designated as a port of entry. Instead, he just said "That just doesn't make any logical sense" and "I disagree with you". What the fuck kind of criminal justice system has judges that make rulings not based on the law, but rather based solely on how they imagine something should be.

Fox:

No, I told them I am inadmissible.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I showed them the documentation. I told them about being convicted of criminal harassment. I told them I'm on probation and I can't be within a hundred metres of the U.S. border and I told them that my objective, my goal, is for them to remove me from Canada at that time.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

So the one last issue that I would like to come back to again is the question if when a person is at a port of entry whether they are considered to be outside of Canada seeking admission or outside of Canada for the purposes of the immigration law because that is something I would be able to prove to the court that that is the case, but it's not something I would be able to prove right now because obviously I don't have the legal materials here. But it is something I'd be able to look up and be able to prove that that is the case if I had access to the law library and such, but that's up to the court.

Otherwise I guess I'm done.

Judge:

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Fox.

Mr. Wolfe, do you have any reply to that?

REPLY FOR CROWN BY MR. WOLFE:

Wolfe:

There's a circularity in Mr. Fox's reasoning which amounts to saying, I'm illegal, so I must go; I must go because I am illegal.

Fox:

It's the same thing.

Wolfe:

And that's the circularity.

Fox:

No, I know what a circular reference is. That's not a circular reference. You're stating the same thing two different ways.

Wolfe:

Well --

Fox:

It's not A equals B equals A. That would be a circular reference. You're saying A equals B; B equals A.

Wolfe:

Let me use a different point.

Fox:

Okay. Thank you.

Wolfe:

Thank you. His argument is predicated on his false assumption, and the false assumption is his admissibility status. The evidence of the officer is such that were he inadmissible, clearly that would've been marked in her notation. There is nothing indicated to that extent in any of her notations. This would have been an exceedingly glaring error, particularly in the context of her evidence that she said it was just a conversation, she came to a conclusion. Your Honour said Mr. Fox had choices, that he -- he had choices. He had a choice not to enter into the CBSA building or to enter. He had a choice to engage to a certain degree or not. He engaged with an agenda which was to try and capture the CBSA officer into saying something consistent with his theory about how to get out of -- get out from under a B.C. order governing him, which he doesn't have [indiscernible]. And it's really not any more complicated than that.

Judge:

All right. Yes. Let's -- yes. Mr. Fox.

Fox:

I'm sorry. May I just --

Judge:

Yes, go ahead.

Fox:

-- say one thing in response to that? The fact that Officer Polisak or CBSA did not make a log entry about something doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Officer Polisak herself admitted that sometimes entries don't get made for things.

Judge:

I agree with you on that point, the fact that she doesn't log something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just have to -- I have to weigh all of the evidence and make --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

And the other thing is the Crown's insistence on my false premise that I'm inadmissible, the IRCC documentation is right here. They are the only ones that can say that somebody is or isn't admissible. The documentation is right there. It's not me saying it with nothing to support it. If -- if that said "country of birth, Canada," I'd have nothing to argue about, but it doesn't.

I respond to the Crown's insistence that my claim of being inadmissible is a false premise. I point out that my claim is based on IRCC's, CBSA's, and the RCMP's own official records, which all state I was born in the US. IRCC and CBSA acknowledge that I have never applied for any type of citizenship or immigration status. Therefore, if I was born in a foreign country, and I've never obtained any immigration or citizenship status in Canada then I am NOT a Canadian citizen. And if I've also been convicted of an indictable offense, then I am inadmissible! That are not my claims - that is all stated in IRCC's documents and records. And IRCC is the only agency authorized to grant Canadian citizenship.

Do you see how full of shit these prosecutors are? There is not a single official record, or piece of actual evidence, that suggests I am a Canadian citizen. All there is are allegations made by DHS, CBSA, and the BCPS.

That's all.

Judge:

Okay. Yes. So let's -- that's it from -- from everybody. Let's finish this today. If you give me -- I'm hoping 3:45 I can come back. I've had a careful review of all of the evidence prior to submissions so that I am familiar with it and I'm hoping that will give me enough time to weigh the -- the arguments. Okay. Just give me a call at 3:45 and I'll tell you whether I'm -- if I'm ready or not.

Clerk:

Yes.

Judge:

Thank you.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR AFTERNOON RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

Wolfe, initial B., for the provincial Crown, Your Honour. Recalling Fox.

Judge:

Thank you. Mr. Fox is here.

[REASONS FOR JUDGMENT]

Judge:

Now, what do you want to do with the sentencing?

Wolfe:

Adjourn and get a sentencing date. I would apply for a presentence report in this case.

Judge:

So, Mr. Fox.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

What do you say about the request for a presentence report? Do you -- you know what is, I'm assuming?

Fox:

Yes, I'm familiar with that, and I would decline that.

Judge:

You say you don't need it?

Fox:

I say I don't need it, but even if I was required to participate in it I wouldn't.

Judge:

Yes, okay. Fair enough. The -- how much time do you think we need for something like that? Given -- am I to understand that he's been in custody on this matter for -- for -- since --

Wolfe:

Since the arrest date.

Judge:

Since April 4th.

Wolfe:

Right. And he was detained the 10th or the 8th of April…

Fox:

April 4th.

Judge:

April 4th you were arrested --

Wolfe:

Yes, but not detained.

Judge:

-- by Constable Brown.

Wolfe:

Not detained that date. I think April the 10th he was detained. So he's been in custody since the 4th and detained on -- on the 10th of April.

Judge:

On this matter?

Wolfe:

Yes. And then he had a 525 review where Mr. Justice Groves upheld the detention order, and that was in July.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

I conducted that.

Judge:

Okay. Does the Crown have a position for Mr. Fox? I think you did at one point.

Wolfe:

I do on the jail side, but I would also be seeking a probation order as well.

Judge:

Okay. And have you told Mr. Fox what your position is?

Wolfe:

I did. It doesn't come to mind immediately. I know I voiced it at the 525 review.

Judge:

Okay. Do you know -- do you know what it is, Mr. Fox?

Fox:

No.

Judge:

Okay. Maybe before the next date --

Fox:

I'm sorry. With respect to what he was saying that he would be seeking for jail, I believe it was 11 to 13 months.

Judge:

Okay. Eleven to 13 months.

Fox:

Yes. But there was no mention of probation at that time.

Judge:

Okay. All right. Well, I guess we should get a sentencing hearing sooner than later because as I understand it, Mr. Fox has served essentially --

Wolfe:

While he's in custody he has other business before the courts here and in Port Coquitlam and his status is yet to be determined there. I believe he has -- you'll correct me, please -- is it a May 2 trial date?

Fox:

No. May 2nd, I believe that's a pretrial conference or status conference. The trial is scheduled to start in July.

Wolfe:

July. Thank you.

Fox:

It might get pushed back some. I don't know.

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

So July on another -- on something else.

Judge:

Okay. Well, in any event, I think we should conclude this matter as soon as we possibly can.

Wolfe:

Sure. I agree with that.

Judge:

Mr. Fox, you can appear by video to confirm the sentencing date that Mr. Wolfe is going to try to -- to obtain from the judicial case managers.

Wolfe:

I was thinking maybe an hour and a half or something like that.

Judge:

An hour and a half. Yes. Okay. Yes.

Clerk:

Your Honour, if I may interject. The judicial case managers are now closed for the day.

Judge:

Yes, I figured so. That's why we have to put it to next week.

Wolfe:

So I think if Mr. Fox could be in 307 by video. I don't really see why he needs to come in.

Fox:

Okay.

Wolfe:

On the 9th, on Monday.

Fox:

Sure.

Wolfe:

What I will do --

Fox:

I have video on Monday in PoCo.

Wolfe:

Oh, sorry. Oh, it's -- but you -- video is video, so it doesn't make any difference.

So 307. Could we do it in the afternoon? That will give me some time to go to the JCM office, check the court's calendar.

Judge:

What date is that?

Wolfe:

That will be the 9th of March, Monday, 307 by video.

Judge:

March 9th by video in the afternoon for Mr. Fox to confirm the sentencing date.

Wolfe:

Yes.

Judge:

All right.

Fox:

I just want to clarify one point, though. These other cases that have come up recently over the past few months are all related to the same probation order.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

Okay. So it's not that I'm a criminal that's going around committing a bunch of unrelated crimes.

Judge:

No, fair enough.

Fox:

It's all just a bunch of nonsense to keep me in jail.

Judge:

You may want to consider or get some legal advice about how you want to proceed on those. I mean, if we're going to wrap up this matter, you might want to get some advice on how to proceed on those other matters.

Fox:

Thank you.

Judge:

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Fox. Thanks for your help, Mr. Wolfe. I appreciate it. Thanks, everyone. Sorry to keep you so late on a Friday afternoon.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO MARCH 9, 2020, AT 2 P.M. TO FIX DATE)

Transcriber: A. Wanczura, A. Pinsent, C. Jones, A. Castle

Transcript of Trial Proceedings (2020-03-06)

Synopsis

INDEX

EXHIBITS

RULINGS