Probation Violation Case (2019), re: Publishing the website

In 2017, I was convicted of criminal harassment based on the website, and sentenced to three years and ten months in prison, followed by a three year probation order Probation Order. That probation order included a condition prohibiting me from publishing any information about Desiree Capuano Condition 12; and a condition requiring me to take down the Desiree Capuano website within 24 hours of my release from custody Condition 13.

That probation order came into effect upon my release from custody on 2018-12-30. Prior to that point I was not on probation and was not bound by the conditions of the order.

In 2018, while I was serving the sentence on the criminal harassment conviction, the original Desiree Capuano website, hosted at desireecapuano.com went offline when the hosting plan expired. Shortly thereafter, it was put back online under the domain name desicapuano.com. Let's not worry about why that change occurred. It's not relevant to this case (but it will become very relevant in 244069-8-B and 244069-10-BC).

The new copy of the website, which we'll call the "desicapuano" site, was put online while I was in custody at Fraser Regional Correctional Centre (FRCC). There is absolutely no internet access for any inmates in any BC Corrections facilities - including FRCC. So clearly, I could not have been the one that put it online. Who did put it online? Again, not relevant at this time - it wasn't me, and that's all that's relevant right now. But really, for that matter, even if it was me it would still be irrelevant because, at that time, I wasn't on probation yet. What is important is that it wasn't on my hosting account, and I didn't have administrative access to the account.

While serving that sentence, I accumulated copious proof that Capuano had committed extensive perjury at the criminal harassment trial, and that the prosecutor Mark Myhre, and the lawyer Tony Lagemaat, who forced on me to do the cross-examination of Capuano CCC s. 486.3(2), knew that she was lying but refused to inform the court or the jury. I also acquired extensive evidence proving Lagemaat was colluding with Myhre to hide or suppress critical evidence that could have destroyed Capuano's credibility and proven she was full of shit Affidavit of Patrick Fox in Support of Ineffective Assistance Claims.

Skip ahead to 2018-12-30, I'm released from custody and the probation begins. The probation order also had conditions requiring me to report to the probation office, in person, at least every four days (in other words, twice a week) Condition 5. You know who has to report that frequently? NOBODY!!! Even murderers and rapists don't have to report twice a fucking week! Anyway, another condition prohibited me from leaving BC Condition 9, and from being within 100 meters of the US border Condition 10. So, the prosecutor and the court wanted to keep me in Canada for the next three years even though I have no immigration or citizenship status in Canada IRCC GCMS report, can't legally work, and can't receive any government benefit or assistance Ministry of Social Development denial, not that I'd want anything from the government. But none if this is relevant to this case - I'm just giving you some context, of how fucked up the justice system and it's participants are in this fuckwad, shithole, backwater country.

Upon my release, I quickly found that the desicapuano site was online and publicly accessible. I figured it would only be a matter of time until they arrested me for that. A couple months went by and no police, prosecutors, or probation officers mentioned anything about the website. So, I figured they didn't care any more.

Because of the impossible situation the probation conditions requiring me to remain in BC put me in, I applied to have those conditions removed so I could return to the US. The judge, Heather Holmes, refused. I told her that's fine, I'm just going to turn myself in to CBSA and they'll deport me. The next day, 2019-03-15, I reported for probation and the probation officer, Abeed Bhimji told me the police want to talk to me about a website. Aha, finally. After I left the probation office I made my way to the Douglas port of entry and turned myself in to CBSA. They informed me I'm inadmissible and cannot return to Canada - effectively removing me (though, technically, denying me readmission). I then proceeded to the Peace Arch port of entry on the US side and turned myself in to CBP. I was then detained by Homeland Security for a couple of weeks until the Canadian authorities obtained a warrant for my arrest for a few probation violations, then brought back to Canada on 2019-04-04, due to that warrant.

Initially, the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) investigated the allegations related to the website being online and ultimately recommended charges of breach of probation and criminal harassment. The investigation for the allegations of violating the conditions about leaving BC was handled by the Burnaby RCMP. Why two different agencies in two different jurisdictions? Nobody seems to know.

Upon being returned to Canada, I was arrested by the Burnaby RCMP on charges of breach of probation. Wait a second, you say, fuck off, there's no way they'd go through all that trouble of shipping you back to Canada just for a breach of probation. Indeed, my friends. The BC justice system participants REALLY don't like me. So, where was I, oh yeah, I was arrested by the Burnaby RCMP, then detained, then denied bail. That was all related to 244069-5-BC, not this case.

While I was being detained on the matter of 244069-5-BC, a couple of months went by and I heard nothing further from the VPD on their investigation or the possibility of a new criminal harassment charge. So, on 2019-06-06, I wrote a letter to VPD Detective Jennifer Fontana (letter dated 2019-06-06), essentially antagonizing her and the BC Prosecution Service into prosecuting me again for criminal harassment based on the new website.

In the letter, I explicitly requested to be charged and prosecuted for criminal harassment, and pointed out that that would require Capuano to testify at the new trial and that I would be able to confront her with all of the proof of all of the perjury she committed at the previous trial. I also pointed out that at the trial I would be able to present to the jury all of the evidence that the Myhre and Lagemaat knew she was lying but they refused to inform the court or the jury. And, of course, another significant benefit of a new criminal harassment trial is that Capuano had since filed a civil suit against me, which proves she is not afraid of being cross-examined by me personally (section 486.3 appointments only apply to criminal trials, not civil). Therefore, I would likely be able to cross-examine her personally rather than having another colluding lawyer forced on me by the court.

So, on 2019-06-24, Fontana came to North Fraser Pretrial Centre (NFPC) to interrogate me regarding this case (Fontana interrogation).

During that inerrogation, I told Fontana that my intention and desire is to be prosecuted for criminal harassment based on the current website so that there will be another trial, at which I can confront Capuano and the prosecutor with all of that evidence of Capuano's prior perjury, and the prosecutor's involvement in it TR p9l16-26. I told her it is my intention to use this to bring the justice system into disrepute. I pointed out that if the websie constituted criminal harassment in 2016/2017, such that I could be convicted and sentenced to prison for 3 years, then it must still be criminal harassment today. And if anything that Justice Holmes said in her Reasons for Sentence were true, then how can the justice system possibly explain NOT prosecuting me for criminal harassment again, considering I'm engaging in exactly the same conduct that supposedly constituted criminal harassment at the previous trial? TR p4l18-p5l3

At the interrogation, I also pointed out that if they prosecute me for violating the probation order, and not for criminal harassment, it will look like they care more about enforcing petty probation orders than in protecting poor, helpless, traumatized victims TR p4l32-p5l3. I was very candid about my intentions and my plans of gathering proof of the corruption and bullshit that had been going on in my cases so I could publish it and publicly expose what a bullshit, hypocritical, biased justice system and country this is.

During the interrogation, I openly "admitted" that I am the one who published the current website and put all the information on it TR p7l21-22, p17l18. That, of course, could not possibly have been true because I was in custody when that occurred. But the Canadian police, prosecutors, and judges are either too stupid to realize that, or they just don't want to accept that the admission cannot possibly be true because it fits with what they are accusing you of (that is, of course, what would be referred to as delusional). Either way, it's an extremely bad thing that the "seekers of truth and justice" don't actually care about truth and justice.

On direct-examination, Johnson asked Fontana whether during her interrogation of me she asked me why I hadn't taken down the website TR p25l41-43. He did not ask her whether she asked me why I put the website online. This shows that Johnson knew the website was online prior to, and at that time of my release from custody - not that I put it back online after the probation order came into effect. This is extremely significant because I was charged with violating the condition prohibiting me from publishing information about Capuano Count 1, Condition 12, not the condition requiring me to remove any previously published material Condition 13. You see, in order to find me guilty of the violation I was accused of, the prosecutor would have to prove that I engaged in the particular act of actually putting the website online during the time I was on probation. Fontana's response to this question was that she didn't speak with me about that TR p25l44.

Det. Fontana testified about the letter I had sent her. She said that in the letter, I stated I created the website, and that I demanded to be charged with criminal harassment TR p25l7-12. Fontana also testified that when she interviewed me she asked me whether I was running the website and had created it; and that I had responded I had TR p25l30-31.

Fontana also testified that she had contacted the hosting provider, GoDaddy, to request they shut down the site. She stated that GoDaddy would agree to suspend the hosting for up to 90 days, but for anything more than that they would require a US court order, not a Canadian court order (of course, there has never been such a Canadian court order anyway) TR p19l15-24. Fontana didn't mention that they would also shut down the site if there was anything on, or about, the site which violated their policies, but that since there was nothing on, or about, the site which violated any of GoDaddy's policies, they would not take it down.

There was nothing else significant which came up during Johnson's direct-examination.

I then cross-examined Fontana. I asked her whether I stated in the letter I had sent her, when I had published the website? She admitted I did not state that in the letter TR p29l18-45. I asked her if, when she interrogated me, I had stated when I had published the website? She responded, "Not to my recollection." TR p29l47-p30l5 I then asked her if she has any knowledge of when the website was actually published? She first said, March of 2019; but I pointed out to her that is when she became aware of it but what I'm asking is when it was actually put online and became publicly available? She became evasive, but eventually admitted she did not have that informaiton TR p30l6-28.

I then asked Fontana if she knows whether the website was made publicly accessible before or after the probation order came into effect? She continued to be evasive. By now she probably realized where this was going. But eventually, she admitted she did not have that information, and would not have any idea how to determine that. Ultimately, she admitted she did not know whether the website was made public before or after the probation order came into effect TR p30l29-p31l30.

Once Johnson realized where I was going with this questioning, he pointed out that even though I am charged with breaching Condition 12 of the probation order (prohibiting me from publishing any information about Capuano), Condition 13 of that order required me, within 24 hours of my release from custody, to remove or take down any information I had published about Capuano prior to the order coming into effect TR p35l10-24, p40l18-37. I agreed that is what Condition 13 requires but pointed out to Phillips it's irrelevant because I'm not charged with violating Condition 13, I am only charged with violating Condition 12. I further stated that the prosecutor is welcome to file a new indictment charging me with violating Condition 13, but for the purposes of the current trial Condition 13 is simply irelevant TR p40l45-47, p50l20-27.

During my cross-examination of Fontana, I pointed out to her that earlier the prosecutor had admitted that on 2020-06-22 a particular post had been published to my Facebook timeline. She agreed. She then admitted that on that date I was in custody. I asked her, then isn't it entirely reasonable that someone else, someone other than me, could been putting things on the internet, independent of me? She said: well, it's possible, yeah TR p37l16-30. Now, this is all fine and swell, but don't worry, this is not what I was setting them up for - that will come two prosections down the road (when I testify in 244069-8-B in February 2022).

I asked Fontana why, after speaking with GoDaddy, she didn't take any further action toward getting the website taken down, such as pursuing a US court order? She responded that I'm not her only file, and that she has many other cases which actually involve domestic violence, threats of violence, and victims who are in immenent danger, and that those cases are much higher priorities TR p37l42-p38l29. Yes, exactly. So, in terms of victimization, harm, or damage to the supposed victim, this case is so petty, so irrelevant and inconsequential. The only people being harmed are the corrupt prosecutors and judges being exposed on the website. Thank you for admitting that, Miss Fontana.

I asked Fontana whether she has any knowledge of evidence of whether I am the person who made the current website publicly accessible. She was evasive and never really answered TR p38l37-46.

And finally, I asked Fontana about whether I had explicitly requested to be charged with criminal harassment, and whether it seems I was deliberately antagonizing the police and prosecutors in order to influence them to prosecute me for criminal harassment. She agreed that is how it seems TR p39l18-44. And again, this will all make sense two years down the road, when I testify in 244069-8-B.

Next, Johnson did a quick re-exam of Fontana. He again brought up Condition 13, which required me to take down the website within 24 hours of my release from custody and the probation order coming into effect. I stood, to object, pointing out that I'm not charged with violating that condition TR p40l18-47.

Johnson made his submissions first. Right from the outset, he was talking nonsense. He claimed that at the previous trial date in this matter, on 2020-07-06, I had wanted to appear in person but there was a COVID outbreak at that jail and I had had to appear by video TR p51l39-p52l2. I think he's saying that is the reason it was postponed from 2019-07-06 until 2019-08-19. He is saying the reason for the adjournment was because of me. Which is, of course, a load of crap. You may recall that on 2020-07-06 I was at court, in person, and the reason for the adjournment was that he claimed there was new evidence which he had just received from VPD and hadn't yet disclosed to me. That was the reason for the adjournment. Lying sleaze bag! But why would he lie about something like this? It's completely irrelevant at this point. Is he delusional? A compulsive liar? Senile?

Johnson then went on to say he is seeking a sentence of six months in jail, and he acknowledged I'd already been in custody much longer than that (a six month sentence equates to four months of actual, real time, because you are generally credited at 1.5 times for pretrial custody).

Next, and this part will become extremely critical in my subsequent cases and appeals, Johnson said, and I'm going to quote this verbatim, in a "blockquote" because the exact wording is vital:

I'm also going to ask Your Honour to consider a short term of probation for six months and aside from the statutory condition, the only condition I would ask is -- and I'm in Your Honour's hands on this, but it seems that Mr. Fox did not get the message that he needs to remove this website, and so I'm going to ask Your Honour to consider a condition very similar to the one that was imposed on his previous order which I believe is -- number 13.

Transcript 2020-08-19 p52l13-24

This proves that Johnson and Phillips understood Condition 12 as prohibiting me from publishing any information about Capuano during the period of probation, and Condition 13 as requiring me to remove, upon my release from custody and the probation order coming into effect, any previously published information about Capuano. In other words, Condition 13 says "take down everything that is online at the time the order comes into effect", and Condition 12 says "now that all of that has been taken down, do not publish anything." This will be a major issue in my subsequent trials and appeals.

If Johnson and Phillips actually believed the wording of Condition 13 meant take down the website and keep it down for the entire duration of the probation order then it would not be necessary to impose a new probation order with a new condition containing the same wording as Condition 13 of the prior order because that condition would still be in effect and still require me to take down, and keep down, the website. These people really are as stupid and arrogant as I am insisting.

I start out by opposing the prosecutor's request for a six month sentence. I point out that on the previous breach of probation case I was sentenced to 12 months, so it seems that I should be sentenced to at least that long since this is now a second violation. I then said "I mean, clearly I'm not learning my lesson." Seriously, I actually said all that TR p53l11-24.

I then said that I'm not saying that to be sarcastic or to make light of the situation TR p53l25-26, but in reality, that is exactly why I was saying it. At that point I was so fed up with he corruption and bullshit that I just didn't care. I mean how the fuck do you find someone guilty of violating a probation order when they weren't even on probation at the time? Particularly when even the prosecutor admits that he has no evidence or knowledge that the conduct occurred while I was on probation. Anyway...

I declared, with respect to a further probation order, it won't make any difference, the website is not going to be taken down because they impose a probation order on me requiring me to take it down TR p53l31-35. At this point I was very careful about how I worded things because I didn't, yet, want to reveal what was really going on and who was actually keeping the website online. I needed to be prosecuted a few more times so I could get enough evidence to prove the corruption and misconduct is not an isolated thing, that it's systemic. You will notice, I did not say I will not take down the website, I said the website will not come down.

I subsequently alluded to transfering ownership of the website to another party so that I can't be forced or compelled to take it down TR p53l44-47. But again, I was deliberately vague in my wording. I made suggestions, vague allusions, and I let Phillips and the prosecutor make their own, false, assumptions - which is exactly what they did.

Johnson promptly replied to my arguments, saying that each case and each offender is different and given the current circumstances he believes a six month sentence is appropriate even though I received twice as long on the previous one TR p54l18-23. I believe he was either trying to save face after my comments made him and Phillips look like fools ... or, he wanted me to get out of custody immediately so there would be no delay in taking down the website which had content that made the BCPS look like idiots.

And finally, I pointed out that on the previous breach case (244069-5-BC), about leaving BC without permission, where I received a 12 month sentence, nobody was harmed or affected by the violation; whereas in the current case, Capuano was supposedly being harmed by my conduct, which makes the curent charges much more serious. And therefore, the sentence should certainly reflect that TR p54l29-38.

We then recessed and when we came back Phillips entered her Reasons for Sentence. Let's have a look, shall we.

First, Phillips remarked on my arguments for a longer sentence than what the prosecutor was requesting. She said "...in a somewhat unusual fashion, [Mr. Fox] submitted he should be sentenced to a longer period of custody." RFS ¶2 Ha! I'm such an asshole! Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Phillips erroneously claims I argued that the current charge is more serious than the criminal harassment charge which I was sentenced to 12 months on RFS ¶4. This shows you how much attention the BC judges pay to what the defense says. First, I was saying the current charge is more serious than the previous breach charge (244069-5-BC), not the criminal harassment charge (244069-2-KC). Phillips explained, at length, that she believes the criminal harassment charge is much more serious than this breach of probation, and since I was sentenced to 12 months on the criminal harassment, a shorter sentence on this charge seems appropriate. However, I was actually sentenced to three years on the criminal harassment charge, not 12 months. If Phillips actually read the Reasons for Sentence from the criminal harassment case, which she claims she did, how could she possibly be this confused? I don't believe she actually read it. I believe she reviewed a brief synopsis, or some bullet points, and that's all.

Phillips says, about my refusal to take down the website, "It is prolonged and completely inexplicable behaviour in relation to Ms. Capuano." RFS ¶14 How is it that all of the justice system participants in BC, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, all say that simply exposing the horrible, despicable acts of a horrible, despicable woman is so bad, while at the same time never once even considering all the horrible, despicable shit that evil woman had done? Not once has anyone ever said "Well, wait a second, the evil cunt of a woman did this, and this, and this, to that guy for years, before he even thought of creating that website." And how is it that the very website the justice system is trying so hard to get me to take down actually contains mountains of proof of all the bad shit Desiree has done, but not one single person makes one single mention of that? And how is it that not one police officer, judge, or prosecutor says "Well, maybe if this woman didn't take deliberate steps to get this man deported, and lose custody of his son as a result of being deported, and go on the news media and tell a bunch of lies about him, then maybe he wouldn't have created a website to show the world what a horrible person she is?"

Phillips then goes on to say, "Rather than moving on, why he chooses not to do so is completely baffling to the court..." RFS ¶14. Oh come on! Seriously? My life has been destroyed because of a bunch of lies and manipulation; I've spent the past seven years in jail; the Canadian news media has run countless stories completely misrepresenting the facts, making things seem completely one sided (see the News Media page); I've been exiled to a country I have grown to despise, and as a result of that I've lost custody and all contact with my son. And yet all these jackoffs completely ignore all of that and keep asking why I can't just move on and put it behind me!!! Never a single mention of the fact that for years, before I was illegally deported to Canada, based entirely on Capuano's false claims that I was an illegal alien, a fugitive, and I was trying to steal her child and flee to a foreign country with him, she and her endless stream of boyfriends and fiances had been threatening me, filing false claims against me with Homeland Security, and foreign consulates, lying in the family court. Anyway...

And now wrap your head around this, in that same paragraph, Phillips also said:

I am satisfied that a six-month sentence of jail reflected on his record is enough of a specific deterrent to Mr. Fox. Frankly, I am not sure, given his stated intent both before Justice Holmes and again at this point in time, whether six months or 12 months or 18 months is really going to matter.

Reasons for Sentence ¶14

So in one breath, Phillips says that she is satisfied that a six month sentence will be enough of a deterrent; and that she isn't sure that even an 18 month sentence will make a difference. What the fuck?!?! Does she not realize that she just said two contradictory, mutually exclusive things in the same sentence? Am I crazy? This is a fucking criminal court judge, for fuck sakes. How does this woman have the power and authority to lock people up? Surely you must see the insanity of this.