James Townsend

292 Northern Ave. E. Box 21046

Sault Ste. Marie, On. P6B 4H6

Friday, May 23, 1997

Chief of Police, Bob Davies

Sault Ste. Marie Police Services

580 Second Line East

Sault Ste. Marie, ON. P6A 5L6

Dear Police Chief, Bob Davies:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to prove my innocence; notwithstanding the fact that the alleged crime I was charged with would be a tort if I was offensive. After pointing out the purpose of my arrest, as revealed on the December 22/96 video, I suspect that you now understand that lawyer Broadbent used the Police as pawns in order to bring another lawsuit against me, or to gain an advantage in the one I was drafting before the Police interfered. Mr. Broadbent has continually and wrongfully involved the Police ever since he told me, on Sept. 21/94, that he would give me a criminal record. I understood, on Sept. 26/94, when he acted like a raving maniac because I filled in a small pothole on my road and gave me notice that I was sued, that he intended a vexatious suit with malice.

I remind you that Mr. Broadbent began his malicious attack against me when he first deceived and misled former Inspector B. Pozzo with untruthful letters and accusations against me. Those records show that he referred to me as a loose cannon and stated that I acted insanely in respect of my effort to maintain a smooth surface over my driveway. Mr. Broadbent fabricated a story for Inspector Pozzo in order to involve the Police, and when he succeeded on Oct. 23/94, he launched the lawsuit he had planned against me. He duped the Police and with such lies: that I had filled in a drainage ditch to widen the driveway, engaged others by stating that I owned my driveway, that I was admonished by the Courts, that I had widened and raised my driveway and that I had damaged trees along the way.

Sgt. Clarida demonstrated that he was duped when he arrested me and told me that I was interfering with the lawful enjoyment of the Broadbent property and had no right to do anything but go to and from the Forth Line over their land. The reports he filed for the Complainant prove he was of the opinion that I was harassing the Broadbents but not criminally. Both Sgt. Clarida and his supervisor, Inspector Du Guay have insulted me with the words, “how would you like it if someone kept shoving a camera in your face”. The evidence shows that I have only done that when I was recording a crime or tort. Neither the “Police” nor the Crown brief records support the allegation of criminal harassment, and the charge that I disobeyed a Court Order was ludicrous, and the Crown has withdrawn it.

The Court Order that Sgt. Clarida acted upon after he was duped by Mr. Broadbent, states that the Broadbents are to maintain the driveway and I am not to maintain the right-of-way. There are two factors to consider in the application of these orders; first, it was not intended to refer to the same thing, and second, removing snow or obstacles from the driveway is not considered to be a repair or maintenance of the right of way. The transcript of the discussion following the pretrial shows undue influence by the judge, and that I took the precaution of including snow removal in the order applying to the Broadbents liability. I have previously shown you that maintenance does not necessarily include snow removal, except on public highways, but due to bullying by the lawyer and Police, I have not done it.

No doubt, lawyer Broadbent has misrepresented case law to Sgt. Clarida, but he could not have persuaded him to ignore evidence unless the Officer wanted to do that. I could have shown Sgt. Clarida that he had no rights to falsely accuse and arrest me if he was interested in investigating his allegation; however, he bluntly told me that he wasn’t interested in any documents I had. The written instructions of a judge alone would have caused him to withdraw the accusation that I took pictures to harass my neighbour. Since the Police, my lawyer, and a judge advised me to take pictures for evidence, there can be no debate as to my purpose. The Broadbents constantly harassed me, and my family by taking pictures of me, and our property and could not have feared for their safety because I copied them.

The video taped evidence that the Police have a copy of shows the first appearance of the log with sharp points sticking out toward my driveway, where the Broadbents did not have an occasion to drive. The video recording proves that Mr. Broadbent had replaced the hazardous log several times and that he did not consider my recording of his malicious act to be a threat to his safety in any way. In fact, on December 22/96, just before he pretended to the Police that my picture taking for evidence purposes was a criminal act, he demonstrated, as recorded, that he knew why I was videotaping and stated, “You can video tape all you want”. He also indicated that my persistent abatement of the hazard he placed to damage my tires was “mischief and property damage”, not criminal harassment.

Because Sgt. Clarida was duped by Mr. Broadbent he believed as he stated to me at the time he arrested me, that I had committed “mischief” by interfering with the property rights of the Broadbents. It seems that he chose to go with a charge of criminal harassment because it was too absurd to pretend that my effort to prevent personal injury or damage to my tire was an act of “mischief”. The purpose of the photos I took was marked on the back of each one except for Oct. 30/96, which was to show that my fallen fence did not prevent Mr. Broadbent from attending at work, and pictures of all Sept. 13ths, to primarily show where the view of Harrison’s house was blocked. I will require Sgt. Clarida to explain how taking pictures for evidence of a crime or tort constitutes criminal harassment.

The missing ingredient in this case is the fact that the Police ignored my complaint that the Broadbents refused to respect their Court Order. If they had respected the Order, they would have delivered the gravel the Court ordered them to, and their criminal harassment would not have prevented me from leveling it, and they would not have blocked comfortable use of my access, and they would have maintained the driveway and it would not have been necessary for me to take any pictures to prove anything other than the fact that lawyer Broadbent’s “client” and some witnesses committed perjury in respect of what could be seen on, and what happened on the right-of-way on September 13th, 1990. Mr. Broadbent made it necessary for me to take pictures of his activities affecting my property.

The question the Crown must answer is this; how can the Broadbents succeed in their quest to give me a criminal record when they have taken pictures of my property and me, as filed and produced, and when they have done everything they wrongfully accuse me of and more. Mr. Broadbent assaulted me on December 12, 1995, and criminally harassed me many times, as reported to the Attorney General, and he has sped at me with his truck as shown on film, and filed, and he has altered the drive without consulting with me and in contradiction of his claim that we both agreed to do nothing without mutual consent. Lawyer Broadbent has also misrepresented the width and location of the driveway he agreed to maintain and should know his May 15/95 Court Order is a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown Attorneys’ office has demonstrated a desire to favour lawyer Broadbent in that several attempts were made to create or find a charge to bring against me without reason. An example of this is in a letter dated March 26, 1997, in which the Crown asks the Police to consider charging me with, quote, “two counts of s. 442, interfere with boundary lines.” Apparently, the Crown and lawyer Broadbent had decided that I broke the law when I insisted that the lawyer respect his Court Order to not block comfortable access for me. Lawyer Broadbent gained an opportunity to bring untruthful charges against me through his own failure to keep the peace and respect the law; and even though he admitted to trespass and damage to property, Sgt. Clarida and the Crown refused to charge a lawyer.

On April 21/97 I told Sgt. Clarida I would not be intimidated by his threat to put me in jail again because I had not committed any crime. He slurred my statement, in the Crown brief, and said that I didn’t care if I was arrested again. He also distorted his instructions to my lawyer by now stating that I was to be advised that I could not photograph the Broadbent property. I was standing next to my lawyer and heard the conversation and my lawyer confirms that Sgt. Clarida said only that I could not photograph the lawyer’s house. I suspect that he altered his evidence to assist in the latest unfounded charge, of breach of an undertaking, when lawyer Broadbent had me jailed again on April 26/97, because his wife divulged evidence that afternoon and he wanted an undertaking to prevent the truth.

At law, the Crown does not have the right to prosecute me because there is absolutely no evidence to support any of the charges against me, but it seems that, in order to favour a fellow Officer of the Court, I must be burdened with the cost of my defense anyway. Normally this would be treated as an abuse of process. The facts are clear: The video of the lawyer and the tape recording of his wife show that I did not cause them to fear for their safety at any time, and the charge of criminal harassment against me was absurd. My wife is selling our home because she is afraid of Mr. Broadbent and his power over the Crown Attorney and the Police. Officer Martin Rowe arrested me at Mr. Broadbent’s request on the assumption that I video recorded the lawyer and the tape proves I did not.

Even if I had turned the video camera on to look at Mr. Broadbent when he shouted at me and called me a damn ninny and accused me of blocking his water from flowing over my driveway, it would still not have been a violation of my undertaking. The undertaking does not bar me from looking through a camera and the fact is, I was wrongfully jailed. Officer Martin Rowe did not even ask to view the tape to see if the lawyer was truthful in his statement that I had video recorded him, and I believe it was because he would not have been able to arrest me if he had examined the evidence. This may also be because Sgt. Clarida circulated the idea that I “didn’t care if I was arrested again”. I have also given the Police a videotape of Mrs. Broadbent beckoning me to come to her on the right-of-way.

Mr. Broadbent demonstrated his animosity towards me when he insisted on damaging my tires for the third time by pointing sharp short branches toward my driveway. The log was placed there by Mr. Broadbent to prevent me from having comfortable use of my driveway but both he and his wife misled the Police with the statement that it was an edge marker. His wife gave the false statement to the Police that the log was there in that spot since they moved in. The photos the Police have shows they both lied. When the Police investigation of the lawyer started in September of 1996, it was already considered that he had contravened s. 140 of the Code when he first wrongfully engaged the Police in an investigation in 1994, while he, being a criminal lawyer knew I had not committed a crime.

The eagerness of these few Police Officers to charge me with a crime that must first be fabricated, and their reluctance to charge a lawyer who committed crimes in the past that were witnessed, and who now admits to a crime, is something that must be dealt with. I fear that I have been wrongfully attacked by the Police because I asked the Attorney General of Ontario to stop lawyer Broadbent from criminally harassing me, and to force him to respect his Court Order. I have transcribed a section of the video tape I made on December 22, 1996, which shows that Mr. Broadbent has no fear of me at all and that my objection to his refusal to respect my rights and his Court Order is a Police matter:

The video of Dec. 11/96 was taken because the Police had been wrongfully used to warn me not to pass my gate with my snow-float, on Nov. 3/96. Mrs. Broadbent was making tracks simulating my snow float. She also lied to the Police by stating that I took a video of her house on December 19, 1996 around 2:25 P.M., after pacing angrily in the easement. Mr. Broadbent deliberately covered my house address with his on Dec. 13/96 and I believe he did it to bait me to take his picture and for an excuse to involve the Police. He also pretended that abating sharp prongs constituted mischief and property damage. (See video)

December 22/96 from video recording of sharp prongs on driveway

Jeffrey Broadbent: At 1:30 P.M.

“Stop touching it. That’s the last warning. I’ll, I’ll take all the legal proceedings I need to. Let me make that perfectly clear. Stop it. You know what you are doing is mischief, and you know that it’s damage to property.”

1:31 P.M. Broadbent left in his truck and returned at 1:32 P.M. after I abated his hazard.

Jeffrey Broadbent: At 1:32P.M.

“That’s it. I’m calling the Police this time. I’ve had enough.”

Jeffrey Broadbent: At 1:34 P.M. After he placed dangerous prongs toward the road.

“You can video tape all you want.”

James Townsend: At 1:34 P.M.

“What do you want those sharp things sticking out for”?

Tracy-Lynn Broadbent: At 1:35 sticks her face out the door and says, why do you keep photographing me”. This reveals her intention to pretend that I had been constantly taking pictures of her in order to facilitate an action or criminal charge against me.

This synopsis shows that the whole matter should have been dealt with by the civil courts and that too could have been avoided if the lawyer had not fabricated a case in order to sue me in the first place. If he had been truthful he would not have been able to sue me and if he respected the court order Justice Pardu got for him, he would never have had the need to pretend that I had criminally harassed him or his family. The Police ought to take a closer look at the Broadbents’ use of the Police, in respect of a contravention of s. 140 of the Code.

In reply to the misrepresentation that Sgt. Clarida made against me wherein he states that I made false and outrages statements against certain persons, I would refer him to the transcript of the March 13, 1995 pretrial from which I quote as follows:

From Pages 42 & 43;

THE COURT: So the only practical way to settle this is to have a court order, that’s all you’re going to get anyway...You need the court order declaring that you have the right of way, Mr. Broadbent need(s).... the court order defining exactly what you can and can’t do. . .You can fight ...if you like, but the price you’re going to pay is just going to be devastating for you......Let’s incorporate in a court order those matters that are not in dispute. (but, she intended to and did dispute all my request in her Minutes of Settlement)

Page 52;

THE COURT: All right, I will put in a provision about if there is an unforeseen change in circumstances, which causes a serious and permanent alteration of the driveway that this order is not intended to restrict the rights that you would otherwise have by reason of your title to the right-of-way, fair?

Page 58, item (6)

This judgment shall not affect the rights and obligations flowing to the owners of the right-of-way in the event there is any serious and permanent alteration of the existing driveway by catastrophic natural event or otherwise.

The Judge and the lawyers knew very well that I was not the owner of the right of way and I believe the emphasis were put on the fact that I was then declared to hold title to the right of way in order to make me think that I was the owner of it. In fact, I was duped, and the whole thing was unfair and calculated to serve the interest of the lawyer only. My access is no longer over a width of thirty-five feet as it was originally granted, and the refusal of the judge to include a time factor in her settlement has further disadvantaged me. (Page 60)

The Minutes of Settlement that the pretrial judge worded for the lawyer was truly a miscarriage of justice, and before I was threatened with devastating costs and unduly influenced the Judge had no tendency to ignore all my terms for her settlement. In fact, prior to that (page 13) it was agreed that I could maintain and grade the road.

Furthermore, it is unfair and unethical for Sgt. Clarida to produce as evidence, my complaint to the Judicial Council or the Law Society concerning the conduct of a lawyer and Judges. This can only serve to bias the Judge who hears this case and may result in an unfair judgment. Even disclosing my affidavit to the Law Society to the Crown Attorney may have influenced the Crown to take such a nefarious position against me. It is highly unlikely that the Crown would have ever considered prosecuting me without evidence or reasonable grounds if there was no favouritism for lawyers.

In summation, Jeffrey Broadbent chose to sue me at the start without a need or reason and he created a problem with my driveway over his wife’s’ land by pretending that I had altered my driveway and damaged trees. This was a ridiculous situation considering the fact that he agreed not to alter the road without mutual consent and then dug ditches and holes to interfere with my lawful rights, and stored a trailer on the road to block lawful use. These things are revealed through the pictures I took before I was cheated by the courts, and the pretense that I blame the Broadbents for the biased judgment of Justice Trainor is nonsensical. The technical points in respect of my rights over the Broadbent property, is clear. My right-of-way is an easement, and Statute Law and common law give me the right to what was intended to be granted. At the time of the grant my access was required by law to be a public street, and at law, the same beneficial use of the easement cannot be denied.

Signed -- Jim Townsend