|
Flotilla: The dirty sting
that got Dueck promoted from Sergeant to Superintendent
(He went
from youth to drugs after framing the foster and birth parents
in the Scandal
of the Century)
It was a dirty sting. And Dueck
got convictions all round. There were, I believe, 17 people.
We commented on this operation
at the time, among the Saskatchewan
Drug stories. Since we were working closely with several
people who had been charged in the case, we didn't comment much
forther, and gained some satisfaction from having forced the
Crown to put the agent/snitch on the stand and watching her disgrace
herself before her parents. But that is really cold comfort,
(if I may lightly use such a term in Saskatoon where the police
also take people to the edge of town to freeze to death.) The
truth is that potheads are the easiest targets there are. Marlon
Gidluck has an excellent case to put before the Supreme Court
and we would have taken it there but I was weary of court and
the people who could have made it happen by lending a hand were
just too busy smoking pot.
Nonetheless, we prepared an
appeal which should have won. It showed errors in law, and exposed
some very dirty police work. Even though it lost, I think it
is worth publishing for others to see. Sometimes it takes several
kicks at the can before the law is revamped and enforced by honest
cops. In Saskatchewan, that could be a long time coming . . .
But if you want to prepare your own appeal, here is a good model.
Meanwhile, shame on Saskatchewan
Justice once again. The kids who like to smoke pot are being
betrayed and made cynical by the Superintendent Duecks of this
world. And they ask how come young people these days have such
bad attitudes!
The Flotilla sting was publicized
as involving hard drug users when in fact several were busted
only for selling pot. The public, whoever that may be, continues
to think the police are doing "good work" by getting
scum off the streets. As more and more middle class kids are
swept into these stings, many are smarting under the injustices.
Dueck
held a press conference to call for detox centres when Darryl
Night came forward with his allegation that he was dumped at
the edge of the city in sub-zero weather. He was then promoted
from supervisor of the integrated drug unit (where he gained
the trust of the people who run the methodone clinic) to Superintendent
of the West Side. His salary is one the top dozen highest on
the city payroll. While he and Chief Scott have assured the new mayor, Jim Maddin, that they are
well along in their plans for a proper detox centre in Saskatoon,
the most dangerous drugs flow freely on the streets. The police
are allowing this to happen. The suspicion that some police are
profiting from this can be allayed only with a frank and open
public inquiry. Mayor Maddin has assured us there will be public
input in January, 2001.
Plans for a detox centre should
not be kept secret. The success of any such facility depends
on support from citizens, most of whom do not want "riff
raff" in their neighbourhoods. This community needs public
confidence that the police are genuinely serving and protecting
us and a full public discussion on the devastation which hard
drug distribution has brought us. The scoop on Dueck
C. A. No. 7669 of A. D. 1998
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
FOR THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
B E T W E E N : MARLON KYLE GIDLUCK,
APPELLANT, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, RESPONDENT.
FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT
May 10, 1999
A. The applicant,
Marlon Gidluck, appeals his conviction on two counts of drug
trafficking for the following reasons:
1. Judge Kolenik erred in accepting
the testimony of the Crown witness, Shannon Gursky, as credible
evidence. Ms. Gursky was a crown-sponsored drug addict who was
shown to be incredible.
2. Judge Kolenik erred in allowing the audiotapes and other evidence
because the sole witness to testify that this evidence has any
connection to the appellant is Shannon Gursky, who the defendant
showed to be incredible.
3. Judge Kolenik allowed the Crown witness to perjure herself
with no consequences.
The appellant asks for the
following remedy:
1. That these convictions be
reversed
This short,
simple appeal was met with 80 pages of Crown disclosure which
referred to Charter issues which we had not even raised. We then
prepared this response:
R. v. Gidluck
C. A. No. 7669 of A. D. 1998 May 10, 1999
Response to Crown's Factum
The appellant received the
Crown's factum at noon on Friday. He understands that it is in
the nature of an expedited appeal to have last-minute submissions,
and would ask the Court's indulgence to be allowed to address
these matters.
1. The Charter issues to which
the appellant refers are not under Secs. 8 and 11 but under Sec.
7, where the rights to a full answer and defense are protected.
The appellant argues that within the trial itself, his rights
were not protected, Reference to the Charter are noted to preservation
appeal points, but the appellant states clearly that his defence
relies mainly upon the Criminal Code itself. The appellant apologizes
to the Crown and to the Court for failing to identify the appropriate
section.
2. The appellant objected strenuously
to the Crown's tendering of the evidence, as has already been
shown. (Appellant's Factum, page 3, number 9 and throughout the
trial, as outlined below).
3, Furthermore, the Court was
stopped because court officers were interfering with the appellant's
supporters in the gallery who were providing him with a tape
player which had been held with the bailiff. ( p. 79: l. 4,)
During the appellant's attempts to introduce the tape as an exhibit,
the learned judge refused saying :
". . .you can't try to
put into evidence the actual authenticity or contents of that
tape through this witness because this witness knows nothing
about it. You've tested her credibility and her ability to recognize
voices on the tape as far as she can take it." (p. 81; ll.
12-18.)
The witness had clearly shown
her inability to identify the appellant's voice, or indeed, her
own voice. It was the appellant's intention to explain to the
Court exactly what was on the tape he was playing and tender
it as a defence exhibit. The appellant asserts that since the
defendant had heard neither tape before, and since no experts
had testified to the authenticity of the Crown's tapes, and that
the only person who could testify to the identity of the voice's
on the Crown's tapes was Shannon Gursky, that this would be a
fair test of her expertise in identifying voices. In fact she
failed the test (p. 80; ll. 7-15), and the appellant's offer
to provide a voice sample was ignored outright (next line). If
the Crown is presenting an inexpert witness to testify to expert
matters, the Court should allow the defence to challenge such
testimony and discredit her abilities.
4. Outside the courtroom, there
was more interference with the appellant's witnesses, specifically
police harassing them in the hall. Following the lunch break,
he attempted to address these (p. 85, ll. 5-12) and the learned
judge cut him off because the witness Gursky was brought in again.
The appellant again tried to raise these matters (p. 86; ll.
15-19).
5. One of the defendant's witnesses,
Mr. Edmund Khayfets, was on the appellant's undertaking in a
no-contact clause. While the appellant was extremely careful
to observe the direct and indirect meanings of this clause, he
also understood that he had every right to bring this witness
before the Court. Police had attempted to arrest Mr. Khayfets,
just outside the courtroom, and the appellants' friends had stopped
this and tried to determine whether the prosecutor had ordered
his arrest so the matter could be brought to the attention of
the Court. There was considerable confusion, which is only partially
reflected in the transcript and the appellant was unaware of
what was going on because he was behind the bar. The prosecutor
brought the no-contact clause to the learned judge's attention,
(p. 97, ll. 6-10) it would seem with the intention of breaching
the appellant on his no-contact clause. In fact, Mr. Khayfets'
testimony is the most damning of all (p. 98, ll. 14-16). The
learned judge accepts this testimony, although he down-plays
the hard-drug nature of it (p. 117; ll. 14-16).
6. After the appellant took
the stand and flatly denied under oath having sold marijuana
to Shannon Gursky, he asked for a recess to gather his thoughts.
Because of the demeanour of the court officials, the police,
the Crown and the Court itself, he decided not to attempt any
more to raise the matters of the interference with his defense
because he had no confidence that such matters would receive
a fair hearing. The appellant felt at that time that if the learned
judge accepted any part of Shannon Gursky's story that he was
up against a deception which could not be addressed at that time.
7. It is the appellant's view
that the learned judge erred because he was deceived by the crown
and that his reasons for disbelieving the accused are not sufficient.
The learned judge accepted the testimony of the defense witnesses
impeaching her credibility but he was not prepared to take the
next logical step which would have been to acquit the accused.
8. It is the appellant's further
view that the learned judge was biased against the appellant
and his witnesses because, as the Crown brought out, they were
all charged in the Flotilla sting.
9. The appellant would further
point out that it is extremely difficult to defend oneself against
an outright liar. The jailhouse snitches in the cases of David
Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin are the most recent examples of how
treacherous outright liars can be. Shannon Gursky's testimony
was not, as the honourable judge determined, partly true and
partly false. This police agent presented testimony which was
a lie, a whole lie and nothing but a lie. The moment that he
bought into one bit of her fabrication, the learned judge had
no choice but to convict the appellant. In using Justice Tallis'
test for credibility, (p. 120, -121) Judge Kolenick was using
good authority, but his judgment that Shannon Gursky told "the
truth and nothing but the truth" in regard to the appellant's
involvement . . .in respect to the matters before the Court.
. ." he made an error which can be adduced from the court
transcript alone: you didn't have to be there. Many lies came
out of the mouth of Shannon Gursky. The appellant, on the other
hand, and his witnesses did not lie nor were they shown to be
lying. Rather than choosing the fourth option in Justice Tallis'
test, he was obliged to choose at least the third: to reasonably
doubt the testimony of an impeached witness, an addict scrambling
to support her habit, not much different from a jailhouse snitch,
and acquit the appellant.
Nov. 1, 2000: Brian Dueck is presently Superintendent
of Saskatoon's west side and supervises the integrated drug unit.
Decriminalization: RCMP
broke the law in drug sting, court rules | Ottawa
urged to decriminalize pot possession |
Police chiefs
want possession of all narcotics decriminalized |
StarPhoenix
says: Legalize Pot and treat drug addiction as a public health
problem! |
Customs officials
had grounds to search for drugs: Supreme Court
New page on the
Brothers of the Church of the Universe | Mike
Spindloe | Ernie Rogalsky | Saskatoon Police dumping drunks
to die index | more on Superintendent
Dueck
The deadly consequences of
Saskatoon drug enforcement in the death of Marissa
who, at age 18, died after being given methadone by someone who
had carrying privileges for this deadly drug.
How U.S. Federal
Agents Try to Frame Citizens. Sometimes they get stopped
by a good defence lawyer. More often, in both Canada and the
U.S., they get away with it.
|
Truth can never be told so as to be understood,
and not be believ'd. 