Exposing Fascism


September 7, 2006
Dear Ken R. MacDonald,

As requested by the officer you had instructed to get in touch with me by phone, I am writing this letter detailing the issues I have with an investigation conducted by Det. Sergeant Joe Mauti of the OPP Professional Standards Bureau and signed off by you. It is in regards to allegations made by myself that OPP Constable Ian Michel committed Perjury under oath on January 20th of 2005 and was negligent in his duties on June 14th of 2004. [Refer to file# 2531005-0453]

I sent detailed letters to the OPP Professional Standards Bureau and OCCPS that included a number of questions that I stated I wanted answered and not one of them were answered. Now, I have many more questions. But first…

DETECTIVE JOE MAUTI'S INVESTIGATION REPORT:

Errors

1) On page 2 under Historical Background, Det. Mauti points out the date of the incident being June 4 2004 and the date of the complaint being December 1 2005. The Summary of Complaint on page 1 states that it is about "Perjury". This did not happen until January 5 2005. He points out this date again in the 2nd paragraph in the section of the report titled Historical Background, but still does not make the connection that the complaint was lodged just a few months later then the 6 months allowed. There was also a good reason for me failing to file the complaint within the time specified and he also failed to state that.

2) Det. Mauti mentions that Ian Michel admits to "an" error in regards to the time of the offence. The word "an" refers to one. There are THREE errors in regards to the time of the offence.

3) On page 6 [last paragraph] Det. Mauti states that, "…there is no evidence to indicate that Constable MICHEL intended to mislead the court or that he knowingly made a false statement." [How can he make such a claim when the time errors show intent to mislead? As well, the statement about the color of the seatbelt can be absolutely proven to be false. And, I have a witness to him telling me "not to worry about my vehicle papers" after just one minute of searching for them and when the only place they have ever been was in my vehicle. SEE KEY POINTS BELOW] There are some other statements that were made and would be hard for me to prove, but as stated in detailed letters to OPP Professional Standards Bureau and OCCPS, I would be willing to submit to a polygraph test for more evidence and would challenge the officer to do the same.

Also:

MICHEL states I was "confrontational." Is asking questions regarding my rights considered to be confrontational? YES OR NO? ______ This is the first of many questions that I have the right to have answered! Please do so by filling in the blanks.


KEY POINTS (EVIDENCE):

In the report's conclusion, Det. Mauti stated "…there is no evidence to indicate that Constable MICHEL intended to mislead the court or that he knowingly made a false statement…" The following conflicts with that claim.

1) Time error on tickets – how long does it take to write a ticket up? _________________ Imagine this scenario: You are a police officer who just pulled over a civilian and he begins questioning you. A debate takes place and ends quickly – we'll leave it at that. You, the officer, go back to your cruiser and write up 3 tickets. It's almost 10:30pm and you are sitting in your vehicle with the interior lights on. You start writing up the first ticket and on it you write the time of 8:25pm. If this time were accurate, you wouldn't need your interior lights on because there would be plenty of daylight left, as the sun hasn't set yet at this time of the year. You write another ticket a minute later and list the time at 8:25pm - you haven't clicked in that it is late at night? Another minute later, the same time of 8:25pm is written on a 3rd ticket - what are you thinking? In the short time frame that I was looking for my papers "while debating with the officer on another matter," I did not see the papers in the glove box because it was dark. The same can be said about the officer not seeing my seatbelt as well as the tint and decals on my back window (he didn't even give me the benefit of the doubt). This is proof of "intent" – to mislead – this is negligence in his duties. As well, in regards to being asked by the prosecutor if he gave me enough time to supply my registration and insurance papers, the officer states [under oath] that… "I believe so, I was with the accused party for more than 10 minutes." [More on that follows with the witness.]

2) [Edited:****** could any one tell the interior colour of an automobile through tinted windows?*****] and yet the officer stands by this statement. [*************this line removed for legal reasons*********]. The officer is sticking to this story of giving a very accurate description of the interior of my vehicle during questioning by Det. Mauti. [*************this line removed for legal reasons*************].

3) Det. Mauti never "confirmed" with Steve Forten in a questionnaire about what the police officer said in regards to the response of me not supplying my vehicle papers. That being, "Don’t worry about it, we'll take care of it later." When I stepped out of my vehicle for a Breathalyzer Test, I asked the officer if he still wanted my papers. His "exact quote" was the one I just mentioned and Steve Forten was a witness to it and then he gives me the tickets for not supplying my vehicle papers. [This is absolutely key in this investigation.] Det. Mauti point out "Section 133 of the C.C. Corroboration – Perjury – No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 132 on the evidence of only one witness unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicated the accused." [**********this line removed for legal reasons*************].

4) Further evidence can be provided by polygraph test, which I have already stated in all letters sent in that I am all more then willing to partake in as I feel confident this will support my side.


Omissions

1) Unreasonable Search. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms titled Search and Seizures states: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure." I gave the officer absolutely no reason to search me - I am a self-employed individual and decals advertising my business, website and phone number were covering my back window, which stated the obvious. He searched me before entering his vehicle for a Breathalyzer Test. This was a violation of my rights. I should have objected then and I will never allow it to happen again.

2) On page 5, near the middle and under the section entitled Findings and Conclusions, when my opportunity came to cross examine the police officer regarding "his evidence", Det. Mauti pointed out my reply. That being, "No, I've heard his statement, I guess I can't, I don't." What he fails to point out in this matter is that "I was representing myself with absolutely no experience" in legal matters as I stated in the detailed letter that I filed with the complaint. [************ this line removed for legal reasons ***********].

3) Numerous questions were asked in my letter to the OPP Professional Standards Bureau and Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and "not one" of my questions were answered.


DISTURBING:

1) [************ these lines removed for legal reasons ***********]. At the end of the final report, Section 132 of the Criminal Code – Punishment for Perjury is pointed out… "Everyone who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not more than fourteen years." [************ these lines removed for legal reasons ***********].

2) As serious as this allegation is, no one asked me to go over any of this in person. This is further proof that this investigation is not being taken seriously whatsoever and I am perceiving the investigation as just a formality to just make it look like something has been done without any real intention of taking it to any other level.


GENERAL QUESTIONS (I would like clarification):

• You, like all our police officers, took an oath to serve and protect? YES or NO ______
• How many years have you been a police official? _______
• The phrase public servant pertains to you? YES or NO ________
• If you consider yourself a public servant, do you feel you are obligated to answer all my questions in regards to the matters regarding my case? YES or NO _______
• Does a public servant have more or less rights than a civilian? _________
• Are public servants entitled to answer questions? YES or NO ________
• Are civilians? YES or NO ________
• Which has more authority, Canadian Bill of Rights or the Highway Traffic Act (that which gets edited just about every year)? _________________________________________
• On a scale of 1 to 10, where would you rank perjury committed by a police officer? __________
• How many convictions of police officers committing perjury have you seen or heard about? ________
• How many complaints have there been about police officers lying under oath that you know about? A rough estimate… ____________
• There are about 250,000 police officers in this country and few if any get convicted of perjury. Does this statement sound accurate? YES or NO ________
• Are polygraph tests used in this country? YES or NO _______
• And if we have them, they are paid for by taxpayers, correct? YES or NO _______
• And if we have them, under what circumstances are they used? _______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
• What would happen if police officials were found to be negligent in their duties? _________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Do you personally believe that many officers abuse their power? YES or NO ______
• Do you think that the penalty/punishment of perjury would be motivation enough to cover their (a police officer’s) negligence? YES or NO ______
• If a civilian expresses his right to free speech and/or does not cooperate with a police officer who is violating a civilians' rights, then the officer hands out a ridiculous amount of fines, would you consider that fascism? _____________
  
  
  

• I received $300 dollars in fines for doing nothing wrong. This amount of money is large and in many cases, a lot people don’t even make that much after a week of employment.
• [************ this line removed for legal reasons ***********].
• I had to fight tooth and nail to get this matter addressed after the first 2 written complaints were shrugged off as if it were nothing. I went as far as writing the mayor and a local MP.
• I finally get an investigation executed and the final report can be proven to be bogus.
• I see the words at the bottom of the OPP’s letterheads that read… "A Sense of Duty to the Public, to Each Other, and to Ourselves." From my point of view and from the number of people I have so far discussed this with; the quote does not live up to its expectations... "A Sense of Duty to Ourselves" is a more accurate slogon for what I see is a corporation protecting their own interests.