Upon my release from prison on 244069-06-B, I was on a six month probation order which contained only one condition requiring me to take down the website I created about my ex-wife, Desiree Capuano. The website also contained extensive proof of the corruption and misconduct that had been going on in the prosecutions against me.
Following my release, the website was not taken down.
Around the time of my release, an article was posted to the website, mocking the BC justice system and the BC Attorney General, for their inability to force me to take down the websites Dear David Eby.
About four weeks later, another article was posted to the website, exposing the misconduct of, and mocking the prosecutor from the criminal harassment trial, Mark Myhre.
A few days later, I was arrested.
During the police interrogation, I was very sarcastic and passively mocked the detective on his predictable and ineffective interrogation techniques.
I represented myself. I was not provided a bail hearing.
Leading up to the trial, the prosecution refused to provide me the disclosure material until three days before the trial. They did not provide a witness list, nor any indication of what, if any, witnesses they intended to call. The prosecutor also refused to schedule a pretrial conference so that I could raise the disclosure issues.
At the trial, the prosecutor called Detective Kyle Dent as a witness. I objected, based on the prosecutor's failure to provide me notice of their intention to call him. The judge said I should have raised this issue sooner. The judge also disregarded the late disclosure.
During his testimony, Dent lied about a number of critical issues and even contradicted himself on a number of critical points. The judge ignored it.
On cross-examination, Dent admitted he had no knowledge of whether I had any involvement with the website, and no knowledge about whether the website had, in fact, been taken down at some point then later put back online by another party.
I was convicted and sentenced to 16.5 months in prison, and another three year probation order.
On 2020-08-20, the day after the trial and sentencing in the 244069-6-B, I was released from custody (because I was sentenced to less time than I had already been in custody), and the probation order imposed by Judge Nancy Phillips came into effect. That probation order had only one condition, that I take down the Desiree Capuano website within 48 hours of my release from custody Probation Order.
The day before my release, that is, the day of the trial before Judge Phillips, an article was posted to the Desiree Capuano website (Dear David Eby), antagonizing the BC Attorney General David Eby and the BCPS, declaring that they can all go fuck themselves, that they can lock me up for the rest of my life, but the website will never be taken down.
A few weeks went by. The website remained online. Nobody came to arrest me. Then, on 2020-09-15, a new participant profile page for Mark Myhre, the prosecutor on the criminal harassment case, was published on the website. The profile page talked about and provided extensive evidence of Myhre's collusion with defense lawyer Tony Lagemaat, in the ciminal harassment trial, his involvement in and support of Capuano's perjurious testimony. And most importantly, the commentary on the page pointed out that Myhre is a sleazy, pansy, fruity-assed bitch. So, two days later, the detectives showed up at my "home" and slapped the cuffs on me. Let's see, the website was online for four weeks following my release from custody, and nobody did anything. Then a page gets added to the site, mercilessly mocking Myhre and exposing his involvement in corruption, then within 48 hours I'm arrested. So based on that, why do you think I was really arrested?
Did I write the Dear David Eby article? Does it matter? There's nothing illegal about it. Every person is entitled to express whatever criticisms and opinions they may have about the justice system and the government - even if it's crude and hurts the feelings of a particular jerky-ass, bitch prosecutor.
Did I post the article on the website? Well, I was in holding cells in the courthouse when the article was put on the website so I'd say that is incredibly unlikely. And again, there is absolutely nothing illegal about that article so who gives a fuck.
So, when the police arrested me, they seized my phone, laptop, laptop bag, my prescription glasses VPD Booking Report. No kidding. What the hell evidentiary value can my glasses possibly have? And, of course, they eventually lost the laptop bag and my glasses. I've been living in a state of perpetual fuzziness since then.
I was then taken to the station on Cordova Street, where I was interrogated by Detective Kyle Dent. I do believe this is one of the best interrogations I've ever participated in. Dent went through all the boring, predictable tactics - be nice; agree with the subject's opinions; share some stories, to show that you have some common ground; basically, build a rapport so the subject let's his guard down and opens up; keep things light and relaxed. A complete fucking automaton. Throughout the entire inteview, I was sarcastic, satirical, and at times, downright crude. A few times I feigned outrage, to play into his ego, let him believe he was the masterful manipulator he really believed he was. But watch the video - to everyone else in the world (besides Dent) I'm sure it's obvious he was simply outmatched intellectually.
One of the common and highly predictable tactics that the Canadian police use during an interrogation is to leave the subject alone in the room for a while, becuase apparently there are some people who are so fucking stupid they actually start thinking out loud while they're alone and they admit to things without realizing they're still being recorded. So, at one point, Dent left the room for a bit, and while he was out I leaned over to the digital recorder which he, predictably, left running on the table, and I whispered "Bad stuff, bad stuff, bad stuff. I'm saying incriminating stuff. Ohhh, I'm saying stuff that you can use against me right now." Then I leaned back and chuckled. Dumb ass motherfuckers. Go ahead, give it a watch:
And here I am expressing my true feelings for the BC prosecutors and judges:
And, of course, there's me expressing my true feelings for Canada:
And here I am telling Dent I can't believe it took them this long to come and arrest me, and expressing my opinion of prosecutor Mark Myhre. For those who don't know, North Fraser is the pretrial center (like the county jail), for the Vancouver area:
And here, Dent acknowledges that prior to this I've had no criminal record and was an upstanding member of society, which then segues into a beautiful rant:
And here, here I am saying that nothing is going to be taken down unless the BC government publicly admits that prosecutors Mark Myhre and Bernie Wolfe are evil, miserable pricks:
Here I am talking about what I'd do if I had money right now:
And in this clip, I'm talking about there still being a lot more content to be put on the website, but that it's very time consuming, and I haven't been the most productive. Ugh, it's just so hard being me:
And here I am talking about the VPD's Digital Forensics Unit being incompetent and not being worried that they'll find anything on my laptop:
So that's a sampling of the interrogation by Dent. If you have the time to kill, I recommend watching the whole thing. Or don't. I don't give a fuck either way.
During the interrogation, I admitted to all sorts of things, like for example, hiding the bodies of the children I murdered; smoking crack in back alleys; making murder (snuff) videos and child porn. Of course, none of those admissions or allusions were true. If you watch the video of the interrogation, you'll see that in the entire one hour eleven minutes and forty-seven seconds, there is not one moment when I was actually serious. To this day, I'm sure that pussy-whipped, motherfucker, Dent thought he was skillfully manipulating me.
Anyway, I'm not going to harp on the Dent interview any further. You get the gist of it from the clips above. And if you want to watch the entire thing, it's embedded below in the Police Interviews section.
After the Dent interview, I was, surprise surprise, detained and shipped off to North Fraser to await my trial.
On 2020-09-17, after the Dent interrogation, the prosecutor obtained an indictment charging me with two counts of breach of probation indictment. One for violating Condition 4 of the Judge Phillips probation order (requiring me to take down the website within 48 hours of my release from the prison sentence Phillips imposed); and one for violating Condition 13 of the Justice Holmes probation order (requiring me to take down the website within 24 hours of my release from the prison sentence Holmes imposed). But wait, you say:
Indeed, my friends. I believe what happened is that Count 1 (re, the Judge Phillips order) was stated correctly, but Count 2 should have referred to Condition 12 of the Holmes order, not Condition 13. That would make a lot more sense because then Count 1 would be alleging I failed to take the website down; and Count 2 would be alleging that I published information about Capuano (or, in other words, that I put the website back online). In that way, the prosecutor would be covering all possibilities because if the website was online at some point following my release it must mean either: 1) I didn't take it down; or 2) I did take it down but then put it back online. But, of course, the BC prosecutors are too arrogant and too insecure (I know, that doesn't make sense because those would seem to be mutually exclusive, but somehow they actually are both arrogant and insecure, simultaneously) to ever acknowledge they made a mistake, so they left the indictment as it is.
On 2020-09-17, the BCPS obtained an indictment, alleging two counts of probation violations.
Count 1 alleged I violated Condition 4 of the Judge Phillips probation order by failing to take down the Desiree Capuano website within 48 hours of my release from custody.
Condition 4 of the Phillips order is effectively the same as Condition 13 of Justice Holmes probation order.
In order to convict me on this charge, the prosecution would have to prove the website was not taken offline for any duration of time within the 48 hours following my release from custody. Because, as noted elsewhere, the wording of this condition only requires me to engage in the specific conduct required to cause the website to become no longer available, it does not prohibit me from publishing anything about Capuano or from subsequently putting the website back online. That is what Condition 13 of the Holmes order was for.
Count 2 alleged I violated Condition 13 of the Justice Holmes probation order by failing to take down the Desiree Capuano website within 24 hours of my release from custody.
You may be thinking: "Well, wait, isn't that the same as Count 1?" Essentially, yes.
I believe this was a mistake on the part of the BCPS. They should have charged me with violating Condition 12 of the Holmes order, not Condition 13. Condition 12 prohibited me from publishing anything about Capuano, so if Count 1 related to Condition 4 of the Phillips order and Count 2 related to Condition 12 of the Holmes order, that would mean they're alleging I either failed to take the website down within 48 hours of my release; or I put the website online following my release from custody. In that way, the website being online at some point following my release means I must have violated one or the other condition, right? That would make a fuck of a lot more sense than charging me with violating the exact same condition from two different probation orders (because that would result in a Keinapple situation which means one of the charges would have to be stayed).
Another problem with this count is that Condition 13 of the Holmes order applied to my release from custody on the prison sentence imposed by Holmes at that time, not on every subsequent release from custody on later charges. So, in order to prosecute me on this charge, the prosecutor would have to be alleging I failed to take down the website within 24 hours of my release from custody on the Holmes imposed prison sentence which was 2018-12-30, not 2020-08-20. In other words, everything about this charge is just another example of the BC prosecutors' dizzying level of incompetence.
At about 9:30pm on 2019-09-17, the same day I was arrested and did that wonderful Dent interrogation, after sitting in those freezing-ass Vancouver City Jail cells all day, I had a quick video appearance for a bail hearing. I was in no mood for their dumb-ass shenanigans. So that beefy-tits jerk-off Chris Johnson was the prosecutor and he tells a bunch of lies and screws up a bunch of "facts" TR p2l9-p3l39.
After Johnson finishes with his bullshit, I say to the judge: You know what, let's just adjourn this for a week. The judge says, okay and that will give you a chance to speak with a lawyer. I tell him, nah, I'm going to represent myself; I don't want a lawyer. And then I say: "And Mr. Johnson, go fuck yourself!" Ah, SMACK bitch! Shut that knob gobbler right the fuck up, it did. The judge says: "Well, that's not a a nice thing to say." TR p4l25-38 But I'm sure I heard a slight chuckle in his tone.
You're probably thinking "Shut the fuck up. No way you said that." I swear it, it's all in the transcript.
The next appearance was the continuation of the bail hearing. This time we were before Judge Ellen Gordon, a cantankerous curmudgeon who seems to be straddling the boundary of senility. Right from the outset, we were on a roll. Johnson tells Gordon the purpose of the hearing was for me to say whether I wanted to get a lawyer or not TR p1l14-16. What!?!? At the previous hearing, a week ago, I very clearly stated I did not want a lawyer, that I would be representing myself TR 2020-09-17 p4l29-32. This fucker is just as demented as these God damned BC judges. So Gordon asks me "What do you want to do, Mr. Fox?" I tell her I'm still pursuing the evidence to prove Johnson's submissions are completely bullshit. So she says: "All right. How long is it going to take you to get a lawyer?" TR p1l17-24 Again, I say (to you, the reader, not to the judge): "What the fuck?" What is this sideways old bag talking about? I never said one thing about getting a lawyer. Is she even in the same hearing as me?
By the way, about Judge Ellen Gordon, she presided over my bail hearings in 244069-10-bc. If you really want to blow your mind you've gotta check out the transcripts from that hearing. It's a straight-up Twilight Zone episode.
But back to the matter at hand, the current bail hearing before Judge Gordon. After Gordon asks me how long it will take me to find a lawyer, I tell her I'm not looking for a lawyer, I'm going to represent myself. Then I tell her "I'm waiting for evidence to come to prove that [Johnson's] full of crap." TR p1l25-27 Again, I swear I said it exactly like that - check the fucking transcripts for fuck sakes, if you don't believe me. Gordon asks me, what kind of evidence are you waiting for? A transcript? TR p1l28-29 Ah come on, man! Who said anything about any fucking transcript? What world is this woman living on? I tell her, no, I'm waiting for other documents which will prove that Johnson's submissions were all wrong TR p1l30-34.
Then Johnson says he did make some submissions last week but they weren't in the context of a bail hearing TR p1l43-45. Oh for fuck sakes! Does this guy ever stop lying? I mean, it's in the transcripts for Christ's sake. He then goes on to say that he stands by everything he said at that previous hearing, but that nevertheless, it's irrelevant. And Gordon says to him "You know what? It doesn't matter. I didn't ask you for a comment." TR p2l1-2 She's a crusty old hag, but sometimes she says the right thing.
And so, we adjourned to 2020-10-05.
Right from the outset, Johnson is either lying or, once again, confused and disoriented. He tells the judge the purpose of the appearance is to set a date for a bail hearing TR p1l14-16. False! The purpose of the appearance is the bail hearing TR 2020-09-24 p1l39-p2l12. So, regardless, the hearing ended up being continued to 2020-10-20. This time it was absolutely, clearly stated that the 20th was to be the actual bail hearing TR p4l30-34. The judge wanted me to appear by video. I told her I'd really rather be there in person if I'm going to be making submissions. I told her that when appearing by video, I'm in a little closet, with only a chair - no table or writing surface; I have to take notes on my lap; it's extremely difficult to make submissions that way. She repeatedly went on about ensuring that I will be provided a pen and paper for the hearing. Why? I never said anything about needing a pen and paper. What I need is a surface to put that pen and paper on so I can take notes TR p2l41-p3l11, p3l16-19, p4l5-20. Ugh!
I then told the judge I've still not been arraigned or even informed of the charges. I ask that we set a date for an arraignment so that we can, at least, start moving the case forward. And get this, the judge tells me I should ask for that to be considered upon completion of the bail hearing TR p4l38-46. And one more time, I say, what the fuck! The arraignment has nothing to do with the bail hearing. A person should be arraigned at the earliest possible opportunity. But a common practice in Canada is to actually leave the arraignment until the start of the trial. What kind of fucked up, backward system is that?
And then, finally, I bring up the fact that I've not yet received any disclosure. I ask Johnson to provide me the disclosure at the earliest opportunity. Johnson responds that he will provide me some disclosure, though he doesn't say when or how much TR p5l24-29.
So, for certain, 2020-10-20 will be the bail hearing.
Right from the outset, Johnson, that lying bastard, jumped right into lying. He tells the court that this matter has been adjourned a few times already, so that I can determine when it is that I want to "seek my release". He then says to me "So, Mr. Fox, do you have any further information about that?" TR p1l12-16 Oh come on! Today is scheduled to be the bail hearing! It was very clearly discussed and stated at the previous hearing on 2020-10-05 TR 2020-10-05 p4l30-34 (which was supposed to be the bail hearing, as clearly discussed at the hearing before that, on 2020-09-24 TR 2020-09-24 p1l39-p2l12).
I ask Johnson if he's received the messages I've left for him at his office. He says, no. I tell him, on 2020-10-05 I left a message with his receptionist, and I go into detail about my discussion with the receptionist. Then, Johnson concedes, "Right. Thanks for the reminder. I actually do recall now that I received a message..." TR p1l17-40. And he goes on to say "So, I apologize if anybody misunderstood what I was saying." TR p1l42-43 Fuck you, you slimy turd nugget. Nobody misunderstood anything. You were just lying and you got caught.
The judge asks Johnson if he's ready to proceed with the arraignment. Johnson says he thinks there is a mandatory pretrial conference requirement, but that that's complicated because I'm representing myself. Then the judge plays along with Johnson's bullshit, and claims that before I can be arraigned there needs to be a mandatory pretrial conference TR p2l4-34. This is all just bullshit and lies - there is absolutely no requirement of having a pretrial conference before the arraignment. I say to the judge "Let me be clear on this, are you now saying that you want to have a pretrial conference before the arraignment?" Then Johnson chimes in and explains that in matters of these types, we have to have what's called a pretrial conference (I know what a pretrial conference is, you condescending prick!) before we're able to fix a date for the arraignment. Johnson says, "So that's the first step which we should be able to do relatively quickly." TR p2l20-32 Fuck off! If this is the case then why wasn't it mentioned at the appearance on 2020-10-05. Just endless, endless bullshit from these fuckers! Just ploys to try to delay the process. And in my most sarcastic tone I say "Fascinating!" But because they are so arrogant, smug, and self-righteous, I'm sure they didn't catch the sarcasm.
So Johnson goes off to schedule the bullshit, completely unnecessary pretrial conference. And when he comes back and we reconvene, he says he was able to schedule the trial for 2020-11-26 and 2020-11-27. I say "This is for what?" He says, "For your trial." TR p3l34-41 Well what about the fucking pretrial conference that you jerkoffs were claiming we needed to do before the arraignment? No mention of that. Completely forgotten, as though the discussion a few minutes ago never happened. Fucking crazy, I tell you.
Then the judge asks Johnson: So, has somebody dispensed with the requirement for a pretrial conference? And Johnson replies: Yes, apparently the pretrial conference rule does not apply when it's a self-represented person TR p4l9-13. These people, literally, have no idea what's going on from one minute to the next.
All right, so the trial date is set for a month down the road. For the past month they've been playing all these games, delaying and delaying. And now, all of a sudden, they decide to rush into the trial. What the motherfucking fuck.
Then Johnson tells me he's recently mailed me the "particulars" TR p3l43-44. "Particulars" is another word for "disclosure", but I guess "disclosure" is not vague and ambiguous enough for Canadian lawyers so they use "particulars". "Particulars" literally means "a specific item or detail of information" (Merriam-Webster) so, in other words, "stuff". Fuck, I hate these people.
Anyway, Johnson tells me he's mailed me the disclosure material. I tell him I only received a very brief narrative and a couple of police statements - there was no actual evidence. Then he says: Right, I think what you received is just the initial package, and that there's still more to come in electronic format which I'll receive shortly on a laptop TR p4l5-p4l8. Lies!
And now, finally, we proceed with the arraignment. The judge asks me how I elect. I'm like "How do I elect?" Of course, I'm just a little simpleton who can't possibly know anything about the legal process, so the judge looks down on me and says "Yes. Trial by a Provincial Court judge or by a Supreme Court judge?' And being the simple minded, non-lawyer that I am I point out to her that the Provincial Court has absolute jurisdiction over breach of probation cases, and since jury trials only occur in the BC Supreme Court, there is nothing to elect TR p4l29-37. Duh! What kind of Mickey Mouse legal system appoints criminal court judges who don't even know such basic facts? Johnson says "That's very good, Mr. Fox." Ah, shove your condescension up your ass you miserable prick. Then I plead not guilty on both counts, and with that the arraignment is done TR p4l41-43. Tell me again why this couldn't be done at the first appearance?
Johnson asks me if I'd like to appear by video or in person for the trial TR p4l45-46. Huh? Like I'm going to conduct a trial, and cross-examine his witnesses by video? Of course I want to be there in person. Why do they ask such retarded fucking questions? Holy fuck these people are stupid! My God, I'm saying "fuck" a lot today. I must really be in a mood.
I then told Johnson I'd like to schedule a pretrial conference so we can address any outstanding issues (such as disclosure). He says he's not aware of any issues, but if any arise I can contact him and he'll schedule one TR p5l3-11. This is very important. Remember this fact for later.
You think this is a lot to read, try being the one that has to write it.
Following the 2019-10-20 appearance, I contacted Johnson to again request the disclosure material, and in particular, the list of witnesses he intends to call. We're a month away from the trial and I still don't even know what witnesses he'll be calling. How am I supposed to prepare my cross-examinations if I don't know who I'll be cross-examining? Johnson did not respond. I sent him a letter. He did not respond.
Much later, during the appeal of this conviction, I came to learn that in October and November 2020, Johnson had been in contact with Kelsea Goodwillie of the BC Prosecution service, regarding my disclosure requests but he also ignored her from 2020-10-15 through 2020-11-18. Then, on 2020-11-20, he suddenly scrambled to get the material to me Affidavit #1 of Chris Johnson, pages 23-30. I didn't receive it until the afternoon of 2020-11-23 - less than three days before the trial. But still no witness list. So, less than 72 hours before the start of the trial, the prosecution drops 107 pages, and over two hours of recordings of police interactions on me. You may recall this slippery a-hole did essentially the same thing in 244069-6-B when, on the day of the trial he claimed he had just received additional disclosure from the VPD which he had not been able to provide me yet, using that as an excuse to adjourn the trial for another month and a half.
And so, on 2020-11-26, the trial was to begin.
That morning, shortly before court began, Johnson came down to the Sheriff's holding cells to confer with me. At that point, he finally told me he only intends to call Kyle Dent who, as you may recall from above, is the yahoo who interrogated me in this matter.
As soon as the trial started, the judge, Gregory Rideout, asked me if I've received full disclosure TR p1l28-29. In retrospect, it almost seems as though Rideout knew I had not received the disclosure timely and he brought it up immediately, expecting I would say I haven't had time to review it and need and adjournment. Almost like this whole thing about withholding the disclosure until three days before the trial was a deliberate scheme on the part of the Johnson and Rideout. Or perhaps I'm just being paranoid. I told Rideout, I've received disclosure but I don't know if it's complete TR p1l30-31; only the prosecutor would know if it's complete.
Rideout then launched into some lip service about having to protect my interests, and ... this next part is critical, if not completely insulting, so I'm going to put it in a blockquote:
Mr. Johnson, as an officer of the court, has an obligation to ensure the trial proceeds in a fair and just manner. The prosecution takes no interest in the result. They remain objective in that regard.TR 2020-11-26 p1l37-41
What a naive, pathetic attempt to ensure me that nothing nefarious is about to happen on the part of Johnson. These judges sincerely believe that just because they say something like that, us simple little, common folk are going to blindly and completely accept it as being the indesputable truth. My God, their arrogance is astonishing.
Johnson proceeded with his opening arguments. He says he had intended to call a number of witnesses, but that he had just learned that one of his witness's is attending to his father who is gravely ill in the hospital TR p2l43-47. Are you starting to see a pattern in the excuses Johnson uses? He's going to use this "family illness" excuse a few more times in my other trials as well. But by saying what he just did, he's acknowledging that he did intend to call certain witnesses. So what is his justification for withholding their identities from me?
In his opening arguments, Johnson mentions that there is an audio recording of the Dent interrogation and that he has disclosed that to me, but he fails to mention that he disclosed it to me only three days ago TR p3l22-23. He then says that I was kind enough to say we don't need to play the entire recording TR p3l24-25. I agree with that claim - the entire recording. I most certainly did not say we don't need to play any of the recording. But unfortunately, having only just received the recording I hadn't had time to go through it and note the segments I would want to confront Dent on. Obviously, I was not prepared to cross-examine Dent on what occurred or what was said during the interrogation.
Rideout then asked me whether that is correct that I was interviewed by Dent, and that a copy of that interview has been disclosed to me? TR p3l32-33 He did not ask when I had received the recording or whether I had had sufficient time to review it. So, I answered the question that he did ask. I said, that is correct.
Johnson then called Detective Dent as his first witness. I immediately stood to state my objection. I said I object to the calling of this witness because I had received no notice from the prosecution of their intention to call this witness. This is the first I've heard of it. I told Rideout that I have made multiple requests of the prosecution for disclosure of their witness list and they have ignored those requests. Johnson claimed he had porvided me full disclosure, including the "evidence" of Dent. But he, again, neglected to mention that he gave it to me three days ago. Johnson added: "And that is, in my view, what the Crown is required to provide." Finally, Rideout asked when the material was provided, and Johnson begrudgingly admitted it was three days ago TR p4l8-32. Well, now the late disclosure issue is on the records so Rideout has to address it.
Now, you would think, in a fair and just system Rideout would say "Well, that's not acceptable. There was not legitimate reason to withhold the disclosure until the last minute (literally, it was in the prosecution's possession for over a month). So I'm ruling that all of the late disclosure be excluded." But no! Rideout said all that would happen is for the trial to be adjourned, and that I should have brought this up prior to the trial. He said that raising an issue of late disclosure at that start of the trial is generally frowned upon TR p4l33-46. So, let's see: the prosecutor deliberately withholds all of the disclosure until the last minute to delay the start of the trial, and all Rideout will do about such misconduct is to "allow" me to request an adjournment, thereby delaying the start of the trial - in other words, rewarding the prosecutor for engaging in misconduct and giving the prosecutor exactly what he was seeking to accomplish with that misconduct. What a horrible system!
Let me take a moment to rant about when prosecutors say "...in my view...". That is usually their way of saying "I know that what I'm saying is false, so by prefixing it with 'in my view' then I'm not stating a fact, I'm merely stating my opinion." But it's still a lie because they're claiming there opinion is such and such, but really it's not. So they're not lying about what the underlying issue is, but they are lying about what their belief about that underlying issue is. Either way, whenever you hear them say "...in my view..." that's a signal that they are about to tell a bald faced lie.
On direct-examination, Johnson asked Dent "And did you familiarize yourself with Mr. Fox?" And Dent responded "I reviewed parts of the previous file to prepare for the interview." TR p6l34-36 This is important because it will come up again on cross, and Dent will contradict what he just testified.
Johnson then questioned Dent at length regarding the Dear David Eby article TR p7l11-p9l19. Even though the article had nothing to do with whether or not I took down the website; or whether or not I have any involvement with the website. It seems pretty clear that the reason Johnson was focusing on the article was because it was so inflammatory. I mean, the article essentially says the prosecutors and judges can all go fuck themselves because I'm not taking down the website. But, if I didn't write and post the article then what relevance does it have to the trial? And no attempt was being made to prove that I had any involvement in publishing the article. One thing is for certain, whoever published the article was deliberately trying to antagonize the prosecutors and judges against me. Now, at this point, I'm not comming right out and saying it was Capuano (or her supporters), but that would certainly be a very effective way of ensuring I would be arrested and put back in jail.
During Dent's testimony on direct, Rideout asked me if I have any concerns about the admissibility of my interview by Dent. I told him I don't TR p10l16-23. This is significant because it comes up at the appeal. Rideout was not asking if I had any objections to the content of the interview - he was only asking if I had any objections to the admissibility of the interview.
Johnson falsely claimed that I had "indicated" to him that he can simply "highlight" certain statements from the interview, and that I could certainly cross-examine Dent on them afterward TR p10l28-32. That is completely false. I would never agree to such a ridiculous proposition. Unlike these despicable lawyers, who love to rely on witness testimony, rather than actual, physical evidence, I am a logical, rational person who will always put physical evidence above the unreliable, biased, subjective recollections of idiotic, simple minded witnesses/people. Since there is a video recording of the interview, then that is the evidence that should have been used, not Dent's testimony about the interview. You may ask: "Then why didn't I play the video of the interview?" Because since I had just received it a few days prior, I hadn't had the chance to go through it and make notes; I couldn't remember everything that was said and occurred; and it would be a foolhardy strategy to rely on evidence when you don't know what that evidence contains. Moreover, how the fudge (Ha, you thought I was going to say "fuck" again, didn't you?) am I supposed to cross-examine the witness on what was said in the interview if I can't remember what was said in the interview?
Johnson asked Dent if he had asked me whether I had taken down the website. Dent responded "I did" TR p11l42-44. This is significant because later, on cross, Dent is going to, again, contradict himself on this very question.
Johnson and Dent then deliberately misrepresented my statements to create the false impression that the reason I hadn't taken down the website was because I believed it was not illegal TR p12l10-16. They took two separate and unrelated statements from different points in the interview (why the website hadn't been taken down Interview TR p7l6-13; my belief that the website is not illegal Interview TR p6l14-20) and presented them to the court as though they were a single statement.
Johnson and Dent went on the deliberately misrepresent statements from the interview. For example, there was a hypothetical discussion that occurred in the interview, regarding what it would take for me to shut down the website and, hypothetically speaking, I listed a number of highly unlikely and even unrealistic events TR p13l32-p14l6, Interview TR p18l14-32. Now, it was Dent that started the hypothetical discussion by saying "...so, let's say hypothetically speaking ... what would it take for the website to be taken down?" So Dent engages me in a hypothetical discussion, then at the trial he and Johnson present those hypothetical statements to the court as though they were made sincerely. How is this fair? How is this not unscrupulous, sleazy, greasy, and slimy?
And then Johnson asked Dent, again, if he asked me whether I would ever take the website down, and Dent responded "Yeah. I have a note in here, he will never in his life take the website -- take down the website." TR p14l36-40
On cross-examination, I jumped right into the most important questions.
First, I asked Dent whether he had attempted to access the site at any time within the first 48 hours following my release from custody. He admitted he had not TR p16l22-26. Therefore, he has no knowledge of whether the website had actually been taken offline within 48 hours as required by the probation order.
Second, I asked Dent who the owner of the website is. He responded, he doesn't have that information. I asked who has administrative access to the website. He responded, he doesn't have that information TR p16l27-31. So, he doesn't know who owns the website or who has administrative access to the website. More importantly, he doesn't know if I own or have administrative access to the website. And if it's not my website, if I'm not the one that put it online, then how can I be compelled, under court order, to take it down?
Third, I asked Dent if he had done any investigation into this matter. He admitted he had not. I asked whether he had contacted the hosting provider, GoDaddy. He had not TR p16l34-41. So, no attempt was made to determine who actually put the website online and who actually has the ability to take it down.
Next, I asked Dent "Was the website taken offline between eight p.m. on August 20th and eight p.m. on August 22nd?" He responded: "I don't have that information." TR p16l42-44 Okay, so the condition I'm accused of violating required me to take down the website within 48 hours of my release from custody, and Johnson's only witness testifies that he has no knowledge of whether or not it was actually taken down in that time frame, and no knowledge of whether or not I actually had anything to do with the website that was currently online. Doesn't seem like a very strong case against me, right?
I then moved on to the Dear David Eby article. I asked Dent who wrote the article. He was evasive and wouldn't answer TR p16l45-p17l21. But clearly, the answer would have been "I don't know." During this line of question, Dent had said that during the interview I had mentioned that maybe Capuano wrote the article. I responded "Did she?" He evaded responding TR p17l17-21. I believe Dent knew it was Capuano who wrote (or at least, who posted) the article, but it would have been extremely problematic for the prosecutors and the police for him to admit that on the witness stand.
I asked Dent whether, during the interrogation, I stated that subsequent to my release from custody I still own or control the website. He was evasive and would not give a direct answer TR p17l39-p18l2. The question was pretty fucking clear and direct, right? Did I, or did I not state a specific thing? Instead he referred to vague allusions I had made which might suggest I had some involvement with the website.
At that point, Rideout interjected to tell me that he's "entitled to draw certain inferences from the evidence to put together the factual pattern for the offences" TR p18l3-13. Wonderful, fucking, criminal justice system. So the judge is allowed to cherry-pick bits and pieces of evidence and to make inferences where there are holes? Kind of makes "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" moot, don't you think?
I asked Dent whether I had stated to him in the interrogation, that I had transferred ownership and control of the website to another party. He was evasive, then responded that he does not remember TR p18l32-p19l2.
I asked Dent who owns the domain name desireecapuano.com. He responded he doesn't know. I asked if it would surprise him to know that Desiree Capuano owns that domain name. Rideout interrupted and told me what I'm doing now is giving evidence TR p19l22-27. Rideout said: "But I know where you're going with that question." TR p19l32-33 Which I find very interesting because where I was going with that question is that it is, in fact, Capuano who put the website back online (so that I would be arrested and imprisoned again for violating the probation order again). But it's very interesting that Rideout did not want me to continue down that line of questioning. Was it because he knew it would expose the fact that it is the supposed "victim" who is doing what they're accusing me of doing and that would bring the entire justice system into disrepute? Possibly.
Earlier, on direct, Dent had testified that in the interview I had claimed I had seen the access logs for the website and that, based on that he believed I had administrative access to the website. So I asked Dent whether the access logs for the website had been made publicly available. He responded, he did not know TR p19l45-p20l3. Okay, then his earlier testimony about the access logs is irrelevant because if they were made publicly accessible then the fact that I was able to review them meant nothing.
I then asked Dent whether, during the interrogation, he had asked me whether I had taken the website down, or wether that topic had even come up at all during the interrogation. He was very evasive, but eventually responded: "And so to answer your question I don't believe I asked you if you had taken down the website..." TR p20l33-p21l18. Now, this is critical because you will recall, on direct, Johnson asked him if he had asked me whether I had taken down the website and he responded he had asked me that. Now, on cross, he's admitting he didn't ask me that. That's called perjury! Either he was lying on direct, or he's lying on cross. But the two responses are contradictory. He could not have both asked me, and not asked me. Therefore, he is lying on the witness stand. That is an indictable offense (equivalent of a felony). He is a law enforcement officer. Every defense lawyer in Vancouver should make a note of this and whenever Dent is involved in an investigation, bring this up in your cross-examination of him.
And so what did Rideout do about Dent lying on the witness stand? In his Reasons for Judgment, he stated that he found Dent to be a credible and reliable witness Reasons for Judgment ¶14. Fucking Christ!
On both direct and cross, Dent repeatedly testified that the website was still up as of the time he checked it on 2020-09-17. And, more specifically, he had explicitly testified that he "had knowledge that it was still up and active". "Still", of course, means that it was up continuously, without interruption. So I pointed out to dent that he had already admitted that he has no knowledge of whether or not the website had actually been taken down at some point subsequent to my release. And I asked him, isn't it fair to say you don't actually know whether the website had remained up continuously. He responded, he had no knowledge of that TR p21l20-37. So, okay, that's lie number two. He consistently testified that he had knowledge that the website had remained online from the time of my release until the time he checked it on 2020-09-17, when in fact, he had no knowledge of that.
So then I asked him, given that the charge against me is that I failed to take the website down within 48 hours of my release, is it reasonable to say you have absolutely no evidence at all as to whether or not that happened? He responded: "My involvement in this file was to interview you." TR p21l39-45 Mmm. So, in other words, that is correct, he has absolutely no relevant information.
He then went on to say he did not review the file TR p21l47. Whoa! Wait a second. Didn't he state on direct that he did review the file prior to interrogating me? Yes, indeed he did say that. So, that's perjury number three!
I then asked Dent, given that the only question relevant to this trial is did I, or did I not take down the website within 48 hours of my release, is it fair to say you really have no relevant evidence to provide here today? It was a rhetorical question. But nevertheless, he responded: "I cannot -- answer that question." TR p22l12-23 No, I don't suppose you can, you lying bastard.
And that brings Dent's testimony to an end. All in all I'd say it was a fairly successful cross-examination. It's not every day you get to catch corrupt police officers committing perjury on the witness stand, then publish the proof of that perjury so they can, hopefully, never be involved in another investigation or testify at another trial. In the trial in the next case, 244069-8-B I insisted that Dent testify because he's the lead investigator in that case, and I got to cross-examine him on this perjurious testimony. In that trial he ultimately admitted that he did lie on the witness stand in this case (but still the judge (Kathryn Denhoff) in that case does absolutely nothing about it).
Following Dent's testimony, Johnson sought to have the Dear David Eby article admitted as an exhibit. I objected, based on lack of relevance. It had not been established that I wrote, contributed to, or published the article. The article had no connection to whether or not the website had been taken down within 48 hours of my release, and no connection to whether or not I had any involvement in the website. It simply wasn't relevant. Rideout responded: "That would be for argument." TR p23l19-30 Really? Because it seems to me the time to object to the admission of an exhibit is when the exhibit is being admitted.
We then stood down for the morning recess.
When we reconvened, Rideout brought up the fact that Counts 1 and 2 are essentially the same and that if I were found guilty of either one it would create what's called a Kienapple situation TR p25l6-8. That's where a person is charged with multiple offenses which are actually the same, single act. In this case, the prosecution was accusing me of violating what is, essentially, the same probation condition but imposed on two separate orders. In such a case, the person cannot be convicted of both violations. He can only be convicted of violating one or the other.
However, based on the wording of the particular conditions, it would not be Kienapple situation because Count 1, which relates the the Judge Phillips order, required me to take down the website between the dates of 2020-08-20 and 2020-08-22. And Count 2, which relates to the Justice Holmes order, required me to take down the website between the dates of 2018-12-30 and 2018-12-31. If the website had been put online prior to 2018-12-30 and was not taken offline by 2018-12-31 then I would be guilty of violating Count 2. Then, if the website was online at the precise time of my release on 2020-08-20 and I did not take it down by 2020-08-22, then I would be guilty of Count 1. So, you see, no Kienapple situation.
I did, however, have an objection to Count 2 on other grounds. My position was that Condition 13 of the Holmes order only required me to engage in particular conduct (i.e. taking down the website) upon my release from the term of imprisonment imposed by Justice Holmes - not every subsequent release from custody.
But more importantly, as discussed above, I believe what happened here was that the prosecution intended Count 1 to be as it is, and Count 2 to allege that I violated Condition 12 of the Justice Holmes order, not Condition 13. I believe the BC Prosecution Service, in their never ending incompetence, copied and pasted the wrong text into the indictment. You see, it would make a lot more sense for Count 1 to say I violated the Phillips order by not taking down the website; and I violated the Holmes order by putting the website back online. Never underestimate the incompetence of the BC Prosecution Service, and never underestimate what they'll be willing to sacrifice to not have to admit they're incompetent.
So Johnson, rather than admitting they made an error on the indictment (which, by the way, he could have amended at any time), chose to withdraw Count 2.
In his closing arguments, Johnson agreed with me that there was no evidence for the court to conclude who owns the website. But he went on to say that there was clear evidence that I was able to comply with the order and that I refused to do that. He argued that evidence comes from the interview I had with Detective Dent TR p26l15-22. That is, of course, bullshit. There was no evidence from that interview which would establish that as of the time of my release from custody on 2020-08-20, I had any control or influence over the website. And Johnson doesn't, in his closing, refer to any such statements. Even if I had said, in the interview, that I am running the website, that admission would have to be false because there were updates made to the website while I was in custody and didn't have access to the internet.
Johnson argues that I wasn't required to remove the website within the first 48 hours, I was simply required to remove the website. But by Dent's own admission, it is not known whether the website was actually removed but then subsequently put back online, possibly by someone else, possibly by someone who was trying to cause me to be arrested TR p26l23-26. Moreover, Johnson is wrong about this. He is now arguing that Condition 4 of the Phillips order (which is essentially copied from Condition 13 of the Holmes order) required me to take down the website and to keep it down for the entire duration of the order. But that would completely contradict what he argued at the Phillips sentencing. At that sentencing, he argued that there needs to be a new probation order with one condition which, essentially, duplicates Condition 13 of the Holmes order TR 2020-08-19 p52l13-24. That being the case it means he understood or interpreted Condition 13 of the Holmes order as only imposing a requirement on me for the first 24 hours following my release from custody. And which would mean Condition 4 of the Phillips order only imposed a requirement on me for the first 48 hours following my release from custody. If he had really understood Condition 13 of the Holmes order to mean take down the website and keep it down, then he would not have required (or requested) the Phillips order because the Holmes order was still in effect. The only reason to request the new order with the new condition duplicating Condition 13 of the Holmes order is because he understood Condition 13 to no longer be imposing a requirement on me. So, you see, his arguments now completely contradict his arguments three months earlier at the Phillips sentencing. In other words, in Canada, the same law can be interprested in completely contradictory ways from one moment to the next, depending on what the prosecutors and judges want at any given moment. That is not "justice"; that's fascist tyranny!
Johnson argued that I stated to the police that I will never remove the website TR p26l28-29. Sure. Because it's not my website to remove. I don't have the authority or the capability to remove it. And eventually the probation orders will expire and I will no longer be prohibited from publishing information about Capuano, at which time I will return to doing so. And there's nothing they can do about it because I will no longer be on probation. Fuck 'em
Johnson falsely argued that I had explained the reason I hadn't taken down the website TR p26l44-p27l3. But that is false. I did no such thing. Johnson is making this up out of nothing.
Johnson also brought up the fact that I claimed to have access to the access logs of the website TR p27l4-6. But he failed to mention those access logs may, very well, have been publicly accessible.
And the rest of his arguments are stupid and meaningless, so I won't bore you with them. If you do want to know them they're all in the transcript.
My first argument was that in order for me to be able to comply with the probation condition, that is, to take down the website, I would have to have ownership or control of the website TR p28l7-14. If it is not my website, if I did not put it online, then I cannot be legally compelled to take it down. And by both Dent's and Johnson own admissions, there was no evidence to establish I had such access or control.
I then argued that there was no evidence that the website hadn't been taken down. According to Dent's testimony, it was online on 2020-09-17, but there was absolutely no evidence it was online at any time prior to that TR p28l15-19.
I pointed out that Condition 4 of the Phillips order only required me to take the website down, it did not prohibit me from putting it back online at any point TR p28l26-37. Condition 12 of the Holmes order, which was still in effect, prohibited me from putting it back online, but I wasn't charged with violating Condition 12 of the Holmes order. So there!
I pointed out that the access logs prove nothing because there was no evidence that they weren't publicly accessible TR p28l38-40.
I argued that any comments I may have made about there being more content to publish, and my intention to do so means nothing because once the probation orders expire I will be free to publish whatever I want about Capuano, and to run the website TR p28l42-p29l4.
After my closing arguments, Johnson made further arguments in reply. He said it is entirely speculative that somebody else may have put the website back online after I had taken it down TR p30l6-9. However, it is equally speculative that somebody didn't.
He argued that there is no evidence that the website was ever taken down. But there is also no evidence that it wasn't. He argued that there is no evidence that someone else controls the website. But there is also no evidence that I control the website TR p30l9-11.
Johnson pointed out that the website is written in the first person, in the name of Mr. Fox. TR p30l14-15 However, if someone was trying to get me arrested for violating the probation order that is exactly what they would do.
In other words, all of his reply arguments were bullshit. They were weak and desperate.
After hearing the closing arguments, Rideout jumped right into his Reasons for Judgment. No need for him to consider anything that was just said. I'm sure he had his verdict ready before the trial even started.
And what was that verdict? Guilty, just like it says in the synopsis, above.
Now let's have a look at Rideout's Reasons for Judgment.
Rideout recapped that the prosecution's case was based significantly on the Task Action Report that Dent made about the interrogation RFJ ¶9. Really, this should have been a red flag to Rideout. Certainly, if there was a video recording of the interview, then why wouldn't Johnson simply rely on the video recording rather than on the interrogator's recollection of the interrogation? The video is irrefutable, it's reliable, it can't be contested. The video doesn't forget details. It isn't subjective. Any judge who was being fair and objective would have immediately realized something improper was going on. But Rideout said nothing about any of that, he just accepted the parts of Dent's testimony which worked against me. And now you may be thinking: "Well, why didn't you seek to admit the video, in order to prove Johnson and Dent were full of shit?" The short answer is: That didn't suit my objective at that time. More thoroughly: My goal was to show that the prosecutors, judges, and police are corrupt; that they will lie and cheat and misrepresent facts, even when they know a person is innocent (or at least not necessarily guilty). In order to prove that they're corrupt I have to be found guilty and sentenced - you can't say the system is corrupt if you're acquitted. Another reason I didn't request to play the video is that it wouldn't have made a lick of difference to the verdict. Rideout would have simply ignored the parts which were in my favor. Consider, the jackass stated in his Reasons that he found Dent to be a credible and reliable witness - even though Dent contradicted himself and was caught lying multiple times. Rideout then misquotes me as saying to Dent it's "Important to have good quality audio-video for my website." RFJ ¶9 But not only did I not say that, Dent didn't even say that. Dent testified that I had said it's "important to have good quality audio and video for him to put on the website later." TR p11l20-22 Rideout claimed I said my website, but I said the website. There is a huge difference between saying my website and saying the website. If I had said my website then I would be acknowledging ownership of the website. By saying the website I am not acknowledging ownership. Moreover, regardless of whether I had said my website or the website, I didn't say which website I was referring to. You may think: Oh, but come on, you were obviously talking about the Desiree Capuano website. And if you think that, you're an idiot and don't know me very well. Because, in fact, all of the content I referred to during the interrogation, which I repeatedly said still has to be posted to the website has now been posted ... to this website ... not to the Desiree Capuano website. So when I made the statements, I anticipated that the police, prosecutors, and judges would be simpleminded idiots who would assume I was talking about the Desiree Capuano website and, as always, I let them make those false assumptions. 'Cause that's how I roll. But, as you see, at no time did I ever say that intended to post anything to the Desiree Capuano website while being on probation. Rideout then claims that I was asked whether I had taken down the website RFJ ¶9. But this is completely false! It was clearly established during corss-examination that Dent actually didn't ask me that TR p21l16-19. You see, this is yet another in the endless examples of how the judges only listen to the parts that will support a guilty verdict and completely ignore everything that doesn't. I mean really, how could Rideout have possibly missed that whole discussion where I confronted Dent on whether or not the topic of if I had taken down the website even came up, and Dent's admission that he actually didn't ask me that? TR p20l30-p21l19 Rideout then claims my response to Dent's question about if I had taken down the website was because it exposed corruption in the system, including my "cunt" of an ex-wife RFJ ¶9. But Rideout is taking two separate, unrelated statements from different parts of the interrogation and combining them. The same thing Johnson and Dent did (see above). I suppose, since Rideout is just repeating the misrepresentation Johnson and Dent provided then he's not really at fault on this point. Johnson and Dent are at fault for knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting the facts to the court. And why didn't I bring this up in my cross of Dent? Because it simply wasn't relevant. Since it wasn't established that I put the website online, or that I have any involvement with the website, then why I haven't taken it down is irrelevant - it's not my website to take down! Before I can be found guilty of failing to take down a website which I'm accused of owning and running, the prosecution must prove that I actually own and run it. But in every one of the probation violation cases there has never been a single peice of evidence linking me to the website. And the police have openly admitted that they made absolutely no attempt to determine whether I have any association with the website. And the prosecutors have openly admitted they have no evidence associating me with the website. Yet still, I have been convicted and imprisoned in each of those cases. Again, I ask, how is Canada's criminal justice system any different than China's or North Korea's? Then Rideout mentions I had said to Dent that I'm surprised it took so long for them to come and arrest me RFJ ¶9. Yes, of course, because I knew the website was online and that there was an extremely antogonizing and inflammatory article on it. An article which was very clearly meant to piss off and provoke the BC government to come and arrest me. So my statement to Dent proves nothing. Rideout then misrepresents more of my statements by claiming that at one point during the interrogation, I said what I wanted was for all my convictions to be set aside and for my Capuano to get throat cancer and die RFJ ¶10. Rideout ignores the fact that those statements were made sarcastically and in response to Dent's hypothetical question about what it would take for me to take down the website Interview TR p18l14-24. To begin with, since it's not actually my website, there is nothing I can do to cause it to be taken down. So, any statements I may have made along those lines were clearly hypothetical. But as for wanting Capuano to get throat cancer and die a slow, miserable death: Yes, I do want her to get throat cancer and die a slow miserable death, but I don't see how there could possibly be any nexus between her getting throat cancer and whether or not the website had been taken down. This further shows that my statements could not have been serious. Then, Rideout misrepresented more facts, by saying I said no one is going to take anything down from the website unless the government admits I'm not guilty of criminal harassment; and then Rideout said "within a few lines of that statement" I said I will never in my life take down the website RFJ ¶10. Rideout is creating the false impression that the two statements were made together and related to each other. However, in the interview, there is about seven and a half minutes between the two statements, and in the transcript of the interview there are seven pages separating them Interview TR p18l30-32, p25l3-5. They are clearly not at all related to each other. Another example of the prosecutors, police, and judges cherry-picking unrelated bits and pieces of "facts" and squashing them together to create a fairy-tale, delusional, version of reality. And you cannot fight a justice system that uses made up "facts" and ignores reality. All you can do is publicly expose their bullshit, and show the rest of the world what passes for "justice" in that God foresaken, shithole of a Country. Hence, this website. And then that motherfucker, Rideout, went on to say that I told Dent a lot more content needed to be uploaded but I haven't been the most productive RFJ ¶11. Sure. But what content? And, uploaded to which site? That was not mentioned in the interview. The police, prosecutors, and judge all assumed I was talking about the Desiree Capuano site, and I let them make that assumption. It is not my duty to correct the false assumptions of idiots. Even when those false assumptions will result in me being sentenced to 16.5 months in jail. And the final "fact" Rideout recapped was that Dent acknowledged he had no idea who the owner of the website was, or whether or not I had transferred ownership and control of the website to another party at any time RFJ ¶12. But Rideout completely ignores the significance of this fact. If the prosecutor fails to prove that I own or control the website then I cannot be found guilty of failing to take down the website because I cannot be compelled, or forced, by a court order, to destroy somebody else's property; also I wouldn't have the physical capability to take it down. If nothing else, my lack of ownership or control over the website must provide a "reasonable excuse" defense for not complying with the order to take down the website. And it is the prosecution's burden to prove I do have control over the website; it is not the defense's burden to prove I don't have control over the website (it would be impossible for the defense to prove they don't have ownership of a website that is hosted on someone else's account).Dent's Testimony About the Interrogation, Rather than the Video Recording
I Acknowledged Ownership of the Website
Dent Asked Me If I Had Taken Down the Website, Dent's Perjury
Cherry-Picking Information to Create a False Reality
Ignoring the Context of My Statements
Combining Unrelated Statements to Create a False Reality
False Assumptions About Undisclosed Information
Lack of Ownership and Control of the Website
And now that we see Rideout has completely distorted the so-called "facts", let's have a look at his so-called "analysis" of those facts.
Rideout starts his analysis by saying he listened carefully to the "evidence" RFJ ¶13 (in Canada, judges and lawyers refer to testimony as "the evidence". That, in itself, is a ridiculous premise. Peolpe lie, and cheat, and twist the truth - particularly when they have something to lose by telling the truth. Memory is unreliable and subject to perception and biases. To call the testimony of a single witness "the evidence" is a farce. But in Canada, it is the norm. So doesn't that mean the Canadian justice system is a farce? Yes.)
So anyway, Rideout claims he listened carefully to Dent's testimony. Yet, somehow, he heard when Dent falsely claimed, on direct, that he had asked me if I had taken down the website TR p11l42-44, but he completely missed when, on cross, Dent admitted that wasn't true and that he, in fact, never asked me if I had taken down the website, or if that topic even came up at all during the interrogation TR p21l16-18. Rideout heard when Dent said, on direct, that in preparing for the interrogation, he reviewed the file TR p6l35-36; but he missed when Dent admitted, on cross, that he never reiviewed the file TR p21l47. So yeah, Rideout listened carefully to Dent's testimony - on direct, the testimony skillfully manipulated by Johnson to create an appearance of guilt. But he seems to have not listened very carefully, or at all, to Dent's testimony on cross. It has been my experience this is the norm amongst the judges in the Vancouver criminal justice system.
Rideout then goes on to say Dent's testimony wasn't undermined during cross-examination RFJ ¶13. What the fuck!?!? So proving Dent lied multiple times on direct; his admissions that he has no idea whether I own or have any control over the website; his admission that he doesn't know who actually wrote and posted the Dear David Eby article; and he made no attempt, at all, to determine those critical questions? So in Rideout's mind, none of that undermined Dent's testimony on direct? Fuck off! Seriously, fuck right-the-fuck off!
Rideout says Dent gave his testimony in a forthright manner RFJ ¶14. Oh, come on! Again, Dent was forthright on direct, but if you look at the transcript of his testimony, he was very definitely anything but forthright during my cross-examination. So, again, Rideout appears to be only listening to the testimony on direct. And, it has also been my experience, that most law enforcement officers (in Vancouver, anyway) are always forthright when being asked questions by the prosecutor but suddenly experience memory loss and become vague and ambiguous during cross-examination. It has become a common experience that the prosecutor will ask a cop a question on direct and he'll get a clear, direct answer, then I'll ask that same question on cross and the dickwad will say he can't recall. Perhaps I'll write an article highlighting all the times that has happened in my six trials.
Rideout says, with respect to Dent's notes, I didn't challenge him on those notes RFJ ¶14. No fucking shit, you jackoff asswipe! Because I had just received those notes less than three days prior to the trial, buried on page 37 of 107 pages, and no indication that Johnson intended to call Dent as a witness. How the fuck can any of this be considered a fair and just process?
Then, at paragraph 16, Rideout completely misrepresented what I had said in my closing arguments. Rideout claims I said that when I leave Canada and return to my country of origin, that I could legally restore the website RFJ ¶16. But that's not what I said at all. My argument was that after the probation orders expire and I return to my country of origin, then I will no longer be prohibited from running the website TR p28l42-p29l4. It amazes me how frequently these judges claim to misinterpret what I say - but only when it's something that can be used against me - but they never seem to misinterpret anything the prosecutor says. Is it because they're dumb as rocks and they just can't comprehend the words that are coming out of my mouth, and they're too embarrassed about their intellectual inferiority to ask me to clarify? Or is it because they have to misrepresent my words in order to justify their bullshit verdicts? Who knows? Personally, I believe they're just dumb as tree stumps and too arrogant to admit I'm smarter than they are.
Rideout says it is the prosecution's position that the statements I had made during the interrogation certainly lead to the inference that I owned or had control over the website RFJ ¶17. But if Johnson really believed that then why woudn't he just admit the video recording of the interrogation as evidence to prove those statements? Because he's full of shit and he knows it. The video recording can't lie and misrepresent what was said; Dent can. Playing the entire interrogation video would provide complete context for each of the statements; Dent testifying about the statements enables him and Johnson to take bits out of context, and to mash unrelated fragments together to create false impressions.
And again, why didn't I request to play the video? Because the goal was to prove that Johnson and Dent would knowingly and willingly allow an innocent person to be convicted and sent to prison based on their lies. You can't claim a prosecutor and a detective are corrupt if they lose the case and you're acquitted.
Rideout says I was required to take all necessary steps to ensure the website was no longer available RFJ ¶18. But if I don't own or control the website then there are no steps I can take to cause the website to be no longer available, other than asking the current owner to shut it down. And if that current owner happens to be Desiree Capuano, then I am barred from asking her to shut it down because one of my probation conditions is to not contact her.
But nevertheless, since Capuano's purpose in putting the website online would be to cause me to be arrested and imprisoned then she's obviously not going to take it down because I asked her to. And I'll also point out that Johnson and Dent both admitted they have no knowledge of whether or not the website had actually been taken down within the 48 hours following my release. What if it had been taken down, and then Capuano, in an effort to send me back to prison, put a copy back online? Can I really be convicted of violating that probation condition because Capuano herself put the website online? Apparently, in Canada, yes. It would be like if I have a no contact order (which I do), prohibiting me from having any contact with Capuano, so she comes and stands outside my apartment and the moment I walk outside she calls the police saying I'm attempting to have contact with her. Really!
Rideout claims there were statements made by me in the interrogation which clearly impicated me RFJ ¶19. Really? Which statements? About the website access logs? Dent admitted on cross that he has no knowledge of whether those logs were publicly accessible TR p19l45-p20l3. That when the probation orders expire I intend to put the website back online and continue running it? So what, at that point I won't be subject to the probation conditions anymore and so there will be nothing illegal about me putting the website back online. That I have a lot more content to publish and that it's going to be published? So what, I never said it was content about Capuano, or that I was going to be publishing it on the Desiree Capuano website; in fact, the content I was referring to is all the shit on this website, about all the corruption and misconduct and injustice going on in these prosecutions against me. So tell me, Rideout, you miserable old bastard, exactly which statements did I make which clearly implicate me?
Rideout also refers to "the website, social media, or other publication which was prohibited by Judge Phillips." RFJ ¶19 However there is absolutely nothing "prohibited" by the Phillips probation order. There is one condition, that's all. And that condition did not prohibit anything - it only required me to take down the website Phillips Probation Order Condition 4. So you see, yet again, how full of shit these motherfucking judges are - they just make things up as they go, they just pull "reality" and "facts" and "the truth" out of their miserable, retentive anuses. If evidence doesn't exist to support their verdict, so what, just make it up, just claim it does. It's not like someone's going to create a website and publish the transcripts together with the Reasons for Judgment to prove that the judges are corrupt, lying, turd buckets (in case you missed the sarcasm there, that is exactly what I'm doing with this website!).
Very significantly, Rideout openly acknowledges that "What happened within forty-eight hours remains uncertain and perhaps only speculation as to what took place, and I am not going to speculate what happened" RFJ ¶19. That is very significant because the probation condition only required me to engage in particular conduct to ensure the website is rendered no longer available within 48 of my release from custody. If that occurred, if the website was rendered no longer available within that 48 hours then I had complied with the condition. If it was subsequently put back online by me then I would be in violation of Condition 12 of the Justice Holmes probation order, but I still would have complied with Condition 4 of the Judge Phillips order. So the fact that the prosecution had no evidence, and no knowledge of whether or not the website had been taken down within that 48 hours, and the fact that Rideout acknowledged there was no evidence of it either way, means that I cannot, legally, be convicted of violating the condition that required me to take it down within 48 hours. The fact that the website was online four weeks later does not mean I didn't take it down within 48 hours. But facts and physical evidence and reality mean nothing in the BC criminal justice system.
Rideout then says "It is more than clear that it was the accused who was involved in that website..." RFJ ¶19. Really? How is it "more than clear"? It would have been very easy for the police to obtain evidence of my involvement, if I was actually involved. They could have contacted the hosting provider and obtained: the IP addresses the administrator was connecting from when they uploaded any content; the name on the hosting plan account; the name on the credit card used to pay for the hosting plan. But the police claim they did none of that TR p16l34-41. Perhaps they knew I wasn't the one maintaining the website and they didn't want to obtain evidence that might prove that (this is a common tactic with the Canadian police - they only look for evidence that supports a guilty verdict and when they find exculpatory evidence they just don't take a copy of it so they won't have to disclose it (see, for example, the RCMP's refusal to obtain a copy of the complete CBC interview footage in 244069-02-KC and their refusal to obtain the video footage of me at the Douglas border crossing in 244069-05-BC)). So Rideout says it's clear, from my own statements, yet he doesn't specify which statements.
Then, Rideout says "Ownership aside..." RFJ ¶19. Oh, wait a fucking second now! What do you mean "ownership aside"? If I don't own the website I cannot take down the website! If I didn't put the website online then I lack the physical and legal capability to take it down. If it's hosted on someone else's account with the hosting provider how the fuck am I supposed to log into that account and take it down? And if it was put online by my archnemesis, as a way to cause my perpetual imprisonment, then how can I be punished for it being online? And put aside for a moment whether or not you believe it is Capuano who put the website online, for the purpose of causing my repeated arrest and almost perpetual incarceration, the fact is, in a court of law, it must be proven, with actual evidence, that I am the one keeping the website online. A person cannot, legally, be found guilty of something when there is no evidence he had any involvement in that thing. That is not justice. That is tyranny.
Then Rideout says "...he was inputting the information..." RFJ ¶19. But again, based on what evidence? First, there was not a single piece of evidence produced at the trial that there was anything added to or changed on the website subsequent to my release from custody on 2020-08-20. And even if I did have any involvement with the website prior to that time, I would not have been subject to the Judge Phillips order until my release on 2020-08-20 and, therefore, that would not have violated the Phillips order. It would have violated Condition 12 of the Holmes order (but only if the information in question pertained to Capuano), but I wasn't charged with violating Condition 12 of the Holmes or so that's irrelevant. So, there was no evidence that anything was added to or changed on the website following my release from custody, so how can Rideout claim I was inutting the information? What information? Nothing had been "inputted". He's just a lying, corrupt sack of shit.
And even if there had been anything added to or changed on the website following my release from custody, there was absolutely no evidence that I was the one that did it. So, as you can see, in Canada there is no requirement that proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be based on any actual evidence. Rideout's "feeling" or belief is sufficient to support a guilty verdict. Again, I ask, how is this any different than China, North Korea, Russia, or Saudi Arabia - countries Canada loves to criticize for their injustices and violation of human rights.
And then, Rideout wraps it up by saying "...from his own mouth himself, essentially convicted himself." RFJ ¶19 Sure, but only if you accept Johnson's and Dent's misrepresentations of my statements, and their repeated use of combining disparate sentence fragments. And only if you accept that my clearly satirical and sarcastic statements were actually sincere - which you would have to be a complete retard to accept (and don't get all pissy about my use of the word "retard", if it bothers you that much then you're far to sensitive to be looking at this website anyway).
So there you have it, another case of a BC judge:
Alright then! Let's move on to the sentencing, shall we?
The moment Rideout finished reading in his Reasons for Judgment, Johnson jumped right into Holmes' Reasons for Sentence from the criminal harassment case. The prosecutors sure do love relying on that artful work of vitriol. If you read it, you'd think I'm Charles fucking Manson and Desiree is Mother fucking Teresa. What a load of crap it is. But of course, no judge wants to seem to be questioning the prior judgment of another judge, so they all pretend to accept it as being completely accurate and objective.
Following that, Rideout began a lengthy discussion about having me participate in a psychiatric assessment TR p30l40-p38l40. Initially, Rideout framed it as being for my benefit, claimed it could help me because I'm looking at a potentially long sentence. He said "Would you be prepared to talk to a psychiatrist about your feelings and emotions and that sort of thing?" TR p30l43-45 Feelings and emotions? I'm a fucking engineer, for Christ's sake. I'm logical and rational. I don't have emotions, I just have serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and the knowledge to interpret what the physical sensations caused by those chemicals really means. It's not emotions, it's endocrinology, you fool. Emotions is just what simple people call it because it's warm and fuzzy. Sheesh! And I'm sure there are those who will say "But it's your emotions that cause those chemicals to be secreted." Wrong! You clearly don't grasp the concept of causation. The brain, typically the subconscious, sends a signal to the glands to secrete a given chemical, typically in response to some external stimuli, that chemical causes certain physiological effects (e.g. increased heart rate and body temperature), then the simpleton associates those physical sensations with love, or hatred, or whatever "emotion" they've been conditioned to think is appropriate under the circumstances. They're not really in love. They want to be in love because they've been conditioned to believe love is great and wonderful and you must have it, and since they believe it's so important and they want it so bad, the prospect of getting it causes them to subconsciously release an excess of dopamine or serotonine or oxytocin, which they then convince themselves is the result of love. it's not emotions, it's just chemicals and conditioning. God damn it, how the fuck did I segue into this?
Anyway, back to the sentencing. Alright, so Rideout wants me to speak with a psychiatrist about my feelings and emotions. I tell Rideout I would cooperate fully, but only if it's recorded and a copy of the recording is provided to me TR p31l5-6. Of course, I know from past experience the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission (FPSC), the department that actually does the psychiatric assessments for the court, the prosecutors, and the corrections department, will never agree to that. You see, the court appointed psychiatrist is not there to be objective or to make an honest diagnosis. He's there to make whatever diagnosis the prosecutor and/or court want him to make. Oh, you think I'm being paranoid, huh? Listen to the recording of the psych assessment I did as part of my probation back in 2019. Listen to how smug and condescending that jackass Dr. Mark Levy is.
In response to me pointing out that I know the FPSC will refuse to allow the assessment interview to be recorded, Rideout tells me, "Well, there's patient-client privilege." To which I point out "Which is to protect the patient and so if the patient waives that right, it's up to the patient." TR p31l9-13
So then Rideout says to me that what I do with the report is my business TR p31l14-15. The report? I'm not concerned about the report, I'm concerned about the conversations the report would be based on. The psychiatrist can claim whatever he wants and make whatever bullshit diagnosis he wants as long as I have a copy of the recording of the interview. Because if the psychiatrist claims I suffer from, say delusional disorder and paranoia, then I can publish the recording and say "Really? And how did you come up with that diagnosis, here's the recording of our entire interaction?" And that is exactly the reason they don't allow the conversations to be recorded - because it would be too easy to prove they're full of shit. So now Rideout is talking about I can do whatever I want with the report. But, if the psychiatrist lies and makes a false diagnosis in his report and I don't have a recording of the actual interview then how do I prove he's full of shit?
Rideout continued to try to persuade me to participate in a psych assessment. If you ask me, I think he was trying far too hard. He really wanted that psych assessment. And that just made me more suspicious. I stood my ground. I continued to say I have no opposition to speaking with a court appointed psychiatrist but only if it's recorded.
Then I told Rideout I had already done a psych assessment as part of the Holmes probation order, and I was deemed to be perfectly fine TR p31l42-p32l1. No psychological or emotional problems, no personality disorders, no mental illnesses.
Rideout then says he wants the psychiatric assessment because he would like some collateral information as to what's goin on. And with that I had had enough. I lost it and ran right into a rant about all the fucked up shit Desiree has done to me and our son, and about how here endless lies and bullshit over the years have adversely affected me. And then I say that for the past few years it's just been this (meaning these prosecutions) going on and on. And that fucking Rideout says "I know. It's gone on and on too long." TR p32l26-47 So all the stuff I said about Capuano and her deliberate efforts to get me deported, and to run off with our child after being out of our lives for nine years, and her lies in the family court, all of that went in one ear and right out the other. It was as though I had said none of it. That is a consistent pattern I've noticed with all of the judges and prosecutors. It's like there brains are conditioned to block out any bad conduct by a female. In Canada, a woman can attack her husband with a baseball bat, and if the husband pushes her aware, clearly in self-defense, the man gets charged with domestic violence and the woman (the attacker) gets trauma counselling. I kid you not that country is fucked!
I then say to Rideout, that the reason I hate Capuano so much is because a person cannot abandon her child when he's a year and a half, to run back to her ex-boyfriend, then show up out of the blue nine years later, grab the child with no notice and abduct him to another state, then tell a bunch of lies in the family court, claiming I've been hiding our son from her for nine years, so she can get emergency custody of him, and then if things don't go her way she can just pretend to cry and everybody gives in and gives her what she wants. I tell Rideout, that's why I created the website, to show everybody she's not a sweet, caring, innocent person, she's an evil, manipulative, sociopath. And Rideout's response: "And that's why it's my opinion ... that you have certain obsessive overtones..." TR p33l1-15. Oh my God, how is this even possible? I just told Rideout some of the horrible, despicable things Capuano has done to me and or son, and still Rideout completely ignores her provocation and her attacks on me, and claims I have obsessive overtones which he just can't understand. How is it possible that I'm even still sane after dealing with seven years of this fucked up bullshit?
And then Rideout goes on somewhat about my obsessive overtones, and that perhaps if I spoke to a psychiatrist he could provide some insight into what's going on and the apparent "triggers" that get me going TR p33l12-25. My God, man! I just told you exactly why I hate Capuano. I just told you some of the things she's done to me and my son, and she has never been held accountable for any of it. How can there possibly be any question or doubt as to why I am so motivated to destroy her? I would never believe that an entire society could be so fucked up and backwards as it is in Canada.
When Rideout mentioned "these triggers" I lost it again. I said to him "These triggers? Well, the last time that I had any contact with my son was two days before I was arrested in 2016." I tell Rideout my son recently turned 20. Rideout says "I mean time's ticking by and pretty soon he's going to..." TR p33l26-33. And now I really lost it! I couldn't believe it, after everything I've said, all the harm done to my life by Capuano, Rideout still refuses to acknowledge that she could possibly have done a single thing wrong and that everything, absolutely everything must be my fault. The reason I haven't had any contact with my son since my arrest is because Desiree took away the mobile phone I had provided our son, then she had her home number put on the blocked list at the jail so I couldn't call it. She very deliberately took steps to completely cut off all of my contact with our son. Does Rideout care? Not in the slightest! Desiree and her fiance of the day, James Pendleton, even bragged about that in one of their RCMP interviews. So, like I was saying, I really lost it at this point. I said:
My life is over, man. Come on. I was a software engineer. I had a fine life. I had a good career. I had my son. Everything was fine. And then this psycho comes back into my life. Everybody believes every word she says. She never has to show any proof of anything, but then I just try to defend myself.TR 2020-11-26 p33l34-40
And that stupid, pussified, motherfucker Judge Gregory Rideout responds: "It's court orders that are important and require compliance..." TR p33l41-42. You know what Fuck You! And Fuck Your Court Orders! Having contact with my son; being a good father to my son; protecting my son from psychos like Desiree Capuano, Chris Johnson, and Gregory Rideout; fulfilling my duties and obligations as a parent; that's what's important to me - not your useless, pointless, petty, probation orders. You can take your probation orders and shove them right the fuck up your asses! And that's all there is to be said about that.
Then Rideout tries to convince me there are a lot of good psychiatrists "up here". I tell him, I'm sure there are, and I'm not questioning their competence; I'm questioning their purpose. And if their purpose is to make whatever diagnosis the court or the prosecution want then it doesn't matter how good they are TR p34l4-10.
So Rideout tries to feed me a line of manure, telling me their purpose is to aide me and to aide the court, not the prosecution TR p34l14-17. I don't buy it. This is not my first dealing with the government, the justice system, and government psychiatrists, social workers, and the rest of that lot.
So I say to Rideout, if the psychiatrist is intending to be fair and objective then there's no reason they would object to the interview being recorded TR p34l18-20. The only reason they would object is that they don't want to get caught lying, making false diagnoses, or otherwise doing something unethical. Rideout had no rebuttal to that.
But then Rideout reminds me that Johnson's looking for a "fairly significant jail sentence." I tell him "He can seek five years, I don't care." TR p34l24-26 Oh, this fucker's universe is collapsing all around him. Who the fuck do I think I am talking to him in this way? Like I haven't a concern in the world. Ah, fuck him ... and fuck Chris Johnson, too.
Then Rideout tells me, forget about Johnson, it's just you and me discussing this. And he tries to convince me this is all for my benefit. To help with my rehabilitation - not punishment. He says, if there's going to be another probation order, probation is supposed to be rehabilitative, not punitive. And I tell him, there is case law to support that if a person has no status in Canada and they're going to be deported or leave Canada anyway, then it's stupid and pointless to put resources into trying to rehabilitate them with probation. And that beefy tits Johnson chimes in that it is the prosecution's position that I am a Canadian citizen, and that all the evidence he has seen supports that. Then I respond that the prosecution's so-called evidence is just allegations from US authorities; my evidence is official documents from IRCC stating I was not born in Canada. I say that is evidence, not just unsupported allegations. And then, get this, Rideout says "I mean that's something, certainly you can benefit, telling the psychiatrist for example." TR p34l27-p35l21 Again, do you see the amazing level of arrogance and self-righteousness in the justice system? I must be delusional because I believe I was born in the US. The prosecutors and CBSA say I was born in Canada and, therefore, that must be the truth. Ignore the fact that I have a US birth certificate; that IRCC records acknowledge I was born in the US; that DHS records acknowledge I was born in the US. No! No amount of hard, physical evidence means anything to these fuckers. They say something is so, therefore it is so, regardless of reality. And that, my friends, is literally the very definition of delusional!
So, I tell Rideout yet again, I have no objection to speaking with a psychiatrist as long as it's recorded TR p35l24-26. Of course, what I don't tell them is the real reason I want to have the psych assessment is so that I can gather even more evidence to support my claims of corruption and misconduct. And so Rideout comes right out and lies and says that sometimes they record the sessions TR p35l27-28. Liar! But then he catches himself and says they take notes. Fuck off, man! Notes mean nothing. If a person is a liar, especially a professional liar, like court appointed psychiatrists, then they're notes aren't going to include anything that would contradict the lies they intend to tell. How fucking obtuse does this dick muncher think I am?
I tell Rideout that my experience has been that with certain types of people, they will ignore all the evidence which is not consistent with the ruling, or finding, or diagnosis they want to make. I told him that is what I anticipate the psychiatrist will do. He will ignore any evidence I provide to prove my statements are true and correct TR p35l32-39. Just like at my prior psych assessment, when that Dr. Levy didn't believe I was born in the US, or that I had a US birth certificate - again, the prosecutors and the probation department told him I was born in Canada so I must be delusional. So during the interview, I told him I have my birth certificate and documents from IRCC and CBSA in my laptop bag which is in the reception area. I proposed getting it and showing it to him. He refused and chuckled condescendingly. So I said to him, this is what I'm talking about, the prosecutors, the lawyers, they say I'm delusional but then when I try to show them physical proof that my beliefs are correct, they refuse to look at it or to even let me show it to them. So then, Levy let me get my birth certificate from my laptop bag, and lo and behold, it shut the fucker right up 2019-01-26 psych assessment.
But somehow, Rideout misunderstood what I was saying and thought I was suggesting that he would ignore things in the psych report TR p35l40-41. Although, I don't see how he could have misunderstood what I said ... oh, right, he's a BC judge so he just ignores everything the defendant says, anyway.
Then Rideout says to me: "No, you're still dancing around a bit with this. I take it you're not that keen to talk to a psychiatrist?" TR p36l18-19 Oh fuck off, dude. I'm not dancing around anything. I've been completely clear. I will participate in a psych assessment, as long as it's recorded and a copy is provided to me. If the FPSC is on the level and not doing anything inappropriate, then there is no reason they would oppose that. So I tell him again, I will speak with the psychiatrist as long as it's recorded and a copy is provided to me.
And now that greasy bastard tells me "Well, normally they record. They have a tape recorder. They'll record some of that." TR p36l25-26 Which is an outright lie! I'll tell you, it has been my experience that part of the national identity is Canada is a willingness to lie about anything to get the other person to go along with you. It's sickening. These people will tell any lies at all, right to your face, to get you to agree with them. It's like a whole country of slimy used car salesmen. My response to Rideout's pathetic attempt to get me to succumb was a very sarcastic "Mm-hmm".
And so, finally, Rideout says he's ordering, on an expedited basis, that a psychiatrist assess me in relation to my obsessive behavior TR p36l37-41.
At this point, Rideout directed that the transcript of the trial be ordered so it could be provided to the psychiatrist before he speaks with me. Rideout tells me a copy will be provided to me as well TR p36l46-p37l14. This may seem like a trivial thing that isn't worth mentioning in this narrative, but as you'll see later, it is actually extremely significant.
Rideout asks Johnson what kind of sentencing range he's looking for on this and Johnson responds, 18 to 24 months TR p37l19-23. Holy fuck, you say! Yes, indeed, my friends. They like me that much. A simple probation violation. Something that people usually get three or four weeks for. But for me, the prosecution wants a year and a half to two years! I must be a very, very bad man.
And we're back to talking about that God damned psych assessment, God damn it! So Rideout tells me that with the sentecing range the prosecution is requesting, probation would still be an option (probation can only be imposed if the amount of time remaining on the sentence at the time of sentencing is less than two years), and that if probation is to be imposed, a psychiatric assessment would be beneficial TR p37l24-40. Blow me! And then, Rideout makes a point of reminding me that Johnson is an officer of the court and will follow court directions. He really does think I'm just a completely naive fool, doesn't he? These lawyers must realize how full of shit they are. There's no way they can actuall believe the shit they spew.
And he tells me again, that speaking with the psychiatrist may mitigate the sentence TR p37l40. Fuck off with your mitigation. I know damned well that speaking with a court appointed psychiatrist will absolutely not benefit me. The psych report would either falsely claim I suffer from some mental illness, which the prosecution and the court would use to discredit my claims of corruption and misconduct; or it would say that I don't suffer from any mental illness and I'm just a very bad, evil person who deserves the harshest possible sentence. Either way, not good for me.
Holy fuck, thank God, we're finished with that. I though this stupid debate about the psych assessment would go on forever.
Is it just me or does it seem like this judge was trying way, way too hard to get me to go along with this psych report? That, in itself, is cause for concern or suspicion.
Alright, what's next?
I tell Rideout that since Johnson is asking for 18 - 24 months, and since I'm still under that Justice Holmes probation order until 2021-12-30 (another 13 months) which contains the condition that I not leave BC, why don't we just go ahead and sentence me to that 18 - 24 months right now and get it over with and forget about probation. And that way, once this sentence is done the Holmes order will have expired and I can get the fuck out of this feminist utopia. Rideout refused, saying he can't because he's already ordered a psych report TR p37l47-p38l7. Wait, so he's saying that just because he's already requested the psych report he can't cancel that request? What kind of horse shit is this he's shoveling? What he's saying here is completely false and he will contradict himself on it at the 2021-02-02 appearance.
And then there was more discussion about the court ordering the transcript of the trial TR p39l8-p40l19. And again, this is important because of what's going to happen at a subsequent hearing in February 2021. Johnson and Rideout both say they can receive it electronically, by email. Then Johnson says once he receives it he can print it and send it to me at NFPC. So there is no question that Rideout ordered the transcript of the trial, right?
I say to Rideout, that in addition to everything else I had mentioned earlier about all the harm Capauno has done to me and our son over the years, I am in Canada as a result of her direct and deliberate attacks on me, and now I have a probation order prohibiting me from leaving Canada, so I continue to be subjected to hardship as a result of her actions against me. I point out that the website has been online for years and she has done absolutely nothing to try to get it taken down. Oh, she's done lots to get me arrested and imprisoned, but not one thing to get the website taken down. I say, so how am I supposed to put this behind me and move on when I continue to be adversely affected by her actions. I say that a person cannot move on and put it behind them until the other party stops attacking them TR p40l35-p41l8. But Rideout would have non of it.
And that brings us to the end of the trial date. Holy fuck, that's a lot of shit for one stupid little probation violation trial. We adjourned to 2021-01-21, so we could review the status of the psych assessment, before proceeding with the sentencing.
The day after the trial, the prosecution requested the jail take back all the disclosure material from me. This was done even though I still required access to it to prepare sentencing submissions. I couldn't very well refuse to surrender it to the jail staff, so I handed it over, but then immediately sent a letter to the prosecution, requesting they return it to me so I can prepare for sentencing. I never heard back.
On 2021-01-21, there was, apparently, a COVID outbreak at North Fraser, so I wasn't transported to court. Nevertheless, Johnson and Rideout had some discussion amongst themselves and, thankfully, it was on the record. I suspect they didn't realize the Digital Audio Recording System (DARS) was running.
What happened at that appearance that was so interesting? Well, Rideout said to Johnson, with respect to the psych assessment: "I assume he didn't cooperate with the psychiatrist." To which Johnson replies: "I'm making that assumption, but I haven't had an opportunity to follow up." And Rideout says: "Yes. I spoke to him [the psychiatrist?] on the phone and he did a search and there's no report, so I just want to get this thing done." TR p1l23-30 So, Rideout assumed the psych assessment didn't proceed because I refused to cooperate with the psychiatrist, and Johnson agreed with that assumption. And Rideout's statement, "...so I just want to get this thing done" is very troubling to me. It seems he's not concerned about truth or justice, just with getting this case over with. Doesn't seem very judicious.
However, in reality, what happened was that either the court or Johnson forgot or otherwise failed to schedule the assessment interview. So it was their fault that the assessment didn't occur, not mine. Yet they have no reservations about blaming me for it.
This appearance is critical. There was some wonderful things that occurred here.
First, Johnson acknowledged that the court had ordered a psychiatric assessment. But he goes on to claim that he had completed the paperwork but didn't follow through on filing it TR p1l19-22. I believe Johnson's full of shit though. I believe he's just sucking up to Rideout by taking the blame, so that the court doesn't have to. You may recall from the trial, that Rideout did not order Johnson to arrange the assessment. It's the court that was responsible for booking it. What a kiss-ass.
Rideout claims that because of COVID, the psych department is not doing in-person interviews, only by telephone, and that's not adequate to Rideout. He says he'd like to find out how I think, but unless I want the assessment then he's going to withdraw the request TR p1l26-33. This is one of the critical points I mentioned above, because you may recall, at that trial Rideout said I can't just agree to the 18 - 24 months Johnson was seeking because he had already ordered the psych report TR 2020-11-26 p38l6-7. But now he's saying he can simply withdraw the request for the psych report. So why couldn't he withdraw the request at the time of the trial? In other words, either Rideout was lying at the trial when he said he can't cancel the request, or he's lying now, when he says he can. It doesn't really matter which one was the lie. The important thing is that Rideout lied, on the record, and it's now in the transcripts which are now on this website.
In response to Rideout, I said I would like to proceed with the psych assessment TR p1l34-36. He had just said, literally a moment ago, that "unless you want a psychiatric opinion I'm ... going to withdraw that request." So he said, if I want the assessment then he won't withdraw the request. He tells me I would receive a copy of the psychiatrists notes, but that it won't be recorded. He knew I would not agree unless it is recorded. So he withdrew the request.
I raised the issue of the disclosure material being taken back from me the day after the trial. I said I had submitted numerous requests to Johnson for the material to be return to me, but that he has, so far, ignored me. Johnson feigned surprise that the material had been taken back from me TR p2l20-37. I say he feigned surprise because much later, during the appeal of this conviction, a number of email threads between Johnson and the BC Prosecution Service were disclosed and in those emails it shows that he was well aware of the situation. Johnson said he would provide me another copy of the disclosure within a few days TR p3l7-8.
Johnson tried claiming that if I wanted more than just the Dent interview it would take a little longer. I called him out on his bullshit. I said that what he's saying makes no sense, it would not take any longer to also copy the PDF file to the hard drive than it would to copy just the video file TR p3l7-16. Ah, this guy is such a fucking asshole. The judges hate being caught in their lies and games, so now Rideout got angry and he says "I mean, we've -- we've had the trial, I found you guilty of the single count." TR p3l17-18 Yeah, so that's it, right? You've entered your verdict and, even though it was based on lies and misrepresentations, it's done, it's final, and it's never going to change. I don't think so, ass-wipe! I've spent the past seven years compiling all this evidence so I can publish it and show the world what a corrupt, morally defunct, hypocritical country Canada is. The entering of your verdict was not the end, it's the beginning.
Rideout asked me why I need the disclosure material for sentencing. First, I told him I can't recall the exact details at this point because the material was only in my possession for two and a half days, but that I expect Johnson is going to use my statements from the interview to show that I have no respect for the system and that that should be an aggravating factor. I intend to show that's not the case, that my statements were taken completely out of context and were mostly sarcastic. Rideout tried to talk me out of it, saying that the sentencing will be a very simple process, the prosecution will probably rely on a few cases from higher courts, then it's just a matter of Rideout picking a number TR p3l20-p4l6.
Ultimately, Rideout said: "Well, let's get Constable Dent's interview with you." To which Johnson responded: "I'll get the entirety of that to you, Mr. Fox." TR p4l7-10 Okay, so done deal right? Rideout said to get me the disclosure material, and Johnson said he would. But don't think for one second that these prickly bastards would ever do what they say, on the record, that they'll do. And don't think that the prosecutors of the BC Prosecution Service would ever concern themselves with complying with a court order.
Then, the following extremely critical exchange occurred:
Fox:And if Mr. Johnson has any concerns about me publishing the material or such, he can rest assured I already have a copy of that material, I just don't have it here in the jail. So, it is going to be published. I mean, providing a copy, not providing a copy to me here right now isn't going to affect that at all.Rideout:Yes.Johnson:I think that may be why you're here today, Mr. Fox, because it was published.Rideout:Yes.TR 2021-02-02 p4l12-22
This is critical because Johnson openly admitted, in court, on the record, that the reason I am being prosecuted and incarcerated is because I keep publishing the disclosure material, exposing the corruption and injustices going on on the parts of the BC Prosecution Service and the BC judges. Not because of any perceived harm to Capuano or because of violating the probation conditions. There have been numerous probation violations I have committed, which the BCPS knows about, but they haven't prosecuted me for them. There are versions of the Desiree Capuano website online, which don't contain any of the information about my cases, and the BCPS has not prosecuted me for that.
Rideout then asked Johnson if he is going to be asking for another probation order, and Johnson responded, no, just a straight sentence. Johnson explained that I still had about a year and a half remaining on the Holmes probation order TR p4l22-27.
At this point, I asked Rideout about the status of receiving the transcript of the trial. I remind him that at the trial he ordered the transcript. He claimed he did not say he would order the transcript. He said if I wanted the transcript I would have to appeal, and that it's my obligation to get and file the transcripts. I said, No, at the trial you did explicitly state that you were going to order the transcript. Rideout claimed he doesn't recall saying that, and that I can always get a copy of the transcript on my own. I said, I understand all that, but I was just wondering where we stood on the court ordering it. Rideout said: "No, unless there was something exceptional going on, I was not planning to order a transcript." TR p6l28-p7l10
Now look up above (here and here), where there was repeated discussion at the end of the trial, about the court ordering the transcript. Rideout clearly ordered the transcript be obtained on an expedited basis so a copy can be provided to the psychiatrist, with a copy going to Johnson, the court, and me. And yet, here we are, a couple of months later, and Rideout is falsely claiming he never said he was going to order the transcript. How can anyone possibly have anything even resembling a fair trial when both the prosecutors and the judges are compulsive liars?
At this appearance, I pointed out that I intend to rely, extensively, on the video of the Dent interrogation TR p1l43-45. This creates a problem for the court because if, at sentencing, I bring up evidence which the police and prosecutor knew about at that trial, and which calls into question the guilty verdict, that makes the court and the administration of justice look bad. Especially if it's evidence which will prove that the police and the prosecutor were deliberately misrepresenting the information to the court. The prosecutors are supposed to be, and are believed by most of society to be, upright, honorable, and ethical. They're not supposed to be lying, cheating, sleazy, scummy bastards. But in reality, that is exactly what they are.
So Rideout said: "Right. You mentioned that yesterday and, Mr. Johnson, you're going to make sure that gets out to Mr. Fox; correct?" TR p1l46-p2l1 It would look very suspicious if the prosecutor and the judge refused me access to the disclosure material so I can use it to prepare sentencing arguments. So again, here they are, on the record, saying that the disclosure material will be provided to me so I can prepare sentencing arguments.
I say to Rideout that there is a possibility I will be relying on other disclosure material, in addition to the Dent interview, as well, but that it seems they're being very resistant to that. And Rideout responds that he'll let me deal with Johnson on that TR p2l6-14.
And that's how it was left. Rideout and Johnson insisting the disclosure material would be provided to me so I can prepare my sentencing arguments.
On 2021-04-12, the sentencing hearing was scheduled to proceed. However, I still hadn't been provided a copy of the disclosure material.
Johnson made his submission. Even though he had stated previously that he would not be seeking another probation order, because the Holmes order was still in effect for the next year and a half or so, he now said that the prosection is seeking another probation order. But, he's only seeking a one year probation order and with only two conditions. Essentially, duplicating Conditions 12 and 13 of the Holmes order TR p3l5-25. What the fuck is the point of that? What, is this just supposed to be some kind of slap in the face? A way for the BC Prosecution Service to spite me? I mean, what is the point in imposing a new probation order with the same conditions that are already being imposed by another probation order and having them both expire around the same time? I honestly don't see how this could be anything other than the BCPS saying "Fuck you!" to me. And that's just not very professional.
You may recall that at the sentencing before Judge Phillips (244069-6-B), Johnson and Phillips acknowledged that Condition 13 of the Holmes order only imposed a requirement on me for the first 24 hours following my release from custody, and that by the time of the sentencing before Phillips, Condition 13 did not require me to do anything anymore. That was why, in the Phillips case, Johnson was only seeking a short period of probation with one condition which would essentially duplicate Condition 13 of the Holmes order. If Johnson and Phillips believed Condition 13 of the Holmes order imposed a requirement on me for the entire duration of the Holmes order then Johnson would not have had to request the new order/condition from Phillips because I would still be required to do what Condition 13 imposed. That is why, at the sentencing before Phillips, Johnson did not request a condition duplicating Condition 12 of the Holmes order, because Condition 12 of the Holmes order clearly placed a prohibition on me for the entire duration of the order. So Johnson and Phillips knew it would be redundant and pointless. But not so with Condition 13 of the Holmes order. Condition 13 of the Holmes order required me to take down the website within 24 hours of my release from custody. If I did so within 24 hours, or if the website was already no longer online at the time of my release, then I would have complied with Condition 13 and it would require nothing further. If, on the other hand, I did not take down the website within 24 hours, then I would have been in breach of the condition, regardless of what may have happened after that 24 hours. If I took the website down 30 hours after my release then I still would have been in breach of Condition 13. However, if I took with the website down within 24 hours, but then put it back online after that 24 hours had passed, then I would still be in compliance with Condition 13, but I would be in breach of Condition 12. Do you see how the two conditions work together? Condition 13 says, you must unpublish everything you have published prior to this point; and Condition 12 says, you shall not publish anything from this point onward. Pretty simple, right? But apparently not, for Johnson and these yahoo judges.
So now, at this trial (and the subsequent trials and appeals), the prosecution is claiming that Condition 13 of the Holmes order and Condition 4 of the Phillips order didn't only require me to take down the website within the specified period of time but it also required to keep the website down for the entire duration of the probation order. And so, even if I had actually taken down the site within 48 hours, as the Phillips order required, but then put it back online at some subsequent point, then I would still be violating Condition 4 of the Phillips order (and, necessarily, Condition 13 of the Holmes order). But if that's the case then why even have Condition 12 of the Holmes order, and why bother asking for a new order with a condition that duplicates Condition 12 of the Holmes order, since, under this new, demented logic, Condition 13 of the Holmes order and Condition 4 of the Phillips order already prohibits me from putting the website back online for the entire duration of the order? Are Johnson and Rideout fucking retards? Likely, but I'm sure what's really going on here is they're just changing the law and their interpretation of the probation conditions to suit their needs from one moment to the next. And once again, I say: How is any of this fair and just? How can a person be expected to comply with laws or probation conditions when the prosecutors and the judges keep changing the "meaning" of those laws and conditions without notice?
Johnson's arguments were quite short. He and Rideout are old buddies, so I'm sure that even if Johnson's arguments consisted of nothing more than him sitting there, silently, picking his nose, the outcome would be exactly the same.
Yay, my turn to adress the court. That's my favorite. The only thing I like for than talking to imbeciles who don't understand what I'm saying is talking to imbeciles who don't understand what I'm saying and are too arrogant and superior to ask what I mean. And in case you're too much of any imbecile to catch my meaning, I'm saying the BC judges are arrogant, superior, imbeciles.
I start my arguments with the obvious. I say that I'm completely unprepared to proceed with the sentencing because I still haven't received the disclosure material TR p3l31-37. For the past four months Johnson has been saying he'll get it to me right away, and Rideout has been saying Johnson will provide it to me, but here we are, four months later and I still don't have it. And I later came to lean, during the appeal of this conviction, that Kelsea Goodwillie at the BCPS had repeatedly tried to contact Johnson about getting the disclosure to me but Johnson literally ignored her for three months Affidavit #1 of Chris Johnson, pages 39 - 41. So, he's in court, stating on the record that he's going to provide it to me, but all the while he never had any intention of providing it. He is the most disgusting, despicable, cyst of a human being and I hope he gets testicular cancer! I'm not being harsh, he deserves it.
Then that sleepy bastard Rideout says to me "I've got a transcript of Constable Irmalov [phonetic] in front of me. Is there some other transcript that you're seeking from a different police officer that might be relevant, Mr. Fox?" TR p3l42-45 Huh? What the fuck, dude? What case do you think this is? Who the fuck is Constable Irmalov? What the fuck are you talking about? Oh my God, am I really the only person in the courtroom that has any idea what's happening here today?
So I have to refresh Rideout's memory of the disclosure issue, and that he and Johnson kept promising it would be returned to me so I can prepare my arguments TR p3l46-p4l7. Doesn't this piss sack take notes? Then Johnson chimes in with "My recollection, Your Honour, is that ... Mr. Fox, I believe you were provided with that and it was retrieved after you were convicted." TR p4l8-11 Really? Do neither of those boneheads remember the past couple of appearances? I mean, I know Johnson's full of shit. He's completely aware of what's going on with the disclosure issue, because it's all right there in his emails with Goodwillie Affidavit #1 of Chris Johnson, pages 39 - 41. But Rideout? Is he senile or is he just acting because it's fun?
At this point I ran out of patience for their "Who's on first..." schtick. I launch into a stern, yet politely worded, tirade about the prosecution not giving me the material until three days before the trial, then taking it back the day after the trial, then claiming for four months that they're going to return it to me but never actually doing so; and about needing it to be able to prove that almost all of my statements to Dent were sarcasting and joking TR p4l12-23.
Then Johnson replies that it's certainly open to me to make those submissions TR p4l25-28. Holy fuck I want to slap him in the tooth! Of course I can make submissions about that, but submissions without physical evidence is nothing. I might as well stick my thumb up my ass and run, naked around the courtroom for all the good unsupported submissions would do me. Holy fucking, God damn, son of a bitch, I hate this guy! Anyway...
Now consider, if you will, that the disclosure material had already been vetted and had previously been provided to me. There was no further preparation they had to do. All they had to do was simply copy the few files onto the laptop and send the laptop to North Fraser, like they've done so many times. I believe they never had any intention of providing me the material again because they knew it was going to make the BCPS, Johnson, Dent, Rideout, and the whole motherfucking system look extremely bad. Argh! This whole fucking justice system is just so fucking corrupt!
And then there's a bit of back and forth between me and Johnson, then Rideout interjects and the following interaction occurs:
Rideout:I mean, don't you want to get this over with?Fox:No.Rideout:No?Fox:I want truth and justice to be exposed. I want corruption and misconduct to be exposed. That's what I want. I don't care about sitting in jail for the rest of my life.Rideout:Well, I do.Fox:Let me sit here. I don't give a crap.Rideout:Your liberty interests are important. It's part of our Charter of Rights.Fox:The truth is also important, is it not?Rideout:Of course it's important.Fox:I mean, evidence is important, right?Rideout:I've -- I've made a finding. You can always appeal my ruling, right? You have ground -- you can always go the appeal route.TR 2021-04-12 p4l35-p5l5
I then point out to Rideout that I intend to leave Canada at the earliest opportunity, so any probation order is going to be pointless. At that, Johnson stands up and again, tells the Rideout that the Crown takes the position that I'm a Canadian citizen TR p5l13-31. What an ass-fuck! Even if I was a Canadian citizen, if I leave Canada permanently then I'm still going to be out of the jurisdiction and: a) the order will be unenforceable; and b) imposing an order intended aid in my rehabilitation and reintegration into society would be pointless. But as we've already established, above, this probation order is not about punishment or about rehabilitation; it's about spite and saving face.
I respond that I have documents, supporting my claim that I have not status in Canada. Documents from IRCC and CBSA, and a US birth certificate. But Rideout tells me, it's okay, I've already pitched that to him so I'm repeating myself TR p5l32-38. It's like he was trying to stop me before I actually presented physical proof. Heaven forbid physical proof and reality should interfere with the judge's freedom to make arbitrary rulings.
It fascinates me how the Canadian prosecutors are able to come into court, make completely unsupported claims, like that I'm a Canadian citizen, and even though I have documents proving I'm not, the judges still believe what the prosecutors say.
But then, get a load of this, Rideout tries to convince me that one of the mandatory conditions on a probation order is that the person must remain within the jurisdiction. I tell him "That's not a mandatory condition." And the lying prick responds: "Yes, it is actually. Report to the court, you have to stay and so on." And so I tell him: "But reporting is not a mandatory condition either." And he says "I'm not going to have a reporting condition." TR p5l43-p6l13 What the fuck is wrong with this guy's head? Does he even know the law? Isn't there some requirement that to be a judge you have to have at least a cursory knowledge of the law? Apparently, in BC the only requirement to be a lawyer, then a judge, is the ability to kiss more ass than the other guys.
Realizing that I was right and that he's an incompetent buffoon, Rideout got mad and conceded his ineptitude by saying: "I mean, you've got to get this done." TR p6l15 And with that he plowed into his Reasons for Sentence.
This is, undoubtedly, one of the shortest Reasons for Sentence I've seen. A mere seven paragrapns; 228 words.
The entire "Reasons" only actually states what the sentence will be. No actual reasons were given.
Rideout ends the Reasons by saying "You are also subject to the ongoing probation order pronounced by Judge Phillips as well." HA! Joke's on you fuckwad, that probation order expired on 2021-02-19, two months prior.
And that brings us to the end of the sentencing phase of this farce. Eventually, I'll get around to narrating the appeal process but all this writing is a hell of a lot more work than you would think.
The most obvious and clear ground of appeal in this case was the prosecution's refusal (or failure, if you want to be optimistic) to provide the disclosure material until three days before the trial, and the judge's refusal to take that into account and to proceed with the trial at that time. There is no way any person could possibly be ready for trial having had only two and a half days to review over 100 pages, and two hours of video, of disclosure material.
Even the prosecutor on the appeal, David Layton, conceded that is a very strong ground and that the prosecution has a duty to provide timely disclosure. Of course, it's unlikely he will ever admit he said that.
Another significant ground I raised was the prosecution's failure to provide me any indication of it's intention to call Detective Dent as a witness until the morning of the trial. I cannot, reasonably, be expected to be able to prepare to cross-examine a witness I have no expectation will be called.
And, I argued that the conviction was not supported by the evidence because in order for me to take down the website as the probation order required, I would have to have control over the website, and Johnson failed to prove I had any control or even influence over the website during the time relevant to the charge.
In my factum, I argued that by deliberately withholding the disclosure material until just before the trial, I was unable to adequately review the material to prepare for the trial. I explicitly stated the prosecution withheld almost all of the disclosure material - not just the video of the Dent interrogation Appellant's Factum, ¶66; and that the material provided to me at that time consisted of 107 pages, and over 2 hours of recordings Appellant's Factum, ¶67. I also informed the Court of Appeal, that when the late disclosure was brought up to Rideout, he responded that I should have raised the issue earlier and that the day of the trial is not the appropriate time to raise such issues Appellant's Factum, ¶68.
In response, Layton frivolously argued that the late disclosure did not cause me any prejudice. He claimed I had always known the prosecution would be using my statements from the Dent interrogation, however he provides no explanation for how I could have possibly known that. Layton also falsely claimed I had stated in a letter to Johnson that I did not require the disclosure material or witness list Respondent's Factum, ¶67. It was my recollection there was nothing stated in the interrogation which proved I had any control over the website. And moreover, even if there was such a statement by me, I would have required time to review the video of the interrogation (the disclosure material did not include a transcript of the interrogation).
In their Reasons for Judgment the Court of Appeal essentially copied and pasted the prosecutions arguments, and essentially ignored everything I said. The BCCA falsely claimed I had agreed to proceed with the trial based only on Dent's testimony rather than playing the video of the interrogation RFJ ¶19. But in fact, what I said was that it wouldn't be necessary to play the entire video, because there were significant durations where there was nothing of interest TR 2020-11-26 p3l24-25.
The BCCA also falsely claimed, during the interrogation I made numerous inculpatory statements RFJ ¶19. Yet, not surprisingly, they failed to articulate a single one of those supposedly inculpatory statements. I did, however, include with one of my affidavits, a detailed account of Dent's and Johnson's misrepresentations of my statements Affidavit #1, Exhibit C, and a detailed account of statements made by me during the interrogation which clearly show I was not, at any point, taking the interrogation seriously Affidavit #1, Exhibit D.
In paragraph 20 of it's RFJ, the BCCA purports to articulate specific statements I made during the interrogation which they claim are inculpatory RFJ ¶20. However, as you can see from the commentary included therein, all they did was copy what Layton stated in his factum, and each statement they refer to was either misrepresented by the prosecution or simply incorrect. In fact, I do not believe the BCCA even watched the video as they claim. I believe they just took what Layton wrote and copied it into their RFJ.
And then, at paragraph 28, the Court claimed my argument that the condition I was convicted of violating only required me to take the website down within 48 hours of my release, but it did not prohibit me from subsequently putting it back online, would "lead to an absurd result" because it would mean I could take the website down then, seconds later put it right back online ¶28. However, the BCCA is full of shit on this point because, as I clearly pointed out in my Reply Factum, the condition imposed by Phillips merely reinstated Condition 12 of the Holmes order and was, therefore, intended to compliment Condition 13 of the Holmes order, which was still in effect. Condition 13 prohibited me from putting the website back online, but Condition 12 of the Holmes order and Condition 4 of the Phillips order only required me to take the website down within a duration of time following my release. If Condition 12 of the Holmes order and Condition 4 of the Phillips order required me to keep the website down for the entire duration of the period of probation then it would have been completely pointless for Phillips to impose Condition 4 because Condition 12 of the Holmes order was still in effect and would remain so for long after the Phillips order would expire. This was all covered in my Reply Factum Appellant's Reply Factum, ¶1, but you will notice the BCCA makes no mention of that. The prosecution's and the BCCA supposed interpretation is moronic and idiotic and downright retarded! There is absolutely no way they could be so mentally deficient that they actually believe what they are saying.
And there's just a bunch more shit the BCCA lied about in their Reasons for Judgment, but rather than refuting each of those here I will just refer you to the page for their RFJ, becuase it already contains all of my commentary with links to the evidence proving they are completely and utterly full of shit!
Needless to say, the BCCA basically ignored my arguments which easily proved the prosecution's arguments were bunk, and they dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.
Nothing spectacular here, just your typical, everyday arrest of a smart ass being sarcasting with the police.
Recording of the arrest
This interrogation is classic. I was so fed up I just didn't give a shit. Throughout the entire interview I was sarcastic, indifferent, and insulted the prosecutors and judges as much as I could.
Video of the complete interrogation
If you have the time, I highly recommend watching this video. If you ever want to know how to deal with a police interrogation, this will teach you everything you need to know.
There is an interesting exchange that occurs between myself and Dent, starting at about 0:38:53 (through 0:40:18) in the video where I express my true feelings for the BC Prosecution Service and the BC judges - go ahead, have a look. And my thoughts on Crown Counsel Mark Myhre (0:16:15 - 0:16:33).
Audio of the complete interrogation (I recommend watching the video instead, it's much funnier)
This appearance was held in my absense. It's amazing what the judges will say, on the record, when the defendant isn't present. During this appearance, Rideout said to Johnson that he assumes I refused to cooperate with the psychiatrist for the court ordered psychiatric assessment. And Johnson responds that he's also making that assumption. But in reality, it is either the court or Johnson who failed to schedule the assessment. I never refused to cooperate because the assessment never happened because one of these jackasses dropped the ball.
At this appearance, Johnson admits on the record, that the real reason they're prosecuting me is because the disclosure material keeps ending up on the internet. Not because of any perceived harm to Capuano, and not because they're interested in enforcing a probation order.
In this notice of appeal, I raised a number of grounds, including:
