Court room number 1
Stuart Konyer acting as “Judge”
Sara-Jane MacDonald acting as “Crown”
Christine made a special “appearance”, under threat, duress and coercion
“Judicial pretrial”, via “zoom”, and closed to the public over Christine’s objections
Christopher James was present for support and to counsel on issues around “jurisdiction”
….Christine: So I don’t know if Christopher would like to speak at this point, but on the charge screening form it mentions, it says this is a court case between REGINA and MASSEY, CHRISTINE. Now I don’t identify as MASSEY, CHRISTINE, as explained in the letter. I’m not a legal person, but also I don’t know anyone named REGINA. I don’t have a verified claim from anyone named REGINA. I don’t see anyone on this call named REGINA.
Stuart: Ok. Ms McDonald, does the crown wish to respond to those jurisdictional issues?
Sara: Mr Murray has responded to those jurisdictional issues. It’s the crown’s position that the court does have proper jurisdiction over Ms Massey. I represent REGINA, the crown… in answer to Ms Massey’s question. (ASSERTIONS WITH ZERO EVIDENCE)
Christine: I wasn’t asking a question. Well I mean, I don’t know who REGINA is, I still don’t know who REGINA is. Ms. McDonald is saying that she represents someone or something named REGINA but I didn’t have any dealings with anyone named REGINA on or about January 19th and I don’t have any contract with anyone named REGINA.
Stuart: REGINA is the queen.
Christine: I didn’t have any dealings with a queen on or about January 19, I don’t have any contract with the queen.
Stuart: Yup. I’m aware of that.
Christine: So if I’m being arrested and charged and coerced into attending court I have the right to fact the man or woman who comes forward with a verified claim that I’ve trespassed against them and I don’t see a queen in the court.
Stuart: No, Ms. McDonald is here as representative for the crown.
Christine: Like I just said I would have the right to face the man or woman who actually accuses me.
Stuart: Absolutely, and you will at your trial.
Christine: The queen will be at my trial?
Stuart: No, the witnesses in your case will be attending at your trial. As you’ve just pointed out the queen wasn’t present on January 19th when these criminal offences are alleged to have occurred.
Christine: Correct, she was not there. (STUART TRIES TO INTERUPT ME). So obviously I cannot have harmed anybody who wasn’t even present.
Stuart: The legal dispute that is before the court today is between the state, and the representative of the state in Canada is the queen, REGINA. Ms McDonald is a crown attorney, she’s representing the state today. On the other side of the legal dispute is the person accused of committing the crimes and in this case that person is you, Ms Massey.
Christine: So as I explained in the letter I’m not a legal person.
Stuart: Ok.
Christine: And I understand this is common for things to work this way in your legal world but I’m not part of your legal world and I’m not part of the corporation CANADA.
Stuart: OK.
Christine: I’m just a woman who’s been arrested and charged and coerced into attending these hearings.
Stuart: Ok.
Christine: Quite aside from that, I mean there are other issues too. I‘m not saying this… I just want to make clear, I’m not saying this lightly and I’m not saying it to imply that I’m above the law and it’s not like I’m trying to apply some technical trick to get away with something, because like I said you can address those other issues even IF the paperwork was completely in order and there was a man or woman accusing me who was actually here and everything made sense in that regard (WHICH IS NOT THE CASE), there would still be no reasonable prospect of a conviction because there is video evidence of exactly what happened on January 19th.
Stuart: OK.
Christine: So I just want to assure you when I say I’m not part of your legal world, I’m not part of the corporation CANADA, and that I have the right to face a man or woman who is actually coming forward with a claim, I’m not saying it lightly, and again it’s not, I’m not trying to apply some sort of trick. I’m saying this very seriously.
Stuart: OK.
(UNREBUTTED)
Sara: Your honour, might I… might I say something? I have some communication from Mr. Murray (ANOTHER “CROWN ATTORNEY”). Mr. Murray’s been communicating back and forth with Ms Massey about these jurisdictional issues, but I can let your honour know it would appear that Mr. Murray may offer to resolve this matter outside of the context of a trial and the crown not seeking a guilty plea to the offence but a peace bond to keep Ms Massey away from the complainant Dr. Piggott.
Stuart: Dr. Piggott. Ok, I understand that. But if Ms Massey’s position is that the court has no jurisdiction over her then clearly she would not agree that the court had any jurisdiction to order her to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace. That meant that the charges that she’s presently facing were going to be dropped.
Sara: I was hoping that perhaps Ms Massey might reconsider the jurisdiction of the court, if the crown were prepared to resolve her matter in that fashion.
(TRYING TO CUT A DEAL BECAUSE THEY KNOW I’M ONTO THEIR BULLSHIT)
Stuart: OK.
Christine: So once again even if we didn’t have these jurisdictional issues, I know I did absolutely nothing wrong on or about January 19th towards Thomas Piggott. There are 2 videos your honour that I brought to the attention of Peterborough Police multiple times. I’ve shared them publicly, I want people to see them, they show that I did absolutely nothing wrong and I would not agree to a peace bond because that would imply that I had somehow done something wrong and I don’t have a right to approach a man who is supposed to be acting in good faith, providing services to the community, acting as a public servant. And the only reason I went to his home, it’s documented in multiple ways, in the so-called disclosure was to serve him a notice of trespass, liability, cease and desist. That’s exactly what I did. I went out of my way to be peaceful, calm, friendly, as unintimidating as I could possibly be and that is what is shown in the videos. And what is happening now is an attempt to criminalize the pursuit of justice, to criminalize dissent, to make it a crime to try to honourably, peacefully resolve an issue.
Stuart: OK.
Christine: And that’s literally all I was doing.
Stuart: OK.
(UNREBUTTED.)
Christine: And even the police synopsis is contradictory, it acknowledges the notice multiple times … (STUART INTERUPTS)
Stuart: Ms Massey, you know who Dr Piggott is?
Christine: Yes I do.
Stuart: You know he’s the chief medical officer for Peterborough.
Christine: Certainly, that’s why I went, I needed to serve him.
Stuart: You know that as chief medical officer of health for Peterborough he works out of an office?
Christine: Yes I do realize (STUART INTERUPTS) that he works out of an office.
Stuart: And the paperwork that you wished to serve on Dr. Piggott related to his duties as chief medical officer of health for the city of Peterborough?
Christine: It related to him as a man including what he does within his duties as a medical officer.
Stuart: The allegations here I believe arise because they say you attended at his home where he and his family live which is a private residence where he has a right to not be harassed or intimidated. And if you wished to serve him with paperwork related to his official duties that should have been done at the place where he carried out those duties.
Christine: Sir, I agree and I would have done that but the problem is that people have been physically blocked from entering the office building where he works. It happened to other people on video and I experienced it myself on January 5th. I attempted to go, I went to the office building, I attempted to go inside. I was by myself, it was not a protest, I was literally myself attempting to go inside but they have security guards who will stop people at the door, ask they ‘why are you here?’, ‘who do you want to’, ‘where do you want to go inside?’ and they literally would not even let me step set foot in the building. There were 2 security guards, then a supervisor came, then they called the police, I was given a trespass ticket which was never entered into the system. I was literally physically prevented from trying to peacefully, lawfully, quietly, calmly serve Thomas Piggott at the place where he works. And I had also sent him an emails (STUART TRIES TO INTERUPT).. sorry to interrupt you.. I had also sent him an email letting him know that I wanted to serve him. He never responded to any email from me… (STUART INTERUPTs)..
Stuart: I’m going to halt you there. Ms. McDonald. I have some questions from you. So Ms. Massey is charged jointly with a Tyler Berry. My understanding is that Mr Berry is represented by a lawyer. That Mr Berry’s charges were in bench warrant status for a period of time because he didn’t attend court as he was supposed to and that that warrant has since been executed and that he has a future court date with his lawyer April 12th. Did the crown wish to have these matters dealt with together or separately?
Sara: I don’t think that it… it might make sense to have them on separate dates your honour. (STUART TRIES TO INTERUPT) The information before the court has both Ms. Massey and Mr Berry on it as co-accused.
Stuart: Clearly Ms Massey is not going to enter a guilty plea. She’s not going to agree to an A10 resolution, which is perfectly within her rights. Which means that Ms. Massey’s case, if the crown feels there is a public interest in prosecuting her and that you have a reasonable prospect of conviction, is going to need to go to trial. If that happens do you wish to have a joint trial with Ms Massey and Mr Berry, or separate trials?
Sara: Your honour I think it makes sense to have the trials joined. The allegations are… it’s the same allegations that they’re facing.
Stuart: So then don’t we need to have a pretrial with both parties here together?
Sara: I think we ultimately will. I believe the crown had hoped (SHE IS REFERRING TO PAUL) that maybe this matter could resolve in another way but it’s apparent that it won’t..
Stuart: Right.
Sara: ..so if what you’re suggesting is that the matters goes to April 12th (STUART INTERUPTS)
Stuart: Not yet, but maybe. So that’s my first question. They’re going to be tried jointly. Second. One of the charges Ms Massey is facing, count 2, is an allegation that on the 19th of January she intimidated Dr Piggott, which is an offence contrary to section 423.2 subsection 1 paragraph b of the criminal code which provides that every person who engages in any conduct to provoke a state of fear in a health professional in order to impede them in the performance of their duties. So I understand you’re… the allegation is that Dr. Piggott is a health professional. I understand that Mr. Piggott engaged in conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in him. Even if all of that is proven, did she do so in order to impede him in the performance of his duties?
Sara: So you honour I’m not prepared to.. at this point in time… make any determination as to whether the crown will proceed on that count against Ms Massey and Mr Berry (SARA FOCUSES ON HER SCREEN). I can speak to Mr Murray in the interim between now and the next court date letting him know that Ms Massey wishes to proceed to trial (FALSE!) and to review the prospect of conviction on that count.
Stuart: Ms Massey, we’ll need to continue the pretrial discussions … the .. pretrial will be required with both you and Mr Berry because you’re charged together with committing these offences.
Christine: Sir as indicated in the letter I would only consent to a trial that proceeds by court of record moving under the common law by a jury of my peers. This is my right as a woman to ensure correct jurisdiction under the common law.
Stuart: Ok.
Christine: And I did not say that I want to proceed to a trial. I wish for this to be finished today. One thing I would like to point out is that… (STUART INTERUPTS)
Stuart: Can I just deal with the things are we raise them, Ms Massey? So the first thing you said there is if it goes to trial you want a jury trial. Madam Clerk is the crown elected?
Christine: A jury of my peers, to be clear.
Clerk: (unintelligible)… summarily
Stuart: OK. Because the crown is proceeding summarily Ms Massy you are not entitled to a trial by jury for these offences.
Christine: Well I do not consent.
Stuart: Your consent is not required.
Christine: It is under law.
Stuart: (unintelligible) not. The next issue that you raised, you said you didn’t want the case to go to trial, you wanted to finish it today. The only way that can happen is if you plead guilty to the charges today which you are not going to do, or if the crown determines that they’re not going to prosecute the charges. Ms McDonald, is the crown prepared to make that determination today?
Sara: No your honour, the crown intends to prosecute this case.
Stuart: Does the crown feel there’s a public interest in doing so?
Sara: At this stage the crown does. Again, Mr… Mr Murray has been dealing with this case … I can have further conversations with him, I can raise the court’s questions…
Stuart: OK
Sara: …but based on my discussions with Mr Murray before court today, yes it’s my understanding that the crown intends to proceed with prosecution.
Stuart: Ok so does the crown feel it has, based on the information that you have today that, it has a reasonable prospect of conviction?
Sara: Yes I’ve had that conversation with Mr Murray.
Stuart: Ok So the crown feels, you may disagree with them and you’re entitled to Ms Massey, the crown believes it has a reasonable prospect of conviction. The crown also believes it is in the public interest to prosecute this case. So they are not going to withdraw the charges today, you are not going to plead guilty today which means that this case is going to require a trial so that a judge can listen to and rule on your jurisdictional objections to the case proceeding so that a judge can listen to the evidence and determine whether the crown has determined the charges against you beyond a reasonable doubt which is what they’re required to do. Because you’re charged jointly with Mr Berry before we can get your case set down for trial so that all of that can happen we need to have a pretrial discussion with Mr Berry and his lawyer so that I can determine what the issues are at the trial, how long it’s likely to take, get that we can get a reasonable time estimate and get your case set down for trial.
Christine: (I TRY TO SPEAK)
Stuart: Mr Berry is returning to court on April 12th so we’re not going to be able to do anything until at least that date.
Christine: Sir if Mr Berry is being represented by a lawyer then that means it will be a legal proceeding and as I’ve explained I’m not a legal person. I don’t take part in legal proceedings only lawful proceedings. And it doesn’t sound like Mr Berry, I mean if it’s a legal proceeding it won’t be common law trial. So I do not consent to that, and I just, I don’t mean to be adversarial but I mean I will consider taking lawful action against people who continue acting against me. I also need to point out that this whole incident started out as soon as I left Thomas Piggott’s house, he made a call to police. According to the police, this is what I learned in disclosure and what we were told when police showed up immediately within minutes, Thomas Piggott according to the police synopsis told dispatch that persons had hit him, I’ll read it exactly if you like, then the police officer who showed up in person said that Thomas Piggott had said that I had tried to hit him. It’s in Thomas Piggott’s statement, there’s an audio statement with an email as well. He said that I hit him, not just that I tried to hit him, he said that I actually hit him and that I spoke to him in a very threatening manner. None of this is corroborated with any evidence. He said in his statement to police that his family was watching events unfold from the living room. There is surveillance video. His wife indicated that they got an alert on their phone and they started looking at video before he even went to the door. So she apparently was watching. According to him she was watched everything unfold. She did corroborate anything that he said. She indicated that she heard me speaking to him, welcoming him to the neighbourhood. She said nothing whatsoever about me speaking in a threatening voice. She said nothing whatsoever about me hitting him. All she said was that he told her that I hit him and that they needed to call police. The video does not show me speaking to him in a remotely threatening manner, it does not show any hitting. And then there’s an extra video that has been seen by tens of thousands of people already, that shows a more complete version of what happened, because the surveillance video that Thomas Piggott provided to the police is obviously and very suspiciously censored. He did not provide police the footage from the time when I was on the porch or knocked on the door or even from the time he opened the door. He showed it part way through our conversation. What I can show in the video that has already been seen by tens of thousands of people from another more advantageous angle and is not censored. It shows that we were having a very friendly conversation. “Hello, how are you, nice to meet you.” It was like that. I was literally as polite, calm, friendly as a person could possibly be. And in order to prove otherwise, again it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I acted with intent to cause fear and that I either knew that he was harassed or was reckless with regard as to whether he was being harassed. I was doing everything in my power to be as not… to be as friendly and calm and gentle and the first officer who investigated, she refused to lay charges. The only reason any charges were laid… she told Thomas Piggott she would not lay charges, there were no grounds. He said I will speak to Scott Gilbert who has the chief at the time. Apparently the call was made. This Officer McGrisken, she was then called in to the station. She was told by the staff sergeant Joanne Elliot that Scott Gilbert and John Lyons who apparently is an inspector had called in and they were insisting that criminal charges be laid. And the officer McGrisken still refused to lay any charges. She explained why none of those charges were applicable. She said that I was kind in my words, that I was there simply to serve the papers and that’s what I did and I left. So then other officers were involved and the case was reassigned and all these gentlemen did was write up a… went and took another audio statement from Thomas Piggott and wrote up a contradictory synopsis saying that, acknowledging the notice many many times but then in the same breath saying the only reason for Thomas Piggott and Christine Massey to have gone to Thomas Piggott’s house was to harass and intimidate. This will be a complete waste of taxpayer’s money and resources and… Thomas Piggott, I will most definitely be applying for a subpoena and having both of those videos shown, I want those videos shown, I’m not the slightest bit ashamed of what I have done. (STUART INTERUPTS)
Stuart: (unintelligible)… videos shown. You won’t need a subpoena for Dr Piggott, he will be at your court date. I hear everything you’re saying Ms Massey. I’m not here to decide guilt or innocence today. I agree, it sounds like there may be issues with the way the police handled this complaint. What that means at the end of the day I’m not sure. But I also think, what I understand from the synopsis (HEARSAY!) I was given is that you and Mr Berry were familiar with Dr. Piggott from protests at his place of work and you and Mr Berry showed up at his home. From the allegations it doesn’t sound like you’re disputing that.
Christine: No sir, Tyler Berry never even set foot …
Stuart: Don’t interrupt me please (HYPOCRITE!)… and you, when Dr. Piggott answered the door did not say to Dr. Piggott “I’m serving you Sir with a legal summons or document or claim” or whatever you say it was. What you said, according to the allegations is “Welcome to the neighbourhood”.
Christine: Yes, I did welcome him to the neighbourhood.
Stuart: Which means, to me, a reasonable person standing in Dr. Piggott’s position having experienced ongoing harassment at this place of work as a healthcare professional, the same people showing up at this home where he and his family live and saying to him in a nice pleasant voice “welcome to the neighbourhood”. A reasonable person could interpret that in a menacing manner as in “we know where you live, Dr. Piggott”.
Christine: Excuse me, Sir you are going by, you have no firsthand knowledge of this. I am extremely offended by what you just said. And you are not even going on accurate information. I never took place at a single protest at, except the date, it wasn’t a protest I was by myself as I explained, I tried to serve Thomas Piggott and was not even allowed into the building. And Tyler Berry on the 19th, to my knowledge didn’t even set foot on Thomas Piggott’s property. We went out of our way to do everything in the most unintimidating way. We did not arrive in a group, we split up in groups. Tyler Berry when I was at Thomas Piggott’s front door was across the street, on the sidewalk across the street. He was there to witness and to film. We did everything we could to make it as… I was simply there trying to get the job done, of serving the papers and I.. the plan was to hand Thomas Piggott, to keep everything as calm and friendly as possible, to hand him the container, the Tupperware container that he would then open and find the paperwork himself. That was the plan.
STUART THE HYPOCRITE IS INTERUPTING AND TALKING OVER ME: and and to welcome him to the neighbourhood
Christine: ..we did everything we could as calm and not threatening, there was absolutely no intent on my part to threaten and intimidate.
STUART IS INTERUPTING AND TALKING OVER ME AGAIN: and and to send the message to him that you and the others…
Christine: Excuse me? How dare you say that? How dare you say that?
Stuart: …know where he and his family live.
Christine: I cannot believe you just said that. Unbelievable. You have no knowledge of what you’re talking about and you do not know me and that had nothing to do with it. And I’m glad this is on the public record that you said that. How dare you, Sir? How dare you? Shame on you. Good Lord.
Sara: You honour it’s quite clear that… in terms of the crown’s case I think it’s clear from the record of what’s just been discussed that Mr., that Dr. Piggott was reasonably fearful. Whether or not Ms Massey intended to intimidate and harass Dr. Piggott is, you know, one thing. But I think it’s going to come down to whether or not she was reckless in what she did.
Stuart: Dr. Piggott will have to testify at Ms Massey’s trial. Dr. Piggott can tell the judge whether or not he was fearful. Dr. Piggott can tell the judge if he was fearful why he was fearful. And the judge can listen to all of the evidence and decide whether that fear was reasonable. If he or she decides that fear was reasonable he can also make a determination based on all of the evidence whether Ms Massey intended to cause him to fear for his safety or was reckless as to whether that occurred. I mean that’s what trials are for [AND FOR BAR MEMBERS TO MAKE $$$$]. Ms Massey is presumed innocent.
Christine: It does not sound like it.
.