This was actually filed some time ago, a few weeks after Keith's that it references. I have been busy and didn't get around to posting it. Enjoy!
Reply to defendant's SCHEDULE "A" Claim No. 842/2001
[Letter exhibits are from the Henson filing of May 24, 2002, case number 841/2001. Numbered exhibits are attached.]
1. Plaintiff is filing these additional amendments in an effort to clarify for the Defence Counsel and the Court, additional details, sequences of events and relevant collateral information. Additional exhibits are also submitted. Plaintiff's desire is to simplify the settlement conference proceedings either by obtaining summary judgement or by demonstrating to the Defence Counsel the complete details concerning the Defendants' conduct.
2. Plaintiff asserts the filing of this action upon November 28, 2001 is timely as the Defendants' first offending actions took place upon May 28, 2001. Subsequent defamation of the Plaintiffs by Toronto Defendants took place on May 31, 2001 at Metro West Detention Centre. Said Defamation was a continuation of the original offences committed by Defendants while in Halton and therefore must be adjudicated in this district.
The consequences, on that date, of Toronto Defendants' false testimony and their insertion of inflammatory, false, misleading, misrepresented and concocted documentation supplied by a known criminal organization resulted in the interim unnecessary and undeserved incarceration of Plaintiff Henson at the worst, and at the least the interim defamatory damage to Plaintiff Hagglund's character, in the eyes of the Immigration Adjudicator, as a responsible individual to provide bond for and any required supervision of Plaintiff Henson.
3. Plaintiff stipulates that at all times he has been aware of Mr. Henson's history of publicly criticizing, legally challenging and peacefully protesting the internationally infamous corporation of Scientology. [Scientology is a criminally convicted corporation in Canada.]
4. Plaintiff further stipulates that he was aware at all times of Mr. Henson's conviction in California of a misdemeanour. The prosecutor, DDA Robert Swartz, has characterized said conviction under Section 422.6 for "chasing down buses . . . and do other weird behaviour." (Exhibit 1, page 1, Wired, April 27, 2001.)
The charges revolved around posts Henson made in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup about targeting a nuclear missile at Scientologists, and Henson's picketing of the group's Golden Era Productions in Riverside, California.
The jury rejected Henson's claim that he was exercising his First Amendment right to criticize a dangerous cult, and convicted him of interfering with a religion, one of three counts against him.
"It was not just the postings themselves," said Deputy District Attorney Robert Schwarz. "He had been engaged in other odd behaviour -- chasing down buses, taking down license plate numbers."
5. Plaintiff stipulates he invited Mr. Henson to attend a picket of Scientology in Canada May 12, 2001 partly out of concern for Mr. Henson's safety because of public discussion of his precarious legal position and threats by identified agents of Scientology. [See Exhibit 2---Internet postings of threats before and after. Also Scientology controlled authors were consistently attempting to link Mr. Henson to crimes he did not commit.]
These threats coupled with the evident lack of legal due process and apparent corruption of the courts in Hemet, California qualified Mr. Henson, in the opinion of the plaintiff, as a refugee under the Human Rights provisions of the Canadian Immigration Act. Subsequent to Mr. Henson's arrival in Canada Plaintiff Hagglund arranged for Mr. Henson to consult with an immigration lawyer. The lawyer, Mr. Mamann, after examining the relevant information, agreed that Mr. Henson indeed had, at the least, a prima facie case that Immigration would not dismiss out of hand.
Immigration Adjudicator Simmie on June 6, 2001 (Exhibit Y) concurred with Mr. Mamann's opinion, conveying interim Refugee Status upon Mr. Henson, recognized he was no danger to the public and released Mr. Henson upon receipt of Plaintiff Hagglund's bond. This despite grossly inaccurate representations conveyed to Immigration by Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant on behalf of the criminal management of Scientology and their "persistent malice." [It is interesting to note in Exhibit 2 some Scientology authors seem to know exactly what violent actions the MTPD would take and why, days before the actions took place. There are even references to other harassing criminal activities in Canada by Scientology, EG: Trademark Infringement.]
6. Plaintiff asserts Mr. Henson had been scheduled by his Immigration lawyer Mr. Mamann to present himself to Immigration authorities on May 29, 2001, in order to ascertain his legal status and post any bond required.
7. Plaintiff stipulates awareness that Mr. Henson has a general knowledge of pyrotechnics and strong views on pyrotechnics safety, as well as a public record of singularly advocating caution with respect to any use, public or private, of pyrotechnics.
8. Plaintiff asserts therefore, for the reasons stated in 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above, that Plaintiff believed he was acting lawfully and with integrity, honesty, compassion and charity in providing Mr. Henson with succour and refuge. The Plaintiff had no reason to expect assault, detention at gunpoint, and abuse of process with excessive force, violence, and numbers by armed members of Halton Tactical Response Team (TRU) under the direction of the Metro Toronto Police Officers.
9. Plaintiff claims Defendant Glavin was aware of Mr. Henson's public record in discussion groups, on the Internet, for espousing cautions and discussing concerns for public and private safety with regard to the construction and misuse of pyrotechnics. Plaintiff claims Defendant Glavin has been quoted in the media as having researched Mr. Henson on the Internet and therefore can hardly claim ignorance of Plaintiff Henson's exemplary responsible commentary and conduct in international public forums. (See Exhibit 3- Internet posts).
10. Plaintiff claims that defendant Bonenfant admitted before witnesses his awareness of Plaintiff Hagglund's legal efforts concerning the Immigration status of Plaintiff Henson, since Defendant Bonenfant exclaimed triumphantly, "No American citizen will ever get refugee status in Canada." This excited utterance made to Plaintiff Hagglund occurred within seconds of his being handcuffed by Defendant Officer Hasenbacher on May 28, 2001. Defendant Bonenfant is clearly referring to Plaintiff Hagglund's Internet posting of May 17, 2001. [See Exhibit J.]
11. Plaintiff therefore claims the circumstances and the timing of the date of the arrest of Mr. Henson and detention of the Plaintiff, are highly significant. The arrest and likely harming of Mr. Henson {and Mr. Hagglund} was made by Halton TRU Officers, acting under the direction of Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant, upon Immigration authority solicited by Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant, based on information intended to "manufacture enough threat" and supplied by the criminal organization of Scientology. Plaintiff asserts that Corporate Scientology, by unalterable internal policy (See Exhibit 4 samples.), is fixated upon destroying Mr. Henson for his extensive critical activities in the United States.
Plaintiff asserts Scientology is similarly fixated upon the destruction of Plaintiff Hagglund. Plaintiff asserts Corporate Scientology in Toronto regards Plaintiff Hagglund as an "Enemy to be... destroyed" for his political activities, including organization of public demonstrations, defeat of their bid for Religious Charity Status in Canada, and advertised planned challenges regarding their property tax status in Toronto as well as their improperly granted marriage privileges in Ontario.
Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant acted negligently or maliciously by relying upon highly biased representations proffered to them by an ethically questionable source.
12. Plaintiff therefore claims Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant could not be living in such a vacuum so as to be completely unaware of the international legal disrepute and Canadian felony conviction of their informants' organization: Corporate Scientology. Therefore it was either due to gross negligence or willing collaboration that Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant accepted (without investigation) transparently contrived materials from a corporation previously criminally convicted for (among other things) infiltrating their own police department.
It is important to note the words of Judge Rosenberg: these offences [by Scientology] "Represented a deliberate attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the law-enforcement agencies." " This was not simply an intelligence gathering exercise. The appellant [Scientology] had planted its agents in these agencies so they would be able to anticipate and counter the efforts of these agencies to enforce the law." Beyond that, he said, the offences "represented the execution of a carefully conceived plan," and the agents had been given special instructions to assist them in carrying out their activity. The agents themselves "were not acting for personal gain but under the belief instilled by the appellant that these acts were necessary to protect the church." Further Judge Rosenberg stated a significant fine "was appropriate to encourage compliance by other entities who might otherwise adopt a similar strategy and attempt to subvert the public service and interfere with the administration of justice."
13. Plaintiff asserts Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant, as purported police professionals, should have known or could have easily discovered from Police sources that Scientology has not significantly changed its goals, its methods of operation, or its personnel since their convictions. Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant therefore should have known that Scientologist representatives with whom they were collaborating were professionally trained and tasked with a mandate of misleading the police or gaining their co-operation, in order to take vengeance upon the plaintiffs. [The Supreme Court has noted and rebuked Defendants' informant Scientology for its "persistent malice". See exhibit V.] Therefore Plaintiff Hagglund asserts that the Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant should have regarded with scepticism much, if not all, of any information supplied to the Defendants by criminal Scientology. Plaintiff Hagglund asserts, for reasons unknown to the Plaintiff, the Defendants seized upon this misinformation as a basis for rationalizing a series of malicious actions, which, by strange happenstance, should have had results that would have uniquely satisfied the desires of the Canadian criminal organization of Scientology.
14. Plaintiff Hagglund claims Defendants' assertion, as follows, is a deliberate deception: that "They decided to proceed very cautiously for their own protection" because they "had received information" alleging Mr. Henson was an "explosives expert". Defendants could hardly be afraid of Mr. Henson's education. They infer, because Mr. Henson had been in Canada since May 12, 2001, and Mr. Henson supposedly had a history of using explosives, that he may have had the opportunity to construct explosive devices. Plaintiff asserts that there are several reasons to suspect these excuses are maliciously contrived.
First: there is no record of Plaintiff Henson's having ever used explosives or pyrotechnics in any way that hurt people or damaged property. There is not even a legitimate record of his making any believable threat of any kind at any time.
Second: Had the Defendants actually had a real concern about their safety or the public safety, they would have consistently conducted themselves accordingly, but they did not. The Defendants should have searched for the cache of explosives and weapons about which they had "warned" Defendant Officer Carrol. (See Exhibit 6, excerpted report.) At the least the Defendants, at the time of the arrest, would have searched the vehicle of Plaintiff Hagglund in which Mr. Henson was found and the dwelling of Plaintiff Hagglund where Plaintiff Henson had been "openly residing" for the past 16 days.
Defendants did not make any search despite apparent exigent circumstances, the presence of the Halton K9 unit and the availability of Halton Bomb experts. Understandably Halton Officers were plainly baffled by the failure of the Toronto officers to conduct at least a search of the vehicle. After making several inquiries of the Toronto officers ("when are we going to search the car?"" Halton Officer Hasenbacher, detaining Plaintiff Hagglund in handcuffs, began to question the Plaintiff, without informing the Plaintiff of his rights, about the contents of the closed boxes visible on the back seat and the hidden contents of the trunk of the car.
Third: Further evidence of the deception by Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant is that their notes fail to record having *ever* questioned Plaintiff Henson about explosives or anything else concerning his activities from the date of his arrival in Canada to time of his arrest. This absence of enquiry is obviously inconsistent with any genuine apprehension the Defendants claim to have had.
15. Plaintiff claims Defendants Halton Officers are clearly negligent in not obtaining a copy of or reading the immigration warrant upon which Toronto police were asking them to act. The evidence for this is exhibit N, a non-criminal immigration warrant for inquiry issued on May 24 and incompatible with Exhibit Q "Susp. fled to Canada this A.M." Had Halton Officers asked for and read the warrant they would have known from the date on the warrant that the briefing they had just received from Defendant Glavin was deceptive and untrustworthy. If they had read the warrant they would have realized the exigent circumstances just given to them were false and did not justify the level of violence subsequently used.
16. Plaintiff claims Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant were trying to create a "train wreck" by attempting to manipulate Plaintiffs Hagglund and Henson and by successfully deceiving and manipulating Halton TRU officers.
The attempt to panic plaintiffs.
(1) Defendant Bonenfant broke the security of his surveillance of Plaintiff Hagglund's home, where he knew Mr. Henson was staying, by approaching the Plaintiff's next-door neighbour in the local schoolyard where the neighbour, Mr. Keresteci, had just delivered his two young daughters. Defendant Bonenfant misinformed Mr. Keresteci that his neighbour, Plaintiff Hagglund, was hiding a fugitive wanted on explosives charges. Plaintiff asserts this false claim by Defendant Bonenfant was defamatory of both Plaintiffs' reputations and was designed and delivered in an attempt to cause the average neighbour and parent to either call upon and complain or warn Mr. Hagglund of the police presence and investigation. This act by Defendant Bonenfant belies the Defendants' stated defence, "to proceed very cautiously for their own protection." In either event this tactic appears to have been initiated with the intention of causing the Plaintiffs apprehension or panic. See exhibit O.
(2) Immediately thereafter, Defendant Bonenfant, having observed Plaintiff Hagglund returning home, made a harassing phone call in which he remained silent. The phone call was not even covered by the ruse of a wrong number, just breathing. (See Exhibit 7 notes by Toronto officer Hicks at 1:14 pm.) This harassing phone call was to a household the Halton Occurrence reports Officer Hicks had just consulted (see Exhibit 7 Hicks notes at 12:45 pm] would show complaints as being under siege at times by scientology members.
The manipulation of Halton police by false information intended to create a sense of apprehension and excitement as well as to establish a false setting of exigency and emergency.
(1) Although there was absolutely no factual basis for such cautions, defendant Glavin "attended at the Toronto Police Service Emergency Task Force building and spoke with Sgt. Roger Gibson (7297) about his concerns with the planned arrest of Henson in relation to the possible presence of explosives and weapons. Sgt. Gibson undertook to advise the Halton Regional Police Service of these concerns on behalf of Glavin." (Quoted from Report of Investigation FILE NUMBER: 2001-Ext-0364 DATE OF REPORT: 2002-01-17.)
So successful was this ploy of misinformation and deception that Defendant Officer Carroll reports Plaintiff Henson. "was wanted for an outstanding immigration warrant from the United States." [One has to wonder why a Canadian police official even considered arresting someone on a United States warrant.] Thereafter Officer Carroll was so convinced by direct communication with Defendant Glavin that "he made enquiries into the availability of a police explosives technician and determined that Sgt. Perkins was available for this duty if required." [op cit.]
An intended disaster was averted.
The two elements of the intended "train wreck" should now have been in play: supposedly excited suspects (the Plaintiffs) and a ready-for-disaster, adrenalin prepped tactical unit fed a false tale of imminent and present danger of explosive devices and weapons.
Toronto Police Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant had set the stage for a disaster. Plaintiff asserts that had the Plaintiffs panicked or made any aggressive move the Halton TRU were predisposed by falsely instilled fears and would have felt justified to use deadly force. Plaintiff claims in that circumstance the likelihood is that the Special Investigations Unit would lay the blame on Halton. Ultimately and fortunately for the Defendants the Plaintiffs were not excited into a panic.
Plaintiff Hagglund asserts he narrowly avoided using his own vehicle to defend himself and his companion from the unidentified gunmen who had just exited the unmarked van that had suddenly appeared behind his vehicle. Before Plaintiff Hagglund was able to throw his vehicle, which was running, into reverse, the second unmarked van, slightly delayed, arrived in front of Plaintiff and two more gunmen emerged--this time marginally identifiable as police. Therefore the Plaintiff instantly aborted his first fleeting instinct to resist what he perceived, at first glance, as illegal bounty hunters. It is also fortunate that the Halton officers managed to avoid running over the baby and the woman in their path while attempting to execute this unnecessarily forceful arrest. (See the notes of Hasenbacher, PC 4622, Halton, May 28, 2001 at 14:35 pm "pulled out to approach and pin, baby carriage & mother, woman & car in path.")
17. Plaintiff asserts that one of the three metro officers involved (Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant, and Officer Hicks) was unaware of the "extreme danger" posed by Mr Henson's "knowledge of explosives" because at 13:50 Halton Dispatch reported a Metro Officer broadcasting over the air, "[Henson] wanted on immigration warrant . . . not a hazard per say". Plaintiff asserts that this clearly demonstrates that the other two metro officers either callously did not inform the third of the impending danger, [" they decided to proceed very cautiously for their own protection"] or they knew that there was no real danger posed by Mr. Henson.
18. Plaintiff asserts that the level of violence and brutality of this unwarranted police action and the narrowly avoided disaster that could have resulted had the plaintiff obeyed his first instinct to resist, have psychologically traumatized him. Also, handcuffing the Plaintiff under these false circumstances unnecessarily aggravated the Plaintiffs existing medical condition of tendonitis. A medical information affidavit will be submitted by Plaintiff's Hagglund's physician as to the aggravation of his physical condition and his subsequent symptoms of post traumatic stress. (Exhibit 8 from Halton Health Care Services by Susan Hanna RN). Plaintiff Hagglund was referred for expert trauma counselling. The course of counselling ended in May 2002.
19. Plaintiff claims that Toronto Police Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant maliciously and unnecessarily put the lives of the Plaintiffs at risk, as well as the lives of innocent bystanders (shown in Hasenbacher notes above) and Halton Police TRU Officers, (see Exhibit 9 Calgary training accident) all in an apparent effort to forestall, by means of his injury, death or deportation, Plaintiff Henson's publicly announced intention to seek Refugee Status in Canada.
20. Plaintiff asserts that his injuries were, both physical, mental and to his reputation, directly caused by a malicious campaign waged against Plaintiff Henson by the Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant.
21. Plaintiff claims that the official record of the extraordinary appearance and assertions made by Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant at Plaintiff Henson's first Immigration Adjudication on May 31, 2001, were a furtherance of the malicious vendetta that likely served the desires of a third party. The record clearly shows the surprise of counsellors and the Adjudicator at the presence of the Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant. The record shows the Defendants defaming Plaintiffs Henson and Hagglund as being involved in an "incident" with the inference this incident was violent. Plaintiff Henson's counsel quickly established that the Defendants' assertions were baseless and likely false. (See Exhibit 10 transcript excerpts from the May 31 "Record of a Detention review.")
Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant falsely asserted their contentions would be supported by the information contained in a purportedly unavailable report. Said supplementary occurrence report, as per standard operating procedures of Metro Toronto Police, had been on file since May 21, 2001, and available, at the least by fax, had the Defendants truly wanted to obtain it. (See Exhibit K). Further proof that the Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant must have known that no violent "incident" had occurred on the date they claimed is the fact that no occurrence report was annotated by 52 Division records section. Only a supplementary report was made on the day of the "incident" and filed that day with 52 CIB. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants had no true intention of supplying this report to the Immigration Adjudicator, since it was exculpatory and a direct contradiction of their defamatory public position that the Plaintiffs were dangerous to the public.
The Defence's reply SCHEDULE "A" of Claim No. 842/2001, defence point 8 reads:
"The defendants plead that prior to effecting the arrest of Mr. Henson, the Fugitive Squad of the Toronto Police Service had received information that not only had Mr. Henson been convicted of what in Canada would be known as uttering threats and hate crimes, he was also an explosives expert, and knowing that he was now a fugitive from justice, they decided to proceed very cautiously for their own protection."
22. Plaintiff disputes Defendant's claim that there is any record or conviction of Mr. Henson for "uttering threats" or any conviction of Mr. Henson for any act of violence or any act which could be construed, except by wishful thinking, as a "hate crime" under existing Canadian law. Plaintiff asserts it is a matter for the Canadian Judiciary to resolve the question of whether the relevant California Misdemeanour Statute in this matter is comparable to any Canadian Statute. Plaintiff contends that neither the rampant prejudice and self-interest of the alleged source (criminal Scientology) of the information received by the Defendants Glavin and Bonefant, nor the Defendants own inexpert opinion on California legal definitions should have been relied upon when determining a course of action in order to serve a Non-Criminal Immigration Warrant for Enquiry.
23. Plaintiff disputes Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff Henson (case 841/2001) has ever characterized himself as an "explosive expert."
24. Plaintiff disputes the Defendant's dramatic inference that Mr. Henson may have been desperate and therefore somehow dangerous, since "he was now a fugitive from justice". Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant certainly knew that Mr. Henson was not hiding his location in Canada, was not a fugitive of any extraditable offence and that Mr. Henson was in the process of addressing the certainty of Immigration Enquiry about his Refugee Status by employing professional and reputable legal counsel.
25. The Plaintiff notes that the second page of the attached Form 9A, Ontario regulation 258/98, states:
"If the defence is based in whole or in part on a document(s), you must attach a copy of the document to the defence, or if the document is lost or unavailable, you must explain why it is not attached in the space provided below."
26. Therefore the Plaintiff asserts that unless the entirety of information the Fugitive Squad relied upon in this matter was verbal, the defence has failed in their obligation to attach documents relating to the Defendants' claim to have "received information."
27. Plaintiff Hagglund asserts that the Defendants have failed to support their defences of acting upon "information received" in good faith in accordance with the relevant laws. Said information as presented by Defendants to Immigration was easily discernable, during the four to seven days Defendants had to examine it, as false, misleading, misrepresented and concocted, especially when read "in its proper context" by any responsible individual who cared to do so without any hidden agenda. (See Exhibit Y)
28. Plaintiff asserts Defendants Glavin and Bonenfant have rationalized their initiation and protracted participation in the activities that damaged the Plaintiff(s) with unsupported and exaggerated claims of criminal acts as well as factually unsupported contentions of apprehension for police and public safety. Defendants from Halton are apparently reliant upon Toronto Defendants for their own justification and vindication.
29. The Plaintiff asserts that the existing records and attendant submissions to date demonstrate the absolute culpability of the Defendants.
Summary Judgement.
30. The Plaintiff's claim is for damages of $10,000 against the Defendant Police Officers and the Defendant Police Services Boards for false and unlawful detention. The Plaintiff claim is also for damages under Section 24 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for arbitrary detention, contrary to Section 9 thereof, and for being deprived of his rights to liberty and security contrary to Section 7 thereof.
31. The Plaintiff's claim is also for damages as above for assault, detention at gunpoint, and abuse of process with excessive force, violence, and numbers by armed members of Halton Tactical Response Team (TRU) under the direction of the Metro Toronto Police Officers.
32. The Defendants recklessly endangered the lives and safety of the Plaintiffs by surrounding the Plaintiffs at the Oakville Place Mall on Leighland Street in Oakville on May 28, 2001, at 2:35 P.M. with guns and semi-automatic weapons pointed at the Plaintiffs without identifying themselves as Police Officers. In so doing they terrorized the Plaintiff who suffers from post-traumatic stress to this day. Such extreme force and numbers were unnecessary, unreasonable, and arbitrary in the execution of the Immigration Warrant for Inquiry into a non-criminal matter.
33. The Defendants recklessly obtained and executed the warrant without proper enquiry and placed unreasonable reliance upon unsubstantiated allegations and information easily discernable as biased and erroneous and that was maliciously supplied by a notorious convicted felon: the so called 'Church' of Scientology. Some of the Defendants libelled the Plaintiff to an Immigration case officer.
34. Plaintiff Hagglund therefore requests, since the Defendants have failed to materially support their defence(s) for "Assault, excessive force, libel, pain and suffering, intentional infliction of emotional distress, [and] detention at gunpoint" with any proof of the "received information" or the integrity, reliability or veracity of that information, that summary judgement be given for the plaintiff forthwith.
William G. Hagglund [SP7]
aka
Solarius El Rond
Temple of At'L'An (TM)***
Oakville Ontario
*** See: <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/1051/trdp105117800e.html>
Malicious misrepresentation of this TradeMark is currently being implemented by OSA Agent Peter Ramsay. Ramsay continues to act as a TradeMark Terrorist on behalf of his OSA superiors Yvette Schenk & Al Buttnor and the Criminally Convicted Corporation of Scientology which they all slavishly serve.
Peter Ramsay has been ordered by my attorneys to Cease and Desist these wilful and malicious Infringements.
Legal Action is pending.
For more on OSA Thug Ramsay and his questionable activities go to: <http://xenu.ca/multimedia/peter_ramsay_01.ram> or <http://www.skeptictank.org/ramsayst.rm>
For more on OSA Thug Ramsay and his questionable
activities go to:
<http://xenu.ca/multimedia/peter_ramsay_01.ram> or
<http://www.skeptictank.org/ramsayst.rm>