Criminal Issues--2005--Part 1

[Please see past postings for background information.] The events for which I got arrested in 2005 were quite minor, except for some comments I made. The case took about a year to prosecute and it was against my wishes that I was found to be "Not Criminally Responsible" on account of an alleged mental disorder. The comments I had made were similar to what I said to the Ontario Review Board this past April 2009. I said some police and some film people had been involved in a gay rights project together; and they had wanted my involvement in it. The position of the ORB has been that I'm delusional about it. It's not my intention to prove this matter here but I believe some people were already aware of it; and I'd like to make some comments. The gay rights project had actually begun back in the 1930s already. There were mostly men involved, whether gay men or male supporters and advisors, and they wanted to have a woman/young girl to assist them. To my knowledge, this matter has never been generally publicized, so far. In my case, I was targeted while I was a child already. My immediate family and I were never told about it by anyone; but I believe some other relatives and fellow church members may have been told. The story was made to sound palatable to them.--It was viewed in a positive light. Life is different today in 2009 than it was in the 1930s and inbetween; and there were schemes and now old-fashioned schemes in place. On the other hand, there seem to be people today who would like to close down the project without resolving anything. They'd like to throw it all out the window--that's been my impression! [Is that ever a healthy thing to do?] Before 2000 and even 2006, I didn't know everything that was happening. But I believe the above views are two extremes. There's a happy medium where things have been accomplished and they shouldn't be buried. Myself, I've done a lot of work in the form of writing; and I'd like to be compensated fairly. Some parties have wanted to remain anonymous and I think it should be their right to do so. But to close everything down arbitrarily isn't acceptable to me--and it shouldn't be to sensible people! There have been parties who wanted to see something get done in the field of gay rights; and it seems they're still waiting. Anyway, I'd just like to share some movies which I've found interesting. [If people don't have access to view them, they can look on the Internet through Google/Wikipedia, especially. The write-ups aren't always 100% accurate but I often find them helpful.] There's a movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, 1939. The characters Senator Smith, Susan Paine--a governor's daughter, and Miss Clarissa Saunders are the most relevant to me. There's Casablanca, 1942, a well-known and popular film; and I believe a certain element is relevant. Then there's Finian's Rainbow, 1968; and The Green Berets, 1968--with some details referring to the Casablanca matter, in my opinion. There's Top Secret!, from 1984, with some details also referring to Casablanca. And there's Overboard, 1987; and Contact, 1997. These are some of my favourite movies I'd like to mention, for now. *** See Part 2 of this entry near the end of February 2010.  ***  NOTE ADDED ON FEBRUARY 4, 2014:  It was actually secret police who started this business, at someone's request, in the past.  I have reason to believe the United States Secret Service was contacted and then they asked the then Secret Service division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to help them.  And then the RCMP asked some city police to help them.

Have Tried To Be Helpful

MAKING SOME AMENDS: People were understandably frightened and confused and hurt by stories about my landlord/tenant matter and the criminal charges [see past blogs for further explanation]. Even if I felt mistakes had been made, I still had to live with them--until and unless corrections were made officially. I've made explanations to others where possible, but it hasn't always been possible. And after reading a detailed newspaper article about the plight of gay young people, especially, I thought I could show some support by working for gay marriage rights. I contacted my local politicians and received a letter back from the federal member of parliament in Canada. He expressed his conservative views and his desire for tolerance; and he also quoted some statistics about new laws and about standards in other countries. In other words, he sympathized with gays but didn't wish to support gay marriage. I needed some time to think about this man's comments. A few years later, the idea of a legal contract for gay marriage was raised in Canada. This was a legal contract which wasn't meant to be recognized as marriage or to be connected to churches, but which would give committed gay couples the same legal rights as married couples.--They would get tax benefits, division of property rights in the event of separation, and protection from spousal abuse, etc. I believe this kind of a privilege would allow gays to have more normal lives, as far as fitting into society goes; and it would also allow society to maintain their traditional views of marriage. Marriage, itself, isn't especially a standard of success or failure for anyone--not like it used to be. [People are single, married, or divorced and it's not a big deal.] The legal contracts would be a blend of "justice and mercy," in my opinion. Other people were campaigning for gay marriage in Canada and it was legalized about 5 years ago. At the present time, I haven't been working for any new changes here and I don't expect to--except that I was trying to get my conservative church to soften their views on this subject. I have to believe that the legal contract idea is in line with the Bible instruction to "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."--Doesn't it make sense? Some others and myself have also been expressing views on these topics for the benefit of the United States, where they're still having a lot of controversy about gay marriage. And maybe some controversy is good so that many views can be discussed. My own church is still resisting the idea of legal contracts and many people and churches still haven't heard of it! On the other hand, some people are pressuring me to go further; and I'm sorry, but the legal contracts are at my limits for gay marriage! I won't support full marriage but will support legal contracts. [Will write about some related issues; and the new criminal charges separately.]  NOTE ADDED ON JANUARY 18, 2014:  Have been writing further about gay marriage in my blogs and I'll say I'm now willing to support gay marriage, as long as there are religious exemptions in place.  People can see a post in Waterlily Story II for more info, if they wish.  Also, some other legal benefits which may affect gay couples are hospital privileges and end-of-life or health-care issues, which can be quite serious if a partner isn't recognized as a next-of-kin, etc.  The issues can be quite complicated!

Criminal Issues

A report on poverty in Canada which came out not too many years ago stated that, "The rich get richer; and the poor go to prison!" It's a very real fact of life that legal representation costs money! There are some dedicated and experienced lawyers who give their time to Legal Aid cases and legal clinics; and I've been thankful to meet many of these lawyers and to sometimes use their services. But if a person, like myself, is on a low income and is forced to depend on Legal Aid only, it's not always a happy story! [It used to be said that "He who represents himself (in court), has a fool for a lawyer!" But these days, people are sometimes forced to represent themselves; and it doesn't always turn out badly. I knew of people who had been successful--even in a bigger, civil case. Will write more below.] It's my opinion that I haven't been treated fairly in the criminal courts--even though it's not necessarily the fault of the courts. There are many factors which are always involved; and I've certainly been limited by a low income and the lack of an ability to pay for better legal representation. After my original criminal charge, which was indirectly connected to the housing tribunal, there was a secondary, "breach" charge for allegedly violating one of the conditions the police had given me before going to trial. The application of the conditions was a little blurred, considering I still had business with the housing tribunal, at that time; and I made a simple mistake, without meaning to cause any problems. Soon after the breach charge went to court, I decided to represent myself for that matter because the Legal Aid office had wanted to dip into an injury claim in which I wasn't expecting to win a lot.--They wanted me to agree to pay my lawyer in the future from potential compensation; and I wasn't willing to do that. [I had a lawyer for the injury matter and we later settled out of court, for an amount I had more or less expected.] In my opinion, I did a fairly good job of speaking for myself in court--and I'd received advice from Legal Aid lawyers and had also read about relevant parts of the law at the library. The experience helped me to understand the process and the issues better. Even though I lost that particular case, also, the sentence was mostly blended in with my first one. It was during the first trial that evidence got confused; and I wasn't able to sort it out and make a proper defence.--And I had a Legal Aid lawyer, for that case. Of course, the landlord/tenant matter was still in dispute, at the time, and it was held against me. The first criminal charges came up in 1999. A trial was held far away in a city where I had lived briefly; and it was harder to conduct court business over a distance. That matter was handled within a few months. The trial for the breach charge took about a year from the date of arrest to complete.--It was in a city closer to me, since I had been in the process of moving. In 2005, there was another arrest. I felt that the issues were quite different, and I'll explain more later, but the first charges had an impact.

Landlord/Tenant Matter 1998-2000+

In 1998, I was involved in a landlord/tenant case as a tenant. My landlady wanted to evict my young son and myself under what I felt were questionable circumstances. The housing tribunal, a quasi-judicial agency under the Province of Ontario, ultimately ruled that I was harassing my landlady by accusing her. But several years later, some executives acknowledged that I had legitimate grounds to make a case for sexual harassment against her. By that time, it was too late to prosecute the matter and I wasn't seeking to do so. At the beginning, I had voluntarily made an agreement to move out of my apartment because I wasn't sure of winning the eviction case. There were procedures that followed with requests for a review of the initial hearing, etc. The agency also told me after the follow-up began that I was entitled to turn in new evidence or information, if I had some to provide; and I did that. There was some dispute over comments I had made to my landlady but they happened only after I'd received notice of eviction.* [Will not write further about those comments, at least for now.] If anybody would like to confirm information about the sexual harassment matter, they could contact the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario at the Crown Law Office - Civil division. There have been lawyers and public officials who have acknowledged this matter privately but, so far, there has been no public explanation or apology. Otherwise, if anyone in Ontario or Canada has a complaint about how information was handled, they could try contacting their local politicians and informing them. There was no public statement made about my landlord/tenant matter, to my knowledge, except in the original documents. That particular agency has since been closed down and a new one opened in its place. But word can also travel by word of mouth and other means, which I believe it has. There are criminal charges which were directly or indirectly connected to the above matter. My landlady made no criminal complaints about me but there was another problem. Will be writing about it separately, while respecting some legal restrictions placed on me. *Note added on January 8, 2013:  It wasn't just what I said to my landlady but there was a naive and politically-incorrect comment in the documents I filled out for the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal before the hearing.  And it wasn't that I meant any harm by it but I was inexperienced in dealing with gay people and didn't know the right language to say that I believed she was harassing me.  Also, I hadn't thought my language through very carefully and didn't have enough perspective on the matter.  Note added on January 24, 2013:  Have recalled that I also made the politically-incorrect comment at the ORHT hearing.  Please see a new blog post on January 24 for further information.
Note added on August 13, 2019:  Have recently acknowledged that I made the adjudicator nervous when I didn't explain my case properly at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal hearing...and I could've withdrawn my case....  The adjudicator thought I was just trying to put my landlady down because of her sexual orientation....  Even though the adjudicator went on to make a mistake in law, I believe it was my responsibility to make my case--which I was doing without a lawyer...!  I could've lost by default....  It would've been fair....