Probation Violation Case (2021), re: Refusing to Take Down the Website

As always, Johnson told a bunch of lies and misrepresented as many statements and facts as he could. For example, Johnson falsely claimed:

• That during the Tanino interrogation, the police asked me to show them the email I sent to editor@desicapuano.con and that I refused to do so TR p4l6-10. But in fact, the police did not request that. They only requested I provide them the passwords to my phone and laptop so they could access my emails in my absence.
• That on the first case (244069-2-KC) from 2016, I was charged with seven offenses TR p7l44-45. But in reality, I was initially charged with three offenses, but the most serious charge (unlawful exportation of firearms, knowing it to be unlawful (CCC s. 103) was subsequently withdrawn by the prosecution when I pointed out to them that it stated on the RCMP's own website that no authorization was required for me to export my firearms to the US Importing and Exporting Firearms page, on RCMP website.
• That I was convicted of possession of a firearm (CCC s. 91) TR p7l47-p8l1. Which means I possessed a firearm without having a valid firearms license. However, I was actually charged with possession of a firearm at an unauthorized place (CCC s. 93), which means I was permitted to possess the firearm; I just wasn't authorized to have it at the particular location. Section 91 is a much more serious charge then section 93.
• That I was in possession of a firearm while attempting to enter the US TR p8l11-14. Which actually wouldn't have violated any laws, but it creates the false impression I'm dangerous and was trying to sneak firearms into the US so I could shoot Capuano.
• That the evidence obtained by the police, in the course of their investigations, establishes that I and I alone am the one running the website TR p12l7-10. However, Dent admitted during cross-examination at the previous trial and at the trial in this matter, that the police have not done any investigation into who actually owns and controls the website, and that he is not aware of any evidence in that regard TR 2020-11-26 p16l27-38; TR 2022-02-23 p62l47-p64l1.

So let's have a look at the masterful skills of defense lawyer Susan Daniells, shall we.

You will immediately notice that Daniells doesn't present any of her arguments as facts. Everything is prefaced with "Mr. Fox tells me...", or "According to Mr. Fox..." TR p5l21; p5l32. What the fuck is that about? Is she actually trying to make her arguments as weak as possible. It's the most basic knowledge that arguments be presented with confidence, with certainty. By phrasing her arguments in this way, what she's telling the judge is that she, herself, does not necessarily believe what I've told her. Moreover, she's creating the impression that what she's saying are not facts - they're just completely unverified claims made by a defendant who clearly has something to gain by lying. This is the worst presentation of legal arguments I've seen since the last time I used a Legal Aid funded lawyer (i.e. Chester Bridal).

No joke, Daniells' entire arguments consisted of her saying I told her: I was born in Florida; I've been in Canada since 2013; I have a degree in Computer Science from UCLA; I have "in the past" worked as a software engineer; and that although I created the site, I I no longer have the capability or authority to shut it down. But wait, she then said that would be up to the administrator acting under my direction TR p6l5-7!

By that point I'd had enough of listening to her blatantly sabotaging the hearing. I took over my own defense. I think she realized I saw that she was a useless blob because she sat there without saying a word for the rest of the hearing.

But was Daniells actually colluding with the prosecutor to ensure I'd be denied bail, or is she a completely incompetent, useless tool who can't argue her way out of a wet paper bag? I don't know. Maybe both.

Given Daniells' dismal performance in representing my interests, I decided to take over my defense.

I pointed out that I had relinquished control of the website to another party prior to the probation orders coming into effect and, for that reason, I have had no control or influence over the site since I've been on probation. I also pointed out that since I've been on probation, the prosection has never once provided a single piece of evidence that I have had any involvement with the site TR p6l22-29.

I openly admitted my reason for transferring the website to another party was so that I could not be compelled to shut it down TR p6l34-44. Generally, the prosecutors and judges take that as me trying to skirt the probation conditions. However, it's no different than if a person had a probation condition prohibiting him from possessing weapons, so before the probation order came into effect he gave (or sold) all his weapons to another party with the expectation of taking (or buying) them back after the probation order expires. Yet the prosecutors and judges wouldn't bat an eye at that, it would be perfectly acceptable because once the order expires he would be perfectly free to possess weapons again. Likewise, in this case, once the probation orders expire I am perfectly free to run the website and publish whatever I want about Capuano again.

And, of course, I corrected a number of the errors or false claims Johnson had made.

When we reconvened, Johnson told the court he had checked the hard drive and that none of the files were encrypted, that he was able to access the contents of each file on the hard drive, including the MP4 videos TR p3l32-35; p4l3-7; p4l16-17; p8l1-11.

But then, Johnson went on to say, on the record, that "perhaps Mr. Fox isn't being forthright" (which is lawyer-speak for "Mr. Fox is lying") TR 2021-10-14 p4l10-11. Well, let me tell you, upon hearing this sleazy, lying prick suggest, on the record, that I'm the one lying, I was livid!

I very calmly and politely insisted that Johnson bring a laptop into the courtroom, that we plug the hard drive into it, and expose in open court, on the record, who's actually lying about this TR 2021-10-14 p4l39-45. Johnson was visibly shaken by this proposal. If the judge were to agree to it, or if I were to pull a laptop out of my legal box, and I plug the hard drive in, it would publicly expose, irrefutably, that Johnson was lying not only in court, but to the court, and doing so while acting as an agent of the Crown Counsel and an officer of the court. That would be very not good for him, for the Crown Counsel, or for the entire justice system.

Johnson regained his composure, then responded "I don't think that's necessary, because we just did that." TR p5l5-6 What total bullshit! Obviously one of us is lying, and I'm the one saying the proof is right here so let's show it in this recorded, public forum and prove which one of us is telling the truth. Obviously he is the one that's lying, so how can we possibly believe him when he says "we just did that" in another room where no one saw us?

And as livid as I was before, I was fuming now. I told Johnson he had just, essentially, accused me of lying about the files being encrypted, so let's prove, right here in front of the judge, with the DARS running, which of us is the liar TR p5l7-8. Of course, I said it in a much more diplomatic way.

BC lawyers and judges are not used to people standing up to them, or calling out their bullshit, in open court. The three sides (prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges) all basically spend their time licking each other's asses. So when some pissant, self-represented jackass who actually appears to have the intellect and knowledge to effectively run his case comes right out and says the prosecutor or the judge is lying, and that he has the proof of it in hand, they tend to shit their pants.

So, while proverbially soiling himself, Johnson claims he isn't suggesting I'm not being forthright TR p5l12-13, even though he literally just said "what I'm going to suggest is ... that Mr. Fox isn't being forthright." TR p4l8-11. I mean, that is literally and exactly what he just said! And now, less than two minutes later, he's claiming he didn't say that.

Johnson and the judge were then eager to change the topic away from Johnson and the BCPS being caught engaging in misconduct and lying about it on the record. So Johnson says, it seems to him, based on what I'm saying, that what's important to me is that I'm able to access my disclosure TR p5l19-21. Is he retarded? Insane? There is absolutely nothing I have said which should have given him that impression. I have been shockingly clear that what's important to me is proving he's a lying sack of shit. It should be obvious that he's desparately trying to change the focus.

I concisely responded "I disagree" TR p5l22.

The judge affirmed Johnson's suggestion that what's important is that I'm able to access my disclosure material, then asked me what it is that I disagree with TR p5l25-28.

I told her, though in somewhat less direct language, that what's important right now is not that I can access my disclosure, but proving that Johnson and the BCPS are corrupt and full of shit, that they have no regard for the truth or respect for the law. That they are horrible, despicable, sleazy, douchebags who should be hanged in the town square TR p5l29-40. But, of course, I was much more diplomatic in my diction.

The judge then falsely claimed the scope of a judge's authority in a criminal proceeding is limited to the allegations against the accused, and that matters such as prosecutorial misconduct are not something the criminal court judge is authorized to address TR p6l3-10. That is more total bullshit! A criminal court judge most certainly has the authority to, for example, stay (dismiss) the charges if she finds that the prosecution has engaged in misconduct. Never assume, for even a second, that a BC judge won't lie to your face just as easily and frequently as a BC prosecutor would.

Dent testified about ordering the surveillance of me following my release from custody. He said I was observed at Starbucks, using my phone TR 2022-02-23 p33l6-34. Whoop-de-fucking-doo, right? And later, on cross, I questioned Dent about the surveillance. I asked him what the purpose of the surveillance was, and he responded it was to find out where I'd be staying. I asked him, "Did it ever occur to you to simply ask me?" Dent responded, "No, it did not." TR p77l39-p78l5 What a fucking dumbass.

Dent also falsely testified that I stated in an affidavit, prior to my release, that I was not going to be taking down the website TR p32l37-41. However, on cross, Dent admitted he had not seen the affidavit, he had no knowledge of what was actually stated in the affidavit, and that he was merely told that by Deputy Regional Crown Counsel Patti Tomasson TR p35l46-p36l6. If that's the case, why would Tomasson lie about what was in my affidavit? Because she's an evil, frigid, psychopathic, feminist who hates me because I refuse to cower before her and kiss her ass. No kidding, the BC prosecutors really are that petty.

Otherwise, Dent testified that Meiklejohn had monitored the website and that it was "still" online after five days TR p34l30-44. However, Meiklejohn had testified that she had no knowledge of whether the website had remained online during that entire period of time. Only that it was online at the precise moments she checked it once each day. Again, this is significant because I was charged with failing to take the website down, not with putting it back online.

On cross, Dent testified that three days after my release, the website was "still" online TR p36l18-19. However, on further questioning, he admitted his only source for that information was Catherine Meiklejohn TR p36l21-24. But Meiklejohn had already testified that she had no knowledge of whether or not the website had been taken offline for any duration of time between the few brief times she had checked it TR p5l19-p6l10; p7l35-40. On other words, Dent had no knowledge of whether the website was still online or whether it had been taken down then put back online. And that is a very significant distinction because I was only charged with failing to take the website offline.

I then directly asked Dent whether he had any evidence about whether or not the website had been take down at any point within the 48 hours following my release. He responded, he did not TR p36l29-33.

I asked Dent, if I had taken down the website within 48 hours of my release would I have been in compliance with the condition I am charged with violating. The judge interrupted and stated that's a question of law, for her to answer, not the detective TR p37l13-21. So I rephrased the question as: If the website had been taken down within 48 hours of my release, would he have come and arrested me? Dent responded that in that case I would have complied with the condition so, no, he would not have come and arrested me TR p37l24-29. It's interesting that when I first asked the question, the judge did not allow Dent to answer, saying that's a question of the judge to decide; so I asked the same question a different way, and then she allows Dent to answer it. Very weird.

First, I drew Dent's attention to the point where Johnson had asked him whether he had asked me whether I had taken down the website, and Dent had responded "I did". Dent agreed he had said that TR p41l11-17, p41l28-30. I then turned to my cross-examination of Dent at that trial, where I had asked him whether the topic of me taking down the website had even come up at all during the interrogation, and he had responded "I don't believe I had asked you if you had taken down the website..." TR p44l2-28.

At that moment, Dent realized he was on record lying on the witness stand. He became extremely evasive. I tried to get him to admit he had lied on the witness stand but he kept bobbing and weaving, desperately trying not to commit to an answer which could, potentially, ruin his career as a detective TR p44l32-p45l18. But I persisted. I would not let it go.

Perhaps Dent realized I wasn't going to move on from the topic. He started rambling nonsense, irrelevant stuff that had nothing to do with anything TR p45l19-p46l5. Until, eventually, he acknowledged: "I told him, yes. You're absolutely right. I probably should not have answered that yes." TR p46l5-7.

Having admitted to lying on the witness stand, I wanted to make sure the point was not missed by the judge. I asked Dent: Are you now saying that that response you gave to the prosecutor was not correct? Dent was, of course, very evasive again. He tried twisting his words around. He claimed he had asked me multiple times, during the interrogation, who has access to the website TR p46l12-28. But that, of course, doesn't answer my question.

Upon Dent's admission he had lied at my previous trial, the judge said and did nothing. And that's what it looks like when a BC law enforcement officer gets caught lying on the witness stand, then actually admits he lied on the witness stand. Nothing! The judges ignore it. No mention of it in her later Reasons for Judgment.

Following Dent's preceding admission to lying on the witness stand at my prior trial, I asked him about his notes, which he had relied on while testifying at that trial.

Earlier, I had asked Dent if he had referred to his notes when he testified at my prior trial that he had asked me if I had taken down the website. After reviewing the transcript of his testimony from that trial, he agreed that he had referred to his notes when he testified that he had asked me if I had taken down the website TR p43l13-46.

Now, I point out to Dent that when he testified at that trial that he had not asked me about taking down the website, he also said he was referring to his notes TR p46l32-p47l1.

I say that Dent had provided two contradictory responses, both times claiming his response was based on his notes of the interrogation. I very sarcastically asked him: Are you saying your notes changed between the time when the prosecutor asked you and when I asked you? Dent responded, his notes did not change TR p47l8-15. Keep in mind, we're talking about notes which were written at the time of the interrogation, and which become evidence in the criminal proceeding. For those notes to somehow change in the midst of the trial, in the few hour window between when Dent testified on direct and when he testified on cross, would amount to evidence tampering.

So, even though Dent didn't directly admit to lying about his notes, clearly either his notes changed (which means he tampered with evidence); or he lied about what was in his notes; or the laws of physics and reality no longer exist and reality is whatever each individual wants it to be from one moment to the next.

Next, I presented Dent with yet another contradiction in his testimony from my previous trial.

Dent had testified that he had personal, first-hand knowledge of the website being online more than 48 hours following my release from custody. But in his testimony, he explicitly stated, repeatedly, that the website was "still" online. Meaning it had remained online, continuously, from the time of my release up to the time he accessed it a month later. He claimed to have personal knowledge of it being so TR p47l46-p48l22.

But then I pointed Dent to the next part of the transcript, where I questioned him on whether he had any knowledge of the website actually remaining online, continuously, during that period of time and he responded that he had no knowledge of that TR p48l23-p49l21. I mean, either he had personal knowledge of it, or he didn't. The two options are obviously mutually exclusive. And at that point, Johnson quickly rose and objected to the question, claiming it's misleading. Johnson said I am comparing apples to oranges. He either pretended to be misunderstanding what I was asking, or he's an idiot and really was misunderstanding. In my experience with Johnson, either one might be true because he is a compulsive liar and a bit of an idiot.

But then the judge jumped on the idiocy bandwagon and also pretended to (or really did) misunderstand what I was getting at. She said she understood what I was getting at, that first he said it was still up, but then he admitted he couldn't say if it was up continuously. As if "still up" and "up continuously" were two different things. But they're not! In the context which Dent was using it, "still" means "always, continuously" Merriam-Webster still (adverb), (2)(a).

Some time later, after question Dent on his and Johnson's deliberate misrepresentation of the statements I made during Dent's 2020 interrogation of me, Dent was excused from the witness stand so I, Johnson, and the judge could address some concerns the judge seemed to be having with my line of questioning.

While Dent was out of the courtroom, at one point the judge actually said "I haven't heard any glaring examples of where he [Dent] was knowingly untruthful that would affect his cridibility..." TR p56l10-12. Say what! Dent himself admitted that he had knowingly made false statements in his testimony at my previous trial! Is Denhoff on crack? Are the BC justice system participants in such an advanced state of denial and self-righteousness that they refuse to realize they're lying, even as they're admitting they're lying?

Denhoff then went on to say:

...unless you have some concrete examples of him [Dent] being untruthful, the fact that he may have been mistaken in his testimony, or that he failed to tell the court that you may have been sarcastic when you said something, I'm not sure that that's all that helpful for me in assessing the witness.

TR 2022-02-23 p56l25-33

Concrete examples!?!? What the fuck does she call the last 20 minutes of cross-examination?

To wrap up my cross-examination of Dent, I asked him again, as directly as possible, who owns the website. He responded he doesn't know. I asked him who has administrative control over the website. He responded he doesn't know. I asked him if I have control of the website. He responded he doesn't know TR p62l47-p63l8. Hmm. Pretty fucking clear, right? There's no evidence and no knowledge that I have any control over the website. And if I don't have any control over the website, then how can I be expected to shut down the website?

I then asked Dent whether he had been in contact with the hosting provider to verify whether I have any association with the hosting account. He responded that he had not TR p63l14-18. How can this be? I'm accused of failing to shut down a website and yet the police have not even bothered to determine whether or not I'm even the person that put, and is keeping, the website online?

I asked Dent why they have not put any investigation into determining whether I even have anything to do with the website. He responded, at length, that the purpose of the investigation was that the website was still active, not about who has ownership or administrative access to it TR p63l21-34. So I asked him: Wouldn't it be critical to the charge, to establish that I even have the ability to do what the probation condition required? He responded, yes TR p63l44-p64l1. In other words, before it could be said that I violated the probation condition by failing to take down the website, it first must be proven that I even have the physical capability and legal authority to take down the website! But of course, that didn't stop the police from arresting me, or the prosecutors from prosecuting me. Canadian justice at it's finest.

I next turned to the list of highlights from the interrogation in the current matter. The list which Tanino had testified Dent wrote. I wanted to ask Dent about the point where it says "He stated that he e-mailed his friend who is running the website...". Because I most certainly did not say anything remotely along the lines of the person running the website being a friend of mine.

Dent was extremely evasive on the question of who actually wrote that bullet point. He would say Tanino provided him a summary and he put that into his report. Then he said Tanino provided him a "task action report" (TAR) and he put the points from that into his report. I asked him: Did Tanino write these points? To which he responded, he wrote the narrative. Why is it so fucking hard to get a straight answer from this asshole? So finally, I asked Dent: If I had a question about what's in this list would I have to address those to Tanino or to you? But even then he tried to avoid answering. He just kept saying he wrote the narrative, but the list items came from Tanino's TAR, but he wouldn't say whether the wording of those list items was his words or Tanino's words TR p66l1-p67l29. Either he was trying to protect Tanino, or he was trying to cover his own ass. Based on my experience with this greasy bastard, I would assume the latter.

Some time later, though, when questioning Dent on an indirectly related matter, he was so concerned about evading those questions, that he inadvertently admitted it was him who wrote the bullet points in the list of highlights TR p71l13-14.

It's very curious that Dent was so concerned about not admitting he wrote those points. I wonder why.

So, much later in the cross-examination, I returned to this point of Dent claiming I said I emailed my "friend who is running the website" TR 2022-02-23 p85l24-45. And at that point, Dent finally directly admitted that the statement was false TR p85l46-p86l7.

And then, after soem back and forth, I asked Dent if he agrees then, that I never said anything about knowing the person that's currently running the website, and he responded "I also see that you still have the intention of taking the website back." But what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Why is it so impossible for this tub-o-lard lunchbox to just answer the fucking questions? You see, this is a strong indication that he's lying. A person who's being honest doesn't have to play all these evasion games.

Later, I asked Dent about when he testified at the previous trial and he said, on direct, he had reviewed the previous file TR 2020-11-26 p6l35-36. So, in his testimony in the current matter, he clarified that he had misspoke at the previous trial and what he meant was that he reviewed the file in that matter TR 2022-02-23 p69l5-p69l31.

The problem with that, though, is that when I was cross-examining him at the previous trial, he testified that he did not review the file TR 2020-11-26 p21l47. So was he lying when he said he had reviewed the file or was he lying when he said he had not reviewed the file? Who knows with this slippery prick, he contradicts himself almost as much as Capuano.

I then moved on to questioning Dent about the search of my laptop. Initially, Johnson objected to this, claiming it's not relevant becuase he was not relying on anything from the laptop. The judge agreed with him TR p73l11-15. But I went ahead with it anyway because proving the VPD's incompetence was one of my objectives.

Dent vaguely acknowledged that the DFU had only searched the Windows partition on the laptop.

The laptop was configured as a dual-boot, with a 200GB Windows partition and an 800GB Linux partition. Windows was only on there for the extremely rare case where I might need to run a program which is only available Windows. I've never actually used it on that laptop (other than to boot it one time and run a couple tests to make sure it was working). I always use openSUSE Linux or Solaris on my laptops.

Nancy Yingling in the DFU didn't even realize the machine was configured with dual-boot. She had no idea there was a Linux partition. All she noticed was the little Windows partition. And she was so incompetent she didn't even notice it was a 1TB drive but only 200GB appeared to be partitioned. It never occurred to her that 800GB appeared to be unaccounted for. And as for Dent, as he admitted, he had no idea what I was talking about TR p74l8-p76l8.

You would think the Vancouver Police Department's Digital Forensics Unit would have some technical people who realize there are more operating systems than just Windows and OS X. But then, considering the extent of their technical training is basically attending a few basic seminars, and they have a complete inability to do anything beyond the strict sequence of steps they've been trained to do, I supposed it's understandable.

It's illegal in Canada to advise a person on how to commit or get away with a criminal offense, so I would certainly never do that (while I'm physically present within Canada), but it sure seems to me if criminals wanted to make sure the Canadian police could not access their data all they'd have to do is use Linux (or any other Unix-like system) and, for additional certainty, create the filesystems encrypted (which Linux natively supports). But again, I'm not advising anyone ... I'm just stating an observation.

I questioned Dent on what efforts were made to verify whether I had actually sent that email to editor@desicapuano.com. I asked him if they had applied for a search warrant, production order, or subpoena to access my Gmail account. Dent admitted none of that was done, no effort was made to access my Gmail account. I asked, why not? Dent responded that the decision was made to search the laptop and, since they didn't find anything on there, nothing further was done TR p76l40-p77l4.

This proves that the police, working under the direction of the BC Prosecution Service, were informed of the existence of exculpatory evidence which would effectively prove my innocence, made a very deliberate decision NOT to make any effort to find or verify that exculpatory evidence.

You might argue, well why didn't I try to obtain that evidence? Because I was in custody and didn't have access to the internet, or to any resources outside the jail. And you might also argue that it's not the prosecutor's and the police's responsibility to seek out exculpatory evidence for the defendant. Sure, but they didn't have to "seek it out", I told them exactly where they could find it. THEY made the choice NOT to obtain it because it would have destroyed their case.

Then, further proving my point that the police and prosecutors only seek out evidence to support the allegations, and knowingly ignore evidence which might disprove them, Johnson unwittingly admitted that with a Gmail account the messages are stored on the server, not on the user's devices TR p77l20-26.

We then turned our focus the the VPD's Digital Forensics Unit's "Forensic Acquisition Summary" report. This is where things really go bad for Johnson and Dent.

I start by asking Dent whether he reviews the material from the VPD before it is disclosed to me. He responded, typically no TR p78l9-13. That seemed somewhat peculiar to me since he's the Lead Investigator, he's the one on the case who is ultimately responsible for what happens with respect to the police involvement.

Dent initially claimed to be unaware of what a "forensic acquisition summary" was, so I presented him a copy of it. Upon a cursory review, Dent acknowledged he was familiar with it TR p78l6-8; p78l29-32; p78l40-45.

But after looking at it a little more closely, he realized it contained a few pages of confidential disclosure material, containing evidence of a sensitive nature, from another of Dent's cases. The erroneous pages contained, amongst other things, the full name and address of the victim in that other case. It was a stalking case, where the defendant had allegedly threatened the victim and her friends with physical harm, set the victim's mother's house and car on fire, poured caustic chemicals under the door of the victim's neighbor/friend, and lingered for prolonged periods outside the door to the victim's apartment.

Upon realizing this severe blunder on the parts of the VPD and the Crown Counsel, Dent said:

I'm just going to make a quick comment here. I'm reviewing this document and everything looks apparent except for this last page.

That's in relation to another one of my files that has absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever and I'm shocked that this was included in this file.

To which I slyly responded:

Right. That was going to be one of the questions I was going to ask about, is why somebody else's disclosure material is included in my disclosure?

I say I "slyly responded" because I had been scheming this for some time. The eroneous material had been provided to me on 2021-11-09, almost three months prior, and I sat on it quietly. I did not inform Johnson or the VPD of it. I intended to wait until Dent (and/or Yingling) were on the witness stand, then confronting them with it on the record. That way, they wouldn't be able to take the disclosure back, delete the erroneous pages, then deny it ever happened. Also, that way, with Dent on the stand, he would have to answer my questions about how it's possible that someone else's disclosure could possibly get past Yingling, then Dent, then Johnson, unnoticed.

In typical Detective Kyle Dent fashion, he wasted no time in putting the blame on someone else. He said that's a question I would need to ask of Yingling TR p79l12-18. However, even though it may have been Yingling who inadvertently added the pages to my disclosure, Dent was the Lead Investigator so he is ultimately responsible for ensuring something like this doesn't happen.

Dent went on to reiterate that he can guarantee there was nothing relevant between me and that other case TR p79l18-21. No fucking shit, Sherlock! My concern and interest isn't in how that other case relates to mine, it's how the fuck someone else's extremely sensitive and private information ended up mixed in with mine and how no one in the VPD or the BCPS didn't notice.

I told Dent, "Oh no, I understand that has absolutely nothing to do with my case and no relevance. I am curious though, is this something that happens often?" To which Dent responded: "I really hope not."

Having proven and exposed this phenomenal blunder on the parts of the VPD and BCPS, I moved on with my cross-examination of Dent.

Then, some time later, perhaps 20 minutes or so, I don't know, Johnson interrupted to bring up the erroneous disclosure again. He asked the judge if the pages could be removed from the disclosure since they don't relate to my case. The judge agreed that the pages should be removed from the evidence and shredded TR p83l35-p84l16.

Dent then asked if that was the only copy I had of the erroneous material. He was clearly very, very worried about being involved in giving me someone else's material TR p84l17-18. He, Johnson, and the judge kept trying to downplay the significance of the fuck-up, by saying the issue is that it has no relevance to my case TR p84l25-26, rather than acknowledging that the police and the prosecutors have a very strict obligation to ensure the privacy of an accused person's disclosure material and, much more so, the privacy of a so-called "vulnerable victim". Yeah, they really, really fucked up big time giving me the information of a woman who was being stalked, threatened and terrorized by an unhinged psychopath.

The judge asked me if I have any other copies of the material. I told her I do not have any other copies in my possession or control, but I pointed out to her that apparently one of the disclosure hard drives the prosecutor had provided me has "disappeared" TR p84l30-39. I'm neither admitting nor denying any knowledge of that lost hard drive, but I can say that all of the material which was on those drives is now on this website. Coincidence?

One interesting thing which came up, was the timing of the search of my laptop. The warrant to search the laptop was valid from 2021-08-19 through 2021-09-02 Warrant to Search, a two week period. The laptop was removed from the locker and the contents of the Windows partition was extracted on 2021-08-24 and 2021-08-25 DFU Report. Then, Dent actually searched through the data on 2021-10-13 DFU Report - almost six weeks after the warrant had expired.

When I questioned Dent about this, he testified that a search of electronic devices is considered executed when the data is extracted from the device, onto VPD's system, not when the actual search of that extracted data occurs TR p80l41-p81l17.

This is significant because in my next case/trial (244069-10-BC), the VPD didn't even extract the data from my phone until about three weeks after the warrant had expired and, in that case, the prosecutor (Tara Laker) argued that the dates on the warrant applied only to when the police could remove the device from their secure locker and bring it to the DFU. And that as long as that was done within the times on the warrant, then the data could be extracted and searched at any time, which completely contradicts what Dent and Johnson are saying here. Of course, Laker did not have a single case law to support that and the judge was clearly skeptical, but in usual Canadian legal tradition, the judge ruled in favor the prosecution anyway, and found the search of the phone legal. Just another example of how Canadian judges and prosecutors only apply the law when it's consistent with the ruling they want to make.

I then questioned Dent on the statement in his report, where he said:

The website was written in the first person and was made with the purpose of posting defamatory and in most cases, false information about Capuano.

I asked him if he believed that to be true TR p82l17-29. If he responded "yes", then I would inquire what that belief was based on, and he would have to admit it's based on absolutely nothing. If he responded "no", then he'd be admitting to lying in his reports.

Not suprisingly, Dent was evasive. He responded that he obtained the information from the "background of events", and he included it because it seemed relevant TR p82l30-38. That doesn't answer my question at all. The question was whether he believed it to be true, not where he obtained or whether it was relevant. What is wrong with this guy? Is he brain damaged? Or is he doing like compulsive liars do when they're lying and they're trying to avoid having to admit they're lying?

I asked him: So, you thought it relevant to include, without any consideration for the accuracy or correctness of the information? He responded that it had already been tried in court TR p82l39-42. Do you see how utterly brain-dead these Canadian justice system participants are? If a court makes a "finding" about something, then it becomes an unquestionable fact which they would never even think to consider, no matter what or how much physical proof is shown. If the court made a "finding" that Detective Kyle Dent was not real, did not exist, Dent would blindly accept that and refuse to even consider that his actual existence proved that "finding" is false. Now imagine a society where such moronic, delusional idiots actually had the power to lock you in a concrete cell indefinitely.

I corrected Dent, that in fact, the question of whether the information on the website was true had never been addressed by any court TR p82l43-45.

I said to Dent: So I assume from that response, that you've never actually found any false or incorrect information on the website TR p82l47-p83l3. If he had, he would have said so. That's how jackasses like Dent think. If their response will harm the defendant, they'll give a clear, direct answer; but if their response might help the defendant, they'll be as evasive as possible and try everything to not have to answer the question. There is absolutely nothing decent or honorable about that. Just tell the fucking truth!!!

Dent's response was that he had not investigated the website TR p83l4. Okay, so if he had not investigated the website then he must not have found any false information on it. Right? Which means he had no knowledge of, and no basis for making, that statement in his report. He is admitting that his report is, essentially, gossip.

Dent then acknowledged he had only looked at a few pages of the website, but in those pages he did not find any false information TR p83l5-19.

At that point, the judge interjected, saying we've strayed from the issue before the court TR p83l20-27. Well, phooey on her, but I disagree. From my perspective, the whole point of this trial was getting this shit-for-brains on the witness stand and confronting him with all of these things that I have been. What the fuck would I care about proving my innocence on a breach of probation charge for refusing to take down the website?

I asked Dent if he deliberately misrepresented my statements from his interrogation of me at the previous trial. He denied that he did. So I asked him, if while he was testifying at that trial, he believed the sarcastic and satirical statements I made during the interrogation were actually true. He once again became evasive and refused to give a direct answer. He responded that it's not his role to say whether or not I was lying TR p89l35-p90l6. Once again, that doesn't actually answer my question, so I told him what I'm asking is whether he believed my statements were true, not whether they were actually serious TR p90l9-11. The issue of whether he believed the statements were serious is critical because he presented them to the court as being serious, so if he didn't actually believe I was serious then he was lying, he was knowingly misrepresenting my statements.

And again, Dent's incredible efforts at being evasive on this point strongly suggests he's lying.

At this point, the judge interjected again, saying it's not relevant because it's up to her to decide if someone is lying. She said, otherwise she's relying on someone else to tell her whether they think the person is truthful TR p90l12-22. Clearly, Denhoff is just as much of an idiot as Dent because I very clearly stated, the question is not about whether I was being truthful but whether Dent believed I was being truthful.

How can you possibly expect justice from a justice system where the administrators of justice are dumb as rocks?

Denhoff also said: Certainly at the previous trial it would have been open to me to challenge Dent on the accuracy of his representations of my statements TR p90l29-34. Sure, except that that asshole, Johnson, withheld all the disclosure until three days before the trial so there was no way I could be prepared to cross-examine Dent. And then when the late disclosure was brought up to that other asshole, Judge Gregory Rideout, he said I should have raised the issue sooner and the start of the trial is not an appropriate time to raise disclosure issues. Except that that same asshole, Johnson, refused to schedule a pretrial conference as I had requested, so that we could address the outstanding disclosure issues TR p4l26-41!

At one point, during my cross-examination of Dent, the judge actually stated that the prosecution is only required to prove that I failed to do what the probation order required me to do, and that the prosecution was not required to prove I had the physical capability or the legal authority to do what the probation order required TR p89l20-29.

However that's insane because it places an impossible burden on me. In order to prove I have no association with the website I would need the cooperation of either the hosting provider or the person who IS currently running the website. On the other hand, if I actually was the one running the website, it would be very easy for the police and prosecutors to prove. Of course, they would also need the cooperation of the hosting provider, but they could always compel that with a subpoena or production order.

First Johnson tried to get me to acknowledge I had been convicted of criminal harassment.

I responded that I was, in fact, convicted, but that there is a copious amount of proof on the website that Capuano committed extensive perjury at that trial, that the prosecutor at that trial knew she was committing perjury, and that there was excessive misconduct on the part of the trial prosecutor TR p105l4-14. Johnson ignored everything beyond my acknowledgement of being convicted.

Johnson next tried to get me to acknowledge I had appealed and that the appeal was "unsuccessful". I responded that the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute because I was in custody and did not have access to the legal research material I required to argue it TR p105l15-21.

I told Johnson it is misleading to say the appeal was "unsuccessful" because that suggests it was decided on it's merits, which was not the case. Johnson responded: "I didn't suggest anything. I'm just suggesting that it was not successful" TR p105l24-34. Yes, that is correct, he actually said "I didn't suggest anything. I'm just suggesting...". You might be wondering, how is it possible that he's "not suggesting" at exactly the same time that he's "just suggesting"? Who the fuck knows. He's a BC lawyer, he and reality have nothing to do with each other.

And again, Johnson completely ignored everything I said, other than my acknowledgement that the appeal was "not successful". Not because he's a very good lawyer and he stayed focussed on the issue he was pursuing, but because he's a wind up monkey who only knows to bang his cymbols together because that's all he's been hard-coded to do. Any input which falls outside the boundaries of what he's expecting to hear just sounds like white noise to him.

Johnson then asked a bunch of pointless, irrelevant questions regarding my prior convictions and sentences. Eventually, I got annoyed with this stupid time wasting and pointed out that none of what he's asking about is in dispute TR p105l35-p106l16. It was all documented in the JUSTIN report he was reviewing with me. He could simply have asked me if everything on it was correct.

Of course, I realize this is a tactic - he thinks that by dragging it out it makes it seem more significant, larger than it really is. Even though the questions have no relevance to the question of guilt, they create the impression of bad character on my part.

If his audience (the judge) consists of complete morons then that would be true. But if his audience has even the tiniest amount of intelligence, then he's just being annoyingly redundant. So is he doing this because he believes Denhoff is a moron? Or because he's a moron?

Johnson questioned me on my statements to Judge Nancy Phillips, at my prior trial. In particular, Johnson read from the transcript of the sentencing proceedings in that matter, where I said:

...with respect to the probation condition about taking down the website, with all due respect to everybody who is here, there is absolutely no way the website is going to come down on my release from custody...

I responded that I do agree I said that. I went on to point out that because I don't have ownership or control over the website, locking me up or punishing me for the website being online is not going to make whoever is running it take it down TR p109l18-p109l46. This is especially so since the person keeping the website online was doing so expressly to cause me to be arrested and imprisoned. In that respect, punishing me is only going to encourage them to keep it online.

When Johnson summarized my statements, he falsely claimed I also said "If I need to transfer ownership of the website to another party, so that I technically don't own it at the time, so be it." Which I have said, in other contexts, in the past; but did not say during the Phillips trial/sentencing TR p110l13-16.

Next, Johnson questioned me on the letter I sent to VPD Detective Jennifer Fontana, who was the Lead Investigator on 244069-6-B.

But before Johnson could ask me any questions, I stated that at the time of writing the letter, I was actively seeking to convince the BCPS to prosecute me for criminal harassment based on the website being back online TR p111l8-11. That is to say, I was deliberately antagonizing the police and the BCPS so they would prosecute me for criminal harassment. And so the truthfulness of any of the statements made in the letter is questionable.

Johnson then tried, in vain, to get me to say the reason I wanted to be prosecuted again for criminal harassment was so that I could cross-examine Capuano TR p112l10-14. And I do believe Johnson is such a simple minded fool that he actually does beleive that.

I told Johnson that was only part of it, and that the important thing is that if there was another criminal harassment trial I would be able to bring up all the proof of the perjury and corruption that occurred at the first trial TR p112l15-25. And that, of course, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

After cross-examining me on the letter I had sent to Detective Fontana, Johnson requested it be admitted as an exhibit and the judge proceeded to admit it without asking if I had any objection to it TR p114l15-32. Now, it should be pointed out, I did actually already state an objection to the letter based it it's lack of relevance to the current allegations TR p112l40-42, but Denhoff completely ignored that.

Then, after admitting the letter as a trial exhibit, Denhoff asked if I have any objection to it being admitted as an exhibit. I responded "Oh, yes, yes...". Then Denhoff cut me off and said "Okay, thank you" and she told Johnson to proceed TR p115l3-7.

This is an issue I raised on appeal, and the prosecution argued that Denhoff had phrased her question as a negative, saying "So, you have no objection to that being Exhibit 1, Mr. Fox?", and by responding "Yes", I was saying I have no objection. While they would be technically correct, given the context of Denhoff's question it is reasonable that I would have understood it as "So, do you have any objection to that being Exhibit 1, Mr. Fox?"

After admitting the Fontana letter as an exhibit, Johnson requested I return to him the copy he gave me to reference during the cross-examination TR p114l34-35.

I responded that since it is now an exhibit shouldn't I be allowed to keep a copy. The judge asked, "Does he not have a copy?" Johnson falsely claimed I did have a copy TR p114l36-39.

I was in no mood for any more of this sleazy, lying bastard's nonsense so I assertively stated "Really? Where?" Johnson said it's "referenced in some of the materials that you have", then he probably realized the idiocy of requesting I not be permitted to keep a copy of: a) a letter I wrote; and b) a document which had been admitted as an exhibit; and he said he doesn't really object to me having a copy TR p114l40-47.

I really am astounded sometimes that such an imbecile can be such a highly regarded criminal defense lawyer.

Now that Johnson was finished with cross-examining me about the letter I sent Fontana, I point out that the physical evidence actually proves that any admissions I may have made in the letter, or otherwise, could not have been true.

I also point out that the physical evidence supports what I am stating on the witness stand, even though that contradicts what I had said to the police. And finally, I say that I believe the physical evidence far outweighs anything people may say TR p115l27-37.

The physical evidence I am referring to is, of course, that I was in custody during the times the things I've admitted to occurred. And in custody, I did not have any access to the internet. Therefore, I couldn't have done the things I admitted to doing, such as putting the desicapuano.com website online.

Johnson later asked me if I am now disagreeing that I created the website which was accessible at desicapuano.com TR p119l30-33. And although he phrased it as "created", I'm sure what he meant was "published" or "made publicly accessible" since the website was actually "created" in 2014. The website wasn't created in 2018, it was simply put back online after being offline for a short period of time.

I responded that right now, under oath, I am saying I had no direct involvement with the website being put back online. And I again pointed out the fact that I was in custody at the time it was put back online fairly proves that must be true TR p119l39-p120l1.

Johnson tried to get me to admit I gave control of the website to my friend Munoz TR p120l35-38. What he was trying to lead me into was admitting that since the person who currently has control of the website is a friend of mine then I would have been able to ask her to shut it down and she would.

But Johnson's strategy was stupid because, as I explained, I never actually gave Munoz control of the website - she had it all along. Because Munoz was the one that put the website back online in 2018, she had control of it right from the beginning. I never had control of it, so I couldn't give her control of it TR p120l39-42.

I had control of the original website hosting plan, prior to my arrest in May 2016, and I had given Munoz control of that website. But that website went offline in 2018 and the "new" website was subsequently put online. That "new" website was put online while I was in custody. Which means I never had control of it, Munoz did. And the allegations in this case are about the "new" website, not the original one.

Later Johnson tried to get me to admit there's more I could have done, other than sending the email to editor@desicapuano.com TR p123l25-37. But when you get right down to it, he's just not that smart. As I pointed out to him, I had only been out of custody for five days, and we're talking about a website I have no ownership, control, or influence over. Moreover, although I didn't yet bring this up at that point of the cross-examination, the person who was keeping the website online at that time was doing so expressly to cause my arrest and imprisonment. So there was absolutely no way they were going to take it down.

I went on to reiterate that I have no control over the website, and also that there are other copies of the website online which I also have no control over TR p123l38-p124l2.

Johnson then said "That's not the question I'm asking you, Mr. Fox." TR p124l3-13

But, in fact, that is exactly the question he was asking me! His question, though phrased as a statement, was that there was much more I could have done. And my response was that I believe I did everything which was within my capabilities. How is that not a response to the substance of his question? Do you still doubt that Chris Johnson is as much of any idiot as I keep saying he is?

Johnson persisted in claiming there was more I could have done to cause the website to be shut down. I responded that I do not agree with him. And I told him if there's more I could have done then tell me, specifically, what more I could have done, and the next time I'm accused of not taking down the website I will do those things TR p124l15-22. Obviously, the beefy-tits retard had no comeback for that.

Later, Johnson claimed, or as he put it he "suggested" to me, that it would be a very easy thing for me to remove the website, but that I adamantly refuse to do so. I responded that I understand that is a "suggestion" he's making and he's entitled to make that or any other suggestion, but is there a question he wanted me to respond to? TR p126l4-10

Johnson responded, "It's a question". I pointed out he stated "I'm suggesting...", and asked "So, if it's a question, what exactly is the question?" TR p126l11-13.

Apparently, the judge did not see the humor in this and interrupted, telling me he's made an assertion that it would be very easy for the me to remove the website but that I adamantly refuse to do so TR p126l14-16. Simply repeating the same statement Johnson just made does not cause that statement to become a question, dumbass! So what the fuck is the question?

I tell Johnson, if that is the case, if it would be so easy for me to take down the website, then just tell me what he thinks I could have done to cause the website to be shut down TR p126l17-21. Denhoff interrupted me again, and told me now is the time for me to answer questions, not to ask them TR p126l20-36. What a load of shit! So this jackoff prosecutor is "suggesting" there is more I could have done and that if I had done that then I would not have been charged, and yet he's refusing to say what more he believes I could have done. You know why he's refusing to say what more I could have done? Because he knows there's nothing more I could have done! And you know why the judge is not allowimg me to ask him that? Because she, also, knows there's nothing more I could have done. Bloody jackasses!

Johnson tried to get me to say I'm a Canadian citizen, and not an American citizen. He asked me if I agree that I've been denied admission to the US because I'm not a US citizen and am actually a Canadian citizen TR p125l31-35.

Obviously, I started by objecting to the question because it could not possibly have any relevance to the issues at the trial. The judge ignored my objection. I went on to explain that I had been denied admission on certain occasions due to there being a removal order from the US Immigration Court, but that that removal order is contradicted by the fact that I have a US birth certificate which means that I am, and must be a US citizen TR p125l36-46.

Johnson asked again, if I agree I was refused entry to the US. I responded I have been denied admission to the US, but I have also been denied admission to Canada TR p125l47-p126l3.

Later, after I was finished testifying, I also pointed out that even though I was denied admission to the US on two occasions because I proactively informed CBP or Border Patrol that I had been previously removed, there have been many, many times I was granted admission to the US TR p132l3-13. I also reiterated that I have, on multiple occasions, also been denied admission to Canada TR p132l17-20.

But as I said, none of this has any relevance to any of the issues on trial. Moreover, Johnson even admitted he does not intend to use any information about my citizenship TR p132l28-30. So why the fuck was jerky boy asking about ... and why the fuck is psycho-judge allowing him to?

Even though I testified, Johnson presented his closing arguments first. Usually, if the defense presents evidence, then the defense provides it's closing arguments first. And if the defense doesn't present evidence then the prosecution provides it's closing arguments first.

The defense presenting it's closing arguments first puts it at a disadvantage because it doesn't know what claims the prosecution is going to make in it's closing arguments. So, allowing me to go after Johnson benefited me by enabling me to respond to points Johnson raised in his closing which I may not have anticipated.

And then, Johnson went on to admit that he's not in a position to say whether or not I did access the site, but that the clear inference from my own statements, and my admission that I intend to take back control of it after my probation ends, is that I am able to exercise some measure of control over it TR p134l23-33. But his reasoning is, once again, grossly flawed, because the statements he's referring to were from three years prior. Even if I did have control over the website at the time those statements were made, that does not mean I still had control of the website at the time of my release in August 2021. And my statements about taking back control of the website after my probation ends on 2022-08-11, also don't mean that I have any control over the website prior to that time.

And that concluded Johnson's closing arguments.

I started by responding to some of Johnson's arguments. I pointed out, yet again, that my statements about taking back control of the website after the probation ends is meaningless TR p135l12-23. I also pointed out that, contrary to what Johnson was claiming, my statements at this time about not knowing who is currently running the website is consistent with what I have stated previously TR p135l40-p136l5.

In her RFJ, Denhoff stated:

The crown called a civilian analyst with the Vancouver Police Department who testified that she checked the website www.desicapuano.com on August 12, 13, 14 and 15, 2021 and it was accessible and active on each of those days.

RFJ ¶4

But that same analyst, Catherine Meiklejohn, also testified on cross, that she only checked the website once on each of those days, and that she has no knowledge of whether the website remained online, continuously, between each of those times she checked it, or if it had been taken down at any point other than when she checked it TR 2022-02-23 p5l19–p6l10. Denhoff made no mention of these critical facts and admissions in her RFJ.

Denhoff went on to say:

On August 15, 2021, the analyst accessed the website at 6:10pm and it was still active and accessible, which was more than 48 hours after Mr. Fox's release from custody. (emphasis added)

RFJ ¶4

Again, Denhoff ignored the fact that Miklejohn admitted she had no knowledge of whether the website had been taken down at any point following my release from custody. She only knew it was accessible at that one moment each day when she checked it.

This is significant because Meiklejohn and Denhoff cannot claim the website was "still" active – "still" means it was active continuously; that it had not been taken offline at any point following my release from custody. And that is significant for the reasons explained above.

Denhoff then falsely stated, at paragraph 6 of her RFJ:

Mr. Fox further stated that he transferred ownership and control of the website so he would not be obligated to take it down in accordance with the probation order. (emphasis added)

RFJ ¶6

That is incorrect! I said "…so I couldn't be compelled to take it down" TR 2022-02-23 p19l17-18; TR 2020-08-17 p10l32-p11l1. There is a significant difference between "would not be obligated" and "could not be compelled".

What's the difference, you ask? The end result of the two is the same. Either way, I deliberately created a situation whereby the Canadian justice system would not be able to legally make me do what they ordered me to do. The difference is the way Denhoff phrased it sounds nefarious; the way I phrased it sounds like I was just exercising my rights within the bounds imposed by the Canadian Criminal Code.

But more significantly, the problem is that Denhoff claimed I said "...would not be obligated...". She misrepresented my statement. And because that's what got published in her RFJ, it is now a fact that I said exactly what she said I said ... even though I didn't.

Since the only part of the trial which gets officially published is the judge's Reasons for Judgment, not the transcripts, as far as the whole world, and every other prosecutor and judge, is concerned what Denhoff said I said is what I said. In the Canadian legal system, reality is not what actually happened, it's whatever the judge said happened.

At paragraph 7 of her RFJ, Denhoff falsely claimed:

When Mr. Fox was asked if he had access to the website, he stated that he would not answer the question.

RFJ ¶7

That is completely false! I unequivocally and directly stated I do not have access to the website TR 2022-02-23 p20l1-9; TR 2021-08-17 p10l21-23.

This is an excellent example of Denhoff blatantly lying in her Reasons for Judgment - the only record of the trial which gets officially published. In the Canadian criminal justice system, transcripts and disclosure material are never made public (except, of course, in my cases because I refuse to lie down and do nothing while these corrput, lying bastards destroy my life by publishing lies about me), so the judges and prosecutors lie indiscriminately, making up the so-called "facts" of the case as they see fit. In this instance, Denhoff is actually claiming the exact opposite of what actually happened!

At paragraph 7 Denhoff also grossly misrepresented my statements and the evidence:

Although Mr. Fox said he would provide a copy of that email at a later date, he did not ever do so, even though his laptop was made available in the courtroom during the trial and he could have accessed the email.

RFJ ¶7

But actually, I had told Tanino I would provide her a copy of the email once I'm released from custody, because I don't have access to email at NFPC TR 2022-02-23 p28l46–p29l4). That is why I still had not sent her a copy of the email – I was still in custody.

Denhoff's statement, "...evn though his laptop was made available in the courtroom..." is disturbing because I was very clear in court about why I chose not to utilize the laptop in the trial – that would open the laptop and possibly my entire email account, to inspection by the prosecution and/or the police. It may have resulted in Denhoff ordering me to provide the encryption passwords to the police TR 2022-02-25 p128l43–p129l8. This was said while I was still testifying, so it's evidence, not just arguments. Moreover, accessing the email would have nothing to do with that specific laptop because, as Johnson admitted, gmail emails are stored on the server, not on the laptop TR 2022-02-23 p77l20-26. Any computer with internet access could have been used. The laptop seized by the police was completely irrelevant regarding that email.

And finally, it was Johnson's and Denhoff's position that I am the one that had control of the website so even if I provided them access to that email, they would have said it's meaningless because I was just sending an email to myself.

As an aside, I did actually forward a copy of that email to Tanino after I was released from custody, just as I had said I would email to Det. Tanino.

And continuing with her theme of compulsive lying in paragraph 7, Denhoff further sates:

Mr. Fox claims that he did not access the email in the courtroom because he did not want the police to have access to all of his computer content in the courtroom.

RFJ ¶7

In fact, I did not say I didn't want to access the email for that reason. I said I didn't want to use the laptop as evidence in the trial for that reason TR 2022-02-25 p128l43–p129l8.

The email could have been accessed from any computer which could connect to the internet because gmail stores the messages on the server, as was discussed in the trial and admitted to by Johnson TR 2022-02-23 p77l20-26. So either Denhoff wasn't paying attention to what was going on in the trial, or she's a complete moron ... or perhaps she's just a sociopathic, compulsive liar.

And yet again in paragraph 7, Denhoff further lied:

However, by that time, the police had already searched the computer.

RFJ ¶7

Denhoff's implication is that since the police already searched the laptop, my excuse that I didn't want to have to provide the police access to all of the data on the laptop, was not credible.

However, once again, either Denhoff wasn't listening to anything that was going on during the trial, or she was making a concerted effort to ignore any evidence that supported my claims.

The police only searched the small, unused Windows partition. They didn't even know I used Linux on the laptop and that there was another, encrypted Linux partition TR 2022-02-23 p74l47–p76l10; p92l23-32.

Denhoff also falsely claimed:

Mr. Fox could have asked for the court's permission to access the email on his laptop himself in order to show it to the court without the police seeing the other content.

RFJ ¶7

However that is just silly nonsense! The moment I would have used the laptop to access the email, Johnson would have said he has no knowledge of the authenticity of the contents of the laptop and that the Crown/police must be permitted to inspect it for themselves so they can rebut it. That would have resulted in Denhoff ordering me to provide the encryption passwords. If I refused, Denhoff would say I was the one that sought to enter the laptop as evidence and now that I have it's too late back out.

I believe this was just a ploy to trick me into making the laptop evidence in the trial so I would have to disclose the passwords.

And again, since the email was stored on Google's server, there was absolutely no reason I would have to use that specific laptop to access it. Moreover, since it was Johnson's and Denhoff's belief that I owned and/or controlled the website, the email wouldn't have mattered because Johnson would have claimed it was, essentially, an email from me to myself, that I was editor@desicapuano.com.

At paragraph 11 of her RFJ, Denhoff said:

During his testimony, Mr. Fox contradicted his earlier statements about transferring ownership and control of the website www.desicapuano.com.

RFJ ¶11

But as I stated in my testimony, regardless of any "admissions" I may have made to the police, the indisputable fact that I was in custody at FRCC when the website went online irrefutably proves that I could not, possibly, have had any involvement in putting it online – I had no access to the internet or to the content TR 2022-02-25 p115l27-37. And, when Johnson asked me if it is now my "evidence" that I did not create the website, I stated "right now, under oath, subject to being charged with perjury and having sworn that … everything that I say is true … I say I had no direct involvement in putting that website online…", and I point out that that's proven by the fact that I was in custody at FRCC at the time TR 2022-02-25 p119l30–p120l1.

Since the actual, physical evidence and reality is consistent with my testimony and contrary to my statements to the police, then that can only mean I was telling the truth on the stand and lying to the police.

This is another example of the BC judges refusing to consider reality and the fundamental laws of physics when making their so-called "findings".

At paragraph 14 of her RFJ, Denhoff claimed:

He was also able to say that there had been updates to the website in the last year and a half, which means that he must have been accessing it during that time.

RFJ ¶14

However, Denhoff's characterization of my statements is completely incorrect. I was able to see that there had been updates to the site because those updates were publicly accessible. Everyone in the world had such access. It did not mean I (or they) had administrative access to the site.

The judge misconstrued the significance of my statement about there being updates over the past year and a half. My point was that the updates were made while I was in custody and didn't have access to the internet, so I could not have been involved with those updates. In other words, that proves that someone else is making the updates TR 2022-02-25 p102l46–p103l3. I even clearly stated "…while I've been in custody so, clearly, somebody is doing something with the site."

In a ridiculously obtuse display of ineptitude, Denhoff actually stated the following in her Reasons:

Mr. Fox claimed he told Cst. Dent in 2020 and Cst. Tanino in 2021 that he transferred ownership and control of the website because it was 'simpler' than telling them that Ms. Munoz launched the new website of her own volition. That explanation is not compelling.

[16] It is in no way simpler to say that he transferred ownership and control. It is, however, more incriminating, which Mr. Fox obviously realized before testifying in court.

RFJ ¶15-16

Denhoff is ignoring the much more significant reasons I gave for why I provided that explanation to the police, namely "…I was very actively seeking to convince the BCPS to prosecute me for criminal harassment based on the new website. And in fact, even to this day, I would still do everything that I can to try to convince the BCPS to prosecute me for criminal harassment based on this new website" TR 2022-02-25 p111l9-15. And, "…that if I had said in the letter [to Fontana] that my friend had arranged for the website to be put back online with no involvement or … not in response to a request from me, that would mean I would have nothing to do with the website and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted for criminal harassment based on it" TR 2022-02-25 p113l8-15.

If the police already have a belief about something then making a statement or "admission" which is consistent with that belief will, generally, be accepted by them without further inquiry or investigation. Whereas, if I had made a statement contrary to their belief they would have continued to interrogate me on it until I said something to discredit the statement, or they would simply not believe it and refuse to pursue or accept any evidence which would support the statement – which is exactly what happened in this case, with the email I sent to editor@desicapuano.com (the police didn't believe I sent the email, and if I did it would have been exculpatory, so the police made no real attempt to verify it). So, in that respect, it IS easier to say what the police, prosecutors, and judges already believe, than to say the truth when the truth is contrary to what they believe. Consider these Reasons for Judgment – how frequently Denhoff completely ignored or claimed to not believe any of my statements which were not consistent with the guilty verdict she wanted to impose – yet she accepts and completely believes, without a second thought, any of my statements which ARE consistent with a guilty verdict, even though those statements could not, possibly, be true.

Moreover, it is no more or less incriminating to say I put the website online then transferred control to a another party; or to say I never had control in the first place; because the events in question occurred before any of the probation orders came into effect. Whether one thing occurred or the other, I wasn't on probation at the time and so whether I put the website up then transferred it, or whether someone else put it up and I never actually had control of it, either way I couldn't have possibly breached probation because I wasn't on probation.

Denhoff continued with her misguided and idiotic assumptions:

It is simply absurd to suggest that Ms. Munoz, who is not in regular contact with Mr. Fox, would pay for a website that is entirely related to Mr. Fox's harassment of Ms. Capuano and Mr. Fox's criticisms of his legal processes.

RFJ ¶18

This is a patently incorrect inference on the part of Denhoff. There is nothing in the record to support it.

First: The cost of keeping the website online is about $17 per month. That is so negligible it barely warrants consideration. That's less than a cup of coffee every other day. This fact did not come up in the trial. Neither Denhoff nor Johnson inquired.

Second: Ms. Munoz filled the maternal role in Gabriel's life for much of his childhood. Ms. Munoz was devastated when Capuano showed up out of the blue, took Gabriel away to Arizona, took very deliberate steps to have me deported to Canada, then immediately and completely cut Ms. Munoz out of Gabriel's life. None of this was discussed at the trial either. If Denhoff had doubts about the plausibility of my testimony about Ms. Munoz's willingness to put any resources into keeping the website online she should have given me the opportunity to explain, rather than drawing false inferences.

Third: the time and effort required to maintain a website like desicapuano.com is, literally, almost completely nil. The website can go months without ANY intervention at all.

Fourth: it was never stated or implied at the trial, that Ms. Munoz had any ongoing involvement in the website beyond putting it back online in 2018. This is an inference that Denhoff is making but it's based on absolutely nothing at all.

Fifth: the website is not based on my harassment of Capuano. It's based on exposing all the bad conduct Capuano has engaged in over her life – such as abducting Gabriel and stealing him away from all the people he considered family, like Ms. Munoz. If the website constituted harassment then the BCPS, or police, or Capuano herself would be able to obtain a US injunction to compel the hosting provider to take it down. Not to mention, if it was harassment then the BCPS would prosecute me for that again.

Sixth: regarding Denhoff's reference to "Mr. Fox's criticisms of his legal processes", there is, in fact, copious physical evidence on this website which supports and even clearly proves all of my claims of corruption and misconduct that has been occurring in my cases. And not one person in the BCPS or the Ministry of Attorney General or the Ministry of Justice has denied any of my claims. This is relevant because it is due to that corruption and misconduct that I had been repeatedly prosecuted and imprisoned for the past seven years, and thereby cut off from my son and repeatedly and consistently defamed in the Canadian news media.

Seventh: this statement by Denhoff contradicts her later statement in paragraph 25, that I could have contacted Munoz and asked her to take down the site, or provided her information to the police. If Denhoff believes it is simply absurd to suggest Munoz was keeping the site online, then why does she later claim one of the things I could have done to cause the website to be no longer available is to contact Munoz? Either Denhoff is full of shit here or she's full of shit in paragraph 25.

As mentioned above, first Denhoff claimed it was "simply absurd" to suggest Munoz had been keeping the website online while I was in custody, but then, at paragraph 25, she completely contradicts that by claiming:

Therefore, he could have contacted Ms. Munoz to regain control of it upon his release from custody and ensured it was no longer available.

RFJ ¶25

How is it possible that, on the one hand, Denhoff does not belive Munoz was keeping the website online for me; while concurrently believing, on the other hand, that I could have contacted Munoz to take back control of the website? The latter would mean Munoz had control of the website. Which would mean she was the one keeping it online.

The two beliefs stated by Denhoff, in her Reasons for Judgment, are mutually exclusive. At least one of them had to have been false!

And in the Canadian justice system, every statement expressed by a judge in a RFJ becomes an indisputable "fact", it becomes the "reality" upon which every subsequent decision is based. But how is it possible that reality can be both black and white simultaneously? IT CAN'T!!! The BC lawyers and judges are deranged, delusional, psychopathic, retards who are incapable of realizing that what they accept as truth and reality is, in fact, necessarily impossible to exist. They are beyond idiotic. Even a five year old child knows that something cannot be both wet and dry at the same time.

And let's consider, for a moment: What would Munoz have to do with anything? She just made the arrangements for it to be put back online three years ago. She had no further involvement beyond that. There was no indication provided in the trial that Munoz's involvement went beyond arranging to put the site online in 2018.

Believe it or not, there was actually more supposed misunderstanding on Denhoff's part:

His apparent purpose was to force Ms. Capuano to testify and for him to be able to cross-examine her on what he claimed were her lies in a previous trial before Justice Holmes.

RFJ ¶18

Denhoff is cherry picking only the parts from my testimony and explanations which will appear to support the prosecution's case while ignoring everything else. Johnson was trying to get me to admit that the purpose of my letter to Det. Fontana was to try to instigate another criminal harassment prosecution so I could cross-examine Capuano. However, I had stated "…the important point though is that if I were to be prosecuted for criminal harassment again, based on the current or new website, that would necessarily bring up or draw attention to all of the corruption and misconduct and the perjury that occurred at the first trial and that would be the objective of that" TR 2022-02-25 p112l19-25.

In Johnson's direct-examination of Det. Tanino, he asked her if I made any statements about my goal of bringing the justice system into disrepute. Tanino read from the transcript of the interview where I explained my plan and intention of bringing the justice system into disrepute and exposing the corruption in the justice system by either forcing a new criminal harassment prosecution or by the Crown's persistent refusal to pursue a new criminal harassment prosecution TR 2022-02-23 p16l35–p18l10.

Given the preceding two sections, it is unfathomable that Denhoff would think my goal of being prosecuted for criminal harassment would be, primarily, to cross-examine Capuano. That would only be a means to the end of exposing the corruption and bringing the system into disrepute.

In that letter, Mr. Fox was making a clear admission that he launched, owned and controlled the website www.desicapuano.com.

RFJ ¶20

However, it is indisputable that I was in custody at FRCC at the time, which means I did not have access to the internet or to the material for the website. It would, literally, have been impossible for me to launch or have any access to the website, and more importantly, to the hosting account. My admissions to the police were indisputably and irrefutable false. I pointed that out during my testimony, so Denhoff knew it was so.

During sentencing submissions, Denhoff claimed she had believed I, and inmates in general, have access to the internet from within BC Corrections facilities TR 2022-02-25 p143l44–p46l43. This is a major, major issue because it means during my testimony and while preparing her Reasons for Judgment Denhoff believed I had access to the internet, including the ability to publish and maintain the website and to forward the editor@desicapuano.com email at any point. The moment Denhoff realized I, in fact, did not have access to the internet she should have either vacated the verdict and reconsidered it, or declared a mistrial.

I don't really believe Denhoff thought I had access to the internet, though, because that was referred to repeatedly throughout the trial, including during my cross-examination of Det. Tanino TR 2022-02-23 p28l47-p29l35. I believe Denhoff just used that as an excuse to justify her otherwise outrageous verdict. Either that, or she wasn't even paying attention during critical parts of the trial.

Denhoff then went on to say:

First he argued that there is no evidence that he owns or has control over the website. As noted Mr. Fox admitted to Cst. Fontana, in a letter dated June 6, 2019 that he published the new website and engaged in criminal harassment. (emphasis added)

RFJ ¶21

A rational and even minimally intelligent, sane person would realize that what I had admitted to was physically impossible and would not be so moronic as to base her decision on it. Really! This whole thing is like me confessing to murdering the easter bunny and raping the tooth fairy, being prosecuted for it, and the judge relying on that admission as proof that I must be guilty of it. The fact that the easter bunny and the tooth fairy are not real is irrelevant to Denhoff and Johnson. I admitted to the rape and murder and therefore there is no question I am guilty. Right?

And, I most certainly DID NOT admit to engaging in criminal harassment. What I said was that if such conduct constituted criminal harassment at the time of the criminal harassment trial then it must constitute criminal harassment now letter to Fontana. The implication being that the Crown's adamant refusal to prosecute me for criminal harassment based on the current website proves that the website does NOT constitute criminal harassment.

Consistent with her idiotic misunderstandings of the facts and her inability to comprehend reality, Denhoff mistakenly claimed:

…Mr. Fox told both Cst. Tanino and Cst. Dent that he would take the website back when his probation ended, indicating he has retained control over the website.

RFJ ¶21

However, it indicates nothing of the sort. Once I take it back, then I will have control over it, but until that time I do not.

If you relinquish ownership and control of something to another party with the understanding that at some point in the future, when certain requirements are met, they may give it back to you, then until that time comes it is no longer yours. You have no claim to it, not control over it, no right or authority to destroy it.

For example, if I give somebody my jacket with the understanding that if the day ever comes they no longer want it they'll offer it to me before they offer it to someone else, well then it's no longer my jacket. It now belongs to that other person. And he may, or may not give it back to me at some point in the future. But I can't, legally, take it back from him without his consent – it's no longer my property. Just because I may believe he will give it back to me at some future time does not make it mine, nor does it give me any control over the jacket. And, in the meantime, that third-party is entitled to do as he pleases with the jacket. Same fucking idea, jackasses!

Am I alone in believing there is no way Denhoff, a person who has risen in the legal system to the level of a judge, can possible be this stupid?

As if all that delusional nonsense Denhoff had already spewed in her Reasons for Judgment wasn't enough, she then claimed it had already been established that I did have control over the website:

Mr. Fox also argues that the Crown has not proven that the website was not taken down by him within 48 hours of his release and then reposted by someone else. That argument fails because, as already discussed, Mr. Fox retained control over the website and could have taken back the management of it at any time. (emphasis added)

RFJ ¶22

Denhoff repeatedly claims I retained control of the website but she has not cited any evidence to support that. The letter to Fontana was written in 2019, so even if my admission were true at that time it doesn't mean I still had control of the site two years later.

The miserable witch later went on to say:

Even if I were to believe that Mr. Fox only told the police he launched the website so he would be charged with harassment, which I do not accept, Mr. Fox clearly maintained control over the website. (emhpasis added)

RFJ ¶25

Again, Denhoff is insisting I "clearly maintained control over the website" but again, there was absolutely no evidence to support that! Dent clearly testified he had no knowledge of whether I had any ownership, control over, or involvement in the website.

Then, at the end of her RFJ, Denhoff again asserts:

Mr. Fox had control of the website www.desicapuano.com within 48 hours of his release and continuing past that time, as he repeatedly boasted to the police.

RFJ ¶29

And yet again, that is patently false! And I certainly never "boasted" or even stated I had ANY involvement with the website subsequent to my probation orders coming into effect on 2018-12-30.

As was very clearly established during the trial, through both my own and Tanino's testimony, the police never gave me the option of providing them access to the email I had sent to editor@desicapuano.com. They only gave me the option of providing them the passwords to my phone and laptop, which would have given them full access to all of my data.

But even though that was clearly established, it didn't stop Denhoff from falsely claiming the following in her published Reasons for Judgment:

To begin with, I do not believe that Mr. Fox sent an email to the editor of the website. Mr. Fox refused to produce the email to the police when asked and also failed to offer to produce the email when his laptop was available in court during the trial.

RFJ ¶23

As for my reasons for not relying on the laptop in the trial, they are stated above and Denhoff was well aware of them. Nevertheless, she makes no mention of those reasons - probably because they were completely reasonable and sensible.

As for Denhoff stating she does not believe I sent the email, that's fine. She's entitled to have whatever misguided, unfounded beliefs she chooses. But if she's going to use that as a basis to convict a person and send them to prison, by God she better have some fucking legitimate basis for that belief!

If he was not successful in persuading Ms. Munoz to take down the website, he could have provided her name and contact information to the police so the police could have made a request to Ms. Munoz. He did not do so, either because he actually owns the website, not Ms. Munoz, or because he did not want the website to be taken down.

RFJ ¶26

Again, Denhoff is being idiotic. I never said Munoz has anything at all to do with the website. There would be no reason for me to contact her about it. Likewise, there would be no reason for me to give her information to the police.

Moreover, she's a US citizen who is not in Canada and has no connection to Canada – the Canadian police and courts mean absolutely nothing to her and they have no authority or jurisdiction over her.

As for me not wanting the website to be taken down, that is absolutely correct, but that doesn't mean I failed to comply with the condition.

And then, the miserable, lying, skank actually had the audacity to claim:

…Mr. Fox argues that he was not obligated to do anything with the website after 48 hours after his release from custody…

RFJ ¶27

That is absolutely false! I argued nothing if the sort. Go ahead, search the transcripts. Show me where I said anything remotely similar to this.

How is it possible that the people of Canada can be so delusionally self-righteous that they can criticize other countries for having unfair and corrupt justice systems, while so steadfastly refusing to realize their own country is doing the exact same bullshit?

The whole point of having a society speak a common language is so that people can communicate and exchange useful information. When people start making up their own definitions of words those words become meaningless. We all accept what the word "table" means, but if someone decides "table" to him means what everybody else refers to as "chair", then trying to communicate with such a person becomes pretty, fucking, chaotic when he asks you to take your bag off the "table" even though your bag is on the chair.

So, in her RFJ Denhoff decided to apply her own meaning to the phrase "no longer available":

The term 'no longer available' has the ordinary meaning of being available in the past but not continuing to be available.

RFJ ¶28

But Denhoff is wrong! "No longer available" does mean that the thing WAS previously available then transitioned to NOT being available – but it DOES NOT mean that the thing will REMAIN unavailable for any duration of time.

The probation condition explicitly DOES NOT state that once the website was made no longer available it must remain as such for the duration of the order. It only stated that I must engage in particular, though unarticulated, conduct to cause it to change from being available to being not available. The probation order did not state for how long, or how often, I must engage in the act of "taking all necessary steps…". Therefore, executing it one time would fulfill the requirement.

I'd also like to point out, Denhoff's definition of "no longer available" completely contradicts Judge Nancy Phillips' and Chris Johnson's definition from 244069-6-B. Tell me how a person can be expected to comply with a court order when the judges and prosecutors keep changing the definitions of the phrases used in those orders.

And now, this next part is where shit really gets fucking crazy.

So, Johnson requested a condition requiring me to take down the website within 72 hours of my release from custody on the current sentence TR 2022-02-25 p143l24-32. And Denhoff responds, asking if there's a reason I can't comply with that condition while I'm in custody? Why I should be permitted to wait until the end of my prison sentence and I'm released TR 2022-02-25 p143l44-45? Then there was some back and forth about whether I have access to the internet from within custody, and more spineless ass-kissing by Johnson. And at one point, Denhoff actually said, literally, I'm not exaggerating: "...why am I asking for him to remove the website within 72 hours of his release? Why wouldn't I ask him to do it within 48 hours of now..." TR 2022-02-25 p144l13-16.

At that point, I ran out of patience and educated these incompetent buffoons on the law. I interrupt their obnoxious game of polite groin-tickle and tell the judge that a probation order doesn't come into effect until the accused completes his prison sentence and is released from custody TR 2022-02-25 p144l25-27.

Once again, I have to ask: How the fuck can a Provincial Court judge, who presides over criminal proceedings and issues probation orders on a daily basis NOT know this fucking shit? It's a statute in the fucking Canadian Criminal Code, for fuck sakes s. 732.2(1)(b). Have these fucking yahoo judges even read the God damned criminal code? Or is the crazy bitch hoping I won't know s. 732.2(1)(b) and she's trying to impose an illegal sentence on me?

During the discussion about why she shouldn't just illegally impose the probation the probation conditions on my immediately, Denhoff further demonstrated her ignorance of legal matters by admitting she believed BC Corrections inmates actually had access to the internet from within the jails TR 2022-02-25 p143l44-p144l43.

This is extremely critical to Denhoff's guilty verdict because if I didn't have access to the internet while I was in custody then:

1. I didn't have access to my email, which means I couldn't have forwarded a copy of the email I sent to editor@desicapuano.com to Detective Tanino.
2. I couldn't have had access to the website, which means even if I had control over it, I didn't have the ability to take it offline while I was in custody.

Nevertheless, during this exchange between Denhoff and Johnson, Johnson directly tells her I don't have access to the internet from within jail TR 2022-02-25 p143l47-p144l4. And yet, Denhoff goes on about Justice Holmes' probation order, which had a condition prohibiting me from accessing the internet, having already expired TR 2022-02-25 p144l6-11, as if that makes any difference at all. I mean, if I don't have the physical capability to access the internet then what fucking difference could the Holmes probation condition possibly make?

So then, after Johnson confirms that no BC Corrections inmates have access to the internet, then Denhoff asks, why she would order me to take down the website following my release from custody in a few months; why not order me to take it down right now, since I have access to the internet TR 2022-02-25 p144l13-17? Seriousl, I kid you not. And so, Johnson again tells her that he doesn't believe I do have access to the internet.

Well, at this point, I just can't take any more of this stupidity. I cut them off and tell the judge that no inmates, none at all, not me, not a single inmate in any BC Corrections facilities has any access to the internet. I tell her it's strictly prohibited TR 2022-02-25 p144l21-23. And finally, this starts to penetrate her apparently ridiculously thick skull. Yet still, she finds the need to clarify: "And so, you're not able to receive or send emails at all?" And: "No inmates -- yes?" TR 2022-02-25 p144l32-35

Then, having just acknowledged that her guilty verdict was based on her false assumptions about me having had the ability to do certain things to prove my innocence, Denhoff tells Johnson to continue with his arguments. In any reasonable system of justice, such a realization by the judge would result in that judge declaring they must reevaluate their decision, in light of this new information. But not in Canada.

Once again, here's where shit really gets fucked up.

You remember, literally just moments ago, Johnson requested there be a condition requiring me to report to the probation department following my release, and then "as directed"?

Well, now this crazy motherfucking judge claims Johnson didn't request ongoing reporting! That he was only requesting I report one time, following my release from custody TR 2022-02-25 p145l46-p146l9. And to be certain, she then asked Johnson "That wasn't your intention that there be an ongoing requirement?" And that little lying cunt weasel, Johnson responds "No, that's correc" TR 2022-02-25 p146l10-13.

All I can say is: Fuck right off! It's been less than, like, four minutes, since the words:

And then I'd ask Your Honour to consider a reporting condition that ... he report to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova within 72 hours of your release and thereafter as and when directed.

TR 2022-02-25 p142l45-p143l2

dribbled out of Johnson's mouth. And yet, both he and the judge have the audacity to claim he never asked for an ongoing reporting requirement.

Once again, I find myself wondering, how the fuck any person can reasonably be expected to defend against a criminal charge in a system where the prosecutors and judges are not bound by things like reality and facts? Where a judge can make a ruling based not at all on what evidence and arguments were actually presented, but on whatever imaginary nonsense she decides to say was presented?

Denhoff then went on to clarify that I would only be required to report to the probation office within 72 hours of my release and only for the purpose of informing them of exactly what steps I have taken to ensure the website is "no longer available" TR 2022-02-25 p146l18-25.

And to make sure I was completely clear on what I would be required to do, I confirmed that I would only be required to report within the few days following my release, and then never again after that TR 2022-02-25 p146l26-29.

And Denhoff responded that, yes, I would only be required to report one time, within 72 hours of my release, and as long as I was able to tell the probation officer at that time what steps I have taken to ensure the website is no longer available, then I would not have to report again TR 2022-02-25 p146l30-43.

So, maybe you're thinking: "So what? Why is any of this so significant that I'm going on about it?" Because, in the next case (244069-10-BC), the probation officer and the BCPS are going to obtain a warrant for my arrest and prosecute me for failing to report a second time, even though Denhoff very, very clearly stated I would not be required to report a second time! And on that charge, I will sit in jail for a year waiting to be acquitted at trial. This are the bullshit games and tactics the petty, vile, disgusting prosecutors of the BCPS do.

Moving on, I asked Denhoff what's going to happen when I'm released and the website doesn't come down TR 2022-02-25 p146l44-47. Are we just going to start this whole process over again, with me spending another year in jail, like we're in some kind of infinit loop?

Denhoff responded that she had concluded I do have the ability to cause the website to be taken down TR 2022-02-25 p147l1-6.

I told Denhoff, regardless of whether she and Johnson accept it or not, the simple fact is I don't have control over the website and it is not going to come down TR 2022-02-25 p147l14-18. But pay close attention to the exact wording I used there. I did not say I would not take the website down; I said the website is not going to come down. That is, if I'm not the one keeping the website online, if say, Desiree or some group of angry feminists is keeping it online, in order to keep me perpetually imprisoned then how is ordering me to take it down going to make them take it down?

Bear in mind, a significant part of my defense has been that the police and the prosecution have consistently admitted they have no actual evidence that I've had any involvement with the website since I've been on probation. And one very real theory I had presented was that it may actually be Desiree herself, or any of her supporters, who are keeping the website online, for the very purpose of ensuring my perpetual imprisonment. Regardless of whether or not you, Johnson, or Denhoff believes that is the case, this is criminal trial, and the accused is looking at a potentially significant period of imprisonment. A judge in a criminal proceeding CAN NOT convict a person and send them to prison for a year based solely on her belief that the person is guilty! There MUST be evidence to support the prosecution's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt! That is the most fundamental requirement of a criminal justice system! Otherwise, that so-called "justice" system is no different than China, Saudi Arabia, or Russia.

Denhoff went on to explain that the intention of the probation order is to ensure, for the longest duration possible, that I not publish or allow any previously published material about Capuano to remain publicly accessible TR 2022-02-25 p147l43-p148l5.

And so again, we see that these delusion cumshots have absolutely no understanding of things like causation.

As I've said before, a probation order - or any court order for that matter - DOES NOT stop a person from doing something. It only enables the justice system to punish the person, after the fact, if they do what they were ordered not to do.

Ordering me not to publish information about Capuano does not, by some cosmic force, prevent me from publishing anything about Capuano. All it does is authorizes the government to commence criminal proceedings against me AFTER I've already gone ahead and published information about her.

I honestly beleive that these shitstains actually believe that by simply ordering a person to do or not do something that, in itself, somehow actually causes the person to do or not do what they were ordered. I believe these people truly do not understand the difference between "not permitted" to do something; and "can't" do something. A red traffic light may prohibit you from driving through an intersection at that moment, but it sure as fuck doesn't stop you from doing so.

Being that I have such little patience for stupidity, particularly when that stupidity manifests in someone who is supposed to hold some measure of intelligence, say for example, like a criminal court judge, I point out to Denhoff that I've been subject to these same probation conditions for over three years now and so far they have had exactly zero effect on anything. The website is still online and information continues to be published to it. I tell her I don't know why the prosecution, and by implication the court, would think that anything would be different because they are now imposing the same conditions yet again TR 2022-02-25 p148l20-27.

Denhoff responded that what will happen is my period of incarceration will continue to increase TR 2022-02-25 p148l29-32. Except that, my period of incarderation wasn't increasing. Denhoff pointed out, herself, that my previous sentence was 16.5 months and now the prosecution was only seeking 12 months. And, on the next case (244069-10-BC), I'm going to be sentenced to 15 months, which is still less than the 16.5 I got on the previous conviction for exactly the same thing. And not to mention, all that time in jail/prison doesn't seem to have made a single difference to my behavior or my willingness to keep the website online.

I then said that I oppose there being another probation order.

I told Denhoff I believe it'll be futile and a waste of everybody's time and effort. I further argued for a sentence of time served, because it is clear that any sentence, no matter how long, is not going to have any deterrent effect. I tell her it's really not going to make any difference whatsoever. I tell her no sentence is going to make me change my behavior. It's not going to make me do anything differently. But moreso, since I'm not the one keeping the website online, sentencing me to six months or one year or even four years is not gong to make someone else take down the website TR 2022-02-25 p148l38-p149l15.

There's nothing a judge likes more than to hear an accused say to her face, on the record in open court, that it doesn't matter how long she sends him to prison for, he's not going to stop doing what it is that the judge is trying to make him stop doing. Once again, I say: the BC justice system is powerless and impotent to make me take down the website.

All Denhoff could say in response to that was to reiterate that she's sentencing me because she believes I do have control over the website TR 2022-02-25 p149l16-22. Well toots, wishing it were so does not make it so.

Denhoff then said that the sentence she had in mind was much longer than what the prosecution was asking for.

She said she agrees with the long (three year) period of probation, given the "societal ill" they're trying to address TR 2022-02-25 p149l34-41. Now, consider that for a moment. I just told Denhoff that no duration of prison time is going to change anything, and that no probation order is going to have any effect on my behavior. I reminded her that I've now been subject to these same conditions for the past three years and they've had absolutely no effect. The website is still online.

So what does she do? She imposes the same conditions which, according to her and Johnson, I have completely ignored for the past three years. How are she and the BCPS anything other than either insane or completely retarded?

I asked Denhoff how much longer of a sentence she had in mind. Whether she was thinking of more than two years. She responded that she was thinking of two years, plus a three year probation order. I told her I would certainly be agreeable to two years because if the sentence is over two years then she can't impose a probation order. So she responded, it would be two years less a day, plus the three year probation order TR 2022-02-25 p150l1-11.

This is another example of Denhoff's ignorance of the law. The requirement that probation can only be imposed on a sentence of less than two years CCC s. 731(1)(b) applies to what's called the "effective sentence", that is, the duration of the sentence to be served as of the time of sentencing. It does not apply to the entire sentence imposed. So, as long as the duration of the sentence to be served, after giving credit for pre-sentencing time served, does not exceed two years then probation can be imposed.

And Denhoff's statement about "two years less a day" is also irrelevant because section 731 states "imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years". So a term of exactly two years would not exceed two years. With respect to probation, this whole "two years less a day" nonsense is unnecessary. Most Canadian judges don't even realize this. You would think knowledge of the law would be a requirement for being a judge, but apparently not.

Later, Denhoff falsely claims the website was the basis upon which I have been found guilty of criminally harassing Capuano RFS ¶11; ¶19. Which is false because, contrary to what Denhoff and every prosecutor has claimed since, Holmes never made a finding that the website by itself constituted harassment. Holmes only said the website combined with my email correspondence constituted harassment.

In the absence of any further communication with Desiree, there could be no harassment. Namely because a website is:

1. Public communication, targeted at the general public, not communication targeted at Capuano.

2. Passive communication which Desiree would have to explicitly seek out (that is, she would have to explicitly go to the website) in order to be "subjected to". A person cannot be harassed by another person's communication with a third party if they are knowingly and deliberately going out of their way to cause themselves to hear that communication.

   Holmes even alluded to this during the trial, after hearing the testimony and seeing the evidence. The prosecutor, Mark Myhre, was trying to argue that the content of the website constituted indirect communication because people who know Capuano would see it and tell her about it, but Holmes pointed out that that would be, at most, indirect communication with those other people, not with Capuano TR 2017-06-19 p59l25-p61l16.

Denhoff did acknowledge, at one point, that she does not believe any punishment will actually make me take down the website RFS ¶12. Though she was a little more ambiguous in her wording.

Nevertheless, I do agree with her on that. Since my first arrest in 2016, I have maintained that I will never take down the website. I have consistently declared that they can put me in jail for the rest of my life, but that website will remain. Apparently, they thought I was bluffing. Apparently, they thought if they keep locking me up then eventually I would give up and take it down. In September 2020, I posted an article declaring the BC justice system is impotent and powerless to make me take down the website. But here we are, more than ten years later, after having spent seven years in jail/prison, and the website is still online. So suck it, bitches!

Denhoff did point out the incredible idiocy of the prosecution, because they believe a longer probation order prohibiting me from publishing anything about Capuano will be more helpful in ensuring I will not continue to harass her, than would a longer prison sentence RFS ¶15.

First, a court order prohibiting a person from doing something doesn't actually prevent them from doing it, it only allows them to be punished after the fact, if they do it. So how would a probation order do anything at all to protect Capuano from anything?

Second, the same probation conditions have, thus far, for the past three years, done absolutely nothing to influence my behavior, so why on earth would the prosecutor think this time would be any different?

Denhoff then says, so far I have been entirely resistant to offers of rehabilitation through psychiatric assessment and treatment, and that I have been resistant to acknowledging responsibility RFS ¶18.

Except that I have consistently been completely open and willing to participating in any psychiatric assessments - as long as the sessions are recorded and a copy of the recordings are provided to me. It has been the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission (FPSC) who have refused to allow the sessions to be recorded. So it is the FPSC who is refusing to participate in a psych assessment, not me.

And why do you suppose the FPSC would refuse to allow the sessions to be recorded? Because, as their name suggests, they are a "forensic" organisation first and foremost. Their first purpose is to make diagnoses which the prosecutors and the judges can use to their benefit. And if the session is recorded, then the FPSC would not be able to twist, distort, and misrepresent what the patient says during that session.

And that is why, when I did the psych assessment as part of my probation on the criminal harassment sentence, I snuck a recorder in and recorded the entire interview. I then immediately published that recording on this website. Since the recording was now public, the FPSC had no choice but to declare I have no indications of any mental illness. Some personality disorders perhaps, but being an asshole isn't a mental illness.

And as for acknowledging my responsiblity, Denhoff is just a delusional twit. I accept full responsibility for my actions. I am responsible for creating and maintaining the website. I am responsible for doing everything I can to make Desiree's life as miserable as possible by exposing all the bad things she does. I am responsible for publicly exposing the endless lies, corruption, and misconduct of the BC prosecutors, legal aid lawyers, and judges. What I refuse to accept is that Desiree is a victim in any of this. She initiated the hostilities and attacks - I have merely responded to what she started. And I refuse to accept that the prosecutors and judges have done nothing inappropriate.

Denhoff then contradicts herself by saying she believes a sentence of 12 months is appropriate RFS ¶20. But five minutes ago she said that she considered a sentence of 24 months appropriate TR 2022-02-25 p150l3-4. Johnson was the one requesting 12 months.

And finally, Denhoff read in the probation conditions she was imposing. A critical point here is that she clearly and unequivocally stated I would only be required to report one time, for the purpose of informing the probation officer of the exact steps I had taken to cause the website to be no longer available and that, once I've done that I would not be required to report again RFS ¶23-24. She was very explicit in stating "Once you have reported the exact steps that you have taken to comply with that condition, you will no longer be required to report to a probation officer." I emphasize this because what actually happened following my release, is that I did report exactly as required, but the probation officer told me to come back in a few days and report again. I refused, showing the probation officer the order stating I was only required to report that one time. Then, when I didn't report the second time, the probation officer went to court and obtained a warrant for my arrest because I failed to report the second time. And the judge actually approved the warrant! I did exactly what I was ordered to do, but they still issued a warrant for my arrest which resulted in yet another year in jail waiting for a trial. Do I really need to say anything more?