1. Home
  2. Albums
  3. Neighbour trouble
  4. Administrators of public disorder

Offenders behind a blue wall

In the name of Justice, to Protect and Serve. What do you do when justice is perverted by a criminal personality in a uniform, carrying a gun purchased by the public they ostensibly serve? As it turns out, The Aims of the Criminal Law are more divergent than it would appear from statute alone.

Windsor Police Service Constable Mohamed Abdul Hamid

Particulars

Remarks

Narrative

2008
Place holder

Place holder.

Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, ...
2009
Place holder

Place holder.

Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, ...
2010
Place holder

Place holder.

Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, ...
2011
Place holder

Place holder.

Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, ...
2012
Place holder

Place holder.

Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, ...
March 9, 2012
Angry pictures

Constable Abdul Hamid was not present at the time of the event. He decided to become part of the repeat performace more than a decade later.

Place holder.

See: Paul Kevin Harper, Rikki Renee Reid, Amanda Ann Herba, Jennifer Crosby, Ron Bercovici, Walter Costa, Russell Cornett, John D. Liddle, Todd Szalay, Howard C. Cohen, Timmothy M. Kavanagh (December 5, 2015 - June 29, 2016), Belinda Pagliaroli (December 5, 2015 - June 29, 2016)
March 21, 2012
1:10 A.M.
Nearly four years in the making, shit finally meets fan

Constable Abdul Hamid was not present at the time of the occurrence. He decided to become part of the repeat performace more than a decade later.

Place holder.

See: Amanda Ann Herba, Rikki Renee Reid, Stephan Charette, Desiree Chevalier, Peter O'Quinn, Paul Renaud.
March 21, 2012
1:13 A.M.
CP/GO 2012-16387 - The Regulators take action

Constable Abdul Hamid was not present at the time of the occurrence. He decided to become part of the repeat performace more than a decade later.

See:
March 21, 2012
Crosby on the Bench: militating against the principles of fundamental justice
Re: de facto possession of sovereign power, actions of public officers ruling by force that the judicial branch depends upon to enable its force of rules, inconsistency of the Police Services Act with sections 11 and 15 of the Charter once process is issued, personhood of a police service
Place holder.
See: Jennifer Crosby, Paul Bridgeman
August 18, 2012
Hoodrat News Network
Place holder.
See: witness for the Crown Rikki Renee Reid, unnamed witness for the Crown Kelly-Anne Girard, Rainier Cloutier, David Fortune.
August 18, 2012
Burn it down
At the time of the occurrence, witness for the Crown Andrew Crossett was not present.
Place holder.
See: Paul Kevin Harper.
January 26, 2013
CP/GO 2013-6142 - Obstructing I will go, Obstructing I will go, hi-ho the victim laid low, Obstructing I will go
At the time of the occurrence, witness for the Crown Andrew Crossett was partnered with xxx. Witness for the Crown Issam Salame was partnered with unnamed witness for the Crown Shane Miles. Constable Michael Calce and his partner Constable Brent Glavin were wilfully obstructed by witness for the Crown Issam Salame as they arrived on scene with a physical description and positive identification of a fleeing suspect. This was the result: Paul Kevin Harper (January 2013 - June 29, 2016).
Place holder
Section 7 Charter violation (disclosure)
Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990
Place holder.
See:
January 26, 2013
CP/GO 2013-6185 - The Reichtard's third swastika
At the time of the occurrence, Constable Jon-Michael Woods did not have a partner. Sergeant Ann Hall was the officer in charge on scene. Witness for the Crown Andrew Crossett was not present.
Place holder.
Police Services Act R.S.O 1990
Place holder.
See:
June 17, 2013
Ontario Superior Court - Show me the man and I'll show you the crime
Place holder.
See: Scott K. Campbell, ...
June 19, 2013
Ontario Superior Court, second floor hallway - Production of stolen property
Place holder.
See: witness for the Crown Amanda Ann Herba, witness for the Crown Paul Renaud, witness for the Crown Peter Mombourquette
July 10, 2016
Place holder
Place holder.
See: Inspector Jim Farrand, Rikki Renee Reid, Rikki Renee Reid (the rest of the family), Rikki Renee Reid (Kelly-Anne Girard), Rikki Renee Reid (Tina Marie Kelly), Rikki Renee Reid (Amanda Ann Herba), Rikki Renee Reid (Paul Kevin Harper), Windsor Police Service Patrol Response
July 11, 2016
Police "Investigating" Police
...there is nothing you can do. Windsor Police Service Deputy Chief Vincent Power
Place holder.
See: Ontario Works recipient Rikki Renee Reid (2008-2016), Windsor Police Service (2009-2016), Mayor's Office Paul Carter for the Chair of the Windsor Police Services Board, Mayor's Office Paul Carter for the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of the City of Windsor, city employee Deputy Chief Vincent Power, city employee Inspector Jim Farrand, Windsor Police Service Professional Standards Branch, Chief of Staff Norma Coleman, City of Windsor Social Services
September 22, 2016
Place holder
At the time of the occurrence, Constable Crossett was not present.
Place holder.
See: Rikki Renee Reid, Tina Marie Kelly
September 23, 2016
Inadequate and ineffective policing
Place holder.
See: Ontario Works recipient Rikki Renee Reid (2008-2016), Chief of Staff Norma Coleman for the Chair of the Windsor Police Services Board, Chief of Staff Norma Coleman for the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of the City of Windsor, Windsor Police Service Senior membership (2009-2016), Chief of Police Albert Frederick, Deputy Chief Vincent Power, Deputy Chief Rick Derus, Windsor Police Service (2009-2016), Windsor Police Services Board, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager, Legal Counsel Susan Hirota, WPS Shelly Gray, Chief Administrative Officer Onorio Colucci
September 23, 2016
CP/GO 2016-69432 - The Royal we
At the time of the occurrence, Constable Crossett did not have a partner. Sergeant Steve Betteridge was the officer in charge on scene.
Place holder.
See: Rikki Renee Reid, ...
September 23, 2016
3:34 P.M.
CP/GO 2016-69432 - Intersectionality
The likes of which even the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has not seen in fever dreams. Constable Crossett is best thought of as a tree in this particular forest. See the forest.
... From legal's perspective, we just have to wait and see where this goes. City Solicitor Shelby Dawn Askin Hager
Goes? It's still going. We'll be calling the excerpt above an Open Purchase Order for now. A few titles and responsibilities will have to get sorted out before examining the neo-Westminster rosetta record in it's entirety:
  • Subject attorney: Shelby Dawn Askin Hager (Lawyer, ID # 43778J)
    • Witness attorneys:
      • Patrick Thomas Domenic Brode (Lawyer, ID # 16506W)
      • Susan Elaine Hirota (Lawyer, ID # 39762G)
      • Peter Mark Douglas Nazarewich (Lawyer, ID # 24533B)
      • Kristina Savi-Mascaro (Lawyer, ID # 46513D)
      • Catherine Emily Tracey (Lawyer, ID # 62702J)
      • Wira Hamiwka De Shield Vendrasco (Lawyer, ID # 19533D)
    • Subject institutions:
      • Province of Ontario
      • Ministry of the Attorney General
      • Law Society of Ontario
      • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
      • Corporation of the City of Windsor
      • Windsor Police Services Board
      • Windsor Police Service
  • Subject attorney: Susan Elaine Hirota (Lawyer, ID # 39762G)
    • Witness attorneys:
      • Patrick Thomas Domenic Brode (Lawyer, ID # 16506W)
      • Shelby Dawn Askin Hager (Lawyer, ID # 43778J)
      • Peter Mark Douglas Nazarewich (Lawyer, ID # 24533B)
      • Kristina Savi-Mascaro (Lawyer, ID # 46513D)
      • Catherine Emily Tracey (Lawyer, ID # 62702J)
      • Wira Hamiwka De Shield Vendrasco (Lawyer, ID # 19533D)
    • Subject attorneys:
      • John Barry Sitter (Lawyer, ID # 43836I)
      • John David Liddle (Lawyer, ID # 30743H)
      • Howard Cary Cohen (Lawyer, ID # 18272C)
      • Brian Peter Manarin (Lawyer, ID # 28143K)
      • Jennifer Anne Holmes (Lawyer, ID # 31368D)
      • Russell Walter Cornett (Lawyer, ID # 45052W)
      • Walter Costa (Lawyer, ID # 26630C)
      • Jennifer Joanne Epstein (Lawyer, ID # 59678A)
      • John Ivan Laskin (Lawyer, ID # 12466V)
      • Frank DeVries (Lawyer, ID # 29829I)
      • Stella Harmantas Ball (Lawyer, ID # 48908R)
    • Subject Public Officers:
    • Subject Police Constables
    • Subject constables at common law
    • Subject officers of the court:
    • Subject Judicial Officials:
      • Scott K. Campbell
      • Lloyd Dean
      • Holly R. Debacker
      • Richard Gates
      • John Ivan Laskin (retired)
      • Gladys I. Pardu
      • Anthony Constantine Pozzi
      • Lois B. Roberts
    • Subject institutions:
      • Province of Ontario
      • Legislative Assembly of Ontario, as represented by one of it's agents
      • The Lower and Superior Courts of Ontario
      • Court of Appeal for Ontario
      • Ministry of the Attorney General
      • Law Society of Ontario
      • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
      • Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (pre-2019, administration of justice)
      • College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (administration of justice)
      • St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (policing, law, administration of justice)
      • Hôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare (policing, law, administration of justice)
      • Corporation of the City of Windsor
      • Windsor Police Services Board
      • Windsor Police Service
  • Subject attorney: Shelby Dawn Askin Hager (Lawyer, ID # 43778J)
    • Witness Public Officers
    • Subject institutions:
      • Province of Ontario
      • Ministry of the Attorney General
      • Law Society of Ontario
      • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
      • Corporation of the City of Windsor
      • Windsor Police Services Board
      • Windsor Police Service
      • CPA Ontario
Place holder.
See: Chief of Staff Norma Coleman, Windsor Police Services Board, Deputy Chief Vincent Power, Corporation of the City of Windsor, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager, Legal Counsel Susan Hirota, Larissa McCorkell, Chief Administrative Officer Onorio Colucci
September 23, 2016
Place holder
Place holder.
See: Chief of Staff Norma Coleman, Windsor Police Services Board, Deputy Chief Vincent Power, Corporation of the City of Windsor, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager, Legal Counsel Susan Hirota, Larissa McCorkell, Chief Administrative Officer Onorio Colucci
September 24, 2016
Place holder
Place holder.
See: Chief of Staff Norma Coleman, Windsor Police Services Board, Deputy Chief Vincent Power, Corporation of the City of Windsor, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager
September 26, 2016
Formal notice

Written notice hand delivered to the individual's negligent institution, as defined by §22.1(b) of the Canadian Criminal Code1. The portion constituting a formal notice under the Tresspass to Property Act lawfully prohibits entry onto property owned, controlled, or occupied by the authors. A second portion, dealing with the common law, prohibits entry or communication for any purpose. It makes clear that the presumption at §3.(2) of the Act is invalid.

1See: Constable Jon-Michael Woods, CP 2011-40363 (July 12, 2011), for the first instance of confirmation in Police records.
September 27, 2016
CP 2016-70508 - Let's play a game
At the time of the occurrence, Constable Crossett was not present.
Place holder.
See: Tina Marie Kelly, Rikki Renee Reid, Constable Nicholas Perioris, Chief of Staff Norma Coleman, Windsor Police Services Board, Windsor Police Service Senior membership (2009-2016), Deputy Chief Vincent Power, Windsor Police Service, Corporation of the City of Windsor, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager, Constable Crossett, Sergeant Steve Betteridge
February 7, 2018
6:17 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - A Sweet Little Old Lady
WPS occurrence #: 18-10104
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: a tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas

Gina Gidillini doesn't get what she wants despite attacking the impediment. Thwarted, she calls the police in an attempt to have others remove a lawful obstruction of her demand with force or, in the alternative, harass and intimidate the adults forced to "tolerate" a child well past the age of majority.

Gina Gidillini:
  • Mischief
  • Intimidation
  • Public mischief

Place holder.

Windsor Police Association:

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, Anthony R. Mariotti, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ...
February 8, 2018
3:21 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ...
February 9, 2018
10:27 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #: 18-10527

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Re:

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ...
February 10, 2018
9:42 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #: 18-10801

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Re:

Place holder.

See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ...
January 28, 2019
3:38 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Snowmageddon
WPS occurrence #: 19-8096
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: Blue Shirt incitement
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Duncan Scott, Windsor Police Association, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ...
January 24, 2022
6:49 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - "It might be all she has," concludes Constable Side piece
WPS occurrence #: 22-6584
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Gina Gidillini:
  • 267.(b) Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
      multiple strikes with a snow shovel, no injuries
  • Intimidation
  • Public mischief
    • allege Assault
Windsor Police Association:
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ...
August 11, 2022
4:50 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - That foreshadowing thing they do in stories
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: a manipulative 15 year old single mother does not forget being caught
Place holder.
Welfareville rule (draft): Kill it before it kills you.
See: Shara Fields (aka Cameron, surname?) of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Karra-Lynn Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Samantha Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue (Shara Fields, Karra-Lynn Fields), Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services Department (Samantha Fields, Shara Fields, Karra-Lynn Fields), Ministry of Children Community and Social Services (Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services Department, Samantha Fields, Shara Fields, Karra-Lynn Fields), Canada Revenue Agency (Samantha Fields, Adam, Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services Department, Corporation of the City of Windsor Police Services Board, Windsor Police Association, Ministry of Children Community and Social Services, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Economic Development Job Creation and Trade, Ministry of the Attorney General, Department of Employment and Social Development Canada), Detective Renee Coughlin, James Coughlin (January 11 and June 8, 2016), Timothy M. Kavanagh (James Coughlin), Belinda Pagliaroli (James Coughlin, Timothy M. Kavanagh), Constable Nicholas Perioris
August 20, 2022
Welfareville rules (draft): If at first you don't succeed, take care of it yourself. Then deal with everything that made it necessary.
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: General Accident Assurance Company v. Chursz, a man believed to be Paul Kevin Harper lying in wait on Howard Avenue, the "epistemic grounds" of an insular tribe named Law described by an outsider reading primary sources
423.(1)(a) Intimidation
See: Windsor Police Service (2009-present), Attorney General of Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Law Society of Ontario, Paul Kevin Harper, Yvonne Doreen Bernier, John Sitter, Belinda Pagliaroli, Timothy M. Kavanagh, John D. Liddle, Renee M. Puskas, Walter Costa, Russell Cornett, Jennifer Holmes, Howard C. Cohen, Jennifer Mannen, ...
September 9, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Leftovers
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: Kozub and Cloutier leftovers (Kelly-Anne Girard)

The chimpout multiplier leaves Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue on a bicycle heading south towards Erie Street.

Screenshot place holder.
Welfareville rule (draft): Kill it before it kills you.
See: Windsor Police Service (2009-Present), Windsor Police Service Senior membership (2009-present), WPS Drug and Gun Enforcement Unit, Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, Crazy Cat Lady, Crazy Cat Lady Associate (chimpout multiplier upon return), Detective Renee Coughlin
September 9, 2022
5:49 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Applied social science
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: a visit by a member of the violent entitlement class sent by a young member of the same class that knew exactly what it was doing
A kid named Marcus has a father

A Stereotype at the door

A kid named Marcus

The effeminate looking Marcus

Marcus: Lethal force available as a remedy at law and common law.
Welfareville rule (draft): Kill it before it kills you.

Stereotype, Marcus' "father":
Lethal force available as a remedy at law and common law.
Welfareville rule (draft): Kill it before it kills you.
See: Stereotype, Crazy Cat Lady associate (Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, chimpout multiplier), Stereotype's son Marcus, Stereotype's daughter, B of 915 Elsmere Avenue, D of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Cara-Lynn Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Detective Renee Coughlin, James Coughlin (January 11 and June 8, 2016), Belinda Pagliaroli (James Coughlin)
September 9, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Rehersals
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: now remember kids, "snitches get stiches"
Place holder.
See: Crazy Cat Lady of Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, Crazy Cat Lady Associate, Cara-Lynn Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue, D of 915 Elsmere Avenue
September 10, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Hood hearsay is best hearsay
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: the White baseball cap at 927 Elsmere Avenue
Place holder.
See: Stereotype's son Markus,
September 23, 2022
2:17 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - The other shoe has dropped
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: the drug dealer from 883 Elsmere Avenue comes by after he appears to receive a telephone alert from the neighbourhood watch
Drug dealer from 883 Elsmere Leaving his home to aggressively walk the east and north perimeter (that is quite the strut), with a few unfriendly words (unintelligible inside his victim's residence), then returning home:
423.(1)(a) Intimidation / Preparation for mischief or home invasion
Place holder.
See: Windsor Police Service (2009-Present), Windsor Police Service Senior membership (2009-present), WPS Drug and Gun Enforcement Unit, Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, Crazy Cat Lady, Crazy Cat Lady Associate, 883 Elsmere Avenue/Terry Kozub, Stereotype's son Markus (not present), Prince Edward Public School (Stereotype's son Markus), Detective Renee Coughlin, ...
September 23, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Conference at Chateau Druggie
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: Kozub drug dealer and Crazy Cat Lady need to chat
Place holder.
See: Windsor Police Service, Attorney General of Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Drug dealer from 883 Elsmere Avenue, Crazy Cat Lady of Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, ...
September 24, 2022
1:36 - 2:05 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Move the stash
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: the drug dealer from 883 Elsmere Avenue moves his stash with the help of an associate
Place holder.
See: Windsor Police Service (2009-Present), Windsor Police Service Senior membership (2009-present), WPS Drug and Gun Enforcement Unit, Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, Crazy Cat Lady, Crazy Cat Lady Associate, 883 Elsmere Avenue/Terry Kozub, Stereotype's son Markus (not present), Prince Edward Public School (Stereotype's son Markus), Detective Renee Coughlin, ...
September 24, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Neighbourhood shitstains
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: failures being "raised" by failures looking for confrontation
Place holder.
See: Crazy Cat Lady of Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue (surname Russo?), Crazy Cat Lady Associate, Stereotype's son Markus (not present), Prince Edward Public School (Stereotype's son Markus), Detective Renee Coughlin, ...
September 24, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - The Clowns return
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: Dildo Motors
Place holder.
See: Crazy Cat Lady of Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, Cameron Fields (surname?) of 915 Elsmere Avenue, three neo-something-somethings, Cara-Lynn Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue, D of 915 Elsmere Avenue, B of 915 Elsmere Avenue
September 25, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - It's Dejavu all over again
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: inadequate and ineffective policing leading to loss of life
Every member of WPS Dispatch:
Torture
Leathal force available as a remedy at law and common law without immediately apparent exigent circumstance
Welfareville rule (draft): You're on your own. The only restraints are of your own making. Nothing is prohibited.
See: Windsor Police Service, Windsor Police Services Board, Corporation of the City of Windsor
September 27, 2022
6:15 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Neighbourhood skid marks
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: failures being "raised" by failures looking for confrontation
Place holder.
See: Cara-Lynn Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Stereotype's son Marcus, mouthpiece on a bike (Sam?), D of 915 Elsmere Avenue, B of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Prince Edward Public School, Greater Essex County Disdrict School Board, Ministry of Children Community and Social Services, Detective Renee Coughlin, ...
September 27, 2022
6:15 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - His name was Brian Caffarena
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: another non-compos mentis ward of the state and her mob of parasites
Skid marks and full grown hood rats:
Image place holder
Sheila Russo: Windsor Police Association:
Place holder.
See: Cara-Lynn Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Stereotype's son Marcus, mouthpiece on a bike (Sam?), D of 915 Elsmere Avenue, B of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Prince Edward Public School, Greater Essex County Disdrict School Board, Ministry of Children Community and Social Services, Detective Renee Coughlin, ..., Cleveland Stevens, Gina Gidillini
September 30, 2022
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Accelerationism reduces uncertainty - Are things getting squirrely?
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: memories of Frank Schwalm for the Windsor Police Service's armchair psychiatrists, a measure of sets in an abstract space of events, mapping human social networks with squirrels
Place holder.
See: Crazy Cat Lady of Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, CCL Intrepid friend, Sam, Samantha Fields household, Marcus, kid with no name yet, 927 Elsmere Avenue (white baseball cap), white baseball cap, ...
October 6, 2022
2:11 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Michael Kerzner has entered the chat
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: sedition
Place holder.
See: A drug dealer named Doug Ford, Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services (a drug dealer named Doug Ford), Ministry of the Solicitor General, Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services (Ministry of the Solicitor General), Law Society of Ontario, Ministry of the Solicitor General (intimidation), Michael Kerzner (political), Michael Kerzner (administration of justice), Michael Kerzner (bringing the administration of justice into disrepute), Michael Kerzner (political intimidation), Michael Kerzner (criminal intimidation), Michael Kerzner (intimidation of justice system participants), Michael Kerzner's extended household and their genetic lines, Ministry of the Attorney General, Solicitor General of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General), Ministry of the Attorney General (Solicitor General of Ontario), ..., Crazy Cat Lady of Lower-892 Elsmere Avenue, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services Department, ...
October 12, 2022
Earlier
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Standard entitlement whore operating procedure
WPS occurrence #: 22-xxxxxx
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Samantha Fields, Adam of 915 Elsmere Avenue, a used up asshat from 875 Parent, Windsor Police Service, Windsor Police dispatch, Windsor Police dispatch for the Windsor Police Association, Windsor Police Association, Windsor Police Service senior membership, Windsor Police Services Board, ...
October 12, 2022
8:29 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Absent fathers make an appearance
WPS occurrence #: 22-xxxxxx
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
In concert with Windsor Police dispatch:
  • Place holder
Windsor Police dispatch:
  • Place holder
Windsor Police:
  • Place holder
See: Windsor Police Service, Windsor Police dispatch, Windsor Police dispatch for the Windsor Police Association, Windsor Police Association, Windsor Police Service senior membership, Windsor Police Services Board, ...
October 12, 2022
Later
CP/GO 2022-83590 - A Study in Blue, first quarter
WPS occurrence #: 22-xxxxxx
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
See: Constable Kraben(?), ...
October 12, 2022
Later
CP/GO 2022-83590 - A Study in Blue, second quarter
WPS occurrence #: 22-xxxxxx
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
See: Constable Sportsball, ... Kiran Winter for Paul Kevin Harper (2012-2022), Kiran Winter for the Windsor Police Association as it relates to Paul Kevin Harper, Kiran Winter for Belinda Pagliaroli, Kiran Winter for Samantha Fields, Kiran Winter for Adam of 915 Elsmere Avenue, Kiran Winter for a used up asshat of 875 Parent Avenue, Kiran Winter for the skid marks, Kiran Winter for Sheila Russo, Kiran Winter for meetoo bitch, Kiran Winter for Gina Gidillini, ...
October 13, 2022
Evening
CP/GO 2022-83590 - A Study in Blue, third quarter
WPS occurrence #: 22-xxxxxx
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
See: Constable Sportsball, ...
October 13, 2022
Later
CP/GO 2022-83590 - A Study in Blue, fourth quarter
WPS occurrence #: 22-xxxxxx
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
See: Constable Sportsball, ...
December 14, 2022
6 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Send in the box wine busybodies
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

The Windsor Police Service leaves a voicemail message on behalf of a third party political action fund.

See: Gina Gidillini, Government of Ontario (funding), Corporation of the City of Windsor (funding), ...
December 22, 2022
4:00 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Gianpiero Gidillini and his penis for his mother
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: intentionally exposing himself to a female neighbour while marking territory like a dog
Gianpiero Gidillini:
  • 173.(1) Indecent acts / 174. Nudity
Gina Gidillini: See: Gina Gidillini, Gianpiero Gidillini, Windsor-Essex Catholic School Board (Gianpiero Gidillini), Corporation of the City of Windsor, Randall Spratt, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ... Kiran Winter
December 26, 2022
8:32 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Cleveland Stevens for a violent peasant named Gina
WPS occurrence #: 22-
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: hired help with its own agenda
Gina Gidillini:
  • 22.(1) Person counselling offence
    • Mischief
Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2022 - Present), Randall Spratt, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Mathilda Hewitt, ...
December 28, 2022
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - The Fat and the Furious
WPS occurrence #: 22-
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: morbidly obesse gibsmedat makes his first call
Gina Gidillini:
  • 22.(1) Person counselling offence
    • Criminal harassment
    • Intimidation
    • Assault
    • Mischief
    • Public mischief
Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2022 - Present), Randall Spratt, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Mathilda Hewitt, ...
December 28, 2022
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Gibsmedat: savage statist at large in the community
WPS occurrence #: n/a, they just left
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: parasitic fatass details his plans for the coming months
Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2022 - Present), Randall Spratt, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Mathilda Hewitt, ...
January 3, 2023
8:15 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - "He instigated me!" and other dumbass utterances
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
  • Attempts
    • 267.(b) Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
      • a smaller garbage bag partially filled with cans and bottles thrown at someone while they were standing in their backyard, missed
Place holder.
See: Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Assoication (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2023 - Present), Gina Gidillini, Windsor Police Association (Gina Gidillini from 2014 - Present)
January 27, 2023
4:47 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Be a good neighbour
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Gina Gidillini:
Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association (Gina Gidillini from 2014 - Present), Windsor Police Assoication (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2023 - Present), Corporation of the City of Windsor
February 7, 2023
4:15 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Bifurcate This!
WPS occurrence #: 23-13223
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: continuation from January 27, 2023
Place holder.
Windsor Police Association (2014 - Present), as related to Gina Gidillini:
  • 22.(1) Person counselling offence / Org / Negligence
    • Public mischief
    • Mischief
    • Public mischief
    • Criminal harassment
    • Public mischief
    • Intimidation
    • Public mischief
    • Assault
    • Public mischief
    • Fabricating evidence
    • Public mischief
Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
Gina Gidillini:
  • Assault
  • Intimidation
  • Public mischief
  • Also, specifically for Susan Elizabeth Whelan and the individual(s) that wrote a statement out, then had Ms. Gidillini sign it:
    • the geriatric bully calling someone else bad names
Windsor Police Association:
Susan Elizabeth Whelan:
  • Accessory after the fact
    • Assault
  • Abuse of process
  • ...but I'm a Justice of the Peace! Sounds like an interesting defence, Public Officer.
The Lower Courts of Ontario, as represented by Susan Elizabeth Whelan:
Mathilda Hewitt:
The Lower Courts of Ontario, as represented by Mathilda Hewitt:
Randall Spratt:
See: Gina Gidillini, Windsor Police Association, Lower and Superior Courts of Ontario, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Province of Ontario, Law Society of Ontario, Attorney General of Ontario, ...
February 8, 2023
Honest to goodness thieves
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence.

Place holder.

February 9, 2023
4:54 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - This ain't competitive Cow Chip Tossing
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: 23-00007547
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: actually tossing shit like a monkey
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor Office of the City Solicitor, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager, Corporation of the City of Windsor Policy Gaming Licensing & By-Law Enforcement Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Windsor Bylaw Enforcement, Windsor Police Service
February 10, 2023
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Ontario Court of Justice, Courtroom 7: Abuse of law is the process of politics
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: fraud vitiates everything in a free and democratic society founded upon the rule of law...but wait, this is Canada...
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor Office of the City Solicitor, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager, Corporation of the City of Windsor Policy Gaming Licensing & By-Law Enforcement Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Windsor Bylaw Enforcement, Windsor Police Service
February 15, 2023
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Mystery Machine
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
City of Windsor file #: n/a

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Parking enforcement comes out to begin investigating an abandoned vehicle. The vehicle owner says hello, points out 817 Niagara Street / Gina Gidillini and 816 Niagara Street / Cleveland Stevens, then stands out of the way so a few pictures can be taken before the vehicle is started and driven away. Mr. Stevens will claim responsibiliy for making the complaint on February 26, 2023.

Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
See: Cleveland Stevens, Gina Gidillini, Lower Courts of Ontario
February 25, 2023
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - "The crime was committed by Ms. Gidillini in the street with the stair spindle."
WPS occurrence #: 23-19794
City of Windsor file #: 23-00007547

Gina Gidillini places a stair spindle under a vehicle, then shovels her lawn while the owner checks the vehicle and removes the spindle. She continues by yelling and then going inside to call police. Multiple units respond to speak with Ms. Gidillini and then leave without attempting to speak with anyone else.



See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, ...
February 26, 2023
10:56 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Gangs of Ontario
WPS occurrence #: 23-TBD
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: anarcho-tyranny
Cleveland Stevens and a tenent he refers to as his son for Gina Gidillini:
Windsor Police Association:
See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2022 - Present), Randall Spratt, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Mathilda A. Hewitt, ...
February 26, 2023
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - 2 Fat 2 Furious: Commissionaire Drift
WPS occurrence #: 23-
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: anarcho-tyranny
Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini:
Gina Gidillini:
See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2022 - Present), Randall Spratt, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Mathilda Hewitt, ...
March 26, 2023
4:15 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - An intentional problem
WPS occurrence #: CP 23-30206, no presence (requested but refused)
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
A little over six months in, the same small group of skids that were brought into our lives by Karra-Lynn and Samantha Fields of 915 Elsmere Avenue continue in concert with Windsor Police dispatch:
  • 264.(1) Criminal harassment
    Mystery meat
    Welfareville rule (draft): Anyone that visits your home to attack your household forfeits both.
  • 430.(1)(a) Mischief, targeting a specific home and damaging it
    Welfareville rule (draft): Anyone that visits your home to attack your household forfeits both.
Along with one of the "adults" at 875 Parent Avenue responsible: Followed by the reason it continues and escalates, WPS: Section 7
  Contravention of Section 15(1) as a matter of policy in the administration of justice
Section 15
  Discrimination based on family status, age, perceived affluence, perceived intelligence, level of government dependence
See: Scooter skid of 875 Parent Avenue, Mystery meat, Sam of 875 Parent Avenue, Used up asshat of 875 Parent Avenue, every sworn Police Constable involved in CP/GO 2022-83590, every civilian member of WPS involved in CP/GO 2022-83590, Windsor Police Dispatch, Windsor Police Patrol Response, Windsor Police, Windsor Police Association, Windsor Police Services Board, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Kristina Savi-Mascaro ...
April 5, 2023
8:40 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Admissions of guilt and intent
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

During a brief walk on the sidewalk next to her source of fear, guilt:

Victim: Really? You're not scared, are you?
Gina Gidillini: No, I am not.
Victim: You're not scared?
Gina Gidillini: No.
Victim: Not at all?
Gina Gidillini: [shakes head side to side]
Victim: Okay.

Two minutes later, intent:

Gina Gidillini: You want to be a good neighbour?
Victim: I've been a good neighbour, Gina.
Gina Gidillini: Okay. So, from today, [possibly: ya, you, it, eh] done, you be a good a neighbour.
Victim: I don't think you understand what you've been doing.
Gina Gidillini: Oh, I don't wanna talk about it. You can't a-talk-a that way, [unintelligible, while making the sign of the cross]

Definitions used here:
Good neighbour: someone that does everything Ms. Gidillini demands
Bad neighbour: someone that does not do everything Ms. Gidillini demands

See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor Office of the City Solicitor, City Solicitor Shelby Askin Hager, Corporation of the City of Windsor Policy Gaming Licensing & By-Law Enforcement Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Windsor Bylaw Enforcement, Windsor Police Service, Windsor Police Association, Attorney General of Ontario, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, ...
April 24, 2023
4:45 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - That is one magic loogie
WPS occurrence #: 23-

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.


The Windsor Police Service sent someone that tried this:

Petruchio. Come on, a God's name; once more toward our father's.

Good Lord, how bright and goodly shines the moon!

Katherina. The moon? The sun! It is not moonlight now.

Petruchio. I say it is the moon that shines so bright.

Katherina. I know it is the sun that shines so bright.

Petruchio. Now by my mother's son, and that's myself,

It shall be moon, or star, or what I list,

Or ere I journey to your father's house.

Go on and fetch our horses back again.

Evermore cross'd and cross'd; nothing but cross'd!

Hortensio. Say as he says, or we shall never go.

Katherina. Forward, I pray, since we have come so far,

And be it moon, or sun, or what you please;

And if you please to call it a rush-candle,

Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me.

Petruchio. I say it is the moon.

Katherina. I know it is the moon.

Petruchio. Nay, then you lie; it is the blessed sun.

Katherina. Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun;

But sun it is not, when you say it is not;

And the moon changes even as your mind.

What you will have it nam'd, even that it is,

And so it shall be so for Katherine.

Hortensio. Petruchio, go thy ways, the field is won.

If you do not understand why the torch group and the pitchfork group must come together to eradicate this form of government, just stand off to the side with your bag of air fried crickets and watch unreality take shape.

See: Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Ann Kalinowski (retired), Public Officer Ann Kalinowski (retired), Corporation of the City of Windsor, Windsor Police Service, Constable Mohamad Abdul Hamid, ...
April 26, 2023
10:30 A.M.
Ontario Court of Justice, Courtroom 11 - Justitia's lemmata

Mr. Crossett did not participate in the third finishers race. He is one of many that embody the illusion of a competition.

  • Player One [the Accused]
  • Player Two [Anticipated prosecutor → "potential witness" → right fucked]
    • Right fucked, not proper fucked
  • Player Three [Crown witness]
    • December 30-31, 2021
    • March 28, 2023
      • Uh, guise? There's more video. A subpoenaed witness, 5th floor of the Ontario Court of Justice in Windsor, Ontario just after 4 P.M.
        The Crown prosecutes the cases that the police give us. If you think you have probative information, tell the police. The Crown
        • Inculpatory, exculpatory, immaterial? Don't know but it looks important.
        The police, you say? A subpoenaed witness, 5th floor of the Ontario Court of Justice in Windsor, Ontario just after 4 P.M.
    • March 29, 2023
      • The Crown
    • April 26, 2023
      • m'kay Defence counsel
        Thank you for your service. You do not need to testify. You can go. The Crown
Pyrrhic victory does not hint at the journey on a razors edge of oblivion.
May 1, 2023
9:46 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Public interest
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
We've managed to commit a social science.
Mystery meat

This acrobatic mofo is going to force a camera upgrade...or he could be lawfully killed by the private home owner using overwhelming leathal force.

See: Government of Canada, Government of Ontario, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, Lower and Superior Courts of Ontario, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Nine wordsmiths making excuses, Government funded propaganda organisations claiming to be the fourth and fifth estates, Mathilda Hewitt
May 5, 2023
3:58 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - The cook and his not so little bitch
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: the armpit of North America
Place holder.
See: The Cook, Cleveland Stevens, Gina Gidillini, a Progressive named Susan E. Whelan, Walter Costa, Belinda Pagliaroli, DIGS, Organizd crime, Organized Law enforcement crime, Mathilda Hewitt, everything else ...
Place holder
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 12, 2023
9:00 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Ontario Court of Justice, Courtroom 7: Outstanding disclosure
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Re: 810 disclosure takes four months when the Crown wants it to take four months, video evidence contradicts sworn information
Place holder.
See: Lower Courts of Ontario, Attorney General of Ontario, Randall Spratt and other members of his organization, Mathilda A. Hewitt, Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens
June 12, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 12, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 12, 2023
9:04 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Philosophia ancilla dogmatis
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Place holder.
Place holder Robert Jeffery Brisco, 9:31 P.M.
Chair of the Windsor Police Services Board Drew Dilkens for Robert Jeffery Brisco:
Chair of the Windsor Police Services Board Drew Dilkens for Leah McFadden:
See: Constable Sportsball for the Windsor Police Association, Constable Sportsball for the Windsor Police Service (personhood), Constable Sportsball for the Windsor Police Service (Criminal Organization), Constable Sportsball for Samantha Fields, Mathilda Hewitt, ...
June 12, 2023
9:25 - 9:26 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Windsor Police Association: Compounding expedient investigation
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Steven Joseph Brnardic oversees a Patrol Response investigation, aided by members of the Problem for the Windsor Police Association Oriented Policing squad, that begins as marked police vehicles come to a stop and ends as boots hit the ground. Mr. Brnardic is looking for someone. He believes that he knows where this person is located but would like to be certain.

See: WPS Dispatch, Senior membership orders to the troops, DIGS, POP squad (February 2023 - November 16, 2023), ..., Brisco (vendetta - baggage is an understatement), Winter (sportsball - go team!), ...
June 12, 2023
9:34 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Peak Brisco
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Robert Jeffery Brisco

It's long past time the Brisco Clan became past tense

Robert Jeffery Brisco for Robert Jeffery Brisco:
Robert Jeffery Brisco for Michael Jason Brisco:
The Brisco Clan for:
Windsor Police Association, as represented by a family chair:
Place holder.
See: Windsor Police Association, Randall Spratt, Attorney General of Ontario, Mathilda A. Hewitt
June 12, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 12, 2023
10:09 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Personhood
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: welcome back to welfareville.ca WPS HQ
Place holder.
See: Windsor Police Association, Randall Spratt, Attorney General of Ontario, Mathilda A. Hewitt
June 12, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Winter is cumming
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Place holder. Kieran Winter, October 12, 2022
Place holder.
Place holder. Kieran Winter, October 13, 2022

Poor Kieran has been waiting impatiently for more than six months to loose this load. Things are going to get messy.

See: Kieran Winter, Kieran Winter's extended family and their genetic lines, Kieran Winter for Paul Kevin Harper, Kieran Winter for Belinda Pagliaroli, ...
June 12, 2023
10:30 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Never let a manufactured crisis go to waste
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Scott Roberts, Scott Roberts and Major Crimes for the Windsor Police Service (2009-present),
June 12, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - The negotiator: Class of 2015 alumni
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
You keep using that word meme

Negotiator?

Place holder.
See: Shane Miles, Ryan Henderson, James Cornish, Chris Dwornikiewicz, Jennifer Mannen, Walter Costa, Russell Cornett, Belinda Pagliaroli, Timothy Kavanagh, Al Frederick, Pamela Mizuno, Jason Bellaire, ...
June 13, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 13, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 13, 2023
5:01 A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - We intend to compel the accused to be a witness
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Your Worship,

Please see attached Criminal Code search warrant with Feeney attachment.

Thank you,
Constable Spratt #2243 Randal Spratt, June 13, 2023 at 4:31 A.M. via email

You actually thought it was a good idea to fabricate evidence and perjure yourself for your union and, much more specifically, DIGS?

Randal Spratt:
  • Fabricating evidence
Officer, the offences listed in the warrant must have a suspect, date of offence and location of offence. It's not sufficient to simply list the charges.
There are no exigent circumstances that would justify a night search or a night entry. Your warrants are granted and are attached for daytime entry. Mathilda A. Hewitt, June 13, 2023 at 5:01 A.M. via email

Crossed i's and dotted t's...

Criticism exists only to recognize the truth, not to act as judge. Carl von Clausewitz

Did you even skim the guide book they gave you?

Any person charged with an offence has the right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.11
Nah. The Lower Courts of Ontario, as represented by Mathilda A. Hewitt
Mathilda A. Hewitt:
  • Breach of trust by public officer
  • Party to offence

Place holder.

See: Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, John Ivan Laskin, John Ivan Laskin's extended family and their genetic lines, Gladys I. Pardu, Gladys I. Padu's extended family and their genetic lines, Lois B. Roberts, Lois B. Roberts' extended family and their genetic lines, Scott Kevin Campbell, Scott & Marsha Campbell's extended family and their genetic lines, John David Liddle, John David Liddle's extended family and their genetic lines, Howard Carey Cohen, Howard Carey Cohen's extended family and their genetic lines, Walter Costa, Walter Costa's extended family and their genetic lines, Russell Cornett, Russell Cornett's extended family and their genetic lines, ... Michael Kerzner, Michael Kerzner's extended family and their genetic lines
June 13, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 13, 2023
8:22 A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Just the tip: ESU enters the dwelling to "clear" the building
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: a search for people still inside the dwelling is performed by police constables that refer to themselves as "a use of force" and then they leave

WPS ESU

See:
June 13, 2023
9:00 A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Warrant expiry
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: a search for people still inside the dwelling was performed by police constables that refer to themselves as "a use of force" and then they left...a while ago

No one is inside the home. No one has been inside the home for some time. The Windsor Police Service refuses to let a homeowner enter her home after expiration of the warrant but the family dog is allowed to remain inside.

See: Pocock and other members of his organization
June 13, 2023
9:00 ½ A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Y'all got any more of that Woodall shit?
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: professional witnesses
R. v. Butters, 2014 ONCJ 228
Second, where a search is authorized by a warrant it is crucial that it be commenced within the warrant period. It is not crucial that it be completed within the warrant period, so long as the officers are still conducting the search authorized by the warrant without unreasonable delay. In R. v. Woodall [1993] O.J. No. 4001 (Ont.C.A.) officers remained in the premises to be searched, continuing the authorized search, after the period expired. This was not a violation. The law is sensible. It is not going to convert a legal search into an illegal search because officers do not drop everything the second the warrant expires, leaving their authorized task incomplete. Similarly it is not going to convert the legal forensic acquisition of a computer’s contents into an illegal search because a continuing mechanical process takes longer than the outside period identified in the warrant. David M. Paciocco at para. 46

David M. Paciocco/Lee Stuesser/Palma Paciocco

The Law of Evidence, eh?

The intensity of mental gymnastics required to begin accepting this penultimate evidentiary grot is exhausting. A search warrant is an extreme intrusion upon the fundamental rights and freedoms of a citizen authorized by government on behalf of government for use by government. This routine exception process would have the body politic abdicate agency for administrative order immediately after surrendering guarantees to a demostrable justification that can, at best, be quantified as popular gossip or an expert opinion from a master of nothing.

[1993] O.J. No. 4001(C.A.)

R. v. Woodall, [1991] O.J. 3558
HIGGINS J. (orally)

[1] No evidence or argument yet made persuades me that the search warrant entered on this pretrial hearing should be quashed, pursuant to the notice of motion filed by the defence, returnable today.

[2] The question that defence counsel wanted me to decide is a procedural one, namely, whether or not the onus is on the Crown, the prosecution in this case, for admissibility of evidence or for the legitimacy of any search and seizure, as it clearly is, in the circumstances of a warrantless search. I believe that defence counsel agreed that in the first event any motion to invoke the application of Section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as regards, say Section 7 and or 8 of the Charter, places an onus first of all on an applicant who seeks relief. Even if defence counsel does not agree that that is the position with respect to his client in this case, I so rule. And in effect I did rule to that point earlier.

[3] Given that, the defence then called a police officer who gave testimony establishing, a) a surveillance on the property of the accused, b) a search warrant obtained and filed as Exhibit A on this pretrial hearing, c) that the search warrant was executed by entry within its terms of time and date and, d) that items were in plain view other than as specified in the raw warrant, which I find to raise reasonable and probable cause of some other offence having been committed, necessitating, according to the evidence, further search continuing beyond the time specified in that warrant.

[4] Defence counsel submits that I should rule that any items turned up after the time specified in Exhibit A, are in the nature of a warrantless search, thus imposing on the prosecution the duty of establishing its onus to the legitimacy of the continued search and the admissibility in due course of items seized thereunder.

[5] Counsel for the prosecution argued that once the police authorities were inside the premises pursuant to the warrant (which I do not think is denied) that anything turned up and seized, no matter the time and date, and no matter whether or not specified in the warrant, are legitimately seized and capable of being admitted in due course under that warrant Exhibit A. Defence counsel acknowledged that the police maintained their entry through the 8 of August and at least until the 9th of August without interruption. In effect, counsel for the prosecution was saying that although he had no cases to cite in support, that once in, and so long as the occupation was uninterruptedly maintained, all seizures are made and can be made pursuant to that warrant.

[6] Defence counsel submitted that the case of Pares Oriental Rug and the Attorney General of Canada, [1988] B.C.J. No. 3055, which was a case in the British Columbia Supreme Court, supported his position and ought to be persuasive to me to exclude anything turned up after the time specified in the warrant had expired.

[7] The Pares case which was in 1988, I believe -- I was given no citation but rather an original copy of the reasons for judgment -- is a case under the Customs Act. I am not persuaded that the evidence and arguments to this stage made, should cause me to reverse the onus and place it on the prosecution, so to speak, to rule that the era after 9:00 p.m. on the August 7th was in the nature of a warrantless search. Evidence revealed a potentially dangerous situation, with a plain view of the replica of a mauser sub machine gun, a prohibited weapon under the Criminal Code. In my opinion that was enough to continue the search either on the basis of reasonable and probable cause, that is, as warrantless, or within the ambit of the warrant. Exhibit A by the authenticated entry, as counsel for the prosecution had contended. In any case, the applicant has not met the onus on him to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that Section 24(2) of the Charter should be invoked in his favour.

[8] I do not find that his rights or his freedoms have been offended, infringed or denied. As far as I am concerned, the argument advanced by counsel for the prosecution is upheld, namely, that the original warrant properly acted upon, insofar as entry, time-wise, enabled police authorities to continue their search legitimately.

[9] Even if I am wrong in holding that that is that is limited, namely that entry be made between the specified hours, I cannot find that the police officers under the circumstances in this case, were required, (after the plain view evidence given in testimony was made to me) or was sufficient reason for them to depart and go back and obtain another warrant to authenticate their continuance to search.

[10] In my opinion such a position is an extravagant and unwarranted interference with the evidence that was advanced in this case at that stage, namely that there was a dangerous situation, potentially in view, and that reasonable and probable cause were sufficient to enable them to consider that an offence against the Criminal Code had been committed.

[11] The procedural point then has been decided. The onus was on the applicant. It has not been satisfied to the extent of transferring it to the prosecution. The motion to exclude the evidence at this stage is denied.

[12] MR. ZADUK: Just so that it is clear, Your Honour, I am a little disturbed, because I have not advanced that motion yet, and I am distressed that Your Honour is ruling on it at the procedural stage.

[13] THE COURT: Mr. Zaduk, you will have to, if you do not understand what I said, order a transcript. I have decided things to this stage. That does not preclude you from taking a position at a later stage. I have not made any reference to the other warrants. I have no reason at this stage to quash the first warrant. Nothing prevents you from any further rights that your client might have. I have simply decided that on the evidence I have heard the cases that have been cited to me, the articles that have been cited to me, that you have not satisfied me that the onus has been reversed. And that is the stage we are at.

[14] MR. ZADUK: All right, I guess I am in a position to call further evidence. I would also like to make a further application, Your Honour, to cross-examine the affiants on the various search warrant information on the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada Case, in Garofoli. In conjunction with this Your Honour. I would like to make application to cross-examine at large,

[15] THE COURT: Well, now just hold on a minute, now. Now this is something you should have brought up sooner, really. I believe that it may, it was made clear to me that you were not going to,go behind the warrant. I am not going to do this case in pieces.

[16] MR. ZADUK: Just a minute, Your Honour. With respect,

[17] THE COURT: I am sorry.

[18] MR. ZADUK: I was asked whether I was making any sub-facial attack on a warrant, and I said yes.

[19] THE COURT: At some later stage.

[20] MR. ZADUK: Well, I think that under the authority of the Ontario Court of Appeal Case in Savalos, that the proper approach is to combine a charter attack on a search warrant with a motion to quash it. And that all of those issues should be dealt with in the same voir dire. And it is for that reason that I am now addressing this point at this stage, so that we can deal with the same issues with the same witnesses.

[21] MR. RAFTERY: I am not opposed, so long as that is agreeable to Your Honour.

[22] THE COURT: The last thing I want to do is to deny anybody his rights. But I thought that you were not going to go behind that warrant.

[23] MR. ZADUK: No, that was the opposite to the position I took as a reference.

[24] THE COURT: Well, it would be necessary for me to read all the transcripts and know, you certainly gave me to believe that. I certainly refuse to quash it on what I heard today.

[25] MR. ZADUK: Well, my remarks are on the transcript, Your Honour, and they were quite clear with respect.

[26] THE COURT: Now, what you want to do is you want to bring the motion to examine the affiance to support to the obtaining of the warrant, Exhibit A, is that it?

[27] MR. ZADUK: Yes.

[28] THE COURT: Crown Counsel does not object?

[29] MR. RAFTERY: Well, Crown Counsel, just so that we are clear for the record, does not object to his bringing his application. The Crown is objecting to him leading the cross-examination of affiance. I will have to hear his argument to further state my reasons.

[30] THE COURT: All right. Carry on.

[31] MR. ZADUK: The entire law on this subject, Your Honour has been rendered superfluous up to November 22 of last year. If Your Honour will recall, there was a great deal of law culminating in the Court of Appeal Judgment in the Scientology case, [1987] O.J. No. 64, about this that came up with some pretty ...

[32] THE COURT: Well, prior to what case is the law has to be looked at?

[33] MR. ZADUK: Prior to Garofoli. Garofoli is now the last word on it, and there is a code of procedure in effect, set out at the majority judgment, beginning of page 45. That is through to page 50 of the authorization. Before, under Scientology, the defence, before they even had the right to cross-examine the affiant of a search warrantor a wire tap authorization, had to establish that there were grounds to suspect fraud. Or a substantial nondisclosure or gross negligence in the nature of fraud. Now that has #11, been mercifully put to rest by the Supreme Court of Canada, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421. The Court of Appeal, [1988] O.J. No. 365, in essence followed an American Case called Franks and Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, which lead out those particular prerequisites to cross-examine on the affidavit that Mr. Justice Sopinka, says at the bottom of page 46;.

[34] THE COURT: You said the Court of Appeal, you mean the Supreme Court of Canada, do you? Or were they according to the Court of Appeal's decision?

[35] MR. ZADUK: Yes, the Court of Appeal's decision in Scientology, is what Justice Sopinka addresses, at the bottom of page 46 where he says:

"In my opinion, these preconditions are subject to the same criticisms t at were levelled at the preconditions for the sealed packed imposed by the restricted access cases. In Regina v. Playford, 63 O.R. (2d) 289, Mr. Justice Goodman stated; "He cannot gain access to the affidavit, unless he can prove on a prima facie basis the grounds for such access. And he cannot prove such grounds unless he has access."

[36] And in Finlay and Grellette, 52 O.R. (2d) 632, Mr. Justice Martin stated:

"Counsel for the appellant stated that in consequence the restriction placed on an accused access to the sealed pack, the accused finds himself in an impossible situation. To ascertain whether there has been fraud or nondisclosure, he requires access to the sealed packet. He cannot gain access to the sealed packet unless he proves fraud or nondisclosure."

[37] So to use a more colloquial saying, it is a "Catch 22" which the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and has now been put to rest:

"Further, I question the utility of cross-examination if the accused can establish, even on a prima facie basis deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for truth. Except on television, most cross-examiners would consider a cross-examination to succeeded marvellously if the result is a prima facie case. If the affiant has been deliberately false or reckless. If this can be made out ab-extra, there is no need to cross-examine."

[38] Skipping to the bottom of page 48:

"In my opinion, the preconditions in Franks and Delaware ..."

[39] Which is the case on which the Court of Appeal on Scientology relied.

"... are too restrictive. I believe they are inconsistent with the approach we have taken in Canada with the respect to the right to cross-examine. Moreover subject to the protection of the identity of the informants and the concern with respect to the prolongation of proceedings, I see no reason for such a drastic curtailment of the right. I believe these concerns can be accomplished without imposing restrictions as inhibitive as those in Franks and Delaware. With respect to informants there is no right to cross-examine now."

[40] And we are not talking in this case, Your Honour, as far as I understand it, about any civilian informant.

"Then with respect to prolixity, I am in favour of placing reasonable limitations on cross-examination. Leave must be obtain to cross-examine. The granting of leave must be left to the exercise of the discretion of the trial judge. Leave should be granted when the trial judge satisfied the cross-examination as necessary to enable the accused to make full answer in defence. A basis must be shown by the accused for the view that cross-examination will elicit testimony tending to discredit the existence of one of the preconditions of the authorization."

[41] This being a wire tap case. As for example, the existence of reasonable and probable grounds. That of course would apply equally to search warrant questions.

"When permitted, the cross-examination should be limited by the trial judge to questions that are directed to establish that there was no basis upon the authorizations could have been granted. The discretion of the trial judge should not be interfered with on appeal excepting cases in which it is not been judicially exercised. While leave to cross-examine is not the general rule, it is justified in these circumstances in order to prevent an abuse of what is essentially a ruling on admissibility of evidence.

[42] THE COURT: I am wondering why you did not do this first? It would seem to me that,

[43] MR. ZADUK: Because the ...

[44] THE COURT: Logically it comes before what has already been done.

[45] MR. ZADUK: Well, not really, Your Honour, with respect because had I persuaded Your Honour my position on the first point, the Crown would have had to call these witnesses anyway, and then I would have been able to cross-examine them in due course.

[46] THE COURT: Have you any other little gems to tell me about later, that we ought to know about now, out of order, because as far as I am concerned, you should have brought this motion first.

[47] MR. ZADUK: Well I beg to disagree, Your Honour, for the reason I just stated.

[48] THE COURT: You have the right to disagree with me, but surely when your motion says that you want to quash the warrant, the first thing you do is to show that it was invalidly obtained. And you have left that until after you have tried this other tactic.

[49] MR. ZADUK: I am sorry if Your Honour feels I am trying to take liberties with the court. I am not. Had I succeeded in the first application; this one would have been nugatory. It is a matter of trying to save the court some time.

[50] THE COURT: It seems to me, it is the other way around sir. Now were you to succeed on establishing that there were no reasonable and probable grounds for obtaining the warrant, then the entry would have been illegitimate, would it not?

[51] MR. ZADUK: Well, getting back to Zevallos, [1987] O.J. No. 663.

[52] THE COURT: It would have nothing to do with onus, as to whether it was perhaps, anyway. But obviously you do not agree with my logic, so carry on.

[53] MR. ZADUK: Well, it is not up to me to agree or disagree Your Honour. The Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced clearly in the ...

[54] THE COURT: The Supreme Court of Canada has not been faced with what I have been today. All that I am saying is that this, what you are now trying to do legitimate as it may be, should have been done first. We wasted a morning, in effect. Carry on.

[55] MR. ZADUK: All right. Well, it is up to me only to show, to persuade Your Honour that the right of cross-examination is necessary ...

[56] THE COURT: I am waiting for you to do that.

[57] MR. ZADUK: ... in order to make full answer in defence.

[58] THE COURT: I am waiting for you to do that.

[59] MR. ZADUK: All right. If I can refer Your Honour, to the factum which I gave to the court on the onset. Your Honour will see certain factual matters in here that in my submission bear directly on the sufficiency of the warrant in the admissibility of anything seized, either pursuant to it or pursuant to any other searches. In paragraph 2, I set out my contention that these warrants were pretext, used as a general search. And I do this on the basis of the Crown disclosure to me. That the police had an expectation that something more might be found in those premises than they listed in the warrants. Those other matters, they could not get warrants for because they had no reasonable and probable grounds. So all along they were seeking to get inside the door so that they could have a look. And in due course, I will be making submissions in accordance with what I set out in the factum that such conduct is not lawful. I would submit that there is also reason to hold that the Plain View Doctrine would not apply in this case, because of that very pre-existing expectation that they would discover something they have not,

[60] THE COURT: Mr. Zaduk, excuse me for interrupting you again, but what has the Plain View Doctrine, got to do with whether or not there were reasonable and probable grounds to get a warrant? Do you not need to do something more than simply submit this? Do you want to call evidence to establish that this was a pretext, and that ...

[61] MR. ZADUK: That is what I am saying, to cross-examine them.

[62] THE COURT: .... there were no reasonable and probable grounds? Is that what you want to do?

[63] MR. ZADUK: Well, yes all of this precisely. I am seeking the right to cross-examine.

[64] THE COURT: Then what are you talking about the Plain View Doctrine for?

[65] MR. ZADUK: Because that goes to sufficiency of the search.

[66] THE COURT: If I decide that there was no reasonable and probable grounds for obtaining the warrant, Plain View does not even come into it, sir.

[67] MR. ZADUK: It would at a latter point.

[68] THE COURT: You may know something I do not know.

[69] THE COURT: Well, for example in the Askov Case I gave you, [1987] O.J. No. 1626, the warrant was quashed. And then Judge Borins decided whether in light of that the police could invoke the Plain View Doctrine. And I would have anticipated if these warrants were quashed, my friend might still rely on the Plain View Doctrine.

[70] THE COURT: I see, you are taking it a step further. You are saying that the possibility that a Judge hearing the evidence, which you believe you can adduce, would hear sufficient to cause him to decide under a 24(2) that the administration of justice would be in disrepute if the evidence was not admitted. Is that it?

[71] MR. ZADUK: Yes sir.

[72] THE COURT: I see. Which really has nothing to do though with the legitimacy of the obtaining of the warrant. It applies to the latter stage. I agree with Your Honour.

[73] THE COURT: But the authenticity of the warrant is long before the search started. Why would you be calling evidence relative to Plain View on a hearing to be conducted?

[74] MR. ZADUK: Well when ...

[75] THE COURT: Under your point 2.

[76] MR. ZADUK: Well, I would be seeking the right to cross-examine these witnesses at large.

[77] THE COURT: What you are saying is that something might come out that you might not want to hear.

[78] MR. ZADUK: I am not saying that. Let me try to reduce it to this stage, Your Honour. These are police officers. They are people that testify day in, day out. They are, it is not unkind to typify them as professional witnesses. I am defending a man charged with serious criminal offenses. Your Honour has placed the onus on me to adduce evidence with respect to these searches. My arguments implicitly criticize the conduct of the police. Both in obtaining these warrants, and in executing them, getting evidence out of these witnesses in-chief will be like pulling teeth. They are inherently adverse to my position. In addition to asking for the right to cross-examine, the affiance on the basis of their sworn information, I am asking the court as a practical and fair matter, give me the right to cross-examine the police generally on these issues. Because they are not going to give me the answers I want, unless I drag them out of them. We all know that. And my friend has the right to cross-examine them. That is a great anomaly here. So that is the second thing I am asking Your Honour for. Now, getting back to the first one, I am just trying to focus that a bit. I understand that Officer Bishop, the first affiant for example, swore on his information, that Mr. Woodall had been witnessed breaking into this premises in Terra Cotta. And had been watched, together with another man for a period of half an hour, emptying goods out of that premises, putting them in a car, then driving them back and parking in a garage at Mr. Woodall's own premises in Rockwood. The truth of that matter, as I understand it from reading other will says of the police officers, is that Mr. Woodall had nothing to do with that burglary, was not one of those two men, did not enter that car. And that that was a complete misstatement to the Justice of the Peace. Even on the Scientology standard, that is fraud. In my submission, that opens the door to me to cross-examine. If not in general, at least on that point alone. I expect to be advancing an argument at some place, some point if I get the ammunition that these search warrants were not executed in good faith. Because when they were executed, the police knew that the goods in question had already been taken away. Before they went in there. At ten minutes to nine, they knew that the car in which all of these things were, had already been driven away. And not only that, the police had stopped it, and arrested the people. And had seized the car and had towed it to the police station. And then later, they are pretending that by executing this warrant, they are going to find some of these things. But then to top that off Your Honour, guess when they searched that car, to arm themselves with the knowledge that that stuff is actually in there. Three days later. They defer getting a search warrant for that length of time. And then when they see the JP the next day to get the warrant for the guns, they do not say anything to him about how they obtained the first search warrant, that they "Lied", and I put that word in quotation marks, to the JP the day before. They do not say that they have clarified the situation. And they found out all along that their reasonable and probable grounds for searching Woodall's place the first day have dissolved, because the goods are no longer there and because there is no evidence that he is the burglar.

[79] THE COURT: What time did the goods leave according to your information?

[80] MR. ZADUK: I think sometime around 7:30 or so, and they were ...

[81] THE COURT: Between 6:00 and 9:00 though?

[82] MR. ZADUK: Oh yes, and they were, that car was seized by the police prior to 8:30. And then the police pretend that they are going to go in there and find the goods that they have already recovered. In fairness, as it turns out, one single item that came from the burglary that day did make its way into the Woodall premises. But it was not one of the items listed in the search warrant information. My submission at the end of the day Your Honour is that these applications were accompanied with so much mendacity and bad faith, that these searches cannot stand. And that is what I am alleging at this point. I could give Your Honour more instances, but suffice it to say at this stage I am putting before the court, as an officer of the court, having read the disclosure, and this is subject to any modifications my friend wants to make on this.

[83] THE COURT: I think I have heard enough, so have to call upon Mr. Raftery to respond in opposition to what counsel is seeking to do here.

[84] MR. RAFTERY: Perhaps you can establish what my friend's position is, further, Your Honour. Is my friend admitting that a break and enter took place?

[85] THE COURT: I do not know that it is necessary for me to put some sort of an onus on him at this stage. He is saying that he has made statements to me in support of his contention that he should be entitled to cross-examine those persons who gave testimony persuading the Justice of the Peace to grant a warrant filed as Exhibit A.

[86] MR. RAFTERY: That seems to be his position, Your Honour. What I have difficulty with is among what he said, there is nothing to detract from the search warrant sufficiently, that a Justice acting judicially would not have granted the warrant.

[87] THE COURT: How do I know that if I do not hear them?

[88] MR. RAFTERY: Well he is the one that is making the application. And according to the Garofoli, which is a wire tap case, which is much more intrusive, the courts have said, than a regular search warrant, far more invasive of privacy. First of all, it is dealing with a sealed packet application. My friend, first of all, has the affidavits in support of the search warrant. So this is a different situation, to start off with.

[89] THE COURT: He also has the disclosure.

[90] MR. RAFTERY: He also has the disclosure.

[91] THE COURT: He says that they are in contradiction.

[92] MR. RAFTERY: I will be guided certainly by Your Honour. However, it is the Crown's submission, that at page 49 in Garofoli, the search, or the wire tap matter. The court says a basis must be shown by the accused for the view, the cross-examination will elicit testimony tending to discredit the existence of one of the preconditioned to the authorization. As for example, the existence of reasonable and probable grounds. It is respectfully submitted, that nothing he has said has obviated the reasonable and probable grounds of the officer obtaining the search warrant to believe that there were items within the residence, as a result of the break and enter, as set out in the information to obtain the search warrant. And it is respectfully submitted that until he goes to that stage, that this is not a free for all. Not only does he want to cross-examine that officer at large, but anybody else that might have been talking to the officer. And completely subverting a judicial process as respectfully submitted. He has got to show there was some fraud on the Justice of the Peace to the extent the Justice of the Peace would not have issued that search warrant. He has not done that. As for this suggestion, that there are alterer motives that there are, whatever, that it is not in good faith, it is respectfully submitted that he has got to go to the very heart. He has got to say that the officer, he has got to have some suggestion that officer, when swearing the information, had no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there were items within that residence which would afford evidence of an offence. That is what he has got to give Your Honour. And he has not done that, even through counsel's submissions. There is no reason to go behind the information, and go behind the search warrant in this instance, in the respectful submission of the Crown.

[93] MR. ZADUK: That is ...

[94] THE COURT: I do not need to hear further from you. I am, I am not satisfied at this stage, that there is a reason which ought to prohibit me from granting the motion. Counsel has advanced the position that there is contradiction between Crown's disclosure, and the information that was placed before the Justice of the Peace, sufficient to enable him to cross-examine the affiant, or affiants with reference to the search warrant, or warrants.

[95] MR. ZADUK: Warrants.

[96] THE COURT: Or warrants. For that reason, I am going to grant the motion. I am going to require that the Crown produce those who gave supporting testimony to a Justice of the Peace with reference to search warrants. Now, whether or not the testimony elicited by cross-examination, which right I give to counsel for the defence or not is another matter. But sufficient concern has been raised in my mind to cause me to feel that this right ought to be granted. Therefore produce them after lunch.

[97] MR. RAFTERY: Thank you, Your Honour.

R. v. Woodall, [1991] O.J. 3559
HIGGINS J. (orally)

[1] I find that there has been sufficient evidence to convict the accused on Counts 2, 3 and 4, without any doubt. I am not convinced, on any plateau, that anything other than the monitor was in only the accused's possession. With reference to Count 1, there is evidence that the garage was used by Carl, as well as the father and while bolt cutters and screwdrivers, and things of that sort were found in the garage I cannot find beyond reasonable doubt they belonged to or were in the possession of the accused, for the purposes charged, so I cannot agree with that count. With reference to Count 6, I think I will register a stay, pending any disposition that ultimately will take place, with reference to Count 4. With reference to Count 5, I think there is enough contradiction in Westley's evidence, to cause me to be in reasonable doubt, as to whether that weapon was the property of the accused, to the extent of finding him guilty of being in possession of it. Therefore there will be convictions on Counts 2, 3 and 4, acquittal with reference to Counts 1 and 5, and a stay with reference to Count 6.

[2] Now, what do you say about disposition?

[3] MR. ZADUK: Mr. Woodall, Your Honour, has asked me to ask the Court to consider passing sentence today.

[4] THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed?

[5] MR. RAFTERY: Yes, Your Honour.

[6] THE COURT: All right, I will hear from counsel for the prosecution first, go ahead.

[7] MR. RAFTERY: Your Honour, maximum penalty, is reserved for the worst offence and the worst offender. Given the lack of criminal precedence of the accused, the Crown is not in a position to say that the accused is the worst offender. Given the nature of the offenses, however, one is very close to being admissions of fact.

[8] Those are my submissions.

[9] THE COURT: Thank you. I listened very carefully to all of the evidence that was heard during the length of this trial. I listened very carefully to the submissions made by Counsel. Counsel for the prosecution asserts, that there is no record, but counsel for the defence, quite properly performing his duty, has acknowledged that there is a previous conviction for Theft Under, and one for Failure to Appear, and that the accused has been in jail now, for almost 7 months.

[10] This accused is to that extent, almost a first offender, and I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, that for the purpose of specific deterrents, this accused heeds penitentiary sentence. Under the evidence that I heard, he gave himself up immediately he was confronted, and caused no fooforah with the Police, once he knew that the jig was up. So that has to be taken into consideration, as well as his pretrial custody time.

[11] On the other hand, while he is almost a first offender, he's not youthful, and I certainly adopt the submissions made by counsel for the prosecution, in that, they do substantiate, that the accused was in a business, in a business being carried on, over a period of some time with others on a continuing basis, per the evidence of his own son, and at times, he was even more of a participant in thefts involved in acquiring property; as evidence, the military material, that he was a lookout in connection with, and which was ultimately found on the property.

[12] He has been, it has been shown, that he has crossed the border, in his errands, with reference to business, whether this was legitimate business that he carried on, or otherwise, I do not know. Certainly, some of the border crossings involved firearms.

[13] Given the fact that he is almost a first offender, as I have said, I do not think a penitentiary sentence is appropriate. I think general deterrence will be served by a reformatory sentence. You see, in this particular case, there was in excess of $20,000, capable of changing hands between himself and thieves, and himself and subsequent owners on the day in question, and his own son testified, that stuff would come in in the morning, and be gone soon, that the items kept changing. He was regularly disposing of stolen goods to other people, I can conclude. That is something that has to be considered, in the view of general deterrence, as also is the fact that he was in possession of, first of all, a semi-automatic gun that he brought from the United States, and then was converted under his supervision, from semi-automatic to automatic, and thereafter fired, and that he had hidden away on his property, another weapon, a hand gun, which was prohibited.

[14] Under all of the circumstances, and adopting to the extent that is appropriate the remarks of counsel for the prosecution with reference to the business going on, while at the same time tempering the status of this particular individual on the basis of submissions made by counsel for the defence, relevant to the disasters that have overtaken him since, while he was in pre-trial custody, I think that the sentence in a range of about 18 months is appropriate.

[15] Woodall is therefore sentenced on Count 2 to 12 months in jail, on Count 3 to 4 months in jail consecutive, and on Count 4, 2 months in jail consecutive. There will be an Order to go prohibiting him from owning any firearms, ammunition, or explosive substance for 5 years.

[16] Is there anything I can do about the disposition of the seized weapons?

[17] MR. RAFTERY: You can order the destruction thereof, Your Honour.

[18] THE COURT: Can I order that under 491?

[19] MR. RAFTERY: We never considered which Section.

[20] THE COURT: Well I looked at the Section, and it says:

"Where firearms had been used in an offence."

[21] I can do that. Can I do it otherwise?

[22] MR. RAFTERY: Can I have the Court's indulgence? S. 103 s.s. (6), Your Honour.

[23] THE COURT: S. 103 s.s. (6)?

[24] MR. RAFTERY: That refers to an application brought by Crown with respect to disposition of weapons seized under warrant, and indicates the Provincial Court Judge, I would take it, that it would apply to mutatis mutandis to this Court. It's not desirable in the interests of safety of the person, or of any other person, the person should have possession, custody, or controlled of firearm, or other offensive weapon, the Judge may order the article seized, be disposed of on such terms, in this case, the Provincial Court Judge, deem it's fair and reasonable, and gives such directions concerning the payment or application of the proceeds of any of the dispositions the Judge sees fit.

[25] THE COURT: Do you have submissions on that?

[26] MR. ZADUK: No. I have some doubts whether Your Honour can do it, but I'm not opposing it. Mr. Woodall has no interest in recovering any of these weapons.

[27] THE COURT: Well, I think what I will do is I will wait until you make an application. You can make an application to me later on, and I will listen to it, Mr. Raftery.

[28] MR. RAFTERY: Thank you.

[29] THE COURT: I am not certain, that s. 491 covers it, and I am surprised that there would not be something under s. 491, by a Subsection, that would cover this situation, but I can be approached later with reference to that. Those newspaper clippings, photocopies, can be filed, and there is the indictment.

R. v. Woodall, [1991] O.J. 3563
HIGGINS J. (orally)

[1] I am going to try to break this down into about seven parts. I am going to make a brief attempt to summarize the evidence or the events of that day from my memory as chronologically as I can. Then I will deal with an overview of the evidence of the police officers involved. Then I am going to come to grips, thirdly, with the complaints that the defence has with reference to Exhibit One, and deal with the cases, that I believe relate to the decision that has to made as to the validity of that search warrant. Then I am going to review the defence submissions, and those of the prosecution.

[2] On the 7th of August, 1990, there were at least seven testifying police officers involved with what went on that day, with the possible exception of Officer McDaid, of the O.P.P., and the probable exception, insofar as attendance at the scene anyway, of Officer LaFrance of the O.P.P. It would also appear that there was more than one police force involved, the Ontario Provincial Police were involved as was also the Halton Regional Police. The Ontario Provincial Police was represented by at least two, possibly three, detachments of involvement. It would appear that Detective Skinner of the Ontario Provincial Police was largely in charge of the whole matter from important times onward anyway, although at an earlier stage Sergeant McMillan of Halton Regional Police was on the scene, at least at a command post.

[3] The evidence will reveal that surveillance began on the Woodall premises in Eramosa Township around eight o'clock that morning, arising out of unrecorded suspicions, that is, the source of the suspicions were unrecorded. During that morning period, certainly a person named Boarder and one named Aitkman were seen near the Woodall premises during the early stage of the day before noon. I am not certain whether there's evidence as to whether Woodall was visible. It was also likely that there were children seen in or near the premises because of something that happened later. Later on in the day someone named Liam Nolan was seen at the premises, and at another location, a Shawn Nolan was connected somehow to the whole series of events.

[4] Somewhere around 10:30 in the morning, a blue Cordova was seen to leave the Woodall premises by officers conducting surveillance and this was reported probably to the command post, and ultimately that car was followed. In it were two occupants, one of them was for certain, Boarder; first name I think, was Carl. The other one probably was a male named Aitkman. This car was seen to go to a location in Peel Township at a geographical location described as Terra Cotta and surveillance officers watching saw a break-in at a residence at that place, that took place somewhere after 11:00, for five to ten minutes, entry having been made through a window and articles having been removed and put in the Cordova.

[5] At some stage during this burglary, because there was no evidence at that stage that there was an occupant involved, a neighbour came into the picture and the burglars fled at high speed. In the course of events, they were followed back to the Woodall premises where the Cordova was driven immediately into an unattached garage at the Woodall property, and the two exited from the car and went into the house. For reasons given by the police no apprehension was then attempted. I am satisfied with those reasons why that did not take place at that time. It was because of continuing investigations.

[6] Sergeant McMillan of Halton Regional who appears to have been at the command post about two kilometres or miles away from the Woodall residence but in contact with surveillance officers at the scene, at the Woodall property, telephoned Caledon O.P.P. Detachment to advise it of events and was talking to Police Officer Bishop who may also have been a detective. As a result of information that Officer Bishop obtained, he decided to get a search warrant to search the Woodall premises, ostensibly to recover in due course the property that was taken from Terra Cotta back to Eramosa Township to the Woodall property, even though he knew that other investigations were continuing, according to information he had received.

[7] Throughout the day, he talked to other officers and dispatched other officers, for example, to confirm that in fact there was a Sergeant McMillan who was not then known to him, in charge of an investigation going on and this was done by contacting the Guelph Ontario Police Detachment. Officer Bishop also, to verify, dispatched another officer, who didn't testify, I think the Officer's name was Hatcher, to the Terra Cotta residence, and was able to talk to the occupant or owner whose name was DaSilva and a description at that stage was obtained as to what appeared to be missing from the property following the break-in that had been seen, including, amongst other items, numbering about ten, a fur coat with the owners or occupants name in it.

[8] Proceeding from Caledon Detachment to Guelph with the information that he then had somewhere around three o'clock, he ultimately was able to attend on a justice of the peace between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. with the information that he had then obtained, in a fashion that he said he obtained it, and verifying it to the extent that he felt was appropriate, and got a search warrant to search the Woodall premises. The justice of the peace who gave the warrant stipulated that the hours of effect were 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on that day, the 7th of August, 1990. Officer Bishop then went to the Command Post and reported in to whomever was there, and probably whomever was in charge.

[9] Other people were seen around the place, including, this Liam Nolan, property was seen being taken from the garage where the blue Cordova had driven into the house, and I should say things were being seen, things were seen being taken from the garage and put in another vehicle that was driven up near the garage. Woodall was seen carrying something into the house, under his shirt from the garage.

[10] Ultimately, Woodall was also seen to leave the premises with this Liam Nolan in a car into which articles had been placed from the garage at his place, and apparently he came back alone, Nolan having disappeared out of the sight of what was able to be seen at the Woodall premises.

[11] Finally, without making any mention of what took place anywhere else because I don't consider it important to the issue here, the Police decided to close in on the premises after 8:30, and as they say, before 9:00, I think 8:48 was mentioned, a telephone call was made to the premises and Woodall was told to get the children out if they were there because the Police were moving in and he was told to come out and expose himself so that the Police could deal with him, without them having to go into his house and he complied.

[12] He came out of the house, and was wearing an ammunition belt which had in it live rounds of 357 ammunition according to Detective Skinner. He was then arrested by Detective Skinner, given all of his rights, and he was arrested for possession of stolen goods. I can only assume that other officers had already gone into the house before that took place, there may be evidence to that effect, I'm not sure, but in any case, that's what happened.

[13] Before nine o'clock, Woodall was allowed to go back into his house and cuffs were removed so he could telephone a lawyer.

[14] Every officer who testified testified that when they first went in saw a multiplicity of items; television sets, VCR's, cameras, video cam corders, recorders, radios, computer equipment, ultimately, but certainly there was an extraordinary number of articles that were not usually found in a family home, because of their numbers, particularly television sets; and also immediately, the officers who went in testified, those who testified who had gone in, testified that they heard a radio monitor monitoring police broadcasts in operation when they went in, and in plain view, although partly obscured, was part of what appeared to be a submachine gun.

[15] Now, that's the stage of things by nine o'clock, by some while after nine o'clock, I would think about 9:22, as I remember those numbers, a "walk" through the house revealed an incredible array of articles. Woodall, presumably, was removed,from the house and taken away under arrest to the lockup.

[16] There is no evidence that there was anyone else occupying the house, at that time, certainly, there was no evidence of Boarder, Aitkman, or the Nolans at that time, although, at that time the police officers testified that they did not know the whereabouts of all those people. As a result of that, the police evidence was that the guns, my recollection is, that the guns were secured and taken away. I am not positive of that, but I think that is what they said, as a precaution, or safe keeping, those that had by then been found.

[17] The officer in charge, Detective Skinner, decided that it was impossible, under the circumstances, to continue the search then, and he ordered the premises to be secured, and the evidence, I find, establishes that round-the-clock, from that point on, those premises were secured by the attendance of police officers on duty, until the final events transpired after seizure of these items, not the next day, but the next day, the 9th, because of the length of time that it took to do all this.

[18] Defence counsel submits -- and I'll refer to his submissions at more length later -- that the search warrant that had been granted, was defective after nine o'clock on the 7th for two reasons. One, he says that it was obtained on defective information such as to render it invalid, under the law of Canada, and two, that in any event it lapsed, or ceased to exist, or to remain valid after nine o'clock that evening.

[19] In my opinion, the gap that has to be closed here with reference to validity is probably best stated in a recent case from the Supreme Court of Canada, John Claude Garofoli against the Queen. This judgment was rendered late, or last Fall and is the judgment expressed by Mr. Justice Sopinka, for the Court, and in that, while he was referring to the necessary substance and support for the obtaining of the wire tap, he was dealing with affidavits in support of statements causing a judicial officer to grant such a thing as we are dealing with here, namely, a search warrant; and in that judgment, His Lordship referred with approval, in my opinion, to the judgment of Mr. Justice Martin in the Ontario Court of Appeal, earlier, where he held that, in effect, that a false statement included in an affidavit intentionally or a false statement included with reckless disregard for the truth was sufficient to strike down any order obtained on that basis.

[20] I think Sopinka J. also, approved a statement of Mr. Justice Martin, that we are dealing here with a preponderance of evidence, that a warrant so obtained, on that basis, becomes a nullity and the fruits of the search excluded. It's interesting to me to note that Mr. Justice Martin, also in referring to a United States Supreme Court judgment, expressed his approval that truthfulness in this context, insofar as the material and support, is not equivalent to correctness; that the information put forth, if believed, or appropriately accepted as truth, would he sufficient.

[21] I think what the law boils down to then is that a search warrant is validly obtained even though there are technical errors or even mis-statements in the supporting material, unless the defect thus created is more than a minor or technical nature. If it is more than that then, of course, a violation would occur as would a blatant disregard of the rights of the person whose privacy is being invaded in the absence of some evidence of urgency.

[22] Now, in the material in support of the search warrant first used, because there were three others later obtained, Officer Bishop testified that he received a telephone call from Sergeant McMillan of the Halton Regional Police. I'm going to deal with these things as they come along, and state my opinion as to the evidence. I do not think there is any doubt about that. He did receive a phone call. It appears also to be true that he was told that Halton Region was investigating break-ins, and that they had surveillance on two named suspects, one of them, being the accused and the other being, a Boarder, Carl Boarder, that is, I do not think there is any doubt about that. Those two were under surveillance towards noon that day because by that time Boarder had returned from the break-in. I do not know that there is any evidence as to the Guelph Detachment of O.P.P. also having numerous break and enters in their area. I know of no evidence to that effect.

[23] The next statement made by Officer Bishop is that Halton Regional had been following the two suspects operating a blue Cordova bearing the licence plate described, and I would think that that information was wrong. Boarder was being followed in that vehicle prior to that time but I do not think there was evidence that would support the fact that Woodall was in the vehicle presumably during the break-in.

[24] The next point is stated by Bishop as evidencing that Constable Poot, he describes as a Halton Regional Police Officer Surveillance Unit person, observed the accused and Boarder at a residence at Terra Cotta, carrying a television, a radio and video equipment to the blue Cordova, while that is not borne out by the evidence. Boarder was there but Woodall was not. Then he states that they were chased and he named them again, and they fled, and then he attests to the fact that they, Boarder and Woodall, were followed to Lot 10, Concession 5, Eramosa Township, Route 1, Rockwood, which I think we can assume is the Woodall premises.

[25] Officer Bishop then testified as to what he had done. He had sent a Caledon Detachment officer to the Terra Cotta residence to investigate and got a list of stolen property and information as to how entry was obtained. And finally, Officer Bishop says that for all of these reasons he had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a search of the Woodall house would afford evidence with respect to the break and enter observed. I think that is proven out by the evidence.

[26] Now the errors, of course, are with reference to whether Woodall was along on the break-in. He was not. There may be a small error as to whether Poot was a Halton Regional Police Officer because I think he later testified and said he was an O.P.P. Officer.

[27] The errors then are that, though Boarder was along on this escapade, Woodall was not. But there is no question that whoever was in the vehicle besides Boarder, it did go to Terra Cotta, and it did go back to the Woodall premises, and it did go to the garage, and I think the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that articles from that break-in would be found in the Woodall house.

[28] Now, I could review all of this evidence, which I have done, and I could point out the soft spots from the defence standpoint but I do not think it is necessary for me to do that to this extent. I think Officer Bishop was performing a duty which he believed was mainly interested in the Peel Regional problem which was a break-in. If I am to believe Sergeant McMillan, and to some extent, his evidence was not given as reliably as I thought it might have been, I have to believe that he did not tell Bishop to get a search warrant, he did not tell him a lot of the things that Bishop says he did. McMillan said, for example, which I find almost incomprehensible, that the first time he knew there was a warrant was when he arrived in Court the day he testified. That makes me question his reliable memory. Although, he did testify he was told, because he was not at the scene, that when the blue Cordova drove away from the Woodall place, it had no plates on it. He did say that he had never told Bishop that the accused was one of the burglars, although he remembers calling him, but he was not sure of the time. There is no doubt that Officer Bishop was in touch with other people that day than Sergeant McMillan.

[29] The testimony will reveal that the officers had good reason to think that there was something strange going on in these premises when you consider that Detective Skinner said that he ultimately was responsible for seizing about 200 items, including 9 operating firearms and 20 non-operational, or including, imitational firearms. All of these things seized the next day and the day after were taken to the Guelph Police Station, or the O.P.P. warehouse location in Guelph for security.

[30] I accept the testimony of the officers that the entry was made before nine o'clock. I am satisfied that they had sufficient reason to believe that not only was there a large and astonishing quantity of stolen goods but they had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that that there was the possibility of dangerous weapons on the premises. It turned out that the first one seen was not operational. In fact it was a replica, although there is some evidence it appeared to have a magazine in it -- that's the submachine gun that was first seen.

[31] A further search the next day turned up the 357 Magnum which, of course, is a prohibited weapon, unless it is properly registered. (I will deal more with that later, if I have to.) It seems to me that when the accused was arrested with ammunition for that sort of weapon on his person that there was grounds for a considerable amount of suspicion here.

[32] Exhibit 10 shows photographs which identify the items that were transported. I do not think it is necessary for me to into the various numbers, at this stage.

[33] Mr. Zaduk for the defence submits that a search warrant containing misleading statements is invalid because it was not full and frank on its face, disenabling the justice of the peace to act judicially and, therefore, should be struck down. He cites the case of Sismey, an unreported case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, where he says, that tests are set out therein, that are reliable to use in a case like this. That judgment was given in March of last year. He speaks about the test, including, where there is inadvertent error and the test is that the order obtained is still valid if it stands up once the erroneous material is deleted, but if it is apparent that the information is intentionally misleading then the warrant should be quashed. Test number three, where the material is incomplete so that we are left in the middle of those two range of tests, but if it leaves an impression that is not supportable otherwise once the material has been deleted, that the warrant should be quashed, or treated as invalid, and any fruits obtained thereunder excluded.

[34] Counsel asserts that though it was thought that McMillan's information was accurate if there was any lying observable or if the person taking an affidavit in support knowingly misleads himself that that is enough to strike it down. Counsel says that Officer Bishop should have known a lot more than he did; should have done a lot more investigating than he did; should have incorporated a lot more material in the submission to the justice of the peace as he gained it through the afternoon, and as a result, he disenabled the justice of the peace to act judicially and that I should hold that the justice of the peace would not then have granted the warrant.

[35] Of course, not only did Mr. Zaduk but also perhaps the counsel for the prosecution state that it was not up to, me to put myself into the shoes or chair of that judicial officer and decide what I would have done under the circumstances. What I have to do is decide whether the materiality of the errors are more than trivial or technical to the extent that where they amount to lying, deception, or deliberately withholding information such would cause the justice of the peace to act otherwise.

[36] Counsel says that at the time of the application Officer Bishop had more information that should have been made available to the justice of the peace. I do not know what, particularly, would have been able to help that judicial officer do anything other than grant the warrant because whatever the errors were, it seems to me, that they were in description of events and not so much in amounting to withholding of information that would cause her to refuse the warrant.

[37] Counsel asserts that the VanWeenan case, which I will refer to in a few minutes, says that the test is total knowledge, or constructive knowledge and that that was not available because Bishop did not try to update himself. He was misleading the J.P. in saying he received all this information from McMillan which may or may not have been true. He reminded me that McMillan has told the Court that he had not asked for a search warrant to be obtained.

[38] Counsel cited many other cases to support the fact that where search warrants or authorizations were refused, or were turned back in a higher court it was because of misleading the tribunal first approached.

[39] Then Counsel turned his attention to the fact that no search was conducted of the Mustang vehicle before the premises were intruded upon before nine o'clock that night and that could have been done. There is no question that by that time at least two of the items were -- must have been on the property, regardless whether some of them had been taken away in the Mustang, because they were later found.

[40] Summing up, counsel said that the identity of the informant was defective in Officer Bishop's material; the accused was not a co-burglar, and that as a result there was not enough left. He stated that it was not for me to substitute another offence or amend the warrant, and he asks me to ask myself the question: Did the justice of the peace think that the accused was one of the burglars? Then he dealt with the Plain View Doctrine and he spelled out what he said the tests were of the availability of this doctrine. It is that first of all, the officers had to be lawfully on the premises, finding goods readily, apparently as stolen, and he points out that of the articles seized, only 75 were ever found to be stolen in the final identification that took place under the auspices of the police, and 17, in fact, were returned to the care or the direction of the accused, and that in any case the Plain View Doctrine is only available where the exposure was unexpected. He talks about the continuation of the warrant after nine o'clock that night, and cites the Pars case in the Court of Appeal, no, it would appear to me, it might have been in a Motions Court in British Columbia in 1986, where the learned judge at that time said that any rugs seized pursuant to a Customs Act infraction could not be entered into evidence because they did not meet the time limit which he thought was appropriate in sorting them out from one place to another.

[41] Counsel then dealt with overreaching, that they overdid it, and I have also made some mention of that, because obviously, if you subtract 75 plus 17, from 200, there is a lot of stuff still there, that they have not been able to tie in as stolen. Some evidence was given in that regard, as to the insistence on reliable identification before material was returned to the rightful owner if these other items did, in fact, not belong to the accused.

[42] He also cites, the Moran case, as Regina against Moran -- I'll give these citations in a minute -- as striking down the need to continue to act after nine o'clock, which of course, was the case where the Police Officers had entered premises, but then hid for the purpose of conducting further investigations when their authority for going into the place was to search for and seize a knife, and in that case they had already found it but they did not apparently move it, they just hid and waited to see if a culprit would arrive, and in that case there was a breach of the common law. That case was in 1987, and in effect, treated the officers, I from the time after they found the knife, and did not seize it, to be trespassers.

[43] Mr. Zaduk also dealt with the second set of warrants as having to fall if the first one was deemed to be invalid and authority, that a prior unlawful entry, which he said took place when anything continued after 9:00 p.m., on the 7th, contaminated anything that happened thereafter, and that anything seized, or was found or seized under the further warrant was not admissible. In effect that the first warrant would contaminate anything thereafter.

[44] Most of the cases cited by counsel for the defence, were said by the crown counsel to amount to deceptions, or something similar to that, where they found that search warrants were not validly obtained. For example, Sismey in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, because it was found that the person approaching the justice of the peace had intentionally misled him or her and left an incorrect impression. That is the case, I think, where the officer deliberately withheld information that the person named had been acquitted, though he had been charged with anearlier offence. The Court there held that where there is an inadvertent error, if the erroneous part were to be deleted and the information could stand by itself, then the warrant was not invalid, and that is, as a matter of fact, was the result in the Sismey case. Incidently, Sismey, does not appear to have been reported, I was handed, just a court office copy.

[45] The VanWeenan case is a case cited by counsel for the defence, and that was a case where the Supreme Court of Canada, sent VanWeenan's case back for a new trial because she had been known to the Police Department in connection with the authorization sought but was not named, therefore, any evidence against her was inadmissible, and a new trial should be ordered. That was VanWeenan and Chesson against the Queen. (I'll make these documents available in case they are wanted.)

[46] Donaldson was a case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Regina against Donaldson, where the information that was stated in the material in support of the warrants, probably deliberately, neglected to state that the information had been obtained, as a result of interception, but rather that it was simply reliable and the Court frowned on that.

[47] In Regina against Carron, in the District Court decision of Judge Bernstein in 1982 the warrant was sought to obtain Travellers Cheques, but it was obvious before that that the police officer believed that there was a weapon eventually to be obtained, and the Judge held that that information was deliberately kept out causing him to strike that down.

[48] The McCafferty case, was where the search warrant was sought for some particular reason, but in actual fact a bug was planted and the Court did not find that something that it could approve. He referred also to the judgment of the Chief Justice McRuer of the High Court, in 1947 in the Bell Telephone case, where he held that where the purpose of a search warrant is simply to secure an opportunity of making observations that that is not a sufficient reason to keep a warrant valid.

[49] In Corcoran, the material filed was patently untrue; in Guiller there was a lack of candour. And I referred to Moran and this is the case where the police officers hid themselves in a shed after they had succeeded in obtaining what they had been looking for.

[50] Counsel for the prosecution says that it's my duty to substitute my view for what the justice not of the peace could have done but to consider the material in front of her and decide whether or not there was reasonable and probable grounds first of all for Bishop to say what he did and then to make his advancement to the justice of the peace. Counsel asked me to find that there was no evidence of a lack of good faith and that there was nothing in the warrant itself to signify on plain reading that the affecting of any search after 9:00 p.m., was in breach of the search warrants so long as entry was made before.

[51] I am not able to find in favour of defence counsel's submissions that the search warrant, Exhibit One, was obtained in such a fashion as to amount to either an intentional or reckless disregard for the truth on the part of Officer Bishop, the affiant, towards its acquisition. And I have referred to the approving citation by Justice Sopinka, of what Justice Martin had said in the Court of Appeal, in Garofoli, and in particular, these words:

"The affidavit must only be truthful in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true."

In giving his evidence, Officer Bishop said he relied on the information that he had received.

[52] Because of the submissions of counsel for the defence, I allowed Bishop to be cross-examined on pretrial motion. I even allowed Officer McMillan to be cross-examined with reference to the contact between himself and Bishop, which in retrospect, I think was overly cautious on my part, given counsel's suggestion to me that there was open conflict between them going to the root of the truthfulness. Whatever, I do not find that Bishop was either intentionally mistaken or reckless as to whether or not the accused was seen as an active burglar earlier on the 7th. That was his perception as what had occurred, though, as he later found out, it was in error.

[53] Sergeant McMillan gave his own evidence as to not having himself told Bishop that the accused was in fact a co-participant in the breaking and entering in Terra Cotta, that he did not carefully examine the search warrant before moving in on the accused's place, and did not turn his attention to whether any of the items specified in the search warrant were still in or at the property of the accused.

[54] All of the evidence of these officers was forthrightly given with the possible exception of McMillan whom, as I have already said, astonished me when he said he did not know until the day he testified that there had been a search warrant. Where appropriate, the testimony they gave was supported by examination of their notes by counsel. Though there are inconsistencies here and there, in a case like this, it convinces me, certainly on the balance of probabilities, that there was no lying going on nor any deception. Those inconsistencies between Bishop and McMillan are in any case of minor importance, in no way advancing the submission of any fraud or dishonesty or recklessness or that Bishop deliberately intended to mislead in his pursuit of the accused.

[55] This finding arises from a careful assessment of the evidence given by Officer Bishop as to the source of his information identifying the accused. He said that Sergeant McMillan of Halton Regional had so informed him of the names of three suspects performing daylight breaking and enters and described stolen licence plates, and a blue Cordova. Later he received information from a Detective Farroll identifying the location of the allegedly stolen property at the accused's house in Wellington County. On that day, from noon onwards, officers from many different locations and forces, more than one force and detachments, were interlaced together. While Bishop thought that McMillan was his informant in regard to the total activity of the accused, Bishop did two other things: He sent a police officer from his own Detachment to the scene of the break-in to gather details of missing items from the owner of the property burgled, and he telephoned Guelph O.P.P. Detachment to get confirmation that there was in fact a Sergeant McMillan in charge of an operation and surveillance. And that this surveillance was taking place near the accused's property in Wellington County. That officer was not known to him at noon on that day. I think this caution on Bishop's part satisfied me of his reasonably preparation of his material. He may or may not have known of important further details concerning a car leaving the accused's place with a fur coat, or even other items from the Terra Cotta break-in, and clearly, before this warrant was obtained, he did not verify that the accused was the burglar, or was a burglar, he simply relied on the information that had been received. Unquestionably the other man named was a burglar.

[56] It is not my function to place myself in the position of the authorizing J.P. and determine whether she would have given the authority had she only been supplied with information as to possession of stolen goods or that he was only seen as other than one of the burglars. The information, as I said, was right with respect to Boarder and right that Boarder returned to Woodall's place after the burglary and drove out of sight into the garage. The warrant was given in what I consider to have been on good faith material advanced and ought to stand or fall on that basis. As far as I'm concerned, it remains valid, in spite of the errors, which I consider to be minor, and not other than trivial.

[57] It occurred to me that perhaps if the police were attempting to be devious on this occasion, they might have chosen to arrest the accused for theft right away so as to make the detention consistent with the warrant. Of course, they did not do that. They arrested him on what they then, by that point, felt was appropriate, just before nine o'clock. As a result then the warrant was valid having been obtained on the reasonable and probable grounds. What I looked for and was bound by was whether or not any defects existed that would offend what the law has been stated to be and clearly expressed by Justices Sopinka and Martin. Once having decided that that was validly sufficient to authorize entry, pursuant to its chronological limitations, it now becomes necessary to ask myself two questions. First, was any seizure made after the 9:00 p.m. deadline, lawfully made? Second, if not, does that render all such later seizures unlawful and thus evidence with reference thereto inadmissible, unless carried out pursuant to other lawful orders or warrants? To answer these questions, it is vital to consider the circumstance confronting the police upon their entry of the Woodall premises at night, namely, an astonishing array of articles that defy anyone's imagination as indicating other than a stockpile of stolen goods. As well, there were in plain view numerous weapons on the walls, on a bed and what appeared to be a submachine gun partly obscured from visibility. Obviously, there was no possible way that a controlled search, inventory of the items, which as I said, ultimately turned out to exceed 200, or seizure pertinent or pursuant to the search warrant, could have been made before 9:00 p.m.

[58] Under these unusual circumstances, since the owner of the property, the accused, had been arrested for possession of what was reasonably and probably believed to be stolen goods, the officer in charge properly decided to secure the premises and arranged for an identification officer to be available for the next day in daylight, August 8th. In fact, the activities then carried out with respect to the household items and goods and weapons found took all day of the 8th and all day of the 9th. The security of the premises by police officers was maintained under orders from the officer in charge around the clock from prior to 9:00 p.m. on the 7th until late in the afternoon on the 9th when a moving van took this stuff away.

[59] To hold that no search or seizure was lawfully possible after 9:00 p.m. on August 7th, after these viewings, would make a mockery of the administration of justice. Unquestionably, the accused had rights which just not be denied but there is a responsibility cast upon police officers to pursue what is felt to be a fair and equitable balance between the rights of privacy and the need of law enforcement.

[60] In my opinion, the act of securing the premises to continue a controlled search and, if appropriate, seizure, was a wise one. I cannot but find the furtherance of the police activities on the 8th and 9th of August were other than pursuant to warrant, Exhibit Number One, and lawfully carried out thereunder. That other warrants were sought on the 8th in connection with this whole saga, and out of abundance of caution, perhaps, does not dissuade me from my finding. Plain view of scores of probably stolen goods and the obvious presence of weapons, of police radio monitoring equipment, made further investigation mandatory. To hold otherwise would be to overbalance privacy rights into the realm of hypocrisy.

[61] Whether the obtaining of a new warrant or warrants amounted to a acknowledgement that the first had expired, is not the issue here. If it had, then perhaps argument could be advanced that the police security of the premises, too, was unlawful. Should they have left this place untended, given the great number of items located and with weapons and ammunition lying around? Of course not. Did they really need more search authority with respect to the house and the garage? In the peculiar circumstances of this case and without ruling that in all situations only entry is required by a specified hour to prevent a search warrant from lapsing, I find that the search warrant first obtained on August 7th, Exhibit One, did not lapse at 9:00 p.m that night, and that it remained operative and cloaking all activity conducted until the police finally left the premises with the thus lawfully seized articles on August the 9th. Accordingly, the answer to the first question, is yes.

[62] As a consequence, I do not need to deal with the legitimacy of the other warrants, with regard to seizures made at the accused's premises.

See: Superior Courts of Ontario (dipshittery of the Lower Courts of Ontario), ...
June 13, 2023
9:02 A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Arrival: WPS Forensics arrives on scene
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: the same group that had Khrystye Hamlin running around in white coveralls for a time

Place holder.

See: Al Wells, John LaSorda
June 13, 2023
9:03-9:16 A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Leisure suit LaSorda
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: they're not exactly in a rush

Place holder.

See: Al Wells, John LaSorda, Leah McFadden, Pocock and other members of his organization, Gina Gidillini
June 13, 2023
9:17 A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Humiliation, possession, the grail
WPS occurrence #: 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Place holder

Windsor Police Association:
  • Breach of trust by public officer
    • Fabricating evidence
    • Break and enter
    • Robbery
    • Intimidation of a justice system participant
We didn't break into your house and rob you because of alleged mischief under ten bucks. Paraphrasing WPS dispatcher White, November 16, 2023

Yeah, no shit.

For those playing along at home, that leaves allegedly uttering a death threat as the official motive to remove over ten thousand dollars worth of equipment from a dwelling by force.

Your Worship,

I believe that I made an error on the warrant face, indicating the entry to be valid from 6am to 9 am. Is it possible to amend the entry to 9pm? Would I have to re-submit?
Randal Spratt, June 13, 2023 at 5:09 A.M. via email
No, I put in the times myself. As you indicated that there are police on scene, 3 hours should be plenty of time to execute the warrant. If you need longer, you can submit the request to your local intake office when they opem. Mathilda A. Hewitt, June 13, 2023 at 5:12 A.M. via email

But wait, there's more! Those clever kids ...

Place holder Leah McFadden

Place holder

See: Windsor Police Association (Rikki Renee Reid), Windsor Police Association (Tina Marie Kely), Windsor Police Association (Kelly-Anne Girard), Windsor Police Association (Paul Kevin Harper), Windsor-Essex County Crown Attorney's office (R v. Paul K. Harper), ...
Place holder
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 14, 2023
9:08 A.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 / 2023-63327 - Windsor Police Association: The Wailing Wall
WPS occurrence #: TBD
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

An associate of Cleveland Stevens' household continues his late night activities that began in September 2022. He arrives on bicycle to remove a single piece of the wood strips Ms. Gidillini had tacked over the gaps between vertical boards of her fence and then departs.

Robert Jeffery Brisco

Gina's fence is attacked - ESU, DIGS, and K9 stay home

This is criminal mischief. Someone standing in the alley can now watch rats as they enter Ms. Gidillini's back yard to see where they go. The fence has lost some utility! Mr. Stevens camera now has an excuse to move again.

See: Windsor Police Association, an absent DIGS, an absent ESU, no shields or shotguns, an absent K9 unit, an absent Major Crimes, an absent weaponized POP squad that brings a tear to Labute eyes, no propaganda officer bullshiting the media, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Mathilda A. Hewitt, Eric Costaris, Lisa Carnelos, Jasmine Mann, Gina Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens
Place holder
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
June 16, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 / 2023-63327 - Light Cavalry: MechJogger
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Re:

Place holder.

Image place holder

Windsor Police Association:
Lisa Carnelos:
Jasmine Mann:
Mathilda A. Hewitt:
The Courts of Ontario for litigation privilege:
See: MechJogger, 928 Marentette Avenue garage, Mathilda A. Hewitt, Windsor Police Association, WPS dispatch, DIGS, ESU, K9, Robert Jeffery Brisco, POP squad, Abraham Nyamadi, Kieran Winter, Steven Joseph Brnardic, Ahmad Chafchak, DIGS gangbanger 1-4, Major Crimes crew
Place holder
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Place holder
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:

Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

Re:

Place holder.

See:
June 17, 2023
11:44 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Cleveland Stevens' camera for Gina Gidillini
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: documenting the movements of Mr. Steven's camera made at the request of Ms. Gidillini while standing on the sidewalk
Place holder.
See:
June 17, 2023
11:48 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Cleveland's current ride
WPS occurrence #: 23-65760
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: standard entitlement whore operating procedure
Cleveland Steven's current ride for Cleveland Stevens: See:
June 17, 2023
11:49 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Cleveland Stevens for Gina Gidillini
WPS occurrence #: 23-65759
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Cleveland Stevens:
Ashley Funkenhauser:
  • Fabricating evidence/Obstructing justice
See: Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association (Cleveland Stevens from September 9, 2022 - Present), Ashley Funkenhauser, ...
July 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Over a decade of DIGS
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: methicans and their cops
Scott Vector for the Windsor Police Association (2012):
  • Counselling offense
  • Obstructing justice
  • Intimidation of a justice system participant
  • Fabricating evidence
David Trombley for Terry Kozub and 883 Elsmere Avenue
David Fortune
Stereotype of 804 Erie Street
Place holder.
See: David Fortune, Perihan Guney, Stereotype of 804 Erie Street, Terry Kozub, Sheila Russeau, Bradley Scott Warner (Sheila Russo), Windsor Police Association, Attorney General of Ontario
July 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Colonizers from the North
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: death threats, intimidation, violence from cannon fodder being housed and fed by progressives
Scott Vector for the Windsor Police Association (2012):
  • Counselling offense
  • Obstructing justice
  • Intimidation of a justice system participant
  • Fabricating evidence
David Fortune
Stereotype of 804 Erie Street
Place holder.
See: David Fortune, Perihan Guney, Stereotype of 804 Erie Street, Terry Kozub, Sheila Russeau, Bradley Scott Warner (Sheila Russo), Windsor Police Association, Attorney General of Ontario
July 23, 2023
3:07 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Another stereotype at the door
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a, no contact
City of Windsor file #: n/a, no contact
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: David Fortune and Perihan Guney send an associate while Mr. Fortune waits in his associates vehicle that has been parked in an alley out of sight
2:59 P.M. - An associate of David Fortune and Perihan Guney arrives in a Mazda SUV
3:05 P.M. -
3:06 P.M. -
3:07 P.M. - Door knock


3:10 P.M. - Mr. Fortune returns home as his associate drives out of an alley to leave the area
Place holder:
Welfareville rule (draft):

Place holder:
Place holder.
Welfareville rule (draft):
See: Another stereotype, David Fortune, Perihan Guney, Stereotype of 804 Erie Street, Sheila Russo, Terry Kozub and the residents of 883 Elsmere Avenue, Cleveland Stevens, Gina Gidillini, Detective Renee Coughlin, James Coughlin (January 11 and June 8, 2016), Belinda Pagliaroli (James Coughlin)
July 24, 2023
5:22 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Third-party agitators: mangoes
WPS occurrence #: n/a, no presence
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a, no presence
City of Windsor file #: n/a, no presence
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Upper-892 Elsmere Avenue resident, Bradley Scott Warner (Upper-892 Elsmere Avenue resident), Sheila Russo, Bradley Scott Warner (Sheila Russo), David Fortune, Perihan Guney, Stereotype of 804 Erie Street, Gina Gidillini
August 2, 2023
10:32 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Systemic displaced aggression
WPS occurrence #: 23-88368
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: crazy cat lady returns to her roots
Witness for the Windsor Police Association Sheila Russo:
  • 423.(1) Intimidation / Attempt to induce a breach of conditions
  • 267.(b) Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
    • bone fracture
See: Sheila Russo, Bradley Scott Warner (Sheila Russo), an associate of Sheila Russo, Windsor Police Association (Sheila Russo from September 9, 2022 - Present), Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services Deparment (Sheila Russo)
August 2, 2023
10:34 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Compurgation
WPS occurrence #: 23-88368
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: reasonable and probable grounds, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, Totalitarian Law Theory, lawfare as anti-law
Witness for the Windsor Police Association Sheila Russo and her associate: Ms. Russo's associate: Trevor Snyder and other members of his organization:
  • 423.(1) Intimidation / 346.(1.1)(a) Extortion
    I'm going to be issuing a warrant for your arrest sir, for this, er, this offence.
    ...
    Are you going to come out and speak with us? Trevor Snyder for the Windsor Police Association
    So you can arrest me? A victim and regular target of the Windsor Police Association
    That's one of the reasons, yes. Trevor Snyder for the Windsor Police Association
  • presumption of 145(3), mens rea offence beyond a reasonable doubt, reverse onus imposed
    • Formally, from this moment forward:
      • Instruct counsel under duress
      • Section 7 does not apply
      • Section 8 does not apply
      • Section 11 does not apply
      • Section 15 does not apply
    • a priori (circular) use of this presumption to form reasonable and probable grounds
  • 423.1 Intimidation of a justice system participant or a journalist
The Windsor Police Association for the Windsor Police Association, the Corporation of the City of Windsor, the Windsor Police Services Board, Belinda Pagliaroli, Walter Costa, Eric Costaris, ...
  • That's one of the reasons, yes. Trevor Snyder and other members of his Criminal Organization
See: Sheila Russo, Bradley Scott Warner (Sheila Russo), an associate of Sheila Russo, Lower Courts of Ontario, Lower Courts of Ontario (Sheila Russo), Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Ontario (Sheila Russo), Trevor Snyder and other members of his organization, Windsor Police Association (Sheila Russo from September 9, 2022 - Present), Lower Courts of Ontario (Windsor Police Association), Attorney General of Ontario (Windsor Police Association), Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Susan Elizabeth Whelan (Windsor Police Association), Susan Elisabeth Whelan (officers of the court), Lower Courts of Ontario as represented by Susan Elizabeth Whelan (administration of justice), Susan Elizabeth Whelan (judicial branch of government), Susan Elizabeth Whelan (epistemic grounds of her tribe), Mathilda Hewitt, Mathilda Hewitt (Windsor Police Association), Mathilda Hewitt (officers of the court), Lower Courts of Ontario as represented by Mathilda Hewitt (administration of justice), Mathilda Hewitt (judicial branch of government), Mathilda Hewitt (epistemic grounds of her tribe), Randall Spratt, ...
August 14, 2023
9:00 A.M.
Ontario Court of Justice, Courtroom 7: Clickety Click - Rehypothication Trick
WPS occurrence #: 22-83590, 23-63327
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: TBD, B, C
City of Windsor file #: 18-00005261
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Attorney General of Ontario, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Windsor Police Association, Corporation of the City of Windsor
September 8, 2023
4:57 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Typhoid Fields has left the district
WPS occurrence #: TBD
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: social worker is back with WPS to finish the job fifteen months later
Place holder.
See: Kara-Lynn Fields, Samantha Fields, Adam of 915 Elsmere Avenue, WPS, CAS, Corporation of the City of Windsor Social Services Deparment
September 14, 2023
7:36 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Exhibiting policy before answering questions of law
WPS occurrence #: TBD
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #: n/a
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: making a list and checking it twice
Place holder.
Bonus material:
Fabricating evidence

137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.
321 In this Part,
"break" means
  1. to break any part, internal or external, or
  2. to open any thing that is used or intended to be used to close or to cover an internal or external opening;
    3. ...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 321; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 42.
See:
October 5, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Jacobin anchor cats
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Corporation of the City of Windsor, Windsor-Essex County Humane Society, wingnuts
October 16, 2023
6:12 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Maurizio Gidillini for the bitch that bore him
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: incomming flat tire ticket
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Maurizio Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Bill Kralovensky, Scott Roberts, Eric Costaris, Lisa Carnelos, Jasmine Mann, Attorney General of Ontario
October 16, 2023
8:31 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Flat tire ticket? So this is what the decline looks like...
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.

October 15, 2023 - 11:25 P.M.: Park vehicle.

October 16, 2023 - 08:30 P.M.: Flat tire ticket.

October 17, 2023 - 12:17 A.M.: Take the garbage out.

October 17, 2023 - 12:17 A.M.: Discover a flat tire.

October 17, 2023 - 12:20 A.M.: Begin reinflating the flat tire.

October 17, 2023 - 12:22 A.M.: Discover flat tire ticket.

October 17, 2023 - 02:02 P.M.: Pay for a new tire installation and disposal of the 4 month old tire being replaced.

October 17, 2023 - XX P.M.: Talk to a MF PC channeling Captain America, "Language!"

Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Attorney General of Ontario (Gina Gidillini), Cleveland Stevens, Attorney General of Ontario (Cleveland Stevens), Corporation of the City of Windsor, ...
October 17, 2023
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Bubblegum girls and Bill Kralovensky
WPS occurrence #: 23-121100
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Attorney General of Ontario (Gina Gidillini), Cleveland Stevens, Attorney General of Ontario (Cleveland Stevens), Corporation of the City of Windsor, ...
October 17, 2023
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Respect is earned you ridiculous little shits
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Attorney General of Ontario (Gina Gidillini), Cleveland Stevens, Attorney General of Ontario (Cleveland Stevens), Corporation of the City of Windsor, ...
October 18, 2023
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Exhibiting policy before answering questions of law
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Corporation of the City of Windsor, ...
October 19, 2023
The Cleveland Stevens Show
Constable Crossett was not present for the recording of this episode. See you next week. Same dumptster time, same dumpster channel.
Re: a glimpse at regular programming
Place holder.
See: Roberto & Maria Alfaro, Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association, Corporation of the City of Windsor, ...
October 31, 2023
1:21 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Grey power
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: obsession powered by idleness and uselessness
This bitch fights with everything she has on any front she can find every hour of the day she is awake.
See: Gina Gidillini, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Windsor Police Association, Lower Courts of Ontario, Attorney General of Ontario
November 5, 2023
11:08 P.M.
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Hoodrat News Network: On-scene investigation
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See:
November 11, 2023
1:48 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Gidillini sends a message
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Counsel for the Windsor Police Association Eric Costaris:
  • Counselling offence
Place holder.
See:
November 11, 2023
4:37 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Stugots
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Gidilini shitlette barking for nona

Gidillinis are born this way

Place holder.
See:
November 16, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - Windsor Police Association: Neighbour trouble
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Neighbour trouble
(1) Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts Neighbour trouble on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "Neighbour trouble" means any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
  1. for a purpose including
    1. obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a statement,
    2. punishing the person for an act that the person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, and
    3. intimidating or coercing the person or a third person, or
  2. for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
but does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Re:
Place holder.
See: Marcus, Sam, Mystery meat, Cleveland Stevens, a female relative of Cleveland Stevens, Windsor Police Association, Attorney General of Ontario (political), Attorney General of Ontario (Crown)
November 16, 2023
CP/GO 2022-83590 - MAG & The Blue Shirts: Political sticks and stones
WPS occurrence #:
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #:
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: understanding "weapons dangerous"
Place holder.
See:
November 30, 2023
Ontario Court of Clown World - Schrödinger's justice system participant
Context 1

Court file #8119982goodopticsandsocialcredit

Context 2

Court file #8119982badopticsandsocialcredit

See: Scott Gregory Pratt, Elaine, Ministry of the Attorney General, Belinda Pagliaroli, Scott Amlin, Eric Costairis, Scott Roberts, ...
December 12, 2023
xx P.M.
Over a decade of DIGS - Nice truck
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.

More than ten years of meth, percs and fentanyl at 883 Elsmere Avenue along with the associated garbage it attracts is good for a low-level arrest every now and then. It's in Welfareville, so who really gives a shit?

Storefront retail and taxes? Oh hell no! Optics and all. Do they really think they're undercover? How were the mushrooms?

See: DIGS, Windsor Police Association, Attorney General of Ontario (political), Attorney General of Ontario (Charter), Attorney General of Ontario (Canada Revenue Agency), ...
December 18, 2023
xx P.M.
Over a decade of DIGS - Drug deal at 883 Elsmere Avenue
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: DIGS, Veteran's cab plate 078, DIGS, Terry Kozub, DIGS, Sheila Russeau, DIGS, David Fortune, DIGS, Perihan Guney, DIGS, Windsor Police Association, DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (political), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Charter), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Canada Revenue Agency), DIGS, ...
December 19, 2023
xx P.M.
Over a decade of DIGS - Drug deal at 883 Elsmere Avenue
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: DIGS, Ontario license xxx, DIGS, Terry Kozub, DIGS, Sheila Russeau, DIGS, David Fortune, DIGS, Perihan Guney, DIGS, Windsor Police Association, DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (political), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Charter), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Canada Revenue Agency), DIGS, ...
December 28, 2023
4:22 P.M.
Over a decade of DIGS - Russeau is offering protection services to Kozub
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: DIGS, Ontario license xxx, DIGS, Terry Kozub, DIGS, Sheila Russeau, DIGS, David Fortune, DIGS, Perihan Guney, DIGS, Windsor Police Association, DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (political), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Charter), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Canada Revenue Agency), DIGS, ...
December 29, 2023
xx P.M.
Over a decade of DIGS - Two drug deals in 15 minutes at 883 Elsmere Avenue
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:
Place holder.
See: DIGS, Ontario license xxx, DIGS, Terry Kozub, DIGS, Sheila Russeau, DIGS, David Fortune, DIGS, Perihan Guney, DIGS, Windsor Police Association, DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (political), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Charter), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Canada Revenue Agency), DIGS, ...
December 29, 2023
10:40 A.M.
Over a decade of DIGS - You know exactly why, Terry
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re:

Stop lying to Sheila, Kozub. You know exactly what you've been doing and why your family and visitors will no longer have free reign. Fuck you, drug dealer, and your lawn boy lookout too.

BTW, where did that druggie daughter of yours go? She's a garbage fire but at least she's not the street dealer you've got in there now...or has she been promoted along with boyfriend number who-the-fuck-knows?

See: DIGS, Ontario license xxx, DIGS, Terry Kozub, DIGS, Sheila Russeau, DIGS, David Fortune, DIGS, Perihan Guney, DIGS, Windsor Police Association, DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (political), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Charter), DIGS, Attorney General of Ontario (Canada Revenue Agency), DIGS, ...
January 1, 2024
3:30 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Maurizio Gidillini for the bitch that bore him
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: Gidillini heroin addict has found a new cheap whore to replace the employed fool that was supporting him and now he wants to show his new ball sniffer to mommy
Place holder.
See: Gina Gidillini, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Maurizio Gidillini, Cleveland Stevens, Scott Roberts, Eric Costaris, Lisa Carnelos, Jasmine Mann, Attorney General of Ontario
January 11, 2024
10:00 A.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Same as it ever was
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: it's all so tiresome
Image place holder

Ms. Gidillini sweeps her lawn while explaining urban peasantry: being a perpetually protesting pedantic pissant.

See: Gina Gidillini, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Scott Roberts, Eric Costaris, Lisa Carnelos, Jasmine Mann, Attorney General of Ontario, Corporation of the City of Windsor, CMHA (Gina Gidillini)
January 13, 2024
All day
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - They've turned her into a mascot for Clown World
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: a criminal gang known as the Windsor Police Association and elder abuse
Image place holder

Place holder.

Eric Costaris for the Attorney General of Ontario:
Eric Costaris for the Ministry of the Attorney General:
Eric Costaris for the Corporation of the City of Windsor:
Eric Costaris for the Windsor Police Association:
Eric Costaris for Susan Elizabeth Whelan:
Eric Costaris for Lisa Carnelos:
Eric Costaris for Sheila Rousseau:
Eric Costaris for Gina Gidillini:
Eric Costaris for Eric Costaris:
See: Gina Gidillini, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Scott Roberts, Eric Costaris, Lisa Carnelos, Jasmine Mann, Attorney General of Ontario, Corporation of the City of Windsor, CMHA (Gina Gidillini)
January 20, 2024
2:30 P.M.
City of Windsor file # 18-00005261 - Gina Gidillini: Contempt of Court
WPS occurrence #: n/a
Ministry of the Solicitor General political interference/intimidation file #: n/a
City of Windsor file #:
Constable Crossett was not present at the time of the occurrence. He is a party to everything that has and will occur.
Re: exhibiting the intent of a geriatric bully who has just been scolded
Image place holder

Place holder.

Eric Costaris for the Attorney General of Ontario:
Eric Costaris for the Ministry of the Attorney General:
Eric Costaris for the Corporation of the City of Windsor:
Eric Costaris for the Windsor Police Association:
Eric Costaris for Susan Elizabeth Whelan:
Eric Costaris for Lisa Carnelos:
Eric Costaris for Sheila Rousseau:
Eric Costaris for Gina Gidillini:
Eric Costaris for Eric Costaris:
See: Gina Gidillini, Susan Elizabeth Whelan, Scott Roberts, Eric Costaris, Lisa Carnelos, Jasmine Mann, Attorney General of Ontario, Corporation of the City of Windsor, CMHA (Gina Gidillini)

about • contact • privacy • terms

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved.