Sunday, July 31, 2016

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

As I mentioned, I was there when Catherine Bruce read out her divinely inspired decision on the John Nuttall Entrapment case. I was also there during the SWAT takedown after John and Amanda were released. There was no need for that. It was yet another dirty deed done dirt cheap.

We went out for lunch on Commercial Drive to celebrate. After lunch we left the restaurant and started driving around looking for an address. I pulled over slightly on a side street so John's mother could check her phone for directions when a big black undercover police SUV pulled in front of us with it's lights on. I pointed to John's mother and said we just stopped to use the phone. I thought they were trying to nab me for using a cell while driving when I wasn't.

Another SUV had boxed us in from behind. All these cops with vests on get out and swarm us telling us to all get out of the vehicle. Then they changed their command and said everyone out of the vehicle but me. I was driving. I pull out my cell phone to turn on the camera to start taking pictures and the cop by my window ordered me to turn off my phone. I responded by saying Oh I suppose you don't want me to take pictures then. He replied no.

I repeatedly asked them what was going on and they repeatedly refused to tell me. I pointed to John's mother and said his mother has a right to know where you're taking them. The Canadian Charter of Rights states you can't just kidnap people at random, If you are going to arrest someone you have to charge them with an offence. What are they charged with? Still no answer. Finally they said something about a peace bond. They did not say a warrant has been issued for their arrest related to a peace bond application. They just said it's about a peace bond.

I simply said why didn't you do this at the courthouse before we left as we were half expecting they would want some kind of terms and conditions placed on their release. No answer. I said we are on the way to the lock up to pick up their belongings. Why didn't you do this there instead of traumatizing them all over again and handcuffing them on the sidewalk? I called out to John's mother and said Lawyer. Call their lawyer.

It turns out lawyers for the Crown made an ex parte application in Provincial Court in the DTES for a peace bond so they could put terms and conditions on their release. As I previously said, given the nature of the case we half expected this.

However, making an ex parte application without even notifying the other lawyers was a dirty trick. In court there are certain professional courtesies opposing lawyers extend to each other. In court lawyers refer to each other as my friend short for my learned friend meaning someone who is also learned in law and respects the legal process. Going exparte without notifying the other lawyers after they had been dealing with them in trial for over three years was unprofessional and unethical. Normally a complaint would be filed with the bar.

The judge was very clear in her verdict. There is no threat to public safety and there never was. The judge said: "The spectre of the defendants serving a life sentence for a crime that the police manufactured by exploiting their vulnerabilities, by instilling fear that they would be killed if they backed out, and by quashing all doubts they had in the religious justifications for the crime, is offensive to our concept of fundamental justice. Simply put, the world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more out of marginalized people who have neither the capacity nor sufficient motivation to do it themselves. "

It is obvious lawyers for the Crown pulled this dirty trick because they wanted to get the terms and conditions before a different judge than one who had seen the evidence and knew the truth. They wanted to instill fear in a new judge by repeating the same lies they continue to tell the media. That by the way constitutes defamation. Normally judges become seized on a matter because they know the case and the process doesn't have to start all over again in front of a new judge. This was one in a long list of dirty tricks that apply to this case.

Outside the courthouse after they were finally released on terms and conditions the media repeatedly asked John what are his plans? He repeatedly said I don't know reinforcing the defense's argument that he didn't nor was capable of planning the absurd and heinous crime he was accused of. The media asked him if they planned to file civil action for the abuse of process the judge convicted the RCMP of. He replied No, I just want them to leave us alone. This is a wonderful couple that were completely screwed over and despite that are in no way vindictive. They just want to be left alone.

Setting aside the Appeal

It comes as no surprise that the Crown has appealed the decision so they don't get sued civilly for their misconduct and abuse of process. However, since it is clear the couple do not intend on launching a civl lawsuit and just want to be left alone, I submit that the Crown's Appeal be set aside until CSIS complies with the court order for them to produce documents they are in contempt of court for not providing. In reality, an application to have CSIS arrested for contempt of court would be far more appropriate than continuing this facade any longer.

In the timeline of events, CSIS was found in contempt of court before John and Amanda were released so that matter needs to be heard before the Appeal. It would be offensive to Natural Justice to proceed with the appeal until CSIS obeys the court order to disclose those documents which directly relate to the Entrapment case.

In addition, it would be clearly offensive to proceed with the Entrapment Appeal until CSIS is charged with murder for providing the explosives in the Air India bombing. That fact was reported by the RCMP and the CBC. Failing to charge CSIS in that murder but proceeding with the Appeal on this manufactured entrapment case would be offensive to justice and a misappropriation of tax dollars. They have wasted far too many tax dollars on this case already. Instead of spending tax dollars on this bogus appeal, it would be far more fiscally responsible to investigate what happened to the $3.1 billion they lost from their anti terrorism budget. Losing not using that much money from their budget is a far great act of organized crime than two marginalized addicts from Surrey who were threatened and extorted to assist them in a fake attack.

March 31 2016 The Right Edition reported that "Murder charges filed against six mobsters were dropped by the Canadian government Wednesday in order to keep details on cell phone surveillance technology concealed. The prosecutors, who convinced the defendants to instead accept murder conspiracy charges as part of a plea deal, were able to use the decision to halt a separate hearing that could have exposed information on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s IMSI-Catcher (Stingray)." Bill C-51 is in effect. They are watching all of us.


  1. Wow what a crazy story. I had no idea u were close with the accused or at least helping them out. Besides that agent K I've noticed over the last while that u have become more disgruntled with the law and out justice system this case to u saying how u dislike police informants and how the police obtain whatever it is they need by any means to get the job done! With that being said I think ur starting to feel how hells angels have felt for a very long time and yes u don't like Crack dealers but hells angels don't sell Crack believe me. Maybe the coke that's turned into it but regardless if it wasn't them it would be someone else. My point is that they don't believe in oit government or justice system this is why they live by there own set of rules. And I see u taking that same direction. And ill be honest I like it. Great post

    1. Thanks. I got to know the family over a year ago. A friend form Aldergrove makes huge signs and T-shirts complaining about the BC Judicial system. They started off saying Judges are the Problem and 100% Contempt for BC Judges. At the time I thought judges were a part of the problem not the problem and I felt 90% contempt for BC judges not 100%. After Ron Skolrood tore up the Canadian Charter of Rights in front of me I became 100% in contempt of BC Judges.

      The friend from Aldergrove has new shirts that say BC Judges our strongest and weakest link. It's a bit more posative. Now with this new decision from Catherine Bruce I can agree that judge can be our strongest or weakest link.

      I have started to feel what it's like from the other side and am forced to conclude that there is good and bad in every organization including the Hells Angels. Good cops and bad cops. Good judges and bad judges. There are many Hells Angels like David Giles that deal in massive amounts of cocaine which ends up being sold here as crack but there are many more who don't.

      Protecting civl liberty while we address organized crime is imperative to protect the integrity of our democratic system. You can't protect freedom by doing away with it.

    2. I will add that I have no problem with people reporting crime to the police. That is a civic duty. Like I said in Kelowna, reporting a murderer to the police is not being a rat, failing t do so is.

      What I have a problem with is when a drug dealer rats out his friends to get a reduced sentence. That is messed up. I totally respect law enforcement. However, when I was growing up, Narcs were the lowest form of life known to man. Someone who would pretend to be your friend, smoke your drugs then bust you for doing exactly what he was doing.

      When I was with the Guardian Angels we never did that. In Canada we never got involved with drugs or prostitution. We just helped keep the peace and dealt with violent crime.

      In New York we got involved in several crack down on crack campaigns because crack was so invasive it crippled a community with violence. When we confronted the crack dealers we didn't pretend to be their friend and bust them. We said this is our neighborhood now. Get the f*vk out. There was no pretending involved at all.

    3. I guarantee you the club members involved in the accident in New Brunswick this weekend were not standing by their "We don't call 911" motto (

    4. Tragic. Never heard of a motorcycle pile up before.

  2. Usually when one lawyer calls the other his "learned" friend/collegue, its as an insult.


      How could that possibly be an insult? In provincial court the term my friend is very common. That is how they refer to each other. I was at a trial coordinator's office arguing with an opposing lawyer about the judge's instructions with regards to the next trial date we were instructed to set. I slipped out if my friend would like to go back before the judge to clarify the disagreement I would be happy to do so.

      Then later on the other lawyer who at this point is literally freaking out told the trial coordinator that I wasn't a lawyer, I was the other party. Then the trial coordinator told me that if I wasn't a lawyer then I should not refer to him as my friend which I knew. So then I said oh so he's not my friend? How about buddy? Can I call him my buddy instead? My sarcasm made his blood boil. Kicked his ass at trial so the sarcasm was icing on the cake. I was trained in New York.

  3. Wow, what a circus, clown shoes for everyone.....LMAO.

    It continually amazes me that cops can't understand why they are held in such disregard when they pull stuff like this, it's like there's not one tool in the chest sharp enough to see the potential downside of something and say "Ah no, we won't be doing THAT......"

    Here's a hint guys. Just go knock on the door, or call them up and ask them to come down to the station. You guys are subject matter EXPERTS at making yourselves look bad, try shifting focus a bit and asking yourself, "Self, how can I AVOID looking like a f'ing douche bag?"....move from "IDGAF how I look/what you think of me" to "Whatever I do, I'm gonna look good doing it." I think you'll be surprised at the dividends it pays.

    1. Exactly. However, the real error here came from the Crown's lawyers and the court. The police were just executing an arrest warrant. Had the crown offered the defense counsel the basic common courtesy of notifying them of a court action, the defense counsel could have simply called up their client and said we have another court appearance. Come on back down to the courthouse so we can straighten it out. There was absolutely no need for the SWAT takedown and the extended incarceration in a DTES holding cell.The previous courthouse on Smythe Street was much nicer.

      If Crown had made a new application and served the other party notice of the action when they were standing beside them in court, and the other party didn't show up for that action, then an arrest warrant would be issued to bring them to court. In this case all they had to do is have the defense council call their client. They didn't do that because the defense counsel would have said OK lets settle this in front of Madame Bruce while we are here. They didn't want to do that because she would have told them to go f*ck themselves. You don't set someone free for wrongful conviction then impose terms and conditions on their freedom. They knew that hence the dirty trick to get what they wanted in front of a judge who didn't know the case and put the targets not suspects through more torment.

      Forcing poor Amanda to remove her hijab in the court for that application was another violation of her rights. When they handcuffed her she looked like she was going to start bawling. With all the media in their face the hijab is her shield from everyone staring at her. It's a security blanket so to speak. Forcing her to remove it was no different than forcing an elderly Sikh man to remove his turban in the courtroom. There was absolutely no need for that. She was just cringing in fear and humiliation during that application.

    2. I will add that for the most part the police officers were fair during the arrest. Simply saying an arrest warrant has been issued for your passenger would have been much more helpful then simply saying it's about a peace bond. What about a peace bond?

      However, one police officer was very cocky and arrogant. He asked me if I supported terrorism. I said the thought of planting explosives at the parliament buildings is heinous. I do not support that. This couple did not have the means or the motive to do that. They were extorted into going along with the fake plot.

      The officer laughed with sarcasm and said someone put a gun to their head and threatened them? They threatened to kill them if they didn't do as they were told. The officer laughed even louder and said that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I said that was what the judge said. Have you read the decision?

      He then criticized the decision and said it was like 294 pages. I said you are a police officer. you enforce the law you don't make the law. Then he boldly continued his criticism of the judge's decision and yelled out is the judge God? No I said but neither are police officers. This particular officer peared to think he was god and was above the law. It was very disappointing. For the most part the other officers were fine. Perhaps this is why there has to be consequences for police misconduct.

  4. The cop still have some "officer discretion" as to how/when/where they execute a warrant. Were these RCMP or VPD?

    Side note, that SUV is undercover like I'm the man in the moon. There's nothing subtle about a push out bumper and it's just more proof that the cops are WAY too impressed with themselves, otherwise they'd be using vehicles that actually ARE undercover. This vehicle screams "police". But "special" police. Special ed more likely.

    1. The picture is just a random one form the Internet. They wouldn't let me take their picture which is another violation but given the intensity of the situation I did not contest it at the time.

    2. After I finally realized the police were there for John and Amanda not me, my first thought was how in the hell did they know where we were? We had left the restaurant and were driving around. It was creepy as f*ck.

    3. If you had a 'dashboard cam' you would have footage. Time to think about getting one.

      Mind you, you could have always just set the phone down as if you had turned it off and let it run anyway (I know more than a few people who have done that).

    4. A dashboard cam would have certainly helped. I was borrowing my daughters car. Later a television reported said I was indeed allowed to take pictures. I just remember back in Israel, the military do not let you take their picture when they are involved in an operation. Given the intensity of the situation I decided not to push the envelope.

  5. How? Because you were under surveillance ever since you left court, either directly, with a GPS unit on your vehicle that you didn't know about, or most likely these days, they were tracking your cell phones via Cobra, Stingray, or some other such program that they will dent they have or use if you ask them.

    As for Officer Douchenozzle, well, there is always one (or more) like him, the problem is the other guys who are more professional and less mouthy will still back him up and tolerate him as he is "one of them" instead of self-policing and getting rid of a cowboy like that. He's the guy whom the psych test was supposed to get rid of before he ever made it to the Academy/Depot.

    1. It was pretty clear they were monitoring our cell phone conversations. They had taken a cab from the courthouse to the restaurant and I met them there after I traded my motorcycle for my daughter's car.

      Everyone knows cell phone conversations are not secure but seeing them pinpoint our location like that was to me creepy. While we were waiting outside the DTES courthouse half the day one of the cameramen pointed to the Stingray antenna on the top of the building they use to intercept cell phone communications. I said what's that and he just looked at me then I remembered having heard something about that.

    2. Wow this is unreal . And ppl allow this ? Guess we have no rights .

  6. considered this case a mess from the first moment it was on t.v. with the press being given access to the couple's apartment. that was very weird and so very inappropriate.

    then the police videos came on t.v. and it was clear to me, this couple had issues. You don't have to be a professional health care worker to note that. why the police proceeded with any of this and used this couple simply demonstrates how stupid the rcmp was in this case.

    the re arrest of the couple after they had left court simply smacks of intimidation. it was entirely inappropriate.

    just another eg of how messed up the b.c. rcmp are. its time to re do the force.

    at least Sheila Fraser has been tasked to look into the sexual harassment, lets hope she is asked to imvestigate the whole ungodly mess.

    1. True but sadly to think they are going to actually investigate the sexual harassment or the abuse of process in this case is wishful thinking.

  7. They aren't going to investigate shit. The only time they do so is when there's just no way to avoid it, like when there is video footage or it's out and out criminal behavior...and even then they just let the guy the mountie that was in on the killing of the Polish immigrant at the airport, then hit a motorcyclist while driving drunk, left the scene to go home and have a couple of drinks so he could say that's how the alcohol got in his blood stream. What a POS.

    The police are composed of two types of scum, those who do these things and the rest who tolerate it. Officers with too much integrity are weeded out early on or don't stay around long once they realize what they've got themselves in for.

    1. lol you are a lot more cynical about the police than I am. I realize there are good cops and bad cops but I really do believe there are a lot more good cops out there than bad.

      The cop that I spoke with, other than the cocky one, was fine. He knew the VPD Ninja John Mckay. He knows the difference between self respect and brutality. You do make a point about the good cops turning a blind eye to misconduct of the bad.

      However, aside from obvious illegal activity, I'm not suggesting cops start turning each other in left right and centre. That will create a civl war so to speak. Not that it wouldn't be warranted, I just think it would make everyone defensive and be counter productive.

      I know a wise young man who I refer to as the Dalai Lama. He is not confrontational but he is not weak either. He is passive aggressive. I think all the good cops need to do is speak up when the other cops misbehave and sound off like Raiden from Mortal Combat and say Enough:

      I was the one that suggested they settle out of court on the Catherine Gallagher lawsuit and they did. Now they have a gag order and I'm fine with that. We can't dwell on the past we need to move forward. However, that becomes impossible to do when management keeps promoting idiots like Bill Fordy. Nothing will change until that does.

  8. Our justice system is an utter shame. The police now dictate to the crown how cases should unfold and it should be the other way around. Police create fictitious crimes and entrap citizens in them. They need crimes to have the funding. The larger the "media" wow factor the better. This is an industry not protecting and serving.

    They appealed this case because the appeal court are all conservative appointed judges and the crown knows there will be a high chance of winning. This case will go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, the only place Harper couldn't appoint judges.

    In almost all countries in the world entrapment is illegal because this kind of tactic would always be successful. Throw enough money at something and you can get anyone to do anything, especially marginalized people who clearly don't have anythig to lose or the capacity to make proper decisions or understand consequences.

    Its upsetting that the system our tax dollars flow into is using this money to abuse it's citizens.

    The crown has to win this case because they have used this tactic in many other cases. If a ruling comes down that this tactic can not be used, many other investigations in progress using this tactic would be affected as well current cases in the court using this tactic will also be affected.

    The crown is already experiencing this with the delay of proceedings ruling. A tactic to bleed out the accused's funds by delaying disclosure and slowing down the process is now backfiring on the crown. In other countries if you don't have full disclosure in by 3 months or at time of charges then too bad.

    The crown is having to be accountable to the people and not a by product of this "big government"movement we have been subjected to under Harper.

    There is also no accountability for officers who lie under oath. Time and time again this happens and they are allowed to work in other cases.

    It is important that citizens take the time to file formal complaints when this happens in their case. Make sure you do not resolve "informally" and make sure you use a lawyer to ensure that the process is documented because the department that officer is in investigates their own officers which is biased. The Macneil report of the office needs to be affected as lawyers in their next case can request a copy and therefore that officer will not be used in important roles again. Police do not weed out their bad apples and this is the only tool citizens have to do so.

  9. I actually have faith in Sheila Fraser, the former auditor general of Canada. have a look at some of her work. She is not adverse to raising issues when her work is being impeded by others.

  10. Wow....great post Agent K, with some informative responses. The Ottawa Police are having a bit of a time of it these days too...some crazy stuff going on here.

  11. Great article Dennis. I linked your article in my post, "Entrapment of Canadian Taxpayers - is CRA Guilty?":


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.