The world is full of people who act irrationally and without common sense. If you find it impossible to understand the logic behind their thinking, it is probably because there is none. Be glad of the fact, at least, that you have a good grasp of the basic realities of life. It’s due to be a most entertaining weekend, if you don’t mind being a witness to some bizarre behaviour.
http://boothstars.com
Bogus RCMP wiretap memosderail drug case
A stunning admission by a senior RCMP officer that he drafted a bogus memo to cover up concerns about police wiretap methods has led to the collapse of a major drug prosecution in northern Ontario and raised questions about wiretapping in at least 30 investigations.
Federal prosecutors in Sault Ste. Marie stayed trafficking charges this week in Project Omax, a long-running investigation that allegedly uncovered a "multi-kilo" cocaine ring linked to the Hells Angels in Quebec.
The decision to stay the charges comes after testimony revealed a fabricated memo about wiretapping concerns by RCMP Sergeant John Roskam, a longtime member of the force who was head of the wiretap unit in Ontario.
Sgt. Roskam, who insisted he acted on his own, revealed under cross-examination last November that there was both a fake memo and a real memo in responding to lawyers concerns about wiretaps and whether the force was not complying with court orders.
"I was flabbergasted that a senior police officer would fabricate disclosure in a criminal matter," said Michael Lacy, the defence lawyer who discovered the existence of the real and fake memo last fall when he asked provincial prosecutors in an unrelated case for documents related to RCMP wiretap procedures.
"The RCMP deceived the Crown as well," said the defence lawyer, who called for an outside police force to begin a criminal investigation.
The fabricated document was turned over to Mr. Lacy in the spring of 2009 in Project Omax, when he asked for disclosure of internal memos that discussed if the RCMP was "live monitoring" intercepted phone calls, as required by court orders.
Live monitoring means that if a phone line is wiretapped, an RCMP employee is supposed to be listening to the calls. If someone on the line is not a "named target" then the monitor must hang up.
An earlier internal RCMP memo confirmed that court orders were not being followed properly.
The internal memo issued in April 2008 by RCMP Sergeant Gabriel DiVito, a supervisor of the "Special I" unit in Ontario, noted that "on occasion" monitors were "not adhering to the legal requirements" of the court orders. "I cannot guess how the present case before the courts will unfold and what the consequences of our actions will be," wrote Sgt. DiVito, who urged RCMP staff to comply with the court orders. It was later revealed in court that the RCMP had concerns about the actions of its wiretap monitors in 30 projects involving the force.
Sgt. DiVito moved on to another position and was succeeded by Sgt. Roskam, who was in charge of supervising all RCMP "wire rooms" in Ontario.
The fabricated memo turned over by Sgt. Roskam -- which was presented as being written by Sgt. DiVito -- did not include the concerns expressed in the real memo.
"You knew when you were creating this document that you were committing what you believed to be a criminal offence, right," asked defence lawyer Mr. Lacy.
"Hmm, hmm," responded Sgt. Roskam, who then answered "yes" when pressed on whether his actions may have violated the law. The senior officer described it as "bad judgment" to produce the fake memo.
Sgt. Roskam was still in charge of the wiretap unit when he testified in court last fall and also a part of the RCMP security operations at the Vancouver Olympics, court documents state.
RCMP spokesman Sergeant Marc LaPorte said yesterday only that Sgt. Roskam is facing an internal "code of conduct" investigation.
The Crown "reached the conclusion there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction, based on the evidence available," said Dan Brien, a spokesman for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The federal Crown spokesman stated that it is believed the fake memo was produced in only the Sault Ste. Marie case.
Man ‘justified’ in waving board at cop, judge rules
April 30, 2010
Peter Small
An escaping drug suspect was legally justified in tearing a board off a fence to defend himself against a pursuing police officer because he had been unlawfully arrested, a judge has ruled.
Jerron Alexander, 24, was also found not guilty of mischief for pulling the board off the fence of a west Toronto property owner.
“Unarmed and faced with an armed police officer, Mr. Alexander acted in self-defence in tearing the board off the fence and he was legally justified in doing so,” wrote Ontario Superior Court Justice Alison Harvison Young.
There were no allegations of police brutality.
The judge also threw out drug charges against Alexander, who was found with 27.2 grams of crack cocaine in his car, because his Charter rights had been violated by the “deliberate flagrant” conduct of the arresting officer, Const. Joseph Gladu.
Gladu “misled the court” in claiming the cocaine was in plain view, she said. The search of the car was unreasonable, and Alexander’s detention was arbitrary, the judge said in this week’s ruling.
After he was arrested, Alexander wriggled free from Gladu and the chase ensued. Gladu alleged Alexander assaulted him with the fence board, but the judge acquitted the accused of that.
Alexander said he merely waved the board at Gladu to keep him away so he could escape.
Gladu pursued Alexander over several fences and through several backyard gardens. According to Adam Forbes, Alexander’s lawyer, both men agreed that at some point Gladu drew his gun.
During the pursuit, Alexander also tried to hide $1,070 in cash in a flower pot. He ultimately did get away and remained at large until a year later, when he was picked up on an unrelated matter.
Forbes said his client, who had been in custody awaiting trial since August 2008, was “quite pleased” with the ruling.
The incident began on Aug. 1, 2007, when the Toronto construction worker was driving his car along Trethewey Dr. and was stopped by Const. Tim Barnhardt, who saw him change lanes without signalling.
The rookie officer flagged down Gladu, who was driving by, for help.
Alexander, who is black, testified that he was angry at being stopped because he thought it was racial stereotyping.
Barnhardt testified that he only intended to give him a caution.
But the officer did a computer check and found Alexander’s previous charges, including for drugs and assault with a weapon. There was also a warning: “Caution: violent.”
Gladu testified that he went to the passenger side of the car and asked the heavily sweating Alexander whether he “had anything that he shouldn’t.” It was at that point he noticed a baggie of the crack on the passenger side floor, grabbed the accused and placed him under arrest, Gladu said.
Alexander provided a different version. He testified that Gladu conducted a pat-down search, then got in the passenger side of the car with one knee on the seat and looked in the back seat, then checked the glove box, looked under the console and reached up under and behind the dash and found the baggie of crack.
Alexander testified that the cocaine wasn’t his, but belonged to a friend who had borrowed the car the night before without telling him about the drugs. The judge rejected the defendant’s explanation.
Nevertheless, Harvison Young found that “Officer Gladu misled the court in claiming that the drugs were in plain view. Regrettably, I must conclude that this was bad faith. This is an extremely serious sort of a breach.”
