Lost police messages slow convoy

Tamara Lich, far right, and her lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, are seen outside the Ottawa courthouse earlier this week. PHOTO BY JUSTIN TANG /THE CANADIAN PRESS

The trial of two convoy protest organizers was stalled on Friday after the defence demanded more information about a software upgrade that wiped the data from the phones of at least two Ottawa police officers after the protest.

Const. Nicole Bach was set to take the stand for a second day in the criminal trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, but the defence has questions for Ottawa police about why her text messages from that period were deleted.

She told the court Thursday that she received an email that she was due to upgrade the software on her phone after the protest in early 2022 and didn’t know it would delete all her messages.

The Crown said the defence learned about the potential lost evidence as a result of phone upgrade about a year ago, but the defence said it thought that was only in relation to one officer, Const. Isabelle Cyr.

Cyr, who testified earlier this week, also potentially lost messages due to the software upgrade on her phone.

The defence asked police to disclose the communication instructing Bach and other police officers about the upgrade, but were given a completely redacted five-page document.

Outside court on Friday, Barber’s lawyer, Diane Magas, said it was too early to tell how important the potential loss could be because “we don’t know exactly everything that’s been lost.”

The lawyers also asked Bach to dig up any emails she sent or received related to the disclosure of evidence in the case.

Magas told the court they received four batches of highly redacted emails. Some portions were blacked out by the Crown because they were deemed irrelevant, while others were redacted by Ottawa police lawyers because they fell under solicitor-client privilege.

Lich and Barber are both charged with mischief and counselling others to commit mischief and intimidation, among other charges, in relation to demonstrations against COVID-19 public-health measures and the Liberal government that gridlocked downtown Ottawa for three weeks in early 2022.

The Crown, defence and Ottawa police lawyers are expected to ague about the redactions when court resumes on Oct. 26.

Here are some of my comments posted at the Ottawa Citizen where bots and artificial intelligence software does

In Ottawa, low life Crowns like Jason Neubauer ambush the accused with politically correct victim witness statements that are entire fabrications.

Readers are welcome to run my name on the FAA airman registry and you will see my FAA Airline Transport Pilot Licence. Jason Neubauer claimed that I had fabricated that qualification when he actually had a copy of the FAA plastic green card with a picture of the Wright Bros on it as did the Smiling Assasin, Judge Diane Lahie who used that in sentencing to the max in a classic wrongful conviction.

The Crown in this case are improperly suggestign to the honourable Healther McVey-Perkins that she join in the lynch mob intent on obstruction of justice.

Victim witness statements are often anything but reliable witnessess without a motion to fabricate. The name suggests that we should all assume their credibility is beyond reproach because they are victims.

Its classic anti-social criminal conduct to claim to be a victim in order to control others and leave a trail of destruction. It encourages obstruction of justice, it encourages perjury, it promotes hatred and contravenes the textbooks on the law of evidence.

Victim Witness "evidence" is generally not sworn, not under oath and can be a "statement" that is often the result of leading questions and coaching by those with a vested interest in a finding of guilt. Those "victims" are often the very people with the highest motivation to fabricate and whose evidence is the least reliable and generally not necessary to prove guilt in a real fair trial.

Around the world, governments decide what the public can and cannot state. Hold up a black bit of A4 paper in red square will get you arrested.

Canada is unfortunate in that Politicians abuse their power and retain power to direct political prosecutions by directly or indirectly instructing the low lifes of the Crown Attornies office to issue process.

Its well known that some crowns decline cases that cross their limits of crossing boundries that are covered by charter rights.

I've been given disclosure by a Crown not involved with incriminating information on another Crown. At the other end of the scale, Crowns like Jason Neubauer are devoid of ethics and knowingly present fabricated evidence they know is false.

What the public needs to demand to know is, who was the Crown who gave the Government what they wanted, a political prosecution that crosses all the lines that attacks the fundamental right to Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech and accountability are essential in a free and democratic society.

The problem is, Canada is more akin to a dictatorship where the Police and Crown collaborate on fabricating evidence to justify illegal arrests for political puposes.

If for example this trial was before the Smiling Assassin aka Justice Dianne Lahaie, the result of a conviction would be a forgone conclusion combined with a maximum sentence for Freedom of Speech against the Ottawa Police.

Its important to note that Canada is one country where the Government gets to choose what crosses the line of freedom of expression.

Vague and broad local government rules, by-laws, can turn a protest into a criminal prosecution.

In the USA, their first amenment states "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

The only way the Crown can claim that they broke a law is to use a law that is contrary to the fundamental commonsense understanding of what freedom of speech is.

For example, just how can the Crown claim Chris Barber exceeded the limits of freedom of speech when he colaborated with the Ottawa Police and even advised them when it was getting out of the control of organizers like himself and Tama Lich.

The problem in this trial is it is by a judge alone, and it all falls on Justice Heather McVey-Perkins who is subject to the political repercussions of not towing the government narrative.

The single biggest risk to a conviction is the government pressure to limit freedom of speech from political opponents. If it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada don't count on justice there.

The Supreme Court of Canada gets rid of cases by using the equivlent of a sole hitman, a sole judge to deny leave to appeal on cases that might embarass the government.

In SCC 38706 the Supreme Court of Canada denied an application for leave on the issue that you cannot have a fair trial without a lawyer , ie, that indigent accused should always be provided with a state funded lawyer, that in the USA are called Public Defenders.

38706 was based on fabrication of evidence by a Sgt. Peter VanDerZander, who ordered fabrication of evidence, to make an illegal revenge arrest for freedom of speech that offended the Speech Police, The Ottawa Police.

The good news for Canadians is that this trial is a reminder that Freedom of Expression is a right, its a right the Ottawa Police exerised improperly, they abused their mandate, their obligation to not be involved in politics by directing the Freedom Convoy.

The Freedom Convoy was primarily about the Freedom of Expression, no matter how misguided.

The public need to be reminded that the right to freedom of expression also can be annoying, it can be noisy, it can upset people and thats what the right of freedom of expression involves.

Right now, the Ottawa Police can and do, arrest anyone whose opinions they don't like.

Just post about illegal arrests , illegal searches and you too will be subject to an Illegal Arrest, based on fabricated evidence.

Sgt. Peter VanDerZander is a classic example of this criminal code of conduct.

The Trudeau government really lost a lot of golden opportunities by being as divisive as the anti-vax cult like following that led to the "Freedom Convoy". Their ideas are classic examples of offensive attitudes tha t include anti-authority, invulnerability, macho, impulsivity and resignation.

These are anti-social ideas that are offensive to most Canadians who elected the present government.

No matter how misguided the thoughts and reasoning of the Freedom Convoy, they were and are entitled to their opinions, entited to the Charter right of Freedom of Expression.

Freedom of Expression can be vile, it can be offensive. It can be telling the world the truth because the world sees what it wants to see and not reality.

Many of our fundamental rights come at great cost from those who were brave enough in the first place to hold the world accounable for abuses of rights.

The most fundamental right in the world is the right to a fair trial, before an impartial tribunal and that requires representation by a lawyer.

Canada is the only country in the western world that does not have this most essential fundamental right.

It leads to wrongful convictions whose cost dramatically exceeds the cost of a fair trial.

Chris Barber and Tamara Lich are extremely fortunate to be at the center of a very public trial in front of a respected judge Heather Perkins-McVey and represented by highly skilled lawyers that are not state funded.

Its time for a reality check.

Spare a thought for the 99% of cases that do not get any publicity, where the police and crown treat it as a production line of fabricated evidence to see what they want to see , to get a conviction , to keep the stats, to fill the jails, and keep the revolving wheel of regular fat pay checks.

Canada fails its international agreements and obligations by using pre 1900 criminal law ideas that the state is not required to provide a lawyer in a criminal matter if the person cannot afford it.

Canada unlike the United States does NOT have a presumption that "every" accused person in a criminal matter is entitled to a lawyer.

Canada has the opposite, you are NOT entitled to a lawyer, if you are indigent, you apply to Legal Aid and if they don't like you, too bad, you are out of the game, and a game it is.

Legal Aid Ontario effectively sentence people to jail by denying them a "legal aid certificate" , this is where the greatest insults to justice work, engaged on endless denials, based on fabricated false information to clutch at any straw as justification to prevent an accused having a lawyer.

Everyone should read the SCOTUS case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the 1963 case that brought about the US public defender system.

Australia had its wake up moment in 1993 in their R. v. Deitrich case that got Australia out of pre 1900 criminal law procedure.

Its time for Canada to balance the cost of justice v the cost of injustice.

Georges Lafortune , Unfortunately, Canada does not have a legal presumption that everyone has a right to a lawyer and if you can't afford one, that one will be provided by the state.

In the USA they are called public defenders. Its a constitutional right that does NOT exist in Canada.

Legal Aid Ontario make political decisions about "granting" a legal aid certificate. If you criticize the police, the child protection of Ontario, your criminal and Child protection certificates can be cancelled.

Its a chilling bit of terrorism by Legal Aid Ontario and results in an effective lifetime ban on Legal Aid.

Fact is the Ontario Atttorney General pours unlimited funds and legal resources into fighting any application by an accused person for appointment of a lawyer.

The government's rationalizes incorrectly the cost of a state funded lawyer as being a cost to the state without any consideration that it contravenes Charter of Rights and freedoms.

Very few accused persons know how to prepare a Rowbotham Application, and these applications fail in probably 95% of occassions as even the application is rigged to be before a rubber stamp judge like Dianne Lahoie who will deny application after application in order to ensure a wrongfull conviction by denying the right to present evidence, examine witnesses and to hold the crown to account in knowingly presenting fabricated evidence.

"Highly redacted emails" means that so much is blacked out that you can't read it, it often means its evidentry value is destroyed.

Redacting often removes incriminating information of police actors.

In one criminal matter where its incriminating informaton about police it will have excessive redaction, and in another criminal matter where there is no liability to the police the same document will have no redaction or little redaction .

The problem is the Ottawa Police have contempt for their obligation to disclose all exculpatory evidence in their possession and in reality, they treat it as a game to be played.

Its called Obstruction of Justice and its listed in the Criminal Code of Canada.

3 HRS AGO

The Ottawa Police claim of "lost messages" is typical of the standard practices of Police to "turn off audio", "turn off video" at critical moments, to accidently delete messages.

The Ottawa Police refuse to provide evidence that they know will incriminate them will also sorts of bogus excuses.

Take "premise history" this is the entries police make about anyone they meet, it also contains damaging dangerou s opinions, its subjective, a single officer can label an innocent person with all sorts of adjectives and that sets the stage for a police hate crime, generally a wrongful arrest and that requires fabrication of evidence.

All in a days work at the Ottawa Police

In many criminal trials in Ottawa and Ontario, disclosure by the Police is treated as a game to be played, on how they can play the rules , use highly paid crown attornries while some accused dont even get a lawyer at trial, thanks to Canada's pre 1900 ideas that a fair trial does not require a lawyer.

It can be argued that Canada is lowering itself to the Chinese standard of freedom of speech.

What the Politicans and Justice department don't get is that Police and all justice authorities require accountability to deter activities that obstruct justice.

Freedom of Speech to the Ottawa Police means if you criticize them, then you are fair game for an illegal arrest with fabricated evidence to justify the crime.

Freedom of Speech in criticizing the Ottawa Police is guaranteed to put many in jail wrongfully convicted at incredable cost to the community.

Freedom of Speech is supposed to be uncomfortable and make people angry, and when you make the Ottawa Police angry by writing about their abuse of the justice system for their own means, you quickly find yourself finding out all about an illegal arrest and a wrongfull conviction.

Thanks to the Ottawa Police for their betrayal of public trust.

Disclosure by the Ottawa Police is a game, and a competition on how not to even acknowledge its existance, you often have to tell them what they have before they will give it to you.

That is, you wont get disclosure unless they know you know they have it.

In Ottawa the worst criminals work for the Ottawa Police, the entire organization is a giant

criminal organization runing its own publicity dept, its own self protection that means cover up the cover ups, illegally arrest those who criticize the police, Fabricate evidence to justify the illegal arrest.

Its habitual, its a culture of criminality and just remember it when you

see anyone wearing the uniform of the Ottawa Police.

16 HRS AGO

The Ottawa Police have a duty of care, a fiduciary duty, an obligation to the administration of justice but, these duties and obligations are interpreted thru lens of a criminal organization.

Disclosure is a game, don't provide it if incrimates the police, if you have to provide it , do it as late as possible , like minutes before the witness is examined so defense cannot pre-examine it.

The worst offenses by the Ottawa Police are when somehow, someone, gets Legal Aid to cancell a certificate so an accused has to represent themselves, and the Crown fight tooth and nail to prevent any judge from granting a state funded lawyer.

That means you will not get that disclosure of that incriminates police fabricating evidence.

That you wont get to examine witnesses like Sgt VanDerZander whose written reports are contradicted by Ottawa Police Video Recorded interviews.

It means exculpatory evidence will not be permitted and that you will end up another wrongfully convicted person, that is part of the Ottawa Police production line of criminal cops and wrongfull convictions.

Prosecutors are part of the problem. Reality is Ottawa Crowns have a low life underbelly that do the bidding of the Corrupt Ottawa Police and or politicians. Their decision to prosecute and not to prosecute depends on your gender and role.

If you are a cop committing criminal offences, the odds of the crown prosecuting is entirely remote.

If you criticize the Police or the government that also means the Crown throw out legal reasoning and use political reasoning.

Its political reasoning that saw this matter go to trial and

hopefully Justice Heather Perkins-McVey will signal to defence that enough is enough, and its time for them to make that motion to end the trial and save the public a very expensive trial.

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey was a highly respected criminal lawyer before she became a judge and since then has not been a rubber stamp for crown like "the smiling assassin" the dishonourable Dianne Lahoie.

The defence has yet to bring a motion to have the trial tossed due to the evidence of the Ottawa Police that Chris Barber expressed concerns about the protest getting out of hand to the Ottawa Police and despite that the Ottawa Police kept giving the convoy directions.

This is a political show trial where the crown dug deep and pulled out "witnesses" who just happen to be parties to a law suit against the organizers.

Its very obvious whats going on, the crown is now scraping the bottom of their witness list by drawing on those with an ace to grind and who might be eager witnesses with a motive to say whatever will help them in the civil law suit.

Lost police messages slow convoy protest organizers’ trial