Sunday, 28 December 2014


UPDATE: So I have heard back from my attorney as to when my trial will resume, End of February!
I cannot believe that in November we just went for what is called an' askov application' and this was due to my constitutional rights to a speedy trial being violated. (among many other rights) as it had at that point been 17 months until trial and it should have been 9 to 12 max. For whatever reason the judge made his ruling, he did so with a side note "that the trial must commence and be dealt with in the allotted 3 days scheduled for it."

My trial has already gone 4 days and now they have booked it off to be finalized in over two months away.The Askov proved my rights were violated, yet it was borderline and new frontier given "the complexity of the issues" At that hearing he (the judge) asked both the crown and defense lawyers "is 3 days enough or do you need more?" Both readily assured him "it'll be tight but it is enough and we can get it done."
So what happened? and I have been informed that I need not attend if I don't want to! seriously?, after 4 years of this hell, 'I simply don't have to be in attendance for the remainder of my trial?' Something smell odd to you? nope that isn't a dirty diaper either but it is what has become of the judicial system in Alberta. The end of February, the last witness will be heard via CTV from another province away and then they will make their final submissions to the judge and then he will deliberate or "reserve judgement "for what has been told to myself could be as much as 60 days!"
The final witness used to be employed by CBC here in Alberta (news agency) this individual was there that day and filmed everything, hell on the way out he (witnesses say) "he boosted the squad car " and yet out of all the police that testified, ALL of them say that none of them seen him and yet they posed myself in front of his camera, yet as part of their investigation they never seized the footage. Ironically, we never did know just who the camera man was, if there was even video footage. That is until the lead investigator who was being helpful to my lawyer " found it on the CBC web site" this guy not only forwards it to her but then he too denies under oath of ever seeing the news media filming and according to his testimony, where he was positioned, they pretty much could have shook hands.

All of them deny that there was no video camera's too but the  pictures in my blog called  tell the exact opposite.
All of them say that it wasn't their responsibility to take any witness statements from the dozens of witnesses that they admittedly "evacuated". One cop even states under oath "I spoke to one witness while guarding the residence" Yet he too in response to "well did you get their name, statement"? "that wasn't my duty mam" Could it be that my neighbors were super pissed at what they were doing to me?
The cops who took me to the station: One (the passenger, Reinalt) states the "I never spoke to Harms at all" in response to "did the vehicle make any stops"? Finally, after dodging the question 3 times she grudgingly admits " yes the vehicle made a stop in the stadium parking lot" But quickly reaffirms, "but I said nothing to Harms" And yes she is being truthful, she said nothing and I told my lawyer this before hand. In fact she wouldn't even look at me.
When she was asked "was there a conversation?" she responded "yes but I said nothing" when she was asked "do you know what they were talking about"? she responded "no". "Even though you were the passenger and you know of a conversation going on still you don't know what it was about"?
"I can't recall" So then her partner gets on the stand (having sworn an oath on the bible) and was asked the same questions and in fact this isn't this cops first time being accused of wrong doing. In response to those questions he states "no, I was driving", "why would I want to have a chat with MR Harms?", "no the vehicle did not stop"
So why then does the passenger, who is also a cop say it did? Why does neither of them put this in any reports, arrest logs? Why would you take a prisoner to a secluded unscheduled, unethical stop for a "chat"? While one admits it, she blocks the details and the other that did it, flatly refuses its existence.
And the cop Staff sergeant Scott Carter,( the one who wrote the racist emails previously shown on this blog)   who is now up on a complaint that he attempted to intimidate my attorney in another case by yelling and screaming at her after court because she dared to question a police officer( IN FRONT OF WITNESSES!) he also has a complaint in from myself as I complained how "they never identified themselves as police, just kept trying to come through the door, calling me names from behind the door, promising that they were going to kill me" Well he admits to it!, took a little bit of questioning but he admits to saying he would use deadly force and in fact "you will die" but even that wasn't good enough for the judge to throw it all out ( unless the judge is honestly a good man and wants to hear the story to properly deal with it) As many of the cops said during questioning " anything is possible" Nope, Carter walks over to the crown and whispers in his ear, shakes his hand. He then bows to the judge as he whispers to me "good luck Mr Harms", my attorney looks at me and shakes her head.
The trial was to be dealt with in 3 days, by trials end with a verdict it could still be over 4 months! Then again, "anything is possible" right? Unreal, yet there is so much more. Just off the top of my head they didn't play the 911 tapes where in fact I called the police on the police, not knowing at the time that they were police and those tapes would show (record)Carter not only not identifying himself as a police officer but also promising " when I come in there and believe me I am, I'm gunna fucking kill you" Hell he even admits to it on the stand, yet they won't play the tapes because they altered them so much it just sounds stupid and what was 2 call has turned into 3? they are near identical including background noise such as myself clearing my throat, another operator talking in the background. Yet, they are all time stamped electronically and 2 of them allegedly occurred at the same time in start, yet minutes apart in finish, end different, etc. I and my attorney have those tapes, she who is skilled in these things states that they are altered, dialogue between the crown lawyer and herself discuss why they are altered and where the originals are. So, what does he do?, we just won't play them.
 Fuck that shit! I looked the judge straight in the eye and told him about the 911 tapes, that they are altered, anyone that hears them knows this and only I know what was erased, well the cops do too. So if you can't explain them, ignore them right? after all "anything is possible", could you ever imagine a defendant in any case getting away with that? It would go something like this.

"Mr Smith did you murder your wife"? ........"anything is possible"
"Mr Smith did you steal the money from your company"......."anything is possible"
"Mr Smith did you rape that woman"........"anything is possible"
"Mr Smith are you insane and guilty of attempting to start a 3rd world war....."anything is possible"

You see cops have a way of being allowed to use words (as are the crown) in such manipulative ways that not only dodge the questions but mitigate and nullify the question that should be answered in a truthful fashion with a simple few words "anything is possible" How do you think Mr Smith in the commentary above would have fared? ANY defendant,let alone admitting it (chose your own line of questioning), would be found guilty by saying "anything is possible"
That's not a dirty diaper you smell, That would be what we call 'justice' here in good old Alberta Canada ( In Southern redneck twang) and thank ya Jesus!