Bodily Harm Disputed

On June 22^nd, 2022, Crown Prosecutor Ryan Snyder presented fabricated evidence to a jury in order to substantiate their claim that I caused bodily harm to women in Regina (Information #991153654).

The fabrication consisted of photographic evidence depicting bruising and swelling to the complainant (Exhibit P-1). However, the injuries show to the jury in this photograph were digitally manufactured.

Upon objection from the accused, Justice Klatt refused further examination of the fabricated photograph.

The complainant(s) testified that they were “slapped”, but the injuries depicted in the photograph were not even on the side of the face the complainant(s) were slapped.

According to the complainant(s) statement, they were able to (eventually) confirm at the hospital that their arm “wasn’t broken”.

The accused maintains that this presentation of fabricated evidence to the jury demonstrates the prosecution was conducted maliciously (as stated at trial) and with the aim of discrediting Canadian nationalism. We also maintain that (as a result of this malicious prosecution) more harm has been done to Canadian interests than the accused has caused any victim.

Fabricating Evidence
Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

• Section 137, Criminal Code

The exhibit shown to the jury was digitally edited to substantiate the claim of bodily harm.

Definition:
bodily harm means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;

• section 2, Criminal Code

The Crown originally laid charges under section 268, claiming that the accused “maimed” the complainant (Information #991111114(2)), but later reduced these charges to section 267 assault causing bodily harm.

The accused maintains that the verdict returned by the jury was a result of fabricated evidence.

What we see in Saskatchewan is a prosecution that is oriented toward damaging Canadian nationalism rather than ensuring the accused person is provided a fair trial as required by law.

The copies of this photograph disclosed to the accused are significantly different than that which was shown to the jury. However, the accused was unable to rebut the claim of bodily harm because the original photograph was inaccessible to them while incarcerated.

The names of the complainant(s) have not been published here for discretionary purposes.