desicapuano.com website; BCPS's refusal to prosecute [Patrick Fox; David Eby]

Dear Mr. Eby:

In 2017 I was convicted of criminal harassment (CCC s. 264) based, in large part, on a website I had created about my ex-wife. The Canadian news media made a big deal about the website and about the subsequent conviction and 3 year and 10 month sentence. In addition to the 3 year and 10 month prison sentence, I was also sentenced to 3 years of probation.

Anyway, while I was serving that sentence, the website went offline because the hosting plan expired (in January 2018).

I was released from Fraser Regional Correctional Centre (FRCC) on December 30, 2018.

A new version of the website about my ex-wife, accessible at www.desicapuano.com, went online and became publicly accessible in early March 2019. It remains online and publicly accessible.

The new website also contains extensive proof that Crown Counsel, Mark Myhre, and the lawyer forced on me (I was self-represented) to do the cross-examination of my ex-wife (the complainant) colluded to suppress a huge amount of exculpatory evidence, and to allow my ex-wife to commit extensive perjury.

Over the past year I have repeatedly and consistently insisted the BCPS prosecute me for criminal harassment based on the new/current website. If the website constituted criminal harassment in 2017, such that I could be convicted and sent to prison for 2 and a half years, then it must still constitute criminal harassment today! Having published the current website, I have engaged in the same conduct, and the current website provides the Crown the same evidence, upon which the 2017 conviction was based. Moreover, at my sentencing in 2017, I made sure to get Justice Heather Holmes to state that the website is absolutely a basis of the criminal harassment.

And, over the past year, the Crown has refused to prosecute me for criminal harassment related to the current website. On 2020-02-24, Ad Hoc Crown Counsel, Chris Johnson, stated in open court that he has not approved the charge of criminal harassment.

Of course, if the BCPS does prosecute me for criminal harassment based on the current website that would mean a new trial, which would mean all of the evidence of the corruption, misconduct, and perjury that occurred at the first trial (evidence which is all publicly accessible on the current website) would be put before the jury, and Capuano would be confronted on the 81 instances of perjury she committed at that trial, and in all likelihood I'd be acquitted and that would raise the question of how it's possible I could be convicted at the first trial but acquitted at the second. And that would bring the system into disrepute and expose a bunch of corruption that's happening every day in the BCPS. Do you think, maybe that's the reason the BCPS refuses to prosecute me for criminal harassment?

And so, by adamantly refusing to prosecute me for criminal harassment the BCPS is, essentially, acknowledging there was a significant error at the first trial. And since the role and the duty of Crown Counsel in Canada is, supposedly, the pursuit of truth and justice then shouldn't they, in the absolute least, be vacating the convictions and seeking a retrial? You know, in the interests of "truth and justice"?

And if the BCPS insists the first trial was proper, and how they're prosecuting me for two probation violations related to the current website but NOT criminal harassment then aren't they, essentially, saying they consider enforcing petty probation conditions more important than protecting poor, harmless, vulnerable, female victims like Capuano?

Anyway, the underlying purpose of this letter is to make sure you're aware of this situation so you cannot later claim ignorance.

Thanks for your time.