Incarceration Without Access to Counsel

"It's About Social Media Content"

Last month, I was arrested by two Sheriffs and was taken to a local correctional facility in handcuffs.  The Sheriffs read me my rights, and advised that “duty counsel had been informed of your arrest and is expecting your call”.  I was told the arrest had to do with “social media content the CAGE wanted removed”, and that “there is a chance that the sentence will be shortened if the content is removed”.

I have no social media accounts, and as a result, no social media posts.  The only online content I own is this website, which I surmise is what the Sheriffs had referred to.  I was not provided with any clarification on request.  I later discovered that the arrest had instead pertained to my failure to respond to a discovery subpoena, as part of the CAGE collection efforts (see Felony page concerning the retainer fee scandal).  The arresting Sheriffs made no mention of the subpoena or the execution order.

I contacted the Duty Counsel office upon arrival.  The representative I spoke with reiterated a request to remove social media content, but did not provide specifics on being asked.  No mention was made concerning the subpoena.  I then arranged for a face-to-face meeting with the duty counsel rep at the facility in the coming days, in accordance with her customary visiting schedule.

The processing guard advised that I would be situated in a detention block, and that the inmates would “check me out”.  

Upon being situated in a detention block on that first day, I was approached within minutes by an inmate who told me to immediately close my cell door, and that I would be “getting it when the cell door pops”.  I had never met nor seen that person before.  I informed a guard and had asked him to relocate me to a different cell block, as well as ensure that the door did not automatically open in the meantime.  The guard replied, “we will just need to see what happens”.
 

Forty minutes later, the cell door opened automatically, and inmates swarmed into my cell.  I was overpowered, pinned to the floor, repeatedly beaten, and then spat on before being instructed to keep my cell door locked.  I still have no sensation in my left thigh muscle after receiving a powerful kick, one month following the event.  I had not previously seen nor met those inmates before. 

On my second day of incarceration, inmates in the detention block retained my food tray, forcing me to go without food and to drink tap water.  One inmate tossed a cup of urine under my cell door, which coated much of the floor.  The same inmate would bang on my door and chant, “Cell 8, hang yourself”.  The scenario was tantamount to a scene in horror film.  I was eventually able to obtain snack food from a guard around midnight.

On the morning of the third day, an attentive guard was able to relocate me to a different detention block with the support of a Captain, which resolved these issues.  I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the facility staff members that had responded.
 

Detention blocks are sensitive ecosystems that extend beyond their walls.  Irrespective of the circumstances and the onerous order for arrest, the characteristics of one’s imprisonment are often shaped by the discretionary actions of other inmates.  Non-criminals tend to stick out.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, incarceration for refusing to abide a felony in the absence of customary recourse is madness.

The Duty Counsel rep had unexpectedly broke into tears at the onset of our face-to-face meeting a week later.  I was given the adjacent letter which stated no legal counsel would be provided.  She repeated a request from the court that I remove online content.  I advised the rep that this website was the only piece of online content I owned, and that it redacts biographical references to the CAGE entity and its Director.  I had likewise advised that no matter had been brought before the court concerning the removal of any website or online content.  The introduction of the same topic as a negotiating tool for early release was an act of coercion.

The CAGE had asked that the site be removed on February 2024, after I had advised them of its existence (it is likewise cited in FCC file T-541-24).  CAGE counsel dropped the issue after I reinforced the fact that the site had been available to the public online since March 2023; that it made no reference to their client, and that offshore archives would ensure the contents would remain visible.

I asked the Duty Counsel rep to contact the court to obtain a copy of the order that had landed me here, as well as the written reasons.  She advised that the court had refused to disclose these documents, stating that only my legal counsel I had retained could obtain them.  On citing section 10(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 concerning the right to counsel on detention, the rep advised that her head office had made a decision concerning my file, and that no legal counsel would be provided, likewise irrespective of section 15 of the Act that governs the Duty Counsel entity.  In the days that followed, I made attempts to contact a variety of private firms, all of whom advised they were unable to service the case.  If access to counsel on detention is discretionary on the part of a legal services entity, my right to counsel is instead a discretionary privilege.

Following my release, I had contacted the Duty Counsel representative and had asked that the matter be escalated with their head office.  I was unable to identify any other agencies in the Province that provides Duty Counsel in response to the requirements of the Constitution Act.  I had not received a response, despite a series of follow-up emails and phone calls.  

I wish to underscore that I have had no legal representation since October 2021, despite best efforts in obtaining it through private and ProBono channels.  Likewise, my retained counsel in 2021 filed confidential shareholder files on the public registry without my knowledge, instruction, or consent, which paved the way to a series of events detailed at the Litigation page.  

As contemplated on the same page with respect to the subpoena and felonious execution order, sections 52(1) and 24(1) provide legal avenues in accordance with the legal test in Perka v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232.  Jail time, assuming it is manageable, is preferable to street living.  Incarcerated persons have a roof over their heads, daily meals, and enjoy access to medicine and costly medical appliances should there be a need as there is in my case.  Another incarceration term will not change the facts involved in the scandal, and would be expected to endanger my physical health as is demonstrated in the exhibits below.  Influential actors had leveraged legitimate authorities to oppress, obstruct justice, commit felony, and commit heinous and sophisticated privacy crimes in the manner of cognitive liberty.  This framework must be addressed, and other victims must be helped.  At some point this has to be dealt with, and preferably, very soon.

It is my hope that readers will begin to understand the seriousness of the matters detailed on this site.  I continue to seek help through advocates and whistleblowers.  I would likewise ask readers for support in opposing the unconstitutional sealing order placed over the court files.