On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:54:48 -0400, "Scott Duncan" <Scott.Duncan@nx2000.net> wrote:
Here is some more, this one sent as email to the Law Society of Upper Canada, more or less the Bar in the US. (One of these days I have to ask them what lower Canada might be.)
Per the attached letter, I believe the lawyer named below should be questioned to find if his representing both defendants in a case is ethical.
This lawyer is representing both Halton and Toronto police. FOI documents, obtained since filing the suit indicate that the Halton police, while not entirely blameless (they should have looked at the warrant rather than taking the word of the Toronto police), were defrauded and put at risk to by the Toronto police. I think this view is sustained by the reports Halton officers made at the time. Thus the Halton police might want to consider settlement terms under which they would be dropped as defendants and join Mr. Hagglund and me as plaintiffs.
When I tried to discuss settlement potentials of this nature with the lawyer I understood was representing Halton, I found he was also representing Toronto and would not consider a settlement advantageous to Halton if it had adverse effects on Toronto.
The conflict is clearly non-waiveable. The evidence contained in the arrest report and dispatch log plus the fact that the plaintiffs would like to talk about settling with Halton separately from Toronto makes it likely that the interest of Halton and Toronto are so diverse that no amount of disclosure, waver and consent can cure it.
If this is not an appropriate matter to bring to the attention of the Law Society please let me know and I will present it as motion to the Small Claims court.
Very Truly yours,
cc email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ron Poulton" <Ron@migrationlaw.com>
H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9
(905) 844-6216 March 28, 2002
Chief Ean Algar
Police Services Board
1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario
P.O. Box 2700 Oakville, Ontario
Voice: (905) 825-4777
Fax: (905) 825-9416 By Fax
Dear Chief Algar and the Police Services Board:
As you may be aware, Mr. Hagglund and I filed small claims cases against the Halton and Toronto police boards and several officers relating to the TRU arrest at the Oakville Place Mall May 28, 2001.
The results of several FOI requests have turned up information indicating that Halton, while not entirely blameless, may also have a case against one or more of the Toronto officers. I refer you to the warrant of May 24 and the comments on Arrest Report 0104415 by Officers Mannella, Carroll and Hasenbacher that are at odds with the warrant, ". . . fled to Canada this A.M."
These three officers made and attested to the same error or Det. Glavin grossly misled them. The alternative is that Immigration issued a warrant for me four days before I "fled to Canada." The record from my immigration files obtained under the Privacy act show that Immigration was working since May 22 on obtaining a warrant. Other FOI documents indicate the Toronto police knew I had been in Canada since May 12.
The Halton officers were obviously remiss in not insisting on seeing the warrant before executing a high-risk takedown right outside the entrance of a crowded shopping mall. I can see how it happened because police generally trust other police officers not to lie to them or to create dangerous exigent circumstances where there are none. It was clear from their comments about "when are we going to search the car" that the Halton officers suspected they had been misled right after the arrest.
Perhaps a case can be made from a warning given by the Toronto officers to Mr. Hagglund’s neighbour, a harassing telephone call to Mr. Hagglund by these officers, and statements Det. Glavin gave to the media that it was the intent of Det. Glavin and PC Bonefant to cause injuries and/or deaths in the arrest. The Toronto officers very likely knew from Internet postings that Mr. Hagglund and I were seriously concerned about the cult of Scientology hiring bounty hunters to kidnap me and take me back into the US. (Scientology is well known for kidnapping and false imprisonment--usually of members trying to escape.) They may have known certain details of Mr. Hagglund’s past government training that made the situation more dangerous. And, of course, Scientology told them Mr. Hagglund was excitable. (An act, he *is* a professional actor.)
As Mr. Hagglund puts it, the TRU operation came within a heartbeat of a disaster, since his first impression of the officers behind the car was armed Scientology thugs. Officer Hasenbacher’s notes state "Pulled out to approach & pin baby carriage & mother, woman & car in path." Had the other vehicle (with identifiable officers) been delayed another half second, Mr. Hagglund would have backed into the first vehicle, thinking the officers were thugs about to kidnap his houseguest. Mr. Hagglund has had frequent nightmares over the variety of ways the arrest could have become a bloodbath for almost a year now.
He would have been justified under the circumstances in breaking the legs of these officers with his car, and they in turn would have been justified shooting us. Very unfortunate misunderstanding. There would have been much rejoicing in Scientology’s California compound if the police had shut us up, something several million dollars of expenses over years had failed to do.
And who would have been stuck in an inquest? Consider the Halton dispatch log of May 28 (obtained under FOI) where a few minutes before Det. Glavin arrived and convinced the TRU to use maximum possible force on Mr. Hagglund and me *someone* from Metro was recorded to have said at "Wanted on an Immigration warrant not a hazard per say." (13:52)
Can you imagine trying to explain this dispatch log at an inquest? Or why the Halton officers didn’t look at the warrant?
Another interesting question to ask is why, when I was known to be staying in Oakville, was an Immigration warrant channelled to the Toronto police for execution instead of to Halton?
I had an interesting telephone conversation with Edward A. Ayers of Borden Ladner Gervais late today. A lawyer who is advising us referred us to BLG as the firm Halton uses to defend police cases. I wanted to bring up some of these matters and explore the possibility that Halton might consider becoming a co-plaintiff instead of a defendant.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered after some conversation on these topics that Mr. Ayers is also representing the Toronto Police and Det. Glavin. He also indicated that even with the information I had given him he could see no conflict of interest in representing both Halton and Toronto.
Very truly yours,
H. Keith Henson