BC Prosecution Service

A Public service or what?

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

August 25th, 2023
I attended Court before a judge and made an allegation of extortion.

September 8th, 2023
Good morning Mr. Holsworth,
Please see the attached Letter from Crown and Stay of Proceedings Letter on the above noted file.
Thank you.

November 25th, 2023
( I’d just been released from prison after being incarcerated on September 7th, 2023 as a result of the extortion alleged in the complaint )
Since you did not contact me for my evidence as ordered by the judge how can you make such a determination. On what evidence did you make your decision?
I await your response.
Trevor Holsworth

Dec 6th, 2023
We are in receipt of your e-mail from November 25, 2023.
Further to our letter of September 6, 2023, if you have information or evidence regarding a criminal complaint, please contact the Kelowna RCMP. Police are responsible for conducting criminal investigations. At the investigation stage, police gather and review information to determine what happened. Based on what they learn, the police decide whether there is enough evidence to prove an accused committed a crime. Not all investigations result in a recommendation of charges.
All police activities, including investigations, must be done independently.
Crown counsel are also independent. Crown counsel do not investigate crimes and do not have authority over police regarding individual investigations.
As mentioned previously, I also encourage you to obtain legal advice from a lawyer who is licensed to practice law.
Chris Ballison
Deputy Regional Crown Counsel

Dec 11th, 2023
Chris Ballison,
Thank you for your response. On August 25th 2023 when the allegation before the Judge was made, the judge asked why the matter had not been presented through the police and I responded that the police had threatened to destroy evidence so I did not feel safe pursuing that option. Based on that submission the Judge directed crown counsel to contact me by email to gather my evidence to make a determination on whether charges should be laid, and confirmed the email address on record for that explicit purpose. Crown Counsel never contacted me as the Judge ordered and dismissed the matter

I bring your attention to the Public Prosecution Deskbook, "Allegations of misconduct by persons involved in the investigation"
"Prosecutors cannot remain passive. Prosecutors have the duty to be fair, impartial, and objective and to make reasonable inquiries to ensure that the matter is dealt with. They must seek to protect the rights of individuals and the rule of law. They must maintain the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. And they know that they can commit or perpetuate an injustice by doing nothing." and as a statement of policy, "Prosecutors will document, report and track allegations of serious misconduct by persons involved in the investigation of charges."
https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p2/ch13.html
It cannot be said to be in good faith or in the protection of the public to fail to contact the victim, at all. I made an allegation of extortion and subsequently an allegation of a threat to destroy evidence by a body responsible for investigating criminal conduct. There was a failure to comply with an order of a judge, and a failure to comply with policy. How can the public have confidence in our legal system under these circumstances?
Trevor Holsworth

December 28th, 2023
I'm surprised not to have received a reply addressing my concerns.
Can you please forward information regarding efforts taken to, "document, report and track allegations of serious misconduct by persons involved in the investigation of charges", including the communications to supervisors and information regarding the complaints procedure.
Thank you for your attention to this matter of an incredible concern to me, as you can imagine, given the seriousness of the allegation and the ramifications of the dismissal with no investigation.
Trevor Holsworth

December 28th, 2023
I write in response to your email to Chris Balison, Deputy Regional Crown Counsel, of December 11, 2023. I have treated your email as a complaint about the decision Mr. Balison made to enter a stay of proceedings against private information 98988-1. Pursuant to our policies, my role in considering your complaint is to determine whether that decision was reasonable. I note that you cited in your email the policy manual for the PPSC, rather that the BC Prosecution Service. Our Crown policy manual is also available publicly online.
I can advise that I have reviewed all relevant material and that no further material is necessary to assess Mr. Balison’s decision. Having done so, I can advise that his decision was not only reasonable but correct.
There are some contextual circumstances that I hope may be helpful for you in understanding this decision. As Mr. Balison advised, as Crown prosecutors, we cannot conduct investigations - that is the role of the police. On a review of the proceedings at the fix date appearance on August 25, 2023, there was no direction or order made to the Crown to obtain any materials from you. Given that our role is not to investigate, such a direction would have a been problematic. Finally, the criminal court is not the proper forum to dispute the course of family law litigation.
If you wish to pursue a criminal complaint, you must contact the police in the area where the alleged offence occurred. If you have a complaint about the conduct of the police, you may address your concerns to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP or, if you were dealing with the Nelson Police Department, the BC Police Complaints Commissioner.
If you have complaints relating to your family litigation, please consider seeking advice from a lawyer who is authorized to practice law.
Sincerely,
Jessica Patterson ǀ Regional Crown Counsel ǀ

December 28th, 2023
Thank you for your response. Please forward the material used to conduct the "reasonableness and correctness" review of the proceedings at the fix date appearance on August 25th 2023 as your version of the facts differs from my allegation.
My understanding is that Mr Ballinson was not the prosecutor assigned to the case on August 25th so would not be the one to make a determination to but is the prosecutor assigned to deal with my complaint regarding the prosecutor who was assigned, whose identity should be in the materials of August 25th.
I did make a complaint regarding the RCMP threatening to destroy evidence to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and they dismissed it as vexatious but offered I could make a complaint to the Chief of Police who hasnt responded. Who investigates or prosecutes the police if they are obstructing justice?
I do have a complaint regarding the family litigation and my understanding is that there has been criminal conduct which would appropriately be dealt with in a criminal court as the family court has no jurisdiction to deal with criminal matters. For your information the legal advice that I received from a lawyer who is authorized to practice law in B.C. when I presented my evidence was, "I will not represent you now or ever" and the response from the BC Law Society regarding a lawyer refusing to respond to a court order to produce monthly trust account statements, admitting to that fact in writing and pleading for forgiveness was no discipline and a refusal to provide written reasons for their decision in conflict with their statutory requirement.
How does this restore public trust in our "democratic institutions"?
I will review the BC Prosecution Service policies it is troubling that they do not share the same standards as the federal prosecution service.
Trevor Holsworth

January 2nd, 2024
I have not received a further response,
"Thank you for your response. Please forward the material used to conduct the "reasonableness and correctness" review of the proceedings at the fix date appearance on August 25th 2023 as your version of the facts differs from my allegation."
Trevor Holsworth

January 4th 2024
Given the lack of response to provide the evidentiary proof behind your statement that would provide justification for your decision it appears that your decision is arbitrary or perhaps worse, partial. An absence of communication does not generate the trust required in Canada's democratic institutions as it can hardly be said to be in good faith or the protection of the public, to fail to justify one's decision on the basis of evidence.
Under this circumstance I request a review of your decision by your superior.
Trevor Holsworth

January 8th 2024
In regards to this statement, " This communication (the message and any attachments) is confidential and protected by solicitor-client, litigation, or prosecutorial discretion privilege. It is only for the use of the intended recipient. Its contents must not be released to, or used by, anyone else without my express permission. If you have received this communication in error, please delete or destroy the message and any attachments immediately, and notify me by telephone or email."
I am examining the public interest in having this communication published and am requesting further details on your justification and/or the provision of your permission.
I am still waiting for details regarding the process to make a complaint to your superior.
I'll assume a failure to respond to justify conduct nullifies the need for your "express permission" in a free and democratic state.
Trevor Holsworth

January 9th 2024
In regards to your statement, " On a review of the proceedings at the fix date appearance on August 25, 2023, there was no direction or order made to the Crown to obtain any materials from you"
Please forward the court order that permitted you to examine the transcript from a private prosecution which I understand is sealed and cannot be released without judicial authorization.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Trevor Holsworth

“In the years since Vavilov was decided, judges have heeded the Supreme Court’s message that decision-makers “must adopt a culture of justification,” making decisions that are not only justifiable but justified by reasoned analysis” on evidentiary grounds, not opinions…

Although the judicial reasoning provided by the BC Supreme Court Justice Lyster on March 23, 2023 doesnt seem to support that either, “Crown counsel did respond to Mr. Holsworth's "Notification, Constitutional Question Act". They told him it was irrelevant. While that was not the answer Mr. Holsworth was looking for, it was an answer.”
Justice Newbury at the BC Court of Appeal, based on zero evidence just pure judicial opinion, wrote; “his leap from the fact that his evidence [the transcript…] was not accepted in 2006 to the existence of a vast failure of the justice system and of judges and lawyers to comply with their oaths of office and codes of ethics seems to indicate a disturbing world view rife with conspiracies and corruption. This does not reflect reality.”
Although in fact, it does. The Judge preferred the plaintiff’s testimony over the transcript to protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order…

January 10, 2024
I can advise that there will be no further review of the decision of the Crown in this case. As Regional Crown Counsel responsible for all provincial prosecutions within the Interior Region, my decision in reviewing the decision of Mr. Balison is final. The BC Prosecution Service is administered by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, who is designated as the lawful deputy of the Attorney General.  While he would technically be considered my supervisor, he has a limited role in oversight of prosecutions within the Region.  
We will not be providing you copies of materials from our file. Any materials received from the RCMP are not ours to share. Correspondence on the file is protected by privilege, including solicitor-client and/or prosecutorial discretion privilege. Should you wish to review the court proceedings at the fix date appearance on August 25, you can contact the court registry to ask whether arrangements can be made.
Please consider this email as the final acknowledgment of and response to your concerns relating to this matter.
Jessica

January 11, 2024
Thank you for your response, better late than never. Despite your plea, I dont consider your email as a final response relating to this matter. You cant just deny and ignore and then dismiss and call it reasonable and correct but refuse to justify your decision with any facts at all.
Since I made no report to the Okanagan RCMP I imagine that you have nothing in your file, unless perhaps it is of the suspicious vehicle accident that I was involved in during my transfer from Fraser Valley Correctional Facility back to the place of detention on November 25th that resulted in a two day stay in the Vernon Hospital.
I do have however the communications that I had with the RCMP National Division, tasked with investigating complaints concerning federally elected members of Parliament, regarding the failure of the Federal AG/MOJ David Lametti to respond to the properly served enforcement procedure of the Charter. The RCMP responds, "do not send more evidence, we will not investigate, we will destroy...". The Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner still has not completed their investigation two years later.
I have attached the registered letter that I sent to the Premier of BC, David Eby detailing a breach of the Charter by the Federal AG that did not receive a response or any attempt to justify, at all. I have my communications with Mr Eby when he was the Provincial AG as well. These are part of the reasons for my allegation of extortion. I'm sure that you understand.
It is also disturbing that a lawyer was recently disbarred from the BC Law Society for money laundering but has not been charged with a crime. Did the police not investigate or did the BC Prosecution Service decline to prosecute? Where is the rule of law? How does this protect the public? How can protecting lawyers, who the law society admit are committing crimes, due solely to their status as a lawyer, comply with the Charter equality before the law provisions? How does the BC Prosecution Service justify that conduct in a free and democratic State?
Of course the evidence suggests to the Public that lawyers are above the law and not subject to the law, due solely to their status as a lawyer.
How does a citizen get a fair and impartial trial if lawyers can break the law and be immune from criminal charges? 
Unfortunately the BC Law Society also protected a lawyer committing fraud on a court order and refused to comply with a court order to provide monthly trust account statements, who admitted to his failure in writing, begged for forgiveness and received no discipline and a refusal by the BC Law Society to provide written reasons, as required under their governing statute. 
What is obstruction of justice? How does this conduct protect the public? How does this conduct restore trust in our purportedly democratic institutions, create respect for our legal system or comply with fundamental justice? Would you participate in a system so manifestly abusive, if you were not a lawyer?
Trevor Holsworth

How does fraud by lawyers impact the constitutional requirement to provide the public fair and impartial trials?

How is a court process fair and impartial when one party is represented by a lawyer who is above the law and the other party is self-represented?
In my previous experience during the court process, I reported multiple break-ins to the police and no responses including a break in stealing my insurance papers and stuff, removing my insurance coverage and placing the insurance papers in the court file to “prove” that I had insurance. The police tell me we will let the lawyers figure it out.
And then post trial I examine the court file and discover the removal of evidence and redactions that hide the fact that the lawyer was not responding to a court order to provide monthly trust account statements. I report that to the Police and they refuse to investigate and say we will let the law society figure it out.

The Law Society figured it out, they removed incriminating evidence from the file, presented it to the benchers who saw no reason to sent it the discipline committee and refused to provide written reasons as they are obligated to do under their governing statute. BC AG David Eby writes to me that he has no jurisdiction to examine the conduct of the law society as they are self-governing. A prior BC AG, Wally Oppal wrote a similar letter. No response to the failure to comply with the statutory requirements.

That leaves only the Provincial legislatures with the power to reign in the abuse of power of law societies failing to comply with their statutory reporting requirements and the protection of the public interest.

I sent the same letter to all the Provincial Premiers and the Premiers Council. Here is the version sent by registered mail to Premier David Eby. I’m assuming that some form of correspondence occurred but an absence of any response is just as damning. (…just like the failure of the Court Registry to comply with a court order to provide audio files to correct a transcript which was altered after a complaint to the Judicial Council.) I recently received a response…

Some information has been withheld
pursuant to section(s) 15(Disclosure harmful to law enforcement)

The response also includes the initial letter I include the PDF here in case anyone wants a copy for their records.

Bc Premier David Eby

44.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 10th 2007
Dear Stuart Cameron,
Re: William Westcott, Your file No. 20060914
Re: Greg Stacey, Your file No. 20060913

I bring to your attention the Legal Profession Act which as you know regulates the activities of lawyers and the BC Law Society. In the 3rd paragraph of that Statue created by Parliament on behalf of the people of Canada it states:

Public interest paramount
3  It is the object and duty of the society
(a) to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by
(i)  preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons,
(ii)  ensuring the independence, integrity and honour of its members, and
(iii)  establishing standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership, and
(b) subject to paragraph (a),
(i)  to regulate the practice of law, and
(ii)  to uphold and protect the interests of its members.

I also note that the Legal Profession Act in exchange for this self disciplining responsibility gives exclusive right to its members to practice law. The way I read this statue is seems very clear that the BC Law Society has as its primary role the protection of the public interest. Subject to this standard the BC Law Society then has a role to regulate lawyers conduct and the practice of law.

I bring this to your attention because it seems from our correspondence that the BC Law Society may be under the misunderstanding that their primary duty is to protect their members from complaints regarding their conduct which is Section 3 (b) (ii) the last item in the section and subject to all of the other sections. For my education please advise me the actions that the B.C. Law Society is taking to comply with section 3 (a) (i), (ii) and it would be enlightening to hear your answer to section 3 (a) (iii). I look forward to your correspondence as always.

In this regard I also bring to your attention the following section of the Criminal Code

Disobeying a statute
126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by willfully doing anything that it forbids or by willfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

I bring this information to your attention in particular in regards to:
1. The BC Law Societies position in regards to Mr R.G. Stacey and his non compliance with a court order as well as a request from the BC Law Society to provide a copy of his trust accounts and the subsequent position of the BC Law Society not to conduct an audit of his accounts nor further request that he comply with the requests of the BC Law Society.
2. The BC Law Societies position in regards to Mr. William Westcott who was supposedly representing me. Despite a mass of evidence which clearly indicates that Mr. Westcott was purposefully neglecting to bring evidence before the court the BC Law Society seems to be of the position that this is the standard which is expected of BC Lawyers. There has been no request for explanations from Mr. Westcott for his conduct nor has there been recommendations for further education.

I would appreciate a complete summary of the BC Law Societies position in regards to the conduct of both of these lawyers with particular attention given to how the BC Law Society conduct is complying with the Legal Profession Act.
Trevor Holsworth

No Response.

I had taken the issue of the secret nature of prosecutorial discretion to the BC Supreme Court in an attempt to pierce that veil and alleged bias on the part of prosecution given that I was disclosing corruption by their governing body, the BC Law Society. I had some interesting email exchanges with the prosecutor in that regard but no success, they told me several times that they have no conflict of interest and that is apparently not subject to examination, judicially or otherwise.

The conclusion from the evidence is that that the public has no protection from illegal conduct by lawyers. Being defrauded by lawyers is just one of the risks that the public must accept when engaging in the legal system. The Public cannot report or protect themselves from a lawyer for criminal conduct before, during or after. This does not affect your “fair and impartial trial” constitutional requirement.

Article in the Vancouver Sun, from November 2023
”Burner phones used in $31-million money laundering case results in disbarment for Vancouver lawyer

It's the first time a lawyer has been disciplined in B.C. for knowingly assisting in money laundering”

BUT no criminal charges. It appears the only reason there are no criminal charges is due to the status of the individual as a lawyer. How is that the “rule of law” and equal before the law?
https://vancouversun.com/business/burner-phones-used-in-31-million-money-laundering-case-results-in-disbarment

It is in the public interest to protect our constitutional values of the rule of law. It is in the public interest that the public is educated and informed of the reality in practice in contrast with the rhetoric ( or propaganda ) of politicians and lawyers/judges.

It appears that it is not possible to make allegations of criminal conduct against a lawyer, unless it is of ‘sexual misconduct’. The same can be said for judicial misconduct with the allegation against Supreme Court of Canada Judge Brown. The Judges Act even specifically requires allegations of sexual misconduct NOT to be subject to ANY screening, a completely different regime to allegations of fraud and corruption…where they are removed.

The same system works within the court system, improperly protecting lawyers and judges, including within the Registry. I have a court order on a Registry to provide court audio which they not complied with for almost a year, because it proves a judge altered a transcript subsequent to a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council…