From: Dianne Bond
Date: February 26, 2016
Re: RCMP file P-2015-07207 and/or file 351254
During the month between receipt of the envelope from the RCMP postmarked Oct 26/15 and the
court date scheduled for November 25, 2015, I prepared this request for correction of the partial
disclosure of personal information dated September 28, 2015, which the RCMP's Office of
Departmental Privacy and Access to Information Coordinator sent in response to my request
under the Privacy Act.
It took me more than three weeks of full-time work to draft this response, so if you have specific
evidence of any inaccuracy in it please let me know and I will exercise my best effort to clarify
the matter or correct errors, if any. I am asking that you be so kind as to do the same thing with
the Police Record.
After the RCMP told me that I could argue against their charges in court I knocked myself out
preparing submissions, showed up in court with binders of evidence, and was speechless when
Constable Anselmo abruptly withdrew the ticket without notice after intimidating me out of
exercising my rights for over a year, sickening me, and leaving me stuck with a disparaging
Police Record. After that I was so discouraged that I almost gave up, but I have decided to send
this to you anyway, since the whole problem still keeps me awake at night and I just sent a draft
of this preamble to the strata corporation.
When I reviewed the material that the RCMP released to me I was shocked to discover that
instead of providing protection under the law from corruption and mischief or acting to
investigate reports of serious oppression and misconduct that would support criminal charges
against those in power the RCMP gave me a Police Record suggesting that I am a mentally
disordered criminal for tousling the curls of a psychopathic bully who parked across my driveway
and blocked my car in my garage in 2008. Now police action against me has formed a pattern.
The RCMP has repeatedly supported acts of oppression by those in power acting contrary to the
law by giving me a Police Record, so please note that strata property is governed under the Strata
Property Act, which I have referred to herein as the “Act.” Please correct your records
accordingly so there can be no mistake about the information pertaining to me under the law.
The decision that the RCMP made not to investigate evidence of crime at the time of my 2008
report makes it more difficult to take corrective action now since over the years members of the
strata management team destroyed some records and others that were in my possession are no
longer in my control. To my detriment, I must rely in large part on my recollection of events
because my strata records lie buried in a shambles as a result of an overwhelming sense of
aversion to reams of strata records, which is so profound that it is beyond belief. Even my own
letters, which I feel a compulsion to send and were therapeutic to write trigger a revolting sense
of aversion after I send them in futility. Sometimes I am so sickened that I can’t even bear to read
what I have just written and have to send it out unread, but this incapacitating aversion arose out
of prolonged, repetitive strain, traumatic shock, and years of wasted effort seeking remedies for
oppression that is detrimental to my health and welfare and resulted in job loss, so if you think it
Page 1 of 46
is evidence of a mental disorder, please take note that it is attributable to a defence mechanism to
survive and avoid further injury or the instinctive wisdom of nature to avoid bloodshed.
The actions against me that are committed contrary to the Act interfere with my concentration,
interrupt my sleep, bother my intelligence, and situationally sicken me, so if the RCMP considers
this to be unnatural, please let me know how so. As it is, the court does not view this as a legal
disability, and the medical profession seems to think that law enforcement is a more effective
remedy than trying to treat the symptoms while ignoring the source of injury. If the RCMP has
any evidence that I have abnormal cognitive distortions of conduct inconsistent with the Act to
support diverting attention off of law enforcement and onto mental illness then please let me
know without delay and I will consult my doctor for next steps, but please recognize the evidence
of misconduct, provide protection under the law without discrimination, and straighten out the
Police Record so that it no longer tends to be deceptive, undermine my credibility, or reveal bias.
If anyone is sorry for all the mistakes in said record, please apologize for them.
Please note that I realize that it is understandable to call a building overhang suspended in the air
a balcony and a wooden platform built over the ground a deck and a cement surface a patio,
unless otherwise advised of a reason not to, as I did the very same thing myself for years.
However, having advised the RCMP immediately and repeatedly that the terms balcony and patio
are designated terms on the registered strata plan for limited common property in proportion to
unit entitlements and having specifically pointed out the unique distinction in the use of the terms
patio, balcony, and deck that is material in this strata corporation due to extra decking that has
been added to the complex and used unfairly and deceptively contrary to the Act and unit
entitlement, it is hard to understand the persistence with the RCMP switches and mixes
fundamental terms in a way that undermines my credibility and misrepresents key factual data.
Please note also that I can see how a neighbour could fail in their personal duty of due diligence
and resist accepting the fact that they were profiting from their own wrong at my expense unless
they were a members of the strata council who have a statutory duty to act within the law, who
were specifically told in correspondence to council before and after the fact and have never taken
remedial action under the bylaws, or apologized for acting unfairly contrary to the Act.
I realize that your records are designed to reflect the interests of the RCMP, but my response to
information in the Police Record that pertains to myself is from my own perspective as opposed
to yours, and I would like that to be respected. To avoid useless argument, please take note that in
self defence I have decided to deliberately mirror some frustrating RCMP logic in reverse, and
I expect that to be obvious; it is not my impaired thinking, it is intentional. I am hoping that this
may expose to scrutiny some problematic RCMP practices or systemic logic that may be legally
or mentally disordered, as you have put so much erroneous or misleading, disrespectful, and
harmful information into the Police Records that pertain to myself.
I thought that I was entitled to access all of the personal information pertaining to myself when I
made a request under Canada’s Privacy Act, but the responding letter from the RCMP date
stamped Oct 23/15 states:
Please note that all the information reviewed qualifies for exemption pursuant to
Page 2 of 46
subparagraphs 22(1)(a)(I) and (ii) of the Act.
This does not sound right since such exemption of personal information obtained or prepared in
the course of investigations does not allow a person to correct errors and has adverse effects
pertaining to the enforcement of the law, particularly when RCMP misconduct is an issue. It
seems unreasonable that the head of the RCMP can refuse to disclose to me any of the personal
information that I requested, much less have the right to exempt “all of the information,”
particularly in view of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Access to Information Act.
Exemption of my personal information creates adverse inferences that create a fear that I am
walking through a mine field blindfolded. Please explain how this practice is providing protection
under the law without discrimination.
Moreover, the material released shows that the RCMP generated Police Records that
automatically call a public complaint against a member of the RCMP the main offence and
suggest that my complaints arise out of a mental disorder, bolstering the relative credibility of all
of those making false accusations against me, so if possible, please explain how exemption of
information in this case protects anyone other than the RCMP and members of the strata
management team who act contrary to law.
I do not know of any reasonable justification for the head of the RCMP to be exercising the
power to exempt my personal information from release to me. Other than graphic illustrations of
significant unfairness and other attachments to my correspondence and some buck passing on a
request that I made on February 10, 2007 for enforcement of the penalty for bylaw contraventions
in accordance with the provisions of the Offence Act with respect to trees being cut down in a
designated Tree Cutting Permit area, I have no way of knowing what material was exempted or
how erroneous it is. Nor do I know if the exempted attachments and letter were deleted from the
record or omitted for some legitimate reason. Please provide the relevant details to me.
The way that the RCMP has trampled over my rights and acted in ways that offend, embarrass,
and discriminate against me raises an apprehension that nondisclosure of the personal
information that was not released to me may place me at a serious disadvantage. Under the
circumstances, anything that you have in your information bank on me is certainly more essential
for me to know about than anyone else, whatever it is.
Having said that, I do appreciate receiving the partial information that was released by Sgt. Niali
Hebert, who states:
We have, however, exercised the discretionary powers provided by the Act and have
released some of the information. A description of the exemptions can be found at:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, there is a problem with this. Although I understand that Police Records belong to
the RCMP and are created by the RCMP in the interests of the RCMP, much of the personal
“information” pertaining to myself that was released is erroneous or misleading. Much of the
overall theme looks more like prejudicial propaganda than accurate fact or law as you can see
Page 3 of 46
below. Please provide me with the information that was withheld to that I can correct errors, or
evidence of some legitimate need to withhold particular information from me.
I was shocked to find that I am being implicated in Police Records of “COLLISON NON-FATAL
INJURY” “DRIVE W/O CARE/CONSIDER” “UTTR THREAT PROPERTY/ANIMALS” and
“HARASSMENT” and was accused of using an “ALIAS.” I was just as alarmed to find that the
RCMP had used distraction in the form of disparaging confusion and attempts to brand me as a
“CRIMINAL” with a “MENTAL DISORDER,” undermining my credibility with stigma instead of
acting to enforce the law or investigate evidence of serious crimes.
Instead of holding accountable those committing all kinds of mischief contrary to the Act, the
RCMP supported those in power and burdened me, the one who was acting within the law, with a
POLICE RECORD and riddled it with defamatory misrepresentations. The more that I protest
against being the victim of corruption and systemic oppression the more I am subjected to
character assassination and discrimination that undermines my credibility and endangers my
security. Bias and neglect of duty in the police force has contributed not only to more deeply
entrenched strata strife and personal suffering, but to the highway of tears, unjust aboriginal
imprisonment, and systemic cover ups. This needs to be recognized and corrected or Canada is
riding on a slippery slope to becoming an increasingly corrupt country and more dysfunctional
society. As it is, I was falsely accused and charged contrary to the Act, as well as intimidated out
of exercising my rights, and the police burdened me, the one who was acting lawfully, with a
Police Record that is prejudicial and disparaging and supports those in power acting contrary to
the Act and the principles of democracy and justice.
At the top of the letter is RCMP file P-2015-07207 and file 351254, which it says is mine, and at
the bottom Sgt. Hebert says
"Should you wish to discuss this matter further, you may contact Cpl. Micheline RobergeIt does not say which file number to quote, but thank you. As you can see by this response, I do
at 613-843-5057 or micheline.roberge@rcmp-grc.gc.ca. Please quote the file number
appearing on this letter."
wish to discuss this matter, preferably by return email to minimize any misunderstanding or
argument, so please tell me which file number is the proper one to quote.
In the cover letter for the information that the RCMP released Sgt. Niali Hebert says
In accordance with subsection 12(2) of the Act, you are entitled to request correction of
your personal information. To do so, complete the form found at: http://tbs.-sct.gc,ca/tbsffsct/
350-11.pdf and send it to the Access to Information and Privacy office at the address
below.
This is my request for correction of the personal information provided. It does not fit on the form,
or the back of the form, so please instruct me on next steps if you are unable to ensure that my
request is addressed or if anything more is required from me.
The reason that my request for correction did not fit on the form is that I have to respond to about
Page 4 of 46
209 pages that the RCMP released to me in a format that was non-searchable and non-editable,
with unexplained cryptic codes, in a mixed up chronology with missing dates and enormous
repetition. Making it worse, when I converted the material I received to searchable text the format
became badly corrupted, making it even more difficult for me to extract, highlight, and consolidate
what was most relevant. I have responded as well as I can in the whole of the circumstances so
please let me know if there is any dispute about the correctness of my 46-page response, so that
further misunderstandings can be avoided. If specific evidence is provided to me of an inaccuracy
in my material, if any, I will make my best effort to correct it without delay.
As you can see, little mistakes, left uncorrected, grow into large problems that become onerous to
remedy. The more that the RCMP packs the Police Record with reckless disrespect for personal
privacy, medical confidentiality and the Act the more difficult it becomes to correct. The
astonishing parade of over 70 staff named in it so far, including at least one of my colleagues from
Capilano College that I know of so far, the systemic relevance, and importance of what is going on
here increases on a corresponding level, as does the embarrassment, potential risk, and
overwhelming unfairness of pitting faceless heartless machines and huge gangs of people against
one person acting honestly and lawfully, but alone.
Since Constable Anselmo and Constable Burton disregarded the registered records and
preponderance of evidence that I presented to them, I hope that all of this effort is not just another
toxic exercise of futility the same as my complaining to the Civilian Review and Complaints
Commission turned out to be. I am exhausted and am not adding further to my burden and
becoming more sickened with more attachments at this point in time, but the submissions that I
prepared for hearing the ticket issue on November 25, 2015 includes binders with the following
material to be relied on by the court, which you may find relevant to my request for corrections.
(BC enactments were retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca)
1. UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217Although it may be tempting and convenient to just file this request in the Police Record and
A (III), available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html
2. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982
3. Criminal Code [RSC 1985] CHAPTER 46, ss. 140, 361, 397, and 430
4. Limitation Act [SBC 2012] CHAPTER 13, at s. 28(1) (Acts are at http://www.bclaws.ca)
5. Offence Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 33, at ss. 5, 10(1)(a), 14(1), 78, 79
6. Strata Property Act [SBC 1998] c. 43 at ss. 1, 26, 31, 32, 35, 66, 71, 73, 74, 76, 134, 135,
and 291(2)
7. Strata Property Regulation B.C. Reg. 43/2000 at ss. 6.9, 14.4(1)(c) and (n)
8. Trespass Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 462 at ss. 4 and 4.1
9. Title Search for Strata Lot 25 DL385 Group 1 NWD Strata Plan NW2671
10. NW2671's registered Strata Plan at pages 1, 3, 13, 14, 16, and 17
11. Valuation of Residential Strata Properties (from 2009 BC Assessment website, as updated)
12. List of BC Assessment values 1989 to 2008
13. 2015 Property Assessment Notice, for building and land
14. Bylaws 4.1 and 23.4 of Strata Plan NW2671
15. Appendix A to special Resolution #1, with Agreement and drawings from AGM Notice
and Agenda
16. Unit Entitlement Proposed Strata Fees Jan 1/14 to Dec 31/14, from AGM Agenda
17. Special Resolution #1 with preamble on p. 2 of AGM Minutes of April 8, 2014
Page 5 of 46
18. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition definitions of: “Absurdity”.,“Contra proferentem”.,
“Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius”., and “Meeting of minds”.
19. Drawing dated 1988-2013 depicting decades of loss, ongoing nuisance, and increasing
oppression
20. Photos of views with, and without, trees
21. Photos of trellis planters and posts the strata installed on Unit 409's limited common
property patio
22. Photo of the new sundeck with the chair I used on September 27, 2014
23. Letters dated August 27 and 28, 2014, protesting against harassment by Councillor
Georgia Title
24. Affidavit of strata agent, Jolanta Teszka, sworn September 29, 2015
25. Responding affidavit of Dianne Bond sworn October 8, 2015
26. Notice of Withdrawal, filed in BC Supreme Court No. S165066 on October 13, 2015
27. Summary from RCMP’s partial disclosure of Police Records, with draft request for
corrections
28. Link to http://sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.ca/
maintain the status quo, what is required to correct the record is direct remedial action, and
accordingly, I do not expect the required corrections to be easy for you to accept or face up to, but
I hope you will do your best, just as I have and send me a corresponding update of my personal
information, corrected as required.
In any case, that’s the end of my preamble. I hope that it is not too prolix as it is the best that I can
do under such adverse circumstances.
************
NOTE: I prepared the following material prior to the court date scheduled for November 25, 2015.
Although I am not sure that I have touched on all of the errors and distortions in the information
released in the partial disclosure of personal information dated September 28, 2015, which the
RCMP's Office of Departmental Privacy and Access to Information Coordinator sent in response
to my request under the Privacy Act, I am requesting corrections to the Police Record as set out
below. Please amend the personal information that I requested to ensure that the record is not
misleading, erroneous, or discriminatory.
Main offence: PUBLIC COMP AGAINST MEMBER
- CORRECTION, contrary to the allegation in your file, the main offence was not (my) complaint, it
was the conduct of the RCMP who contrary to the Act, in perverse support of mischief, deferred to
those in power and acted against the one who was obeying the law, giving me a disparaging police
record, undermining my reputation and credibility, making me sick, and intimidating me out of
exercising my rights for over a year in reckless disregard of the preponderance of facts, law, and
official records that I presented as evidence in support of (proving) my position.
Related Persons
- CORRECTION, the related person was Constable Anselmo, but the particulars given here are
Page 6 of 46
not of the police officer who trampled over my rights, they are of me, including my sex, age,
height, weight, eye colour, hair colour, and ethnicity, as if my complaint against the RCMP was
against myself.
The RCMP practice of portraying the victim as the perpetrator is systemic and was emphasized
with a lot of repetition of my full particulars throughout their long drawn out highly rhetorical
Police Records.
- COMPLETED
- CORRECTION, the matter will not be completed until a determination is made in a Provincial
Court hearing to be held on November 25, 2015, (the RCMP avoided that and prevented the hearing by withdrawing the ticket as soon as a I showed up in court with binders of proof) and rather than complete the matter the RCMP shirked responsibility, sickened me, and held the matter open for over a year making me wait until November 13, 2015 for a report that was largely a copy and paste of their own version of facts.
Whatever the speculation on RCMP motives may be, the fundamental truth is that the RCMP
employed a defective procedure that avoided corrective action for an extraordinary period of
protracted delay, which was damaging to me, and to me alone, and anything but completed.
Location: 2986 GUILDFORD WAY ,COQUITLAM
- CORRECTION, the misconduct that I complained of took place at the residential strata complex
at 1215 Lansdowne Drive; neither the offending ticket nor Constable Anselmo’s threats were
issued at the police station on Guildford Way.
Reported on: Tuesday, 2014-0ct-14 11:45
- CORRECTION, I reported the incident on Monday, 2014-Sept-29, and the “CPC” (whatever that
is) requested that my complaint be forwarded to the detachment concerned "as quickly as
possible." The Police Record provides no reason for the 2-week delay and no excuse for changing
the date of the report that I made.
Occurred on Tuesday, 2014-0ct-14 11:45
- CORRECTION, the offence occurred on Saturday, Sept 27/14, when the RCMP turned a blind
eye to public mischief committed by those in power, issued a ticket for trespass contrary to the
Act, and intimidated me out of exercising my legitimate rights.
CCJS Status: UNFOUNDED
- CORRECTION, the charges against me were unfounded, my complaint about the RCMP acting
irresponsibly, contrary to the preponderance of facts, law, and evidence was not unfounded.
The RCMP is confusing matters and harmfully distorting the truth with deceptive files and the
arrogant attitude that “might makes right,” exaggerating an unjustified disparity in credibility and
power that flies in the face of the law and a just society.
Location type: OTHER COMMERCIAL/CORPORATE PLACES
- CORRECTION, the location was not a commercial place, it was a residential strata complex.
Final Case type: ASSIST GENERAL PUBLIC
- CORRECTION, the RCMP’s actions do not match their words, they did not assist the general
public, they acted to assist corrupt strata governance and to thwart correction of their own
misconduct.
Page 7 of 46
The RCMP denied my legal rights, issued a ticket for a trespass that never occurred, made threats
to prevent legitimate protest against oppression, inflicted more than a year of torturous delays,
assisted those committing public mischief, and deceptively described that all of that by saying
“ASSIST GENERAL PUBLIC” when the bulk of the evidence is obviously to the contrary.
Remedial action is required; please conduct yourselves accordingly.
Case type: MVI
- CORRECTION, this motor vehicle incident involved another owner, not me, and the RCMP
created an adverse inference by giving me a Police Record, with full particulars of me, including
my sex, age, height, weight, eye colour, hair colour, and ethnicity which tends to create the
impression that I was somehow the perpetrator or guilty culprit. To help put this disparaging
25-page Police Record of “COLLISON NON-FATAL INJURY” “DRIVE W/O CARE/CONSIDER”
that was foisted onto me into context please let me know by return email the number of other
owners who were burdened with a Police Record of similar nature under their own name at the
time of this incident.
UNWANTED PERSON
- CORRECTION, this is deceptive; what was unwanted here was not a person, it was the rights of
a person being exercised under the Act. Anyone who dared to exercise the same rights would be
unwanted by the complainant, but the mischief committed by those acting against me contrary to
the Act was more than unwanted by me.
SOC: WHI/F,55YRS,TALL HEAVY BLD,BRN HAIR,WHI BATHROBE,FLIP FLOPS
- CORRECTION, I was 64, not 55yrs; my robe was worn outside around the home or hotel pool
and had a significantly wider wrap than a bathrobe; my build is not heavy relative to my height
and weight or the build of the mischief maker, Georgia Title; age flattery does not compensate for
disparaging embellishment or insult; and Police Records need to be in context and corrected for
accuracy to be trustworthy and reliable.
Address: 408 1215 LANSDOWNE DR
- CORRECTION, neither the false accusations against me nor the ticket and intimidation occurred
in unit 408, the whole incident occurred on common property at 1215 Lansdowne Drive, between
units 408 and 409, and having 408 in the information may not only be prejudicial and indirectly
infer that I entered Unit 408 when I did not, it may be a breach of privacy also.
TRAFFIC-DISPUTED PROV TICKET - COMPLETED
- CORRECTION, I was not disputing a traffic ticket, nor was the matter completed as stated. I did
not receive the RCMP’s final “report” until November 13, 2015, and the court hearing on the
disputed ticket will not take place until November 25, 2015.
Location type: SINGLE HOME/TOWNHOUSE/DUPLEX (AND CONNECTED PROPER
- CORRECTION, the location was the connected property, normally known as common property,
there was no single home or duplex, and the townhouse was not affected. The whole of the
confusion in wording, sandwiched presentation, order of priority, and subordination with brackets
may tend to imply that I entered my neighbour’s premises when I did no such thing.
Page 8 of 46
It may seem like nit-picking or vexatious technicalities, but embellishment and misrepresentation
of key terms is confusing and obstructs understanding and truth. It diverts attention away from
material facts and is so pervasive and persistent that it seems like a deliberate strategy that is
perfect for professionals holding up limited liability as a defence, and volunteers on council
holding up ignorance and confusion as a defence, leaving those who seek remedies to fall through
the cracks so that the Act moves closer in proximity to litigation insurance and cost threats, and
further away from binding law that strata owners can rely on. This is serious, not frivolous.
1 count(s) under TRESPASS ACT 4(1)(a) - 4.1
- CORRECTION, I did not trespass as charged, or at all; I had inherent unrestricted statutory
authority to access the common property, those acting against me had no authority to deny me
access as they did, and my ownership interest in the property exceeds that of my neighbour, as
does my colour of right. I was treated unfairly for decades, I acted honestly and lawfully, accessed
the property with notice, for a legitimate purpose, and was willing to share it - in contrast to my
neighbour who shirked her duty on council, claimed exclusive use on false pretenses for her own
unjust enrichment without permission, or authority, and made false and damaging accusations
against me, all contrary to the Act.
I did not contravene a relevant rule or bylaw (s. 134) to justify denying me access to common
property, and even if another owner ever did so, Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this
Act (s. 292) or to the regulations.
The sundeck was not designated as limited common property (ss. 73, 74), permission for exclusive
use of common property was never granted (s. 76), user fees had never been imposed under the
Regulations (s. 6.9), and it was not an offence under the Trespass Act (s 4.2) for me to sit on the
deck.
If anyone had a legitimate complaint it was me, but the RCMP ignored or dismissed the evidence
in support of my position, much of which was obvious, and most of which I pointed out
specifically, and anything that I did not point out was readily available in answer to any questions.
I acted under lawful authority (ss. 73, 74, 76, 134), or colour of right and contra proferentem while
Councillor Hennan acted against me contrary to the Act with strong ulterior motives that the
RCMP ignored. The RCMP persistently ignored the fact that the legislation makes appropriate
provision for temporary exclusive use of common property and the imposition of user fees for
enjoying the privilege and turned a blind eye to the assessed value of the common property and the
obvious unfairness of acting to destroy equitable use and enjoyment of it in proportion to unit
entitlement contrary to the payment of strata fees and taxes, basic property ownership, and the Act.
I am not good at math, but I know that I pay taxes on the common property that are about twice the
tax for my strata lot and that a piece of property the size of the sundeck has a rental value
estimated at $1 per square foot per month, more or less, based on a comparison of everything from
overnight paddocks in Williams Lake to monthly parking in Vancouver to long term storage yards
in Maple Ridge, or nearly $2,000 a year which should be paid to the strata in user fees, reduced by
about $25 for Councillor Hennan’s proportionate unit entitlement ownership. The same thing goes
for President Lynda Baker, but I can’t afford the cost of a trial to bring it before the court, they all
know it. The way that the RCMP ignored the fact that everyone on that strata council has a
Page 9 of 46
balcony and half of them are taking more than twice their share of the common property at the
expense of others only made matters worse. Far worse.
The RCMP also ignored the fact that others who are acting against me for years, like Al Macleod
and Councillor Berg have been taking more than their share of common property for their own
exclusive use since at least 2003 without paying user fees to the tune of about $30,000 each and
counting, but deprived me for decades of patio space that I paid for while subsidizing them by
about 30%. These are not trivial dollar amounts.
Instead of charging those committing mischief under the Criminal Code, the RCMP discredited
me, issued a ticket contrary to the Act, intimidated me with threats, and maximized the resultant
damage with protracted delay and a Police Record, which is unduly disparaging.
Priority: 2
- CORRECTION, the RCMP used codes throughout material released to me without interpretation
so I cannot tell whether they are correct or not. Please interpret the codes and provide the
information required to determine accuracy or error in information pertaining to me.
Additional Remarks 13807319 09/27/2014 SOC: BOND,DIANE 55YRS
- CORRECTION, I was 64 years old, not 55, Dianne is misspelled, RCMP records cannot be
trusted, and this needs to be recognized, particularly in view of the credibility issues at stake here.
Dianne BOND was on front deck and refused to leave.
- CORRECTION, I had no reason to leave, and my neighbours had no authority to ask me to
leave. The Act shows that I had inherent statutory authority to be on the sundeck and nobody had
authority to claim exclusive use or deny me access the way that they did.
There was ongoing issues with BOND
- CORRECTION, this is deceptive, not to mention improper grammar, the reality is the ongoing
issues were with strata management and neighbours acting contrary to the Act, I was only obeying
the law and relying on the Act for protection against unfair treatment.
she may have mental health issues
- CORRECTION, there is evidence that the actions against me are psychopathic; the RCMP is
disregarding this and characterising natural symptoms of oppression in a prejudicial way that
undermines my credibility, creates stigma, and transfers attention away from the RCMP’s failure
to investigate crime and enforce the law. Despite physical and psychological attacks on me, the
evidence shows that my conduct was more lawful, reasonable, and appropriate than that of the
RCMP or those acting against me contrary to the Act.
BOND believed that front deck was on common strata property, and sat on deck to
make a point that she was correct about it being common property
- CORRECTION, I can’t comment on the redacted blank spaces, but the legislation, registered
strata plan and common property record proved that the deck was on common property and was
available to everyone; it was not something that I merely believed, nor was I delusional or
mentally disordered.
Page 10 of 46
The RCMP is unfairly depicting false allegations from mischief makers with the word states and
factual data pointed out by me with the word believed, and their choice in words reflects bias and
is used in a persistent pattern that obscures and falsifies the fact that sundecks in the complex are
common property owned by all of the members in proportion to unit entitlement as registered in
the Land Title Office, not by any one individual exclusively.
The RCMP used the adjective front elsewhere in the Police Record to describe the balcony also in
a way that confused the balcony and deck when the strata plan and my repeatedly pointing it out
both made it clear that the balcony and deck were on opposite sides of the building.
With regard to the blank space before the word front, if the RCMP redacted anything that implies
that the deck belonged to an individual rather than the members of the strata corporation, that is
also untrue, and worse, it is insidiously deceptive.
The subject was the deck, and the issues were significant unfairness and avoiding the provisions
under the Act for imposing user fees for exclusive use of common property.
, and because BOND was recently denied
- CORRECTION, inserting the adverb recently is misleading, I was denied for decades, and due in
part to the actions of the RCMP supporting those acting against me I still am.
an application to rebuild
- CORRECTION, I was not denied an application to rebuild anything, nor did I apply to rebuild
anything, my patio was destructively demolished and rebuilt by the strata against my wishes. My
application was for a remedial return of my original use and enjoyment by construction of an
enclosure large enough to move the trellis planters into the air space above the common property
directly adjacent to my patio where the tree had been, and although I had been unwittingly tricked
into confusing terms the responsibility to enforce the bylaws and remedy the nuisance attributable
to conduct contrary to the Act belonged to the strata, and I had under protest paid the strata more
than the cost of construction years ago.
her balcony deck
- CORRECTION, I do not have a balcony deck, I have a strata plan patio, the distortion in terms is
material, and I pointed out the key distinctions to the RCMP repeatedly. The terms are confused
most persistently and deceptively by those depending on ambiguity and misrepresentation to
support their interests contrary to the Act.
Member spoke with property who stated the front balcony
- CORRECTION, the subject was not the balcony, it was the deck, the member spoke with me
also, and I told him the material difference in the designated terms in addition to pointing out the
registered records.
The RCMP depicts false allegations from mischief makers with the word stated and factual data
pointed out by me with the word believed, using the word front to describe both the balcony and
deck in a contradictory manner that increases confusion within an environment of deception
where every balcony in the strata complex complies with unit entitlement and none of the decks
do, and all of the balconies are used in compliance with the Act and none of the decks are.
Page 11 of 46
As always, I can’t comment on the redacted blank space, but the member and strata agent made
on-site visits where it is plain to see that all the balconies are attached to the south side of reverse
plan homes with the entrances on the north side where the subject deck is.
was " limited common property"
- CORRECTION, although the balcony is limited common property, the deck which was the
subject at issue was not, and the incredibly determined persistence in which the language for
limited common property is switched around and falsely applied to decks after I pointed out the
material facts repeatedly is evidence that the confusion in language was deceptive deliberately.
which is for exclusive use of the home owner only
- CORRECTION, balconies are limited common property for the exclusive use of the home owner
only, but decks are not, and I told that to Constable Anselmo.
not "common property" as BOND believed
- CORRECTION, it is common property, and that is a fact not a belief. Common property is
defined in the legislation, areas of exclusive use are designated in the strata plan, and the
registered common property record confirms that there is no other limited common property
designated in this strata complex.
The way that the RCMP depicts false allegations from mischief makers with the word stated and
factual data pointed out by me with the word believed reflects bias that is discriminatory and
disparaging, and the persistence with which those making false accusations against me confuse
matters with deceptive doubletalk, misrepresenting key terms and turning a blind eye to the law
makes it pretty clear that they acted contrary to the Act knowingly.
In addition, to paying attention to the factual data, I had direct, personal knowledge of the history
so I understood the motives of neighbours, strata agents, and members of the strata council making
deceptive misrepresentations, but the actions against me by the RCMP were an even greater
betrayal of trust.
BOND was told this and even spoke with as well,
- CORRECTION, it is tiresome to keep saying that I cannot comment on the redacted blank
spaces, but I told both the strata agent on the phone that I was on the deck that had just been built,
not the balcony, to ensure that there was no accidental misunderstanding, only to be blatantly
disregarded.
and was asked not to go back onto property.
- CORRECTION, the STRATA was asked not to go against the law, repeatedly, and I made those
requests in an active, responsible voice, not the anonymous, unaccountable voice used here when
NOBODY ever had authority to grant exclusive use to one owner and deny access to another
owner contrary to the Act as was done to me.
Please let me know if the redacted word after onto implies that the deck belongs to a particular
individual and excludes other owners. If so, it is another insidious deception that tends to
undermine my credibility, and uncorrected repetition in a Police Record exaggerates the damage.
Page 12 of 46
She refused
- CORRECTION, I refused to give up my legitimate rights, nothing more; the Police Record is just
as misleading as a direct lie and just as dangerous and difficult to defend against.
and went back
- CORRECTION, I went back after I left to get a seat cushion, but I did not go back after
Constable Anselmo came and issued a ticket.
with her lawn chair and a newspaper
- CORRECTION, when I went back my chair was already there; it might be called a lawn chair if
it was on a lawn and a deck chair if it was on a deck; whether I had a newspaper or not, what I was
reading was a book called the BC Annual Practice; and mixing up lawns with decks or books with
newspapers tends to divert attention from the key fact that I had every right to be on the sundeck.
She was issued a VT for trespassing, which appeared to have driven home the point
- CORRECTION, this is deceptive due to errors of omission; for accuracy contrary to the Act
needs to be inserted after the word issued, and the point needs to be clarified to show that the one
that was driven home was that law enforcement officials ignore provincial legislation and obvious
oppression, bully the public and intimidate people out of exercising their rights, and support
corrupt governance in a discriminatory manner that is sickening and disreputable.
and BOND returned to her residence
- CORRECTION, this is deceptive due to errors of omission; I would not have returned to my
residence if Constable Anselmo had not intimidated me out of exercising my rights and said that
he could arrest me and threatened me with worse if I returned to the sundeck. The omission of
such a threat from the Police Record is material, and I would have immediately returned to the
sundeck to sit in protest if he had not bullied me out of doing so.
File concluded.
- CORRECTION, the file was not concluded; I did not receive the RCMP’s final report until
November 13, 2015, and the court has yet to hear the matter, and it continues to sicken me.
*** CONFIDENTIAL ***
- CORRECTION, the RCMP is setting this out with upper case emphasis surrounded by strings of
asterisks, but the actions of the RCMP do not match their words. Issuing a ticket and pressuring
me with a public hearing date to air false accusations invaded my privacy, it was not confidential,
nor is acting to pry into medical confidentiality, forcing me to defend myself against prejudicial
disparagement, nor is naming innocent strata owners and little children in Police Records while
carefully redacting the names of rogues. The RCMP is embarrassing and humiliating me with
deceptive misrepresentations and protecting mischief makers and the perpetrators of conduct
contrary to the law far more effectively than it is protecting confidentiality or respecting privacy.
Furthermore, exempting personal information that may reveal the RCMP’s own negligence or
misconduct is something other than confidential, it seems more like hiding evidence.
Member attended and BOND had already left and gone back to her residence.
BOND had brought a lawn chair and seat cushion wich she left behind on the
deck. BOND lived at unit 409 and was at her doorway. She was advised member
Page 13 of 46
would come and speak with her as well, and she said good, because she wanted to show
the member the legislation in the strata laws that allowed her to be on deck.
- CORRECTION, I did in fact show the member the legislation that governs strata property and
inherently allowed me to be on the deck. Please let me know if the redacted part before deck
contradicts the Act or implies that the deck belongs to a particular individual and excludes other
owners, so I can note the impact on my credibility and request correction.
that BOND was becoming more and more aggressive
- CORRECTION, it was my neighbours and the RCMP who were becoming more and more
aggressive, not me. I was acting lawfully, and they were not, so I was standing up for my rights as
well as I could in a calm positive way, and they were attacking me, pursing their interests with
undue force, contrary to the Act. The difference between aggressive and assertive is relevant, as is
deceptive distortion in the Police Record.
and that there had been issues in the past with BOND making threats
- CORRECTION, the strata and the RCMP were making threats, I never did, in the past or ever,
despite being sorely provoked. They not only made threats they carried them out and caused
damage, and the issues in the past were the same as they are now, namely, significant unfairness,
corrupt conduct contrary to the Act, and “he said, she said” character assassination to undermine
my credibility.
the strata council, that BOND was constantly writing letters, sometimes four per day
- CORRECTION, I wrote no letters at all during comparative peace, order, and good governance
in the strata, and as always, I can’t correct errors that may arise out of the redacted blanks, not
knowing what was omitted, but the number of letters I was writing reflects the corresponding level
of corruption in the strata corporation and resultant damage inflicted on me.
the front deck was just built, permission from the strata council
Members spoke with BOND who believed that front deck was on common strata property.
She showed members the legislation that defines common property in either the strata act
or the bylaws.
- CORRECTION, the RCMP were aware that the deck was just built but confused the matter,
using the word front to describe the balcony elsewhere in the Police Record and saying that I
believed the deck was on common strata property, when the registered records proved the facts.
I showed members the legislation that defines common property, it was not in the bylaws; and if
the RCMP paid attention to me and the evidence of corruption and oppression that I showed them,
instead of deferring to the mischief making scofflaw gang, they would not seem so mixed up or be
as damaging and dangerous to me as they turned out to be.
She also showed the building plan
- CORRECTION, I showed the strata plan, but not the building plan, and the RCMP
misrepresents facts so recklessly and frequently that corrections are nothing short of exhausting.
which wasn't clear about the front yard being private property
- CORRECTION, it is beyond belief that the RCMP are saying it wasn’t clear about the front yard
being private property; it was common knowledge that the property was in a residential strata
Page 14 of 46
complex, not a public park, and the terms yard and private property tend to be used more in
relation to a single detached home on an individual plot of land, and common property and
exclusive use are the terms commonly used in relation to a townhouse in a strata corporation.
She disagreed that it was property, and did not care that she was instigating
problems by sitting on deck
- CORRECTION, I cared, but I was not instigating problems; I sat in the spotlight in passive
protest against oppressive nuisance and corruption, and the problems were violations of the Act
and those profiting from their own wrongs were instigating mischief, making me sick, and as
always, I don’t have the information required to request correction of the redacted omissions.
Please let me know if the redacted part before deck contradicts the Act or implies that the deck
belongs to a particular individual and excludes other owners, so I can note the impact on my
credibility and request correction.
She said she sat on deck to make a point that she was correct about it being
common property.
- CORRECTION, those are not my words. I did not say that sat on the deck to make a point that I
was correct and defending myself against such insidious distortions is exhausting, and the higher
the status of the speaker the more onerous the burden becomes.
She also said she felt she was treated unfairly by the strata council about not being able to
modify her blacony
- CORRECTION, I did not say that; the RCMP are yet again putting their words into my mouth
and twisting designated terms in ways that support insidious deception, injecting confusion into
fundamental distinctions that are in themselves unambiguous.
I do not have a balcony, I have a patio, it was modified against my wishes by members of the strata
council, and I felt I was treated unfairly by the strata council failing to do its duty under the Act to
enforce the bylaws prohibiting the use of common property in a manner that causes a nuisance,
particularly the decades of nuisance that has been depriving me of proportional unit entitlement
interests, privacy, peaceful enjoyment, and use of outdoor dining space that I legitimately
purchased and am entitled to the exclusive use and benefit of.
If police investigators paid attention they would know that, and but for the RCMP’s failure to
recognize mischief and oppression and their preference for taking the word of those in power over
my word supported by the strata plan, the legislation, and the physical facts, they would not issue
a ticket and threaten me with worse as they did.
and that it was not fair that new deck was approved
- CORRECTION, once again, that is not what I said; I did not feel that approval of the new deck
was not fair, I felt that it was not fair that members of council were taking common property for
their own exclusive use without paying user fees and persecuting me with harassment and
oppression contrary to the Act. It only makes matters worse for the RCMP to be putting their
words into my mouth, especially with such persistence.
Please let me know if the redacted part before new deck contradicts the Act or implies that the deck
belongs to a particular individual and excludes other owners, so I can note the impact on my
Page 15 of 46
credibility and request correction.
BOND said she was recently denied an application to rebuild her balcony deck
- CORRECTION, once again, I did not say that. I was denied an application for a remedial
extension, which was obstructed, delayed, and sabotaged by members of strata management for
decades. I did not call my patio a balcony deck or apply to rebuild it, nor did I say that I did.
I made a remedial application that was denied at the AGM when Sherrill Berg, the member of
council who was responsible for diverting the special levy fund surplus to avoid paying user fees
told the voters that proposal was an “outrageous” invasion of her privacy, and Lynda Baker the
strata president avoided paying user fees by telling the voters that a lawyer confirmed that she
personally owned the sundeck on the common property north of her strata lot, misrepresentations
which fraudulently disparaged my character and undermined my credibility and induced voters to
fear that there was no place to build a platform for trellis planters east of my patio without
trespassing on a neighbour’s “property”.
Councillor Berg used the same type of sabotage when she diverted special levy funds to build
herself a new deck of about 15 m2 and denied remedial construction to me of about 2 m2, and the
RCMP is continually feeding erroneous words into my mouth like a rubber stamp, deceptively
depicting my patio as a deck, or the deck that I sat on as a balcony, undermining my credibility in
a persistent “he said - she said” situation where “she” is vilified as a fat old woman with a mental
disorder and “he” is law enforcement officials backed up by systemic immunity from liability in a
justice system that tends to prioritize said status over truth and justice.
The RCMP needs to recognize how deeply entrenched the corruption in this strata corporation and
in the strata agency industry in general is and that it could not be sustained without insidious
contributions from law enforcement officials, including lawyers, judges, and police officers who
act to support the power base and distort or dismiss inconvenient facts rather than enforce the law.
because she did not tell the strata council what she wanted to do about the deck).
- CORRECTION, I wrote letters to the strata council telling them exactly what I wanted and even
drew a picture; they just didn’t like it.
I have no way of knowing what the RCMP is talking about when it says deck, or how the strata
council’s responsibility for it could be transferred onto me, so if it is misrepresenting my patio as a
deck here, please correct that.
I wanted a remedy for ongoing nuisance, and it was the strata council who did not tell the voters
what I wanted to do the same way that it had for decades. The strata council prepared the AGM
agenda in a way that precluded a motion, vote, or debate on the strata council’s duty to enforce the
bylaws and remedy the uniquely unfair loss to me of privacy and equitable benefits, or my loss of
use of outdoor dining space on my patio that the trellis planters and the strata’s swing-out
modification of my patio door took away, or the loss of thousands of dollars of surplus special
levy funds that Councillor Berg took from me for her own unjust enrichment.
property manager . Member spoke with who stated the front balcony was
"limited common property" which is for exclusive use of the home owner only, and was not
Page 16 of 46
"common property" as BOND believed. BOND was told this, and was even handed the
phone to speak with as well. BOND was asked not to go back onto property. She refused, and went back with her lawn chair and a newspaper. She was issued a VT for tresspassing, which appeared to have
- CORRECTION, I do not know if the redactions require correction, but the strata agent knew
that the balcony was not the subject; second, the adjective front is inserted before both balcony
and deck in the Police Record when they are on opposite sides of the building; third, the subject
was the deck, which was in fact common property exactly as I said it was; fourth, when I spoke to
the strata agent on the phone I confirmed that there was no misunderstanding of terms; fifth, with
regard to the redacted text, under the Act the property manager is the strata council, not the strata
agent, and the Act strictly prohibits delegation of that responsibility to the strata agent, the RCMP,
an owner, or anyone else; sixth, the RCMP discriminated against me and acted in reckless
disregard of the Act; seventh, they shirked their duty to comply with the law and deter mischief,
and last but most definitely not least, the RCMP intimidated me out of my exercising my rights for
over a year and made me sick in the process.
Narrative: MISCELLANEOUS NOTES - 1
Court Notifier
Author: 184622 RADKE, KRYSTAL
Related date/time: Monday, 2015-Sep-21 10:29
TRESPASS ACT
VT#AH0080615019-BOND Disputed. Court Notifier for 2015/11/25 at 9:30 for Cst.
ANSELMO.
- I take it from this that I will not have to apply for Constable Anselmo to attend court for cross
examination.
As Ms. Radke is a former classmate and colleague, and the Police Record is riddled with
disparaging errors this information is embarrassing, to say the least. To set the record straight,
please forward to her everything I am sending to Cpl. Micheline Roberge, confirm receipt, and
give her time to read it. Same goes for Cst. Windal if he has any relation to Leanne, another former
classmate and colleague from Capilano College.
How received: 911 SYSTEM
- CORRECTION, use of the 911 system was unwarranted, as were the actions against me.
Remarks:
IS ON SUNDECK AND REFUSED TO LEAVE I FRONT PORTCH
- CORRECTION, I did not refuse to leave the front porch, it was impossible for me to leave the
porch as I was not on it, I was on the sundeck, but both are red herrings insofar as I was under no
obligation to leave the sundeck. What I refused was to acquiesce to neighbours bullying me
without authority, passively obey instructions contrary to the Act, or willingly relinquish my
rights.
SOC POSSIBLY HAS MENTAL ILLNESS I HAS BEEN ASKED TO LEA VE I
SOC IS ANGRY WITH STRATA, ONGOING ISSUES
SOC QUITE AGGESSIVE.
- CORRECTION, I was not angry with the strata, I was angry with rogues, deception, and
Page 17 of 46
injustice. I seldom, if ever, felt aggressive toward others, and despite ongoing provocation, I never
did anything nearly as aggressive as those acting against me did. My actions were as appropriate
as possible and never as unreasonable and destructive as those in power who were acting contrary
to the Act. If the RCMP has any evidence to the contrary, please produce it, otherwise correct the
record without delay.
As it is, members of the strata management team who are acting contrary to the Act in conflicts of
interest that are uniquely detrimental to me spur my anger, and that anger was the energy that
fueled my letters and blogs and motivated me to be assertive enough to passively sit down on a
sundeck, which was a difficult departure from my habitual response of protesting in letters.
Although those acting against me contrary to the Act are wrecking evermore sickening havoc on
my life in reckless abandon, I would rather not sell like practically everyone else did because my
home is important to me, as is the law.
I experience physical and psychological reactions to abnormal oppression which are sickening
signs of injury, and the RCMP characterizes this by saying that the subject of complaint possibly
has mental illness and then raises the issue to hold as more credible than me those who have
shown a mind boggling incapacity to comprehend statutory law, registered records, key terms,
duty, unfairness, and decades of deprivation, or to admit mistakes, take corrective action, or
apologize for foreseeable easily avoidable damage. If those acting against me contrary to the Act
are normal, not injured, or retarded, or mentally ill, then why are they not charged with mischief,
or worse?
NO THREATS TODAY
- CORRECTION, I made no threats the day before or the day after, or at anytime ever, and if the
RCMP thinks that I did please provide an example so that I know what you are referring to and
can defend myself accordingly.
SEX:F/QREASON:INV/ALIAS:Y
- CORRECTION, I don’t know what QREASON:INV/ means, but I am proud of my conduct, and
I have never been too ashamed to identify myself. Although a gang of cowardly rogues repeatedly
attack me and shield their identities under the cover of a corporate veil, I have never acted
anonymously or called myself by anything but my legal name, so it seems unfair for the RCMP to
stigmatize me in a Police Record with the term ALIAS because I am married and use my husband’s
name.
GENERAL OCCURRENCE HARDCOPY
Reported on: Monday, 2014-Jun-16 10:42
CCJS Status: UNSUBSTANTIATED
Time received: 10:42:51
Dispatched: 11:12:22 Enroute: 11:18:51
Cleared: 14:01:48
Final Case type: HARASSMENT
- CORRECTION, Harassment of me has been going on for decades on all kinds of levels, so if
this is a case about harassment of me I know of no reason that it could be UNSUBSTANTIATED.
If it is an accusation against me, it is more than unsubstantiated, it is false, and I was insidiously
deprived of an opportunity to defend myself while members of the strata management team
Page 18 of 46
committed mischief to secretly generate a Police Record based on fraudulent misrepresentations
made against me anonymously.
Additional Remarks
THE SOC IS STATING IN LETTERS SHE IS GOING TO USE A MACHINE GUN ..
- CORRECTION, I never stated that I was going to use a machine gun, and I never made a threat
against anyone. I was patient to a fault and specifically clarified my feeling by saying, “I am
sharing this observation with you once again, not to be provocative, but in view of your minutes
of May 20 and your next meeting not being scheduled until July 15 to avoid the risk of real danger
in the interim. It is not alright for you to keep on interfering with use of our property for months
and years.”
Obstructive posts were trespassing and causing a nuisance on my patio for years while council
ignored all my complaints, so when I noticed myself having fleeting thoughts that considered how
a machine gun might work as a method of taking the posts down it alarmed me. I felt that it was
serious enough to share that concern, and I also thought that it might get council’s attention when
nothing else did.
I was right on both counts. The posts are gone now and so are the thoughts.
After years of ignoring my complaints about the obstructive nuisance the strata took down the
posts on August 5, 2015 and had to cut the bolts to do so. In the meantime, however, the RCMP
ignored the nuisance from the obstructive posts and, without my knowledge, created a Police
Record with a false accusation that I was going to use a machine gun, which continues speaking,
and making it worse, has added negative emphasis with repetition. Someone has changed what I
said into a very serious accusation. I can’t tell who that someone is, but the RCMP is repeating
false accusations and protecting my attackers from identification, and it is insidiously deceptive
and hard to correct when misconduct is hidden under the guise of privacy to protect mischief
makers from being identified or held accountable.
The RCMP knows that the accusation is false, and has the evidence that proves it, so please charge
the person would made the accusation with mischief, or remove the false accusation from the
Police Record. Those committing wrongs in this strata corporation are slowly killing me, so please
stop trivializing the seriousness of the situation. Please stop allowing them to use the police to
worsen the damage so recklessly inflicted on me by those in positions of power.
Strata stating the arguing goes back ten years
- CORRECTION, there was very little arguing, if any; although I wrote repeatedly, the strata’s
lawyers said that my concerns would not be responded to, and in general that has been true for
about ten years or more. It is still the case, so please forgive me when my patience wears thin.
Although complaining constantly, he has never threatened in any of her letters before this
concerning letter.
- CORRECTION, the thoughts I had were indeed concerning, as was the nuisance, but I never
threatened, in any way despite the frustration of being oppressed with constant deprivation,
intimidation, and harassment. I write letters reporting my experiences as a shield to try and defend
myself against those acting against me contrary to the law, not as a sword.
Page 19 of 46
The latest issue has to do with on going work to BOND's patio which needs
to be painted, fixed and parts replaced.
- CORRECTION, first, the issue was not the latest, it had been a nuisance for years; second, there
was no ongoing work done to my patio, it had not even been painted for more than 25 years; third,
nothing was fixed, the defective taps and damaged cement board have been unrepaired since 2005;
fourth, there were no parts replaced, I was forced to replace the remedial hose adapter and trellis
planters myself; and fifth, what was actually ongoing was deceptive misrepresentations by
members of the strata council offloading and shirking the strata corporation’s responsibility to
maintain common property, enforce the bylaws, and remedy nuisance.
BOND is unhappy with Strata and sent a letter in which she stated, "Once again, I am still
giving increasingly serious consideration to how a machine gun might work on taking
down the posts that the Strata installed on our patio." At no time in the letter does BOND
make a direct threat toward anyone.
- CORRECTION, I was unhappy with significantly unfair treatment by people in strata
management, but at no time did I make a threat toward anyone in any way at all.
BOND is associated to only 4 PRIME files, only one which documents a problem with
then Strata President, where it was ruled insufficient evidence to support a criminal
charge.
- CORRECTION, if the RCMP had bothered to investigate the fundamental problem with then
Strata President they would have found sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge against
him and others acting against me contrary to the Act.
Saying that I am associated to only 4 PRIME files suggests that there should be more than 4 and
that my association with said files is serious. That is deceptive; first, I found my wallet quickly;
second, I was not associated with the motor vehicle incident, it involved common property, not
me; third, I did not trespass, those acting against me committed mischief; fourth, I did not assault
anyone, I was the one who was assaulted, by a man with a motor vehicle, a physical attack, with a
real weapon, with photos of the scene as real evidence against the then Strata President who held
me captive and acted like a childish bully, blowing smoke in my face, adding a fraudulent police
report to the mischief, and fifth, the RCMP gave me a Police Record riddled with errors and
misrepresentations, reporting the same incident as occurring at different times, making no mention
of an alleged witness, and suggesting that I have a mental disorder instead of investigating
evidence of far more serious misconduct by those in power.
the council wanted the matter documented at this time and would report any other
suspicious occurrences or threats in the future. They did not wish for BOND to be spoken
to at this time out of fear of things escalating.
- CORRECTION, members of the council wanted the matter documented to protect their nefarious
conduct and give their suspicious representations or threats credibility and did not wish for me to
be spoken to at the time out of fear of exposing a secret that I did not know until I discovered it in
court. They were actually escalating things to provoke litigation and gang up on me with
misrepresentations, lawyers, and legal costs, and I didn’t find out until October 2015 when they
complained to the court that they needed me to serve a Notice of Civil in order to proceed with a
plan to gain access to litigation insurance.
Page 20 of 46
since receiving this letter from BOND, the Strata Council has sent her a letter back
advising her that any further communication between them be through their lawyers.
- CORRECTION, ever since 2007 the strata had been sending me a letter from its lawyer
repeatedly advising that the strata council would not respond to further communication from me,
and in general they did not, and they knew that I did not have a lawyer, as I told them, and
reminded them repeatedly. Also, when the RCMP call me BOND they ought to know that referring
to a woman by her surname alone appears disrespectful, if not hostile, particularly when
generating a disparaging Police Record.
2014-07-07 A/Cpl. Wing reviewed file
Remarks:
STRATA FOR THE A/L .. ONGOING FOR LAST lOYRS OF HARRASMENT .. THE
SITUATION IS NOW ESCALATING TO A SCARY LEVEL ... THEY HA VE A LA WYER
INVOLVED AND HE IS NOW ADV THAT POLICE NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED AS THE
SOC IS STATING IN LETTERS SHE IS GOING TO USE A MACHINE GUN TO POLICE
AND SHOW THE POLICE THE LETTERS .. ++STRATA IS AWARE THAT POLICE
HAVE BEEN CONTATCED
- CORRECTION, I can’t tell what A/L or ++ means or what is used in error and can’t correct
anonymity, secret codes, or blanks ... , but 10YRS OF HARASSMENT has tortured me to the point
of incapacity and burdened me with a Police Record based on false accusations against me made
by those acting contrary to the Act, accusations repeated by the RCMP, and nothing short of
SCARY got rid of obstructive posts trespassing on my patio, the police just ignored the intrusive
nuisance. POLICE NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED is seemingly intended as a venue for further
harassment and character assassination more than anything else, and I would like the police to take
corrective action to protect the public and deter such conduct.
I need to know who is responsible for the fraudulent claim that THE SOC IS STATING IN
LETTERS SHE IS GOING TO USE A MACHINE GUN but I cannot tell who the speaker is, nor
can I tell who said that police have been contacted and police needs to get involved and that strata
is aware. If the RCMP is referring to actions of the strata and its own agents in the Police Record
as if none of them are responsible for false statements and someone else may have been involved
that is deceptive, and if it is a member of the justice system who is making the false accusation,
the redaction is a cover up.
The RCMP is unfairly portraying statutory law and registered records presented by me as the
beliefs of a person who may be mentally disordered, unreasonably singling me out as less than
credible, and repeatedly placing false accusations in the Police Record in a way that each
repetition effectively exaggerates the accusations. At the same time, the RCMP has been using
redactions in a way that shields the identity of and gives undue protection to those acting contrary
to the law, and seems to be blindfolding me with exemption of information pertaining to myself
while avoiding action against their friend, making a charge of mischief, professional misconduct,
negligence, defamation, or anything else more difficult to pursue, if not impossible, even though
the RCMP saw the relevant letters and evidence proving that accusations against me are false.
This kind of discrimination and harassment is placing me at a significant disadvantage, which
leaves me feeling disrespected, devalued, sickened, and endangered. The situation is serious.
Please take corrective action against those acting against me contrary to the law.
Page 21 of 46
Related date/time: Tuesday, 2014-Apr-29 10:38
PROPERTY-LOST
Dianne BOND called Coquitlam RCMP to advise that while at the dog park located at
Westwood and Glen on April 28th,2014 around 1800hrs, she lost her wallet...complainant
called at 0738 on april 30th, 2014 to report that she found her wallet in her car. the wallet
was never lost.
- This is true, and I am sorry for the false alarm. All I can say is that I am not perfect, and I deal
with proximate motor vehicle accidents, job loss, dysfunctional litigation, incapacitating aversion
to strata documents, and all the rest of the fallout to the best of my ability.
Main offence: ASSAULT-COMMON
- CORRECTION, just like in my complaint against Constable Anselmo the RCMP calls my report
of the then Strata President’s misconduct the Main offence, giving me a disparaging Police
Record that casts suspicion on me instead of acting to correct the man who turned his vehicle into
a weapon against me, completely obstructed my driveway for about 20 minutes, trapped my car;
made me late for work, blew smoke in my face, bullied me to give way, threatened me, made false
accusations, committed mischief with the police, and traumatized me to the point that it disturbed
my sleep and interfered with my ability to work efficiently and effectively on the job.
When I stood in front of the then Strata President asking if I would see my complaint of his
violation of the parking bylaws recorded in the strata minutes he answered by blowing smoke in
my face and instead of going around me threatened me with police action if I did not step aside
immediately, behaving like such a childish bully that it provoked me to tousle his curls for an
instant as I complied. The question begs, who assaulted who, when, why, how, and with what.
Given the photographic evidence and recorded time periods of the incident and the horrific
condition of common property evidencing obviously corrupt strata governance please explain the
decision of the RCMP to act against me as they have instead of taking action to deter misconduct
by the then Strata President.
Reported on: Monday, 2008-May-12 12:27
Occurred: 12:27
Scene 17:05
Cleared 18:00
Author: 154091 Windle, Jason
- CORRECTION, as stated elsewhere in the record the incident occurred commencing at
“approximately 0820hrs” in the morning, not at 12:27; I worked from 9 to 5 or later and was at
work at 12:27; and the photos that I took of my blocked driveway are from 8:26 to 8:41 in the
morning. This report is over 7 years old, I have never seen it before, and no matter how much
evidence exists in registered records, photographs, letters, and law of the guilt of those acting
against me, the RCMP trivialize, ignore, dismiss, or misrepresent it and act in wasteful, tiresome,
biassed ways that tend to confuse facts, support corruption, and unjustly discredit or disparage me.
Location type: RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT (APARTMENT/CONDO/ROOMING
Occupancy status: NEITHER VICTIM NOR ACCUSED OCCUPIED
- CORRECTION, I occupied the residence, and my car occupied the garage at the end of the
driveway that Mr. MacLeod blocked. The identity of the victim and the physical facts need to be
clarified more accurately to show who is who(persecutor/victim) and what is what(crimes accused).
Page 22 of 46
Weapon used: PHYSICAL FORCE
Weapon status: REAL
- CORRECTION, the RCMP made these accusations against me, twisting the facts. The “weapon
used” was the motor vehicle of the then Strata President, the smoke he blew in my face, and the
false accusations he made to burden me with a Police Record and repeatedly report in the minutes,
vilifying me within the community. He blocked my exit with his vehicle as a weapon of
PHYSICAL FORCE, and my inability to defend myself or to move his vehicle, his smoke, or his
body to get to work was REAL. The RCMP told me verbally that Mr. Macleod claimed that he had
a witness who saw me pull his hair and kick him or attempt to kick him, but in the Police Record
there is no mention of any such witness despite all of the drivers of the other vehicles that he had
parked along with him in the firelane. Not only did I not pull Mr. Macleod’s hair or kick him, or
attempt to kick him, I have a deeply entrenched history of consistently responding to all kinds of
provocation by reporting on the actions against me in letters and blogs, not by kicking at people or
pulling hair.
Founded: YES
- CORRECTION, the accusations against me were unfounded, and when I reported crimes that left
the property in ruins which were described in writing by the strata lawyer as “horrific” and plain
to see by all from 2005 to 2010, the information available to me shows that the RCMP did not
even open a general occurrence file to deal with Mr. Macleod and omitted particulars of him even
more completely than it did in the complaint against Mr. Forsythe by his wife
At approximately 1227hrs on 2008-05-12
complaint on Diane BOND who resides at 409-1215 Lansdowne
BOND get evaluated for her mental state. BOND was not available to be
Interviewed but will be at a later date.
Tri-Cities Mental Health (604-777-8400) to be contacted after speaking with BOND.
- CORRECTION, my name is misspelled, I had no knowledge that the RCMP had taken this
action against me, and they did so inappropriately. This Police Record is evidence that the RCMP
acted in ways that undermine my credibility and invoke stigma in lieu of enforcing the law or
conducting any criminal investigation into the conduct of those in power.
I relied on law enforcement to remedy corruption and oppression, not doctors, for good reason. I
have well developed stress management skills that I practice, which are sometimes effective but
never stop the attacks of others, and I seek and take reasonable advantage of the resources that I
have access to, but none of that should be any of the RCMP’s business, nor should I be compelled
to make it public knowledge in order to defend myself against the misconduct of others. Medical
professionals are not in the business of law enforcement, health care records are supposed to be
confidential, and whatever the state of my health is in proximity to the actions against me, it is a
result if those actions, not the cause. Furthermore, it is an established fact that physical and
psychological injury is known to flow out of trauma as evidenced in the 2014 report on RCMP
suicides found at http://blueline.ca/uploads/issue/pdf/531/BLNW_2014-05-30_cover.pdf. Well
intentioned or not, it is an unfortunate reality that too often a doctor’s first response to the
symptoms of resultant injuries, instead of the last resort, is a suggestion that would deplete
whatever is left of the patient’s financial resources, including a lawyer, litigation, or
pharmaceuticals that are largely experimental, have a highly questionable history, and side effects
that are detrimental, and it is rare for a doctor to prepare a medical legal report to assist in the
Page 23 of 46
remedy for oppression if the patient can’t afford to pay the cost of preparing the report.
The fact that the RCMP suggested that I am mentally disordered and repeated it in its investigation
of my complaint against Constable Anselmo indicates that the police are exploiting normal
reactions to abnormal oppression, implying that I must be deranged to complain about the conduct
of the RCMP, or scandalous crimes, or to tousle the curls of a bully who was blocking my
driveway (as evidenced in photos), leaving his own driveway empty (as evidenced in photos),
trapping my car (as evidenced in photos), forcing me to be late for work (as no doubt evidenced
in my follow up letter), blocking the firelane with a caravan of vehicles (as evidenced in photos)
ignoring the availability of visitor parking (as evidenced in photos), saying it was for my benefit
(as evidenced in the RCMP’s letter of DATE), childishly blowing smoke in my face and
threatening me with police action when I complained about his vehicle blocking my way and
asked him if he would ensure that his bylaw violations were addressed in the minutes. Several
members of the strata management team continually violate laws with impunity, to my detriment,
and Mr. Macleod routinely broke the strata corporation’s parking bylaws, parking on blind hairpin
curves to post his open house signs (as evidenced in photos), forcing others into the path of
oncoming traffic (as evidenced in photos), allowing caravans of cars belonging to his clients and
guests to park in the firelane (as evidenced in photos), while he ruthlessly accused others of the
slightest infractions (as evidenced in threats, fines, and minutes), brutally interfering with my
sleep and driving away my guests (as recorded in my letters), unreasonably forcing owners to clear
their driveways of cars, improving curb appeal for his prospective buyers, personally profiting by
provoking real estate sales, and after he moved his vehicle and I left for work and then returned to
retrieve my lunch he blocked my car again by standing in my driveway and took pictures of my car
when I got out and went inside to get my lunch that I had forgotten in all the upset.
Doctors are not the police; they cannot control the behaviour of a psychopath who is not
imprisoned, and it is legal fiction that a lifeless, faceless, heartless corporation has the capacity of
a natural person to go to jail, take drugs, feel pain, starve, or die.
compelled to involve Police. that BOND had been a problem for the past 15 years, with respect to complainants of living in a faulty residence and requesting constant repairs.
- CORRECTION, the redaction was compelled to involve police to undermine my credibility and
crush resistance to corrupt governance that had been a problem for the past 15 years, or more,
with respect to the strata constantly shirking its statutory duty to repair a faulty residence, and
requesting constant repairs was not the problem, it was a symptom of the problem.
For the past 15 years my complaints have escalated, particularly since repairs that the strata started
in 2003 are still not completed, I was deprived of corresponding information on strata insurance
and other strata records, and the strata’s lawyers accused me of harassment for reminding council
of its outstanding responsibilities. Members of the strata management team denied my right to
material records contrary to s. 36 of the Strata Property Act and s. 4.2 of the Strata Property
Regulation, depriving me of insurance benefits and repairs I paid strata fees for (as evidenced in
letters, photos, and physical fact), claiming I received copies I did not receive, sickening me
repeatedly.
Other owners were deprived of special levy refunds, ground cover, pest and weed control, a
Page 24 of 46
landscape architect’s work product, and proportionate unit entitlement benefits, but not the same
as me. I suffered far greater proportionate loss, for far longer, and was uniquely targeted with hate
crimes in retaliation for complaining. The overwhelming, unspeakable evidence, mixed up though
it may be, ranges from interference with use of my patio and taps, verbal assaults, calling me vile
and despicable in words and email, to making false accusations against me to the police, torturing
me by depriving me of repairs, strata records, and exclusive use of my own patio, breaking my
heart by destroying important trees, claiming to have the right to attack me, and defaming me with
fraudulent misrepresentations until I am so vilified by propaganda that I am effectively ostracized
as evidenced in the minutes of the 2014 AGM.
Since 1990 key members of strata management have fabricated delays and shirked their
responsibilities under enactments and bylaws, failed to remedy faulty construction of buildings
(evidenced in photos and diagrams), mould (evidenced in photos and physical samples), strata
insured water damage, nuisance and trespass (all evidenced in photos and reams of letters, not to
mention mounting police records), and added decks in violation of restrictive covenants, ignoring
or sabotaging my constant requests for remedies, and the evidence was available to any decision
maker who cared to pay attention to my blogs or investigate the available facts supporting the
reports that I made.
The stress from decades of misconduct is cumulative, and includes harassment by spoiling my
views (evidenced by photos with, and without, the trees), in violation of the Strata Property Act (s.
71), contractual tree protection requirements stipulated in the building envelope contract (para #),
Coquitlam tree protection bylaws (para #), strata bylaws (#4, ) and landscaping requirements
mandated by restrictive covenants that run with the land (para #), recklessly endangering a steep
sensitive slope with a history of geotechnical issues (as evidenced in engineering reports) and
sinking buildings (as evidenced in photos), destroying hundreds of mature trees (with
specifications recorded by the developer’s landscape architect and photos evidencing vandalism,
criminal mischief, and harassment), to sell panoramic views to others (as evidenced in his real
estate ads), cutting down the trees most important to me, claiming to have the right to act against
those who opposed him (whether you call such retaliation terrorism, vandalism, or hate crimes,
owners were abandoning thousands of dollars, selling with the property in a “horrific” condition to
use the strata lawyer’s word, and fleeing in droves), intimidating me with accusations of criminal
harassment for sending council a copy of a ventilation report (in his email), by a dangerous
nefarious rogue (as evidenced in Mr. Macleod’s court action against the Halfords), money
laundering (as evidenced by correspondence from Brad Vanzant and records of $10,000
unlawfully funneled through the strata’s bank), tampering with registered terms for limited
common property (as evidenced in motions) and refusing to return the balance of special levy
funds to the owners, deliberately inflicting economic loss, effectively stealing half a million
dollars (evidenced in minutes and AGM financial statements) in a conspiracy to build extra
decking and sell panoramic views (as evidenced in his blog), supported by the strata agent’s praise
and trite suggestion for autopsies (in minutes) on trees that were being systematically destroyed,
vilifying and defaming me to others in a campaign of character assassination (as evidenced by
claims of an unseen witness to a non-existent assault (as evidenced in Police Records), as further
evidenced by the existence of false accusations repeatedly published (in strata minutes), followed
by the community of new strata owners shunning me (as evidenced in AGM minutes), resulting in
injury to my health and welfare (as evidenced in employer reports and Police Records),
discrimination by law enforcement officials (as evidenced by intimidation and charge of trespass),
Page 25 of 46
incapacitating aversion to document production (as evidenced in withdrawal of proceedings),
underground pipes breaking as roots decomposed (as evidenced in photos), impoverishing the
strata and turning the property into a derelict shambles for 5 years (as evidenced in photos.)
that it was true and measures were being taken to rectify the issues
- CORRECTION, it was true that I was living in a faulty residence that the strata had a duty to
insure and repair, but it is not true that measures were being taken to rectify the issues.
Instead, measures were being taken to destroy trees, opening up panoramic views (as evidenced in
photos) that impoverished the strata and left the property derelict, in a horrific shambles for 5
years until 2010 (as evidenced by pictures) with decomposing roots and sinking buildings (as
evidenced in photos), underground pipes breaking (as evidenced in photos), and pavement
cracking (as evidenced in photos).
BOND would be verbally aggressive with contractors
- CORRECTION, I was not the aggressive one, verbally, or otherwise. I was assertive enough to
complain about detrimental conduct that was contrary to law, but I could not protect myself from
injury from brutal assault arising out of prolonged exposure to poisonous sewer gas, deafening
noise 24/7, years of chronic mould, a vehicle used as a weapon (as evidenced in photos and police
records), falling on soaking wet slippery soap in my carpets that took several days to dry (as
evidenced in letters), and poisoning from indoor exposure to toxic exterior sealant (as evidenced
by the existence of a physical sample, expert report, and material data sheet) used throughout the
interior of my home in such copious amounts that it hung like drapery (as evidenced in pictures)
from nearly every window inside my home and I had to move out to a fleabag motel (as evidenced
by photos, and the existence of witnesses and documents) and was repeatedly pressured to sell (as
evidenced by comments made to me before the AGM and RCMP), while strata agents and
contractors acted against me contrary to the Act or in breach of contract (as evidenced in pictures
and the existence of letters from strata lawyers, police reports, and affidavits sworn by hired
agents.)
neighbours
- CORRECTION, my neighbours who were motivated by the four P’s of property, profit, power,
and politics were far more aggressive with me than I ever was with anyone. I reacted to oppression
in letters and blogs (as evidenced in the existence of reams of strata records) and when that didn’t
work I drew a picture of the nuisance, loss, trespass, and relentless unfairness that we suffered for
decades, and when that didn’t work I became increasingly incapacitated.
On Friday, May 9, 2008 contractors over to inspect the structure of BOND's
residence.
- CORRECTION, they were contractors over to inspect the slope and building that were sinking
(as evidenced in photos of the remedial work) as the roots of hundreds of destroyed trees were
decomposing, and they did not enter my residence.
Due to issues with Coquitlam Fire, no one was allowed to park on the side of the road as
it was considered a Fire Lane. contractors drove to BOND's residence and all parked the
respective vehicles in front of BOND's residence
- CORRECTION, Al Macleod disregarded issues with Coquitlam Fire and allowed the contractors
Page 26 of 46
and himself to park on the road that no one was allowed to park on, which is where they all
parked their respective vehicles (as evidenced in photos.)
with the four way hazards on. partially blocked BOND's driveway with vehicle
- CORRECTION, Mr. MacLeod blocked my driveway completely blocking my car (as evidenced
in photos,) and I have no recollection of four way hazards being on.
BOND at approximately 0820hrs appeared on her balcony
- CORRECTION, the time of the occurrence is correct, it was 0820hrs, not 12:27, but the word
balcony is not, I was on my patio and unlike Mr. Macleod, I do not have a balcony.
Al MacLeod misuses key words in ways that are confusing so the ordinary listener does not realize
that he has a strata plan balcony but has been enjoying 2 additional deck areas also (as evidenced
in photos,) one bordered with wood and the other bordered with a hedge, which he has been taking
for his own exclusive use contrary to the Act without paying user fees for since 2003, while
wrecking havoc destroying trees (as evidenced in photos) and advertising panoramic views for
sale (as evidenced in his blog) while owners fled in droves (as evidenced in the existence of past
and present lists of owners.)
and demanded to know why they were there.
- CORRECTION, asking is not demanding; I did not demand, nor did I have the power to demand;
the choice of language is deceptive and disparaging.
the situation to BOND who responded that they have to also come inside and take care of
the issues inside her residence right away.
- CORRECTION, I don’t know if the redaction at the beginning requires correction, but I can’t
imagine saying that those in power have to do anything, much less right away since the strata had
already shirked those responsibilities for years, making right away impossible, and it never did
take care the issues inside my residence; they are still not taken care of in 2015 (as evidenced in
photos, engineering reports, and on-site visuals.)
BOND went back inside her residence a car horn honking BOND was in her vehicle on her driveway. BOND to exit her vehicle and demand to know why vehicles were parked in the Fire Lane and began pushing
- CORRECTION, the RCMP’s redactions in this material make understanding difficult for me, but
as I recall I asked why vehicles were parked in the fire lane when I went out onto my patio, I had
to exit my vehicle when I returned home to retrieve my forgotten lunch, Mr. MacLeod was the one
who began pushing against me, blowing smoke in my face and refusing to answer when I
complained about him breaking the parking bylaws, but I don’t remember a car horn honking.
where she followed
- followed who? where?
and continued her rant
- CORRECTION, from what I can recall, I asked for an answer to a legitimate question, and when
Mr. Macleod ignored it I repeated myself once. Who calls that a rant, and why?
Page 27 of 46
which prompted BOND to reach in and pull hair.
- CORRECTION, I did not reach in, or pull hair. Upon entering his vehicle Mr. Macleod smiled
and blew smoke at me against the window pane, which was closed, and this was right after he had
just blown smoke in my face outside of his vehicle. Mr. Macleod falsely accused me of assaulting
him, when the reality was just the opposite.
the incident up with Strata Council who advised that Police Files have to be created now
that BOND was becoming more aggressive with Staff and residence as well as
contractors.
- CORRECTION, I don’t know if the redaction at the beginning requires correction, but please
correct me if my understanding that the police decide when “Police Files have to be created” is
wrong. The upper case emphasis that the RCMP uses in the Police Record exaggerates prejudicial
connotations and elevates the status of “Strata Council,” “Police Files,” “Staff,” and a
corresponding presumption of credibility beyond what is reasonable or deserved. Since I am aware
of no investigation into the reports that I made of Al Macleod’s conduct, please provide me with
particulars and results from those investigations, and if there was no investigation or file opened in
response, an explanation for that.
My speaking verbally is no more aggressive than my usual writing is, and none of my conduct is
as aggressive as destroying trees, trapping my car, attacking me with false accusations, interfering
with use of my patio, acting contrary to the Act, or any of the other prolonged and repeated attacks
on me over the years, so why are the RCMP acting against me, instead of against the rogues who
are repeatedly breaking the law?
there to be Mental Health issues
- CORRECTION, speculative, vague, and prejudicial; strata corporations display psychopathic
characteristics, particularly an absence of emotion, conscience, or remorse and lack the capacity of
a human being for suffering pain and loss of health, and added to that, the RCMP ignored
evidence of serious crime and applied upper case emphasis to “Mental Health” issues in an
incorrect application of capital letters that tends to further a discriminatory focus.
that she be evaluated by Professionals.
- CORRECTION, she should be he. Any suggestion that she be evaluated is biassed, sexist, and
dangerous when he was the one displaying the characteristics of a psychopath and generating
(criminal) mischief. The upper case emphasis that the RCMP places on Professionals further indicates RCMP bias, as it is grammatically incorrect and tends to exaggerate the status, power, and
presumption of credibility that the RCMP gives opinions based on hearsay espoused by
professionals without direct, personal knowledge of material facts.
Constable WINDLE attended BOND's residence located at 409-1215 Lansdowne Dr. It
appeared that BOND was not at home. Constable WINDLE will attend the residence of
BOND again on 2008-05-13 during his night shift. After speaking with BOND Constable
WINDLE will determine if Tri-Cities Mental Health showed be contacted.
Constable WINDLE that he was unable to speak with BOND as she was
not at her residence. Constable WINDLE informed that he would return on the
13th to attempt to speak with her once again. to handle this delicate yet concerning
situation.
Page 28 of 46
SUI to do the following:
-Speak with BOND;
-notify Tri-Cities Mental Health;
- CORRECTION, RCMP redactions and codes are a mystery, so I do not know if SUI, whoever
that is, ever spoke with me, but Constable Windle had not yet spoken to me; that being the case,
one is left to assume that he was trying to determine if Tri-Cities Mental Health should be
contacted about Al Macleod, and I need that clarified. Furthermore, this situation where the
RCMP failed to investigate Mr. Macleod’s conduct or enforce the law was anything but delicate
and that failure shows that it was not concerning to the RCMP. Please provide particulars of what
was, or was not, communicated to Tri-Cities Mental Health, and what it has to do with me.
BOND'S VERSION OF INCIDENT
Author: 154091 WINDLE, JASON
Related date/time: Tuesday, 2008-May-20 10:46
At approximately 0730hrs on 2008-05-20 Diane BOND attended the Coquitlam
Detachment to speak with Constable WINDLE. It must be noted that BOND showed up
without an appointment.
- CORRECTION, saying that I have a belief and VERSION and showed up without an
appointment while “Dianne” is misspelled fits into an overall theme that acts as a sword, whereas I
reported understated facts as a shield, and all that disparaging disparity is concerning. I contacted
the RCMP as I was requested, I don’t remember being asked to make an appointment, and if I had
been, I’m pretty sure that I would have done so.
"In response include, but are not limited to, the following examples, which I have
documentary evidence of. In addition to as above mentioned, please advise on the
proper procedure for filing the following reports with the RCMP for investigation:
-Defamation, Intimidation, Threats, and Harassment with respect to written
accusations of invasion of privacy and criminal harassment, intimidation
and threats to call the Police if I emailed anything to the Strata
Corporation, including material specifically requested;
-False Pretences with respect to spending approximately $50,000 of Strata
funds under False Pretences to have trees and shrubs worth over a million
dollars cut down illegally, leaving us with stumps, suckers, and virulent
weeds for 3 years so far;
-Vandalism or Criminal Mischief with respect to causing thousands of
dollars of property damage to our unit and another unit whose owner dared
to support me by maliciously cutting down trees that comprised up to 25% of
the value of my property, claiming a right to take action against those who opposed
- CORRECTION, this is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to the RCMP with respect to the
investigation in a good faith belief that failure to report crime would be likely to prejudice the
apprehension of offenders and evidence of property damage was obvious enough for the police to
see very clearly; since the property looked like a war zone from 2005 to 2010, as recorded in
photos of stumps, suckers, virulent weeds, and destruction of trees, shrubs, and property damage,
that alone should have been strong enough evidence to trigger an investigation that would have
uncovered further evidence of Al Macleod’s psychopathic mischief, malice, false pretences,
defamation, intimidation, threats, and harassment of me even without this report.
Page 29 of 46
I have no recollection of ever receiving advice on the proper procedure for filing formal reports,
however, the above-mentioned elements of crime and damage in the millions that left the strata
too impoverished to bring up to its former standard, as recorded in comparison photos, is in itself
evidence that the RCMP shirked its duty to investigate, and most of the witnesses have now sold.
If the RCMP investigated the obvious evidence of vandalism and mischief or any of the
misconduct that I complained of in the above report please share the results of said investigation,
and if it did not open a file, investigate, or dig up evidence, please explain what it would take,
beyond the assertions of someone more powerful than I am.
Constable WINDLE contacted Tri-City Mental Health (604-777-8400) and was advised
that someone would contact him with suggestions to deal with this file.
- I had no knowledge that the RCMP was acting to deal with this file by vilifying, discrediting, and
stigmatizing me in this way instead of investigating evidence of serious crime or acting to enforce
the law.
Author: 154091 WINDLE, JASON
At approximately 1230hrs on 2008-06-03 Constable WINDLE spoke with of the
Tri-City Mental Health Centre advising her of the incident involving Dianne BOND
SARGENT advised that Police had two options/directions to take:
1) Charge BOND Criminally which would force a Judge to mandate BOND receive a
Mental Health Assessment.
- CORRECTION, in the incident involving me the RCMP acted with bias and disregarded the
evidence that I was attacked, instead the police went behind my back to target me for a charge
Criminally, again using improper upper case emphasis, and instead of acting to charge the then
Strata President suggested a Mental Health Assessment, which acted as a red herring, and nobody
let me know that this was going on for years.
I am not saying this to be inflammatory, but the highway of tears, pig farm murders in Port
Coquitlam, and disproportionate aboriginal imprisonment statistics are attributable to a systemic
pattern of RCMP discrimination that favours those in power to the detriment of those victimized
by larceny, and it is that same form of discrimination that is damaging me in these Police Records.
2) Voluntarily Assessment.
SARGENT advised that there was not enough for Police or Tri-City Mental Health to force
her into being evaluated.
- CORRECTION, the RCMP did not let on to me that it was acting to discredit me as mentally
disordered or charge me criminally and nobody said anything to me about a mental health report,
so a Voluntary Assessment was impossible. Had I known, I may have been able to defend myself
or take some kind of action so the RCMP would charge Al Macleod.
Constable WINDLE spoke with BOND and again she was in denial with respect to having
any Mental Disorder and would not speak with her family Doctor or Professional
regarding the incident and maintains it was the Strata Corporation to blame and who are
out to get her.
- CORRECTION, this is deceptive, the RCMP shirked their duty to investigate or protect me
under the law by attempting to divert law enforcement issues onto medical professionals. My
doctor had no part in the incident and no knowledge or control of it, and the RCMP depicted
Page 30 of 46
evidence that would support criminal charges against the then Strata President as me having a
Mental Disorder. I maintain that members of the strata management team acting contrary to the
Act are to blame for resultant damage, including RCMP involvement and disparaging Police Files
because it is true; the fact is, I got shafted, repeatedly, and the RCMP is in denial with respect to
its responsibilities to investigate serious crime, enforce the law, or provide protection before the
law without discrimination.
From my experience as a paralegal I also happen to know more than most people do about the law
and how it treats victims of personal injury; I know that all too often the practice of complicating
law enforcement by involving other professionals in legal issues starts a game of pig in the middle
which is a real injustice, on every level.
This Police File will be for information and document purposes if by chance there are
further incidents involving BOND.
- CORRECTION, this is deceptive; the only information shown here is manufactured to
undermine my credibility for document purposes if by chance there are further incidents of the
RCMP shirking their duty or further mischief committed by those in power to churn out further
incidents, such as false accusations of trespass, for example.
Assigned on: Tuesday, 2008-May-20 16:19 by: 086572 1501 - ZZ - MCLEOD, STEVE
Report due on: Wednesday, 2008-Jun-04
Remarks: NOTIFY MENTAL HEALTH, UPDATE FILE- DON’T SUBMIT TILL DONE
At scene Date: Mon, 12 May. 2008 17:05:55
Clear Date : Mon, 12 May. 2008 18:00:02
- CORRECTION, this serves to inappropriately shift responsibility at my expense with permanent
consequences and ongoing damage. If I had not personally experienced RCMP discrimination and
harassment in its false accusations of trespass and final report on my complaint against Constable
Anselmo this Police File would have remained undisclosed, and if I had not read it with my own
eyes I wouldn’t have believed it.
Notice of Hearing Date
Violation Ticket 3531 :AH80615019-1
Police File No: 710:AH0080615019
A hearing has been set for: November 25, 2015 9:30 am Local Time
in: Court Room/Hearing Room 007
at: Port Coquitlam Provincial Court, 2620 Mary Hill Road
Phone: (604)927-2100 Fax: (604)927-2222
Offence Act
ISSUED TO: AH80615019
- CORRECTION, this is deceptive; the violation here was of me by the RCMP who intimidated
me out of exercising my rights and disparaged me with a Police File while the Notice of Hearing
Date was ruthlessly delayed, sickening me for more than a year, when the ticket was issued in
violation of my rights and ownership of strata property, which is governed under the Strata
Property Act, not the Offence Act.
ON OR ABOUT 2014 09 27 at the time of 13:42
DID COMMIT THE OFFENCE(S) INDICATED,
Page 31 of 46
- CORRECTION, I did NOT commit the offence(s) indicated.
UNDER THE FOLLOWING ACT OR lTS REGULATIONS:
Trespass on enclosed land Trespass Act SECTION 4(1)(a)
- CORRECTION, I did not trespass on enclosed land under the Trespass Act or any other
enactment.
Ticketed amount $115
*THIS TICKETED AMOUNT CONSISTS OF THE FINE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
- CORRECTION, this ticketed amount consists of supporting false accusations made against me
by those acting contrary to the Act and being treated as guilty until proven otherwise in court in
addition to the $115 amount. If the RCMP were to really do what they say, and say what they
really do, or just tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then the public would
have protection under the law without discrimination, and the police would merit more trust and
respect.
AND A 15% VICTIM SURCHARGE LEVY.
- CORRECTION, the available evidence proves that I was the victim of mischief committed
against me, there was no other victim, and the amount that I was fined contains no surcharge levy
for the mischief that others committed against me.
IF THE ALLEGATIONS OR FlNES ARE NOT DISPUTED (SEE REVERSE) WITHIN 30
DAYS, THIS TICKET WILL BE TREATED AS NOT DISPUTED, YOU WILL BE DEEMED
TO HAVE PLEADED GUILTY TO THE ALLEGED OFFENCE(S) AND TO OWE THE
CROWN THE TICKETED AMOUNTS
- CORRECTION, the allegations were already disputed by me at all times before and during the
time that the ticket was issued. I would have been deemed to have pleaded guilty to offence(s) that
I did not commit and to owe the crown the ticketed amounts if I did not dispute the allegations yet
again, as I did.
YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TICKET AND IS NOT AN
ADMISSION OF GUILT.
- CORRECTION, the signature on the ticket copy I received is the officer’s, not mine, and even if
it is not an admission of his guilt, it is evidence of it.
On September 27, 2014 at 1 :52 PM Constable Anselmo and Constable Wong attended
1215 Lansdowne Drive in Coquitlam for a strata dispute Bond was on · front deck
and refused to leave because she believed it to be common public property.
- CORRECTION, the constables refused to deal with a strata dispute under the governing Act, and
the RCMP author injected his own word public into common property in a way that furthers
confusion, distracts from the facts, and burdens me with having to defend against his insult to my
intelligence; the deck was common property, I did not believe it to be public, the whole strata
complex is private property, and I knew it. So would the RCMP if they paid attention to the law.
NOTE: It is mandatory to have both parties consent and sign the form for an informal
resolution.
- CORRECTION, a mandatory consent was impossible when no mention was made to me of a
Page 32 of 46
written consent resolution being an option.
Allegations of use of force cannot be resolved informally as per Admin. Policy Xll.2.1
- CORRECTION, a Police Record and ticket issued by the RCMP with the threat of worse to deny
access to a sundeck contrary to the Act are use of force, not just allegations, and use of force with
a motor vehicle to block a driveway may be informal, but provoking a Police Record is not.
I did not receive a copy of any Letter of Disposition Reviewed and Sent to Complainant, but based
on the information provided to me I understand that those I named must have been DEEMED TO
HAVE PLEADED GUILTY to the alleged offences if the allegations I made against those in the
strata management team were not disputed within 30 days. I disputed the allegations made against
me, so I would like to know what is going on here.
The Privacy Act provides that you may request to see information collected, ensure its
accuracy and completeness and request that any incorrect data be amended.
- CORRECTION, that is what I am trying to do, but when information collected is exempted it is
impossible to ensure its accuracy and completeness and request that any incorrect data be
amended. With respect to what was exempted and undisclosed I am hereby requesting to see
information collected, and I will request that any incorrect data be amended in the exempted
information once it is provided. In the meantime, please correct the information provided to me.
Bond vs Anselmo Date Member(s) Advised 2014-10-14
Allegations: irregularity of duty offences of property evidence, oppressive improper
conduct arrest
- CORRECTION, I was not arrested; Constable Anselmo supported the rogues in power contrary
to the evidence and issued a ticket, told me that he could arrest me, and threatened worse to deny
me access to the sundeck contrary to the Act to prevent me from exercising my legal rights, and
the RCMP denied that he committed irregularity of duty, offences of property evidence, and
oppressive improper conduct.
You will kept informed of the of the investigation regular intervals.
- CORRECTION, I received meaningless or contradictory form letters saying that the so-called
investigation was concluded on June 15, 2014, nearly 6 months before a copy and paste report was
issued in November 2015, without interviewing me or informing me of bogus evidence.
October 14, 2014
Upon his arrival, Constable Anselmo was advised by the property manager that you had
trespassed on ''Limited Common Property" in that you were on your neighbour's deck.
- CORRECTION, I had not trespassed on limited common property, it was not my neighbour’s
deck, I had written giving notice of my intention to access a strata corporation sundeck along with
reams of other correspondence requesting a remedial patio extension, and compliance with the
Act. The evidence proves that the strata agent who the RCMP calls the property manager did not
innocently make the mistake stated by Constable Anselmo; she is licensed as a strata agent by the
Province of British Columbia since 2001, holds a university degree, has managed her property
management company for 6 years, and our strata corporation for 3 years, and during that time my
my correspondence had“become very well known” to her, as stated in her own sworn affidavit that
the strata’s lawyer filed in the BC Supreme Court.
Page 33 of 46
Furthermore, the Police Record says elsewhere that I was on my neighbour’s balcony, even though
everyone involved knew that the subject was the deck that was just built on the common property,
not the balcony, and I made that absolutely clear at the time of the incident to ensure no
misunderstanding, and it would be impossible for me to be on a balcony anywhere in the complex
without entering the adjacent home and walking through it to the balcony, which is 2 or 3 stories
up in the air.
The RCMP scrambled key terms throughout the Police Record with a level of persistence that
raises an adverse inference of bad faith and serious apprehensions of discrimination being the
reason for irregularity of duty, offences of property evidence, and oppressive improper conduct.
The property manager advised Constable Anselmo that decks were limited common
property for the use of the home owner only.
- CORRECTION, the strata agent referred to by the RCMP as the property manager is a blatantly
unreliable witness who has been found guilty of gross negligence by the Provincial Court, and I
advised Constable Anselmo that decks are governed under the Act and the strata plan showed that
patios and balconies, not decks, are limited common property, and every member of the strata
management and council knows, or ought to know, that restricting access to or exclusive use of
the subject sundeck as was done here is not authorized under the Act, not just because of my
letters, but because they had access to the Act and decades of professional legal advice.
Constable Anselmo reported that you believed that the deck was in fact "Common
Property" which you could use. Constable Anselmo reported that you showed him
documentation regarding the property that did not clearly define what was limited
common property and what was common property.
- CORRECTION, I knew that the deck was common property that I could use and the
documentation that I showed Constable Anselmo was the Act and the strata plan, which clearly
shows the areas designated as limited common property, and I also verbally explained what was
common property and material distinctions in key terms. If he didn’t understand anything I would
have answered questions and showed him whatever he needed to see.
Constable Anselmo advised you of the difference between limited common property and
common property as he understood it, and asked you not to go back on your neighbour's
property.
- CORRECTION, that is the opposite of who advised who; I advised Constable Anselmo of the
difference between limited common property and common property, he did not advise me, far
from it, he played dumb; even when I showed him pictures on the strata plan, and in the relevant
context he could not possibly ask me not to go back on my neighbour’s property when I was never
on it in the first place.
You refused and went back onto what Constable Anselmo believed be your neighbour's
property,
- CORRECTION, that is out of context; I did not refuse any legitimate instruction from anyone, it
was the complainants who refused to enforce the bylaws to remedy decades of nuisance and
devastating loss or to do their duty to comply with the Act, and it was Constable Anselmo who
refused to believe the law and a preponderance of evidence that I was on property that was more
mine than my neighbour’s, in both law and colour of right.
Page 34 of 46
after which Constable Anselmo issued you a ticket for trespassing. The discretion as to
whether or not to issue a violation ticket sits with the individual officer. Clearly Constable
Anselmo felt that there was sufficient evidence to issue the violation ticket to you.
- CORRECTION, first, I was not trespassing when Constable Anselmo issued the ticket, or ever;
- second, the individual officer’s discretion cannot legitimately extend to disregarding my rights,
the Act, and the evidence as Constable Anselmo did;
- third, the strata plan and Act were clear, and sufficient evidence to show a reasonable
investigator that those acting against me were doing so contrary to the Act,
- fourth, there was no evidence that I was trespassing beyond their assertions,
- fifth, they were in a position to raise apprehensions of ulterior motives,
- sixth, on site disparities were sufficient evidence to show that I was being treated unfairly.
If you disagree with his decision to do so, you are free to dispute the ticket in court
according to established protocols as listed on the reverse of the ticket copy you received
- CORRECTION, I was not free to dispute the ticket in court, I was trapped and deprived of the
freedom to defend myself or exercise my rights or for over a year because Constable Anselmo
threatened me and treated me as guilty until proven otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt,
depriving me of my rights and forcing me to incur costs to defend myself in court, and despite
what you say, nothing about such extraordinary time and trouble is “free.”
Pursuant to Section 45.36(5) RCMP Act, l am terminating the investigation of your
complaint as, having regard to all the circumstances, further investigation is necessary
- CORRECTION, this is a stark contradiction. First, it made no sense to terminate investigation
when further investigation was admittedly “necessary;” second, there is little, if any, evidence of
an “investigation” into the evidence and law, and third, a reasonable investigation “having regard
to all the circumstances” would have interviewed me about the facts and evidence and paid
attention to the law that proves the actions against me were contrary to the Act.
August 20, 2015
This letter is in reference to your complaint against Constable Anselmo of the Coquitlam
RCMP Detachment. Please be advised that all required information has been gathered,
and the investigator's final report to the Officer in Charge is being drafted.
Constable D. Burton
- CORRECTION, these form letter were contradictory and crazy making; the final report was
supposed to be being compiled as of June 15, 2015, but not released until just between the
Supreme Court hearing on October 13, 2015 and the Provincial Court date of November 25, 2015.
June 15, 2015
This letter is in reference to your complaint against Constable Anselmo of the Coquitlam
RCMP Detachment. Please be advised all evidence has been gathered, and the
investigator's final report to the Officer in Charge is being compiled at this time.
Constable D. Burton
- CORRECTION, the final report was not mailed until nearly 5 months later, just before the
Provincial Court hearing scheduled for November 25, 2015.
Constable Anselmo provided a voluntary statement. Audio added to electronic file.
Page 35 of 46
- I would like an opportunity to listen to that audio and correct any errors in information pertaining
to me.
Constable M. Wong provided a witness statement to Constable Burton.
Ms. Bond lived across the street from the patio she was sitting on and was trying to make
the point that she was allowed to sit on deck.
- CORRECTION, the witness statement furthers the crazy making confusion between patio and
deck, forcing endless corrections in terms, just like at the time of the incident.
The deck is common property, not a strata plan patio; my Land Title Search proves that I hold a
continuous interest in the common property in proportion to the unit entitlement of my strata lot;
the registered Schedule of Unit Entitlement proves that I own the property in an interest exceeding
that of the complainant; the common property record in the Land Title Office proves that the deck
was never designated as limited common property, and not only did I give notice to use the deck
in letters to council and nobody objected then, but the strata records prove that I did not breach a
bylaw that would allow council to deny me access to the deck for any reason, otherwise it would
be in the strata records, as required by the Act. Furthermore, the strata council did not deny me
access, the bylaws of this strata corporation strictly prohibit the strata council from delegating that
power, there is no exemption provision for the RCMP, strata agent, or anyone else to determine
whether to deny access in lieu of the strata council.
She was upset because of extensions to deck.
- CORRECTION, I was upset because of the lack of a remedial extension to get the trellis planters
off my patio, and to the best of my knowledge, there were no “extensions to deck” anywhere in
the complex (patios are not "decks" and extra decks are not "extensions").
Ms. Bond felt that the deck was common property. Ms. Bond kept trying to convince
members the deck was common property and she had the right to live there, along with
other strata complaints she had.
- CORRECTION, the deck is common property, I do have the right to live in the strata complex,
my complaints are legitimate, and the knowledge I have is a fact, not a feeling.
Members listened to her and were polite, but Ms. Bond would not accept anything that
went against what she believed about the property.
- CORRECTION, I would accept anything that was true, but Constable Anselmo did not listen to
me and would not accept anything that went against what he believed about the property,
otherwise he would not have said that it was clear to him whose property was whose as he did.
Having failed to pay attention to the law and registered records that I pointed out to him, instead
of asking me questions about anything he did not understand Constable Anselmo told me that he
didn’t believe me and issued a ticket for a trespass that did not exist, threatened me with worse,
said have a nice day, giving me a Police Record riddled with deceptive misrepresentations, which
misspells Dianne and persistently calls me BOND with upper case emphasis, without an honorific
title, calling all of that polite.
The property manager advised the members that the deck was limited common property
and Ms. Bond was not allowed to just go and sit on it without permission. Members
explained this to Ms. Bond but she did not agree and would not accept that she was
Page 36 of 46
wrong.
- CORRECTION, I would not accept that I was wrong because the RCMP was wrong, not me, and
if the strata agent said that the deck was limited common property she made fraudulent
misrepresentations and was practicing law without a license to my detriment.
Ms. Bond had asked the members to contact the property manager, who she thought would
agree with her, but she was wrong.
- CORRECTION, that is untrue; I wanted to ensure there was no possibility for misunderstanding
because of an entrenched history of fraudulent misrepresentations and I knew that the strata agent
was highly deceitful and would do her best to support prevailing members of council, I just did not
know how far she would go, nor did I know that the police were being told that the deck was
designated as limited common property at the AGM.
Based on the persistence with which the RCMP adopted deceptive doubletalk that repeatedly
confused material terms I was also not wrong about my expectation that a police investigator
would notice contradictions between the governing law and the accusations against me, and be
alert to the credibility issues attributable to on-site disparities that I illustrated to make obvious
and the ulterior motives that arise out of the moral dilemma inherent in agency relationships worth
tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Members spent quite a lot of time (about half an hour) in Ms. Bond's house listening to her
side of the argument, and showed them a whole bunch of papers. Members did not have
expertise in strata law so they were not in a position to determine if the documents
supported Ms. Bond's position.
- CORRECTION, (stubborn) ignorance of strata law is no excuse for the RCMP to issue a ticket contrary to the Act, give me a Police Record, and deny my rights for over a year because they shifted the onus of proof from the mischief makers onto me and raised the burden of proof from a balance of
probabilities based on the evidence that I presented to them (to beyond reasonable doubt), contrary to the duty that they owe the crown to abide by the law, disclose wrongdoing, act honestly, and avoid conflicts of interest.
If Constable Anselmo reviewed the documents and did not have expertise in strata law it was
unreasonable for him to say that it was clear to him whose property was whose. I also spent quite
a lot of time pointing out registered records and legislation which supported my position and had
the RCMP paid attention they would not be referring to that evidence as a whole bunch of papers,
or arguing with persistent doubletalk, refusing to accept anything that went against the agenda of
those in power. Expertise in strata law is not required to ask questions about anything unclear, or
to identify limited common property that is clearly designated in registered records and exclusive
use restrictions that are clearly specified in legislation, which I pointed out specifically and
repeatedly.
Cst. Wong felt that Ms. Bond was treated fairly and members were courteous and
listened to her. Ms. Bond was defiant, uncooperative and not agreeable with members,
and would not listen to anyone.
- CORRECTION, Cst. Wong’s feelings about etiquette and conduct contrary to the Act being fair
are unreasonable, and the assertion that I was defiant, uncooperative, or would not listen is
inconsistent with the evidence and describes RCMP conduct more accurately than it describes
mine.
Page 37 of 46
I listened to everyone, and responded, but nobody listened to me, and I was as agreeable as
possible under the circumstances, all the way up to the point where I was issued a ticket and
intimidated out of exercising my rights, so please tell me how I should have behaved differently
when the RCMP would not listen to me or pay attention to the legislation that I made available for
them to rely on. If the RCMP had not been uncooperative, disrespectful, and defiant of the law,
they would not have issued a ticket for a trespass or intimidated me out of my legitimate rights for
over a year, and if the RCMP treated me fairly, they would not be vilifying me, deceptively
describing our respective behaviour in reverse, or persistently twisting key terms into doubletalk,
and I would not be required to repeatedly ask for corrections or continually defend myself.
Burton
Correspondence via email with Ms. Bond printed to PDF and added to file. sufficient
detail to confirm the information included in Cst. Anselmo's report vis a vis the fact that
Ms. Bond put her chair on limited common property and had no permission to be there.
- CORRECTION, it may surprise RCMP officers who do not have expertise in strata law, but
under the Act owners have inherent authority to take advantage of common property, the sundeck
is common property, we do not need permission to use it, and nobody had authority under the Act
to grant or deny permission for use of it as they did.
Vis a vis, I did not put my chair on limited common property as Cst. Anselmo reported, and
nothing in my correspondence provided sufficient detail to confirm that I did so simply because I
did no such thing, and furthermore, the common property record proves that the deck was not
limited common property.
I showed Constable Anselmo the registered strata plan and governing legislation and advised that
all of the statutory material and registered records was online where it could be easily checked if
he did not believe that I what I pointed out to him was authentic.
Audio
- I was never given an opportunity to listen to any RCMP audio and didn’t even know it existed. I
would like to hear it to compare it to the Police Records, particularly with respect to corrections I
am requesting; please instruct me on the next steps in regard to listening to the audio.
Update on the Public Complaint of Ms. Bond (2014-29413) ...
From: Doug BURTON
To: ANSELMO, Benjamin
Please be advised that the investigation into the public complaint against you is still under
investigation...Please see/call me if you would like more detail on the status of the
investigation, or have any questions.
604-945-1472
- CORRECTION, inviting questions from Constable Anselmo and offering him details instead of
interviewing me does not provide protection under the law without discrimination and is
consistent with automatically depicting a public complaint against a member of the RCMP as a
prime file in which the public complaint was the main offence instead of the misconduct of the
officer violating my rights.
Protected "A"
Page 38 of 46
- CORRECTION, what is Protected is RCMP bias and negligence, not the individual suffering
embarrassment and loss of reputation attributable to a disparaging Police Record and erroneous
police action.
August 18, 2015
Dear Ms. Bond,
- CORRECTION, the letter below is addressed to me but it has nothing to do with me, and I never
saw it before.
In 2005 you and your 10-year old daughter, Kaylan, were in a car with your spouse (and
Kaylan’s father), Jody Forsythe. Upset and yelling, Mr. Forsythe threatened to drive into
the back of a nearby cement mixer. As the car approached the cement mixer, Kaylan
became so scared she was physically sick. Mr. Forsythe swerved at the last moment to
avoid a collision... Constable Coupe of Surrey RCMP detachment, attended. You told him
what had occurred, and that you had made arrangements with the shelter in New
Westminster, Monarch House. Constable Coupe went away for a few minutes and spoke
with Kaylan. Then without consulting with you he contacted your sister, Karen Kelly, in
Coquitlam... Mr. Forsythe then located you and Kaylan at your sister Karen Kelly’s home
and the harassment continued.
You reported that Constable Coupe did not charge Jody Forsythe, did not obtain a nocontact
order, nor did he assist you in obtaining a no-contact order.
Once it was established that the investigation of your complaint came under the
jurisdiction of Coquitlam detachment, Surrey detachment concluded their investigation
and the file was taken over by Coquitlam RCMP Professional Standards.
...the police file documenting Constable Coupe’s investigation into your allegations of
relationship violence was purged in accordance with policy regarding retention of
personal information... His notes included only the following information with regard to
interacting with you:
1. Names and dates of birth of yourself and your daughter Kaylea [sic];
2. The name of John Donaldson under the word “Ministry”.
- it seems alarming that Constable Coupe’s notes particularize the child, instead of Mr. Forsythe.
Page 4of5
Based on all of the above information, I find that there is insufficient evidence to support
your allegations against Constable Anselmo.
In summary, your allegations have been assessed as follows:
Allegation #1: That Constable Coupe failed to conduct a thorough investigation into
spousal abuse, and failed to assist you in obtaining a no-contact order against Mr.
Forsythe. This allegation is unsupported.
Allegation #2: That Constable Coupe improperly disclosed your personal information to
your sister without your knowledge, and told you it was policy to take people to family or
friends instead of a shelter. This allegation is unsupported.
The investigation into this complaint has now been concluded.
Sincerely,
Superintendent Sean Maloney Officer in Charge
Coquitlam RCMP Detachment
Page 39 of 46
- CORRECTION, this letter had nothing to do with me, but it concerns me as a serious breach
privacy, and it shows a standard form of letter that deems public complaints against a member to
be the “main offence” and “unsupported.” It is all about other people that I do not know, but just
as I have been embarrassed in front of at least one of my colleagues who works for the RCMP, I
may someday meet one or more of these people. Please let me know if the RCMP is keeping this a
secret or if it notified the 3 members of the Forsythe family and apologized to each of them.
I do not know who the RCMP might release deceptive information about myself to, so it is
important that the Police Records be corrected in a way that ensures that this does not happen.
Undated cover letter from Jolanta Teszka
Attached please find the AGM minutes from April 8, 2014 approving by 3/4 vote addition
of and extending the Limited Common Property, the deck, onto common property for
unit 408.
- CORRECTION, what the AGM minutes were approving by a 3/4 vote was a change in the use
and appearance of common property under s. 71 of the Act from garden space to deck space, and
the cryptic confusion that comes after the word vote in the above sentence is incomprehensible
and evidence of nothing but fraudulent misrepresentation and confusion. The RCMP portrays the
sentence as evidence that the deck was limited common property, contrary to s. 74, and adds
further deception by saying that it was
“recorded in the minutes”,
- CORRECTION, it was not.
“the question of whether or not
- CORRECTION, the question was manufactured by using doubletalk to inject confusion,
switching around material terms, and was sustained by doing so with prolonged and determined
persistence.
the deck/balcony”
- CORRECTION, this is RCMP doubletalk, literally; the deck is fundamentally different from a
balcony, which is pointed out by me ad nauseam.
“is limited common property is not a question for the police to resolve”
- CORRECTION, this statement is inconsistent with police action; in contradiction the RCMP talk
about what it means and how they explained to me and I was wrong, and say it was clear enough
whose property was whose to give me a ticket for trespass and deprive me of my rights for over a
year, acting as if it was a question for the police to resolve.
“means that your neighbour in 408 applied for and was granted permission
- CORRECTION, if limited common property is not a question for the police to decide and the
RCMP did not have expertise in strata law so they were not in a position to determine if the
documents supported my position it is hard to understand how the RCMP can say that something
means that my neighbour was granted permission, but it is easy to see that she was not granted
permission as stated, or as specifically restricted under s. 76 of the Act.
Page 40 of 46
by the owners to add to and extend her property,”
- CORRECTION, s. 66 of the Act makes it clear that “an owner owns the common property and
common assets of the strata corporation as a tenant in common in a share equal to the unit
entitlement of the owner's strata lot divided by the total unit entitlement of all the strata lots” and
the complainant explicitly confirmed in writing as set out in Appendix B to the AGM minutes that
the extra deck “has no effect on their unit entitlement as registered in the Land Title Office.”
“and that it was deemed Limited Common Property,”
- CORRECTION, it was not deemed limited common property, the motion was specifically
brought under s. 71 of the Act, not s. 74, and in even more mind boggling doubletalk the RCMP
said that
“the definition of common property was not the issue, rather the issue was whether or not
the neighbour’s balcony was common property”
- CORRECTION, although the definition, balcony, or common property, were clearly settled in
the land title office and related legislation, they were used like red herring by speakers with
conflicting interests, and the issue was, and still is, the credibility and ulterior motives of
those who mix up material terms, distracting attention away from corruption and oppression by
injecting confusion and deceptive misrepresentations.
Below also please find, the explanation of common and limited common property as
explained in the Strata Act of British Columbia.
"common property" means that part of the land and buildings shown on a strata plan that
is not part of a strata lot
"limited common property" means common property designated for the exclusive use
of the owners of one or more strata lots
- Ms. Teszka cited the title of the Strata Property Act erroneously and deceptively omitted the
explanation and key particulars showing that no extra decking is limited common property in this
strata complex, ie. owners of strata lots share an interest in common property that is equal to their
unit entitlement (s.66), common property cannot be designated as limited common property except
by a designation on the strata plan (s.73), or a special resolution filed in the land title office with a
sketch plan that satisfies the registrar (s. 74).
Best regards,
Jolanta Teszka, BSc., RT
Manager/Agent for NW2671
Fraser Property Management Realty Services Ltd.
I know that Jolanta Teszka (and her regards) cannot be trusted because I have personally experienced her withholding strata records in slick, unscrupulous ways that include evasion, fraudulent
misrepresentations, and false accusations ever since she was hired as an agent for this strata, and
the court recognized her lack of integrity and gross negligence in Said v. Meadow Ridge Classic
Realty 2014 BCPC 0129 at paras. 30, 36, and 79.
The RCMP gives what the strata agent says “significant weight because of her profession and
experience” according to a letter from Superintendent Sean Maloney dated November 9, 2015,
Page 41 of 46
which points out that she is licenced in the Province of British Columbia and obtained her real
estate licence in 1990. The RCMP acted under a hierarchy of credibility based on elitism rather
than logic and material evidence, and investigators failed to pay attention, conduct a thorough
investigation, or consider the law in a reasonable manner. The sentence written by Ms. Teszka is
starkly inconsistent with itself, the minutes, or logic, and it actually serves as evidence of the
conflict arising out of the moral dilemma inherent in agency relationships in general, and in the
strata agency industry in particular, far more than as evidence that anyone could extend their
property as stated by the RCMP.
The RCMP says that the strata agent said that “you put your chair on your neighbour’s limited
common property and you had no permission to be there.” Since my neighbour’s limited common
property is her balcony, this falsely accuses me of walking through her home and putting my chair
on her balcony 3 stories up in the air, something that would be impossible for me to do with being
let inside, which I was not, and getting to her balcony, which I have never been close to, and
taking a chair on the trip, which I did not make. The fact is I was on a common property sundeck,
not a limited common property balcony, I did not need permission to be there, the strata agent
knew it, and the RCMP should have known also.
AGM Minutes Strata Plan NW2671 April 8, 2014
Resolution 1 - Vote on Decks
WHEREAS pursuant to s. 71(a) of Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43 (the "Act") a
strata corporation must not make a significant change in the use or appearance of
common property unless the change is approved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an
annual or special general meeting;
- approval under section 71 allowed the strata corporation to change the use of common property
from aesthetic and geotechnical or environmental functions to space for people to sit, lie, eat, or
drink and a change in the appearance of common property from landscaped greenery to wooden
sundecks.
AND WHEREAS the Bylaws of the Strata Corporation allow for approval prior to making
or authorizing an alteration to common property, including limited common property or
common assets;
- injecting this into the preamble is redundant to section 71 and only serves to inject confusion
BE IT RESOLVED by a 3/4 vote of THE OWNERS, STRATA PLAN NW2671
(the "Strata Corporation") that the following owners are permitted to extend their decks
and to construct a new deck, where there is no deck, beyond their designated limited
common property onto common property as described in the accompanying documents
attached as Appendix A:
- CORRECTION, not one of the named owners had a "deck" to extend, which makes the resolution
ambiguous, as does the awkward wording, which in my opinion was strategically crafted. It is
clear however, that the resolution did not bestow a limited common property designation under
Section 74 for the benefit of Councillor Hennan, or anyone else who ever added a sundeck to the
complex, with or without permission of council, nor did it provide for the strata corporation to
construct a planter trellis platform in the air space adjacent to my patio, nor did it grant approval
for extending a patio, what it did was allow decks to be constructed on the common property
Page 42 of 46
under s. 71, subject to the terms of Appendix A, and confirmed that they would exist beyond the
designated limited common property of the owner who built them.
If the RCMP cannot understand the Act and Appendix A well enough to know what beyond means
in the relevant context it is easy enough to find the definition in the dictionary, and there is no
excuse for their actions against me over a period of more than a year.
a) Unit 502 Gary Holme
b) Unit 504 Audrey Dumaresq
c) Unit 408 Barbara Hennan
d) Unit 409 Dianne Bond
Before the construction begins the above mentioned owners must present, be approved
and receive city permits from the City of Coquitlam and must sign Strata Plan NW2671
liability letter undertaking all responsibility for the upkeep, repair of the decks and for any
loss suffered by the strata corporation as a result of the deck structures.
- CORRECTION, the RCMP places this information in the Police Record while ignoring the
ambiguity injected by the strata management team in mixing up strata corporation in the minutes
and other owners in Appendix A and the fact that liability letters and related bylaws are
unenforceable red herrings in regard to decks because no decks in the complex are limited
common property under the Act, or otherwise, and the Act says
72 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the strata corporation must repair and maintain
common property and common assets.
(2) The strata corporation may, by bylaw, make an owner responsible for the repair and
maintenance of
(a) limited common property that the owner has a right to use, or
(b) common property other than limited common property only if identified in the
regulations and subject to prescribed restrictions
- The RCMP ignored the fact that nothing was identified in the regulations to make an owner
responsible for common property, not to mention the attributable problems if it were otherwise.
- The RCMP ignored the fact that the strata is not entitled to impose fines if individuals ignore or
are derelict in complying with the terms of the liability letter, the strata is not entitled to restrict
the sale of the strata lot if a prospective purchaser rejects the liability letter despite any bylaws or
agreements to the contrary, and when the time comes for a major expense history proves that the
liability letter is worthless and the people with patios, who have no reasonable access to justice
and as a result continually pay more and get less than they bargained for, are stuck paying for the
extra expenses attributable to those with balconies and extra decks who continually pay less and
take more than their share, contrary to the Act.
Motion to amend Resolution 1 d)
MOTION #409/ No SECOND Motion not valid
- The RCMP ignored the fact that members of council who were responsible for the wording of the
motion would not second my motion to allow for amendment of Motion #409 to address the
Page 43 of 46
unique facts, ie. my application was intended for mitigation of loss, it was not for a deck, it was for
a small remedial platform that would project into air space above extra decking that was built on
common property by the strata corporation at my expense, which the owners of Unit 407 were
unlawfully claiming as their own and using unfairly contrary to the Act, creating decades of
nuisance.
The purpose of Motion #409 was to restore the space on 409's patio that had been occupied by the
trellis planters that replaced the tree between the buildings that the landscape architect planted to
screen the windows for privacy, and to recognize that I was there first, I paid more for the property
and the cost to build the decks existing everywhere else on the complex than anyone else, but got
less, FAR less, and I had been more than patient as members of the strata management team
instituted bogus delays for decades for a simple remedy costing comparatively little.
Motion to accept Resolution 1 d) Unit #409 as presented
MOTION #316/SECOND #322
Votes In Favour 1 Against 32 Abstain 4 DEFEATED
- Members of council taking decks of about 160 to 170 square feet for their own exclusive use,
rent-free, when I paid far more to build them than they did, spoke against my application, calling a
matching platform of 40 to 80 square feet an outrageous invasion, fraudulently advising the
meeting that extra decks were owned by the individual, contradicting my advice that the area was
common property and inducing voters to fear that Motion#409 could not be approved without
trespassing on someone else’s patio when that was untrue.
Motion to accept Resolution 1 c) Unit #408 as presented
MOTION #322/SECOND #316
Votes In Favour 32 Against 4 Abstain 1 CARRIED by 3/4 Votes
The grouped motions were generic, but Resolution 1 c) and the Schedules attached to it
• basically acknowledged the fact that Councillor Hennan owned an existing strata plan balcony
which is designated as limited common property in proportion to her unit entitlement
• required her to confirm in writing her explicit understanding that building a deck on the
common property north of her strata lot has no effect on her unit entitlement as registered in
the Land Title Office
• granted Councillor Hennan permission to tear out the strata corporation’s landscaping in an
area located between the north side of her strata lot and the end of the adjacent garage pursuant
to Section 71 of the Act
• and replace it with a wooden sundeck on the common property measuring 10'x16'
• and restore the landscaping if the construction fails to meet with council’s satisfaction
• all at her own cost, and
• to hold other owners harmless.
Nothing in the resolutions or votes restricted access to anyone, granted exclusive use to anyone,
imposed user fees or changed common property to limited common property; any and all of which
is strictly governed by processes specified under strata legislation.
In regard the duty to hold other owners harmless:
Page 44 of 46
To quote Bylaw 4.1, it “prohibits use of the common property or common assets in a way that
causes a nuisance [as in misrepresenting facts and law, taking property rent-free for months,
years, and decades, or committing public mischief, making me sick], or unreasonably interferes
with the rights of other persons to use and enjoy the common property [as in the sundeck,]
common assets or another strata lot, [as in destroying peaceful enjoyment and quality of life, or
inducing the police to deny me access to a recreational facility contrary to the Act and strata
bylaws] is illegal [as in taking exclusive use of common property contrary to the Act], or is
contrary to a purpose for which the common property is intended as shown by necessary
implication on or by the strata plan” [as in proportionate unit entitlement ownership interests and
funding for common property.]
Bylaw 4.13 “prohibits anything being done on the common property that is contrary to any statute
[such as restricting or granting access contrary to the Strata Property Act, accusing me of
trespass contrary to the Trespass Act or inducing a ticket contrary to the Offence Act], ordinance,
bylaws [such as strata bylaws 4.1 and 4.13], or regulations of any government authority whether
federal [such as committing mischief under the Criminal Code and inducing the RCMP to violate
my Charter right to protection under the law without discrimination], provincial [i.e. all the
related enactments], municipal [eg. tree cutting, restrictive covenants], or otherwise [eg. strata
bylaws]; all of which the strata agent knows just as well as, or better, than I do, members of
council know and violate, and RCMP investigators would also know if they bothered to listen to
me and pay attention to the “whole bunch of papers” that were available to them, or to further
investigate and interview me to ask about anything that required further explanation, clarification,
or questioning.
*****************
In summary, when I received partial disclosure of personal information pertaining to myself from
the RCMP I was shocked to discover prejudicial Police Records full of misleading and
disparaging misrepresentations based on members of the strata council committing mischief,
property crimes, or otherwise behaving contrary to law.
Corruption is spreading throughout the strata agency industry as a result of an unjustified
hierarchy of credibility, privilege, and limitation dates taking precedence over constitutional law,
and as long as this continues strata owners who are the worst victimized by authorities who are
negligent and immune from liability have little, if any, hope of justice before the part-time
members of the obviously underfunded long proposed Civil Resolution Tribunal, particularly if
appeals to the court are effectively thwarted.
In my opinion, the RCMP needs better selection of officers, or better training of officers, or both,
in order to better recognize oppression and corruption in strata governance. Over a million people
live in strata housing (http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/strata-housing), a
population far larger than most of the cities in Canada, and whether intentional, or unintentional,
law enforcement officials who directly or indirectly support unjust enrichment, oppression, and
mischief in a strata corporation undermine what the provincial government calls the important
roles and responsibilities of strata owners and council members.
As the percentage disparity in detached home values correspondingly increase, more and more
Page 45 of 46
people are forced into toxic environments that are not in the best interests of society. The resultant
damage manifests in increased health care expenses, motor vehicle accidents, personal pain and
suffering, risks to business, and unemployment. It’s wasteful. The damage is not erased by
shirking responsibility or sweeping evidence under the rug rather than admitting mistakes and
acting to correct them and does not make the problem go away, it just cultivates a more
dysfunctional, less productive society. Please recognize this and conduct yourselves accordingly.
Page 46 of 46
