Withholding of evidence in 244069-5-BC [Patrick Fox; Chris Johnson (BCPS)]

Dear Mr. Johnson:

In the summer of 2020, in the matter of 244069-6-B, you had disclosed some records supposedly because they had, literally, just been provided to you by the VPD. The records included recordings of telephone calls which were stored on my mobile phone.

Some of those recordings would have been extremely beneficial to my defense in the matter of 244069-5-BC.

According to the VPD's "official" records (as provided to me by the BCPS as part of disclosure) the VPD obtained a warrant to search my phone but that warrant was only valid (if I recall correctly) 7 days in June or July 2019, and again according to the "official" records, the phone was not actually searched until March 2020 (coincidentally, right around the same time the trial in 244069-5-BC ended). That being the case, anything found on my phone as a result of that search would have been inadmissible as evidence against me. Except that the phone was ACTUALLY searched while the warrant was still valid – the recording of the telephone call moments before I turned myself in to CBSA at the Douglas Crossing was discovered by/known to VPD and Crown Counsel Bernie Wolfe at that time – long before the start of the trial in August 2019 and long before Wolfe and CBSA began lying to the court about the non-existence of any record I presented myself to CBSA on 2019-03-15. But obviously that phone call would cause a lot of problems for the Crown's case in 244069-5-BC and the Crown definitely didn't want to proceed with a breach charge related to the website being online for exactly the reasons I pointed out in the letter to Fontana.

So the Crown and the VPD colluded to pretend they had no knowledge of the data on my phone.

You guys (meaning you and the BCPS) later realized some of the data on the phone might be able to be used against me in 244069-6-B (the case you were prosecuting). However, doing so would backfire on you because it would raise the question of why the information was not disclosed to me sooner (like say prior to the trial in August 2019) since it was clearly relevant to 244069-5-BC. So you had the VPD fudge their records to make it look like they never searched the phone until March 2020. Even though that's way outside the scope of the warrant, I'm representing myself and I don't have a law degree so I'm clearly an idiot and couldn't possibly know something like that [sarcasm]. But you knew that if I appealed, another lawyer (or LSS) might catch that and it would be obvious grounds. So you had no intention of actually using the evidence at trial BUT since I'm a much more primitive species [sarcasm, again] below you smug, arrogant lawyers you figured if you disclosed the records to me and I reviewed them I'd believe I'm screwed and plead guilty (which is why you requested an adjournment based on wanting to provide me full disclosure of that "newly obtained evidence" and even though I waived my right to disclosure and I insisted on proceeding with the trial immediately, and allowing you to use that evidence without first disclosing it, you insisted on the adjournment and disclosing it to me first "for my benefit").

Now you may be thinking: Since I know all of this, why am I not seeking to use this in my appeal of 244069-5-BC?? And why have I made no mention of any of it prior to this point? And why am I taking the time and effort to say all of this to you in a 4 page letter? Indeed! But I'm not going to address those questions at this time.

Good day, Mr. Johnson.