adultery, bullying, cheating, Criminal Code of Canada, Cyberbullying, Defamation, divorce, Fraud, Libel, Mobbing, Stalking

Criminal Code of Canada: Defamatory Libel, Publishing, Stalking, Criminal Harassment, Cyberbullying and Identity Fraud

Section 300 of the Criminal Code of Canada is the “Punishment of Libel Known to be False”.  It states that: “Everyone who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.”

Section 301 of the Criminal Code of Canada is the “Punishment of Defamatory Libel”.  It states that: “Everyone who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

The definition of “publishes” is listed in section 299 of the Criminal Code of Canada and states:

“A person publishes a libel when he exhibits it in public; causes it to be read or seen; or shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by any other person.”

As a result, I will be removing any comments made by my ex and his followers that are libelous and posted on my site.

Why anyone would state such things about me and encourage others to write such accusations that include criminal acts is incomprehensible. How someone could proclaim to care for the wellness of my children while dragging their mother through the mud is, to me, the equivalent of being an abuser of my children.

Section 403 of the Criminal Code of Canada, “Identity Fraud”, states that: “Everyone commits an offence who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead, with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person; with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property; with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person.”

Personating a person includes pretending to be the person or using the person’s identity information”.  Punishment for everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

For stalking to be criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code of Canada, here is what my ex and his performers should be aware of:

“1.  A person does one or more of the following things:

  • repeatedly follow you, or anyone you know.
  • repeatedly communicate with you, or anyone you know, directly or indirectly.
  • repeatedly watch you, or anyone you know, or lurk around your home, workplace, or any other place you happen to be.
  • engage in any threatening conduct directed at you or a member of your family.

2. The person knows that their conduct is harassing you or they are reckless about whether their conduct is harassing you. “Reckless” means they know their conduct may harass you, but they don’t care.

A person can be stalking even if they don’t physically hurt anyone or damage any property. The law is designed to protect psychological, emotional, and physical safety.

Stalking may start with conduct that seems more annoying than dangerous. Often, the conduct is legal and even socially acceptable, if it’s just an isolated incident. But when it’s repeated, it may scare the victim.

“Cyberbullying is a type of harassment using new technology. Whether it is criminal harassment depends on the facts of a case. Cyberbullies use social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube), blogs, texting, instant messaging, and other internet avenues to engage in deliberate, repeated, and hostile conduct intended to harm, embarrass, or slander someone. Although their work is public, cyberbullies are often anonymous and it is often harder to identify and stop them.

Cyberbullying may also be defamation. The Criminal Code (section 300) outlaws publishing a defamatory libel – material published, without lawful justification or excuse, likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or designed to insult the person.”

These perpetrators think they are hiding behind user names.  What they may not realize is that every computer on a network has a unique number called an IP address. Routers also have an IP address that acts as a front man for a bunch of computers. Law enforcement can trace your IP address back to your exact physical address.

I have all of the perpetrators email addresses, IP addresses and internet service providers. For example, I can tell you that the person who posted comments under the user name Happy and Robyn Graham Cherrie (masquerading as me) is the same person, my ex. I can tell you that the people using user names Azif, Trouble Brewing, Silly Sally’s Sister, WTF and Devil’s Advocate were in the same location while they posted comments. They probably work together as the IP address is identical, indicating they all likely had separate computers running through the same router. Their service provider is Telus. WTF, Devil’s Advocate, Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right and Winner Winner Chicken Dinner are all the same person. Time to Move on and Awesome are the same person with Rogers as their service provider. Azif and Pot Calling Kettle are the same person. Time to Move on and  NothingbutBS may be the same person or work together because although they used different email addresses they share the same IP address. I have 2 IP addresses for Sally so she may be working at 2 different places of employment or one is for her home service provider as one is Telus and the other Shaw.

I will not respond to any harassing messages and I am telling those involved in communicating with me in this manner to stop. I have been advised to provide all of your comments to the police.  I have been advised to report your conduct to your internet service providers as most companies have policies on acceptable use of their services and can cancel the service of a customer who violates those policies. If you continue to contact me I can seek a civil protection order.

Advertisements
Standard
adultery, affairs, Betrayal, cheating, divorce, the other woman

“Out Damned Spot”

It is very fascinating to me that Dave is trying so hard to turn me into a guilty person.

He is specifically trying to shift blame off himself and accuse me of a variety of offences: I don’t shower, I don’t get out of bed, I don’t enjoy a beautiful day, I do yoga, I do expensive yoga, I go to Starbucks, I am a bad mother, I don’t work, I don’t unpack boxes, I expect him to pay my ferry fare, I am defrauding the government, I steel photos, I bully, and the list goes on and on including the bizarre claim that I have kitty litter all over my house.

What is especially interesting to me is that Dave is fabricating my involvement in an adulterous affair.  He’s even trying to name names, describe vehicles and pull in other people and details to pad his lie. Then he takes it further and calls me a slut.

I came to the realization that he must be feeling so guilty of committing adultery on me that he is trying to get me to share in his guilt. He is trying to shed his own experience and deal it to me instead.

Guilt is described in Macbeth as “Life’s fitful fever”. When you look at the comments made by Dave and his underlings they are certainly exhibiting feverish fits. 2 1/2 years post my discovery of the affair, the fits rage on.  They are consuming Dave’s life to the point that he can’t suppress them anymore.  These are not new rants to me (except for the kitty litter).  These are obviously not new rants to his henchman because they repeat the exact same accusations he has been trying to heap on me from the beginning. That ‘s why all of the 12 (yep, a new one appeared since I last counted) identities commenting on my blog lately seem like Dave himself.  But now he has a new audience of blog followers to try to relieve himself on.

Like Lady Macbeth tried to assure Macbeth “what’s done is done”, Dave has tried repeatedly to convince me of the same thing. I am to “get over it” and “stop living in the past.” “Move on” is his modus operandi. The problem for Dave is that he can’t convince himself. The truth is that adultery is permanent and the guilt it casts on the perpetrator sticks to the conscience despite actions to try and feign otherwise.  Like the wife Dave left, he can’t ignore his guilt either.

Macbeth got no peace from satisfying his ambition to take King Duncan’s throne. Dave is getting no peace either. He may have conquered Janice and tried to make her into a legitimate relationship but his life experience is miserable. He gives glimpses of his life by indicating he “isn’t living in the lap of luxury” and with his anger and nasty attacks on anyone who would dare support my side of events and his paranoia over my cause of anything that goes wrong in his and Janice’s life, his guilt is all-consuming.  Probably because he feels he and Janice deserve to have bad things happen to them and deserve to have people stand against them.

Wikipedia describes guilt as “an emotion that occurs when a person believes that they have violated a moral standard that they themselves believe in.” I remember Dave’s indignation when we found out, shortly after attending our friend’s wedding, that her new husband was having an affair. The affair started before the wedding.  Deceit has always been a huge moral faux pas for Dave. I now think it is because he lives with deceit in his character.  He has difficulty with trust because he himself is untrustworthy and as happened with one of his business partners, if he catches you in a lie, watch out!

Well Dave, keep screaming and washing your hands. The blood, so to speak, isn’t coming out. Like the scarlet letter ‘A’ (was that what was spray-painted on Janice’s car?), your mark is permanent.  It is going to follow you around for life.  Spoiler alert: It doesn’t end well for Macbeth.

Standard
affair, court, divorce, fighting, legal issues, separation agreement

The Wolf and the Lamb

I received an email from my lawyer today with a copy of an email from my ex’s lawyer. He was complaining I let myself into his house when he was away in Vancouver. Then he said I did the same thing the next week. His lawyer wrote my lawyer saying my behaviour was “troubling” and I had “boundary issues”. This is how he wastes our money. Money that could be spent on our kids’ needs, on my housing needs, on debt repayment and I am sure he has needs as well. Making up stories with half-truths to try and paint me in a poor light is only my ex’s ploy to deflect from the real issues of his non-compliance. There is no legal issue. No reason to involve lawyers. No crime committed. Nothing the lawyers can do.

His complaints come only because I have outlined the next steps that I have to take if he continues to refuse to split the pre-separation debt with me. I cannot and should not have to pay back $75,000 all on my own. He asked for the supporting documentation which I sent him and spelled it out very clearly. He said he would discuss this with his lawyer. He got back to me later in the day giving his reason that he wasn’t going to contribute because he didn’t think I would take him to court as it will cost me more than the $35,000 I will gain from him if I am successful.

Then I asked him about the documents he has failed to provide to my lawyer that we need to move forward. He claims first he only just received notice they were needed last week and he was out of town. Then that changed to him saying he already provided everything. That changed to him saying he couldn’t provide his full income tax return because he hasn’t filed it yet. Then he claimed his life insurance never lapsed and it has been in force all along for $500,000. I asked him then why his lawyer wrote saying he was shopping for premium rates and that he should only have to get $300,000 in coverage instead of the $750,000 he had before. Then he claimed that his lawyer released funds to my lawyer from a property we sold that was to pay for all the things he was supposed to pay for in our mediation agreement but hasn’t. He said that I chose not to use this money. He said as a result I can pay the consequences for that decision. My lawyer is not at liberty to disperse any of that money without my ex and his lawyer confirming in writing how it can be spent and I have seen her letters following up repeatedly for this information.

I will address his complaint about my boundary issues and letting myself into his place in my next post. But as I was watching a rare electrical storm for this area and unable to sleep, I pulled out a copy of Aesop’s Fables. I came across one about the wolf and the lamb and it underscores perfectly what is happening between me and my ex with this current situation.

“As a wolf was lapping at the head of a running brook he spied a lamb daintily paddling her feet some distance down the stream.
“There’s my supper,” thought the wolf. “But I’ll have to find some excuse for attacking such a harmless creature.”
So he shouted down at the lamb: “How dare you stir up the water I am drinking and make it muddy?”
“But you must be mistaken, ” bleated the lamb. “How can I be spoiling your water, since it runs from you to me and not from me to you?”
“Don’t argue,” snapped the wolf. “I know you. You are the one who was saying those ugly things about me behind my back a year ago.”
“Oh, sir,” replied the lamb, trembling, “a year ago I was not even born.”
“Well,” snarled the wolf, “if it was not you, then it was your father, and that amounts to the same thing. Besides, I’m not going to have you argue me out of my supper.”
“Without another word he fell upon the helpless lamb and tore her to pieces.”

“The Application: ANY EXCUSE WILL SERVE A TYRANT.”

Standard