Friday July 12, 2019 I was walking home from the bus stop after work when I noticed Jeremy Stamper’s vehicle pass me on the street. As it did, a hand emerged from the driver’s side window with the middle finger upraised. So I began recording video on my cell phone a bit earlier than I usually did when approaching the building. The action doesn’t start until close to the end. The first part of the video shows me walking up the street to the house (Vid 72).

Vid 72 – 2019-07-12 – Jeremy Stamper Breaches Conditions Again – 20190712_185440 – with subtitles

That sounded like communication to me, so I called police non-emergency number to make a complaint. I was informed officers would respond as soon as they could.

I waited for the police. I was exhausted, hungry and nneded a shower, so I made something to eat and took a shower. Around 12:30 I called HPS for an ETA. I’d planned to go to a friend’s place that evening, and really didn’t want to leave the building because the whole crew had been buzzing around the building like a hive of bees the entire evening. The cops showed up at 2:40 am the next morning and rang the door buzzer, so I went downstairs to let them in. When police arrive on a complaint made by Pollington or the Stampers, the security doors are left unlocked by Richard Pollington so they can pound on our front door. They weren’t happy about the complaint, or the camera (Vid 73). The video starts as I let them in the front door of the unit.

Vid 73 – 2019-07-13 – Interview with police – 00729

I know the cops think this is a petty neighbor dispute. And I agree it looks like that to them. However, I do think that they should have been a bit more eager to charge a crime that had been recorded on video. Particularly since this was the second time that I had reported Jeremy Stamper had breached his conditions on video (the other being December 3, 2018. The police wouldn’t charge it because the officer who took the complaint said he couldn’t be sure Jeremy was speaking to me. It seems clear enough in the video I posted. As clear as this time.) I was tempted to tell Constable French to go away when he told me that if the arrest was to proceed the camera would have to be turned off, but instead I simply acknowledged his request. I didn’t agree to it. When Lavie came back in, he moved out of the view of the camera very quickly, and his body language while off camera was extremely hostile (and to be fair, he had it under control. But he hated the situation, and his control took visible effort).

However, anybody who watched the Braidwood Inquiry knows the answer to Constable Lavie’s question as to why any of it had to be on camera. Those of you who were paying attention to the video noticed me starting another camera when the two cops left the room (around 6:45 in Vid 73). Something about Constable Lavie told me it would be a good idea, and I was not the least bit comfortable with French’s insistence that the camera be turned off.

The video of the interview with police is here, with audio added past the point I turned off the camera (Vid 74). Lavie became extremely hostile once the camera was off (around

However, they did arrest Jeremy Stamper (Vid 75).

A detailed summary of events follows. The links to the left will open the appropriate video in another browser tab at the point indicated by the text in the link.

00:00 – camera starts, I go downstairs to let police in
01:00 – door opens, I invite police in
01:15 – French asks what is going on, I gave him a very brief outline. French is somewhat hostile. Lavie notices the camera almost immediately.
01:49 – French notices the camera pointed at the door and moves out of the camera’s view. His distaste for cameras was very clear.
02:20 – I show the two cops the video of Jeremy’s breach
04:40 – video finishes, I tell Lavie that I have no idea what Jeremy meant by his remarks about a “peace order”, and ask if this is a breach of his probation (I knew full well it was). Lavie’s answer is non-responsive (“{4 second pause} “Well {6 second pause} yes, and no”). He then appears to be searching for a reason to justify saying the incident was provoked (“I don’t know whatever transpired before, what happened between you…” I’d told him what happened before).
05:22 – I cut Lavie’s attempt to talk me out of charges short by saying that my roomate and I have been terrorized by Pollington and family. He responds by saying, in a disbelieving tone, “And you still live here?”
05:54 – I asked for charges to be laid. After a ten second pause, during which Lavie’s face goes through an interesting range of expressions, French says “We’ll have a little talk outside”.
06:07 – French says “And, just so you know, if we’re gonna be…going with proceedings, then we’re gonna have to get things off video camera while we’re doing that, okay? It’s quite apparent that you have your camera set up, okay?” When I failed to respond to this comment, he asks “Do you understand?” I answer “I understand you”. I did not agree to turn off the camera, and intended to ignore his instruction to do so.

The logical contrapositive of French’s statement is “If things are not off video, then we won’t be going with proceedings”. (Those two statements are identical and interchangeable, in other words). This case had drawn my attention, not least because of the blatant abuse of authority on display.

And whatever happened between Toderick and Ritchie before Cohn arrived, my main concern was the Toderick/Cohn interaction. I’d seen the videos, and it was painfully clear to me that Toderick’s objection was to the camera, not Cohn’s behavior in and of itself. His arrest of Ritchie was (at best) made for questionable reasons (and I’ll never know, it wasn’t heard in court and I don’t have details. For all I know, Ritchie pushed buttons and called Toderick names. I wasn’t there and don’t have video. But I do wonder why a police officer would seize a journalist’s camera under the circumstances. Police have become increasingly camera shy, to the point where I’d seen a few instances of regular citizens being aggressively questioned for photographing police, or something nearby police.) It was clear to me that Toderick didn’t like being recorded. Under the circumstances, that dislike was completely unreasonable, and he tried to use his authority as a police officer to impose his standard on Cohn. (And Cohn did nothing more than stand up to bullying from a cop. That’s a crime in Canada, and in Hamilton in particular. At least a lot of cops think so, including their chief. I haven’t been able to find any mention of it in the criminal code. Neither have the cops, they charge it as “resisting arrest” or “creating a disturbance” or some such. Just one citizen’s opinion, based on three decades of close observation).

And, incidentally, while Mr Collins may not have ever seen a cop use a searchlight as a “fuck you”, I have many times (and once aimed at me). Having one of those five million candle searchlights suddenly shine in your eyes is painful and disorienting, especially at night. A lot of cops know this and use it. It doesn’t leave marks, and sounds harmless. It isn’t.

Toderick should not be a cop. We’ll see how it works out, but I very much doubt he’ll be fired. He should be though.

So, to make a long story short (too late, I know), I was very uncomfortable with the demand to turn off the camera, and I regret doing so later.


06:35 – both officers leave the apartment and go into the hallway.
06:45 – I started an audio recording app on a second cell phone. I wanted it as a backup in case it became advisable to turn off the camera. At this point the audio in Vid 74 is the audio recorded by the cell phone, synchronized with the video from the camera on the tripod.
07:25 – I lit a cigarette, thinking they would be a few minutes at least (I’d been trying to get some sleep when they rang the buzzer a few minutes before).
07:40 – Lavie knocks on the apartment door, I let him in. He says that his “partner” is downstairs getting witness statement forms. When I asked him if that meant they were proceeding with an arrest, his answer is non-responsive.
08:25 – I ask Lavie if “this is the part that has to be off camera”. He responds by saying “Preferably the whole thing’s off camera.”

{Why not? Short answer: Because I watched the Braidwood Inquiry and had followed the case. Not to mention that we were in my living room, where there is absolutely no question that I have a right to record anything that happens. French’s offer of a quid pro quo was offensive. He had no right to tell me to turn off that camera, and making that a condition of “going with proceedings” caused me some concern. Either there were grounds for a charge or there wasn’t (and it was very clear there was). My recording of the interaction with police had nothing to do with that.}

When I told Lavie I would prefer them to be on camera, he completely ignores me and does not respond. His body language was defensive and hostile and it was clear he disliked the camera.
09:00 – camera is turned off.
09:20 – I ask Lavie of the smoke bothers him. He says “It does, but it’s your home. You do you”. As he said that, he held up his right hand, dangling limply from the wrist for about three seconds.

{I don’t know if Lavie meant what that gesture used to mean, thirty years ago. I don’t even know if it’s still considered an insult. (In the same way an upraised middle finger means “Fuck You”, or if a thumb and forefinger at right angles (in the shape of an “L”) held to the forehead means “You are a looser” then that particular gesture means “You are gay”.) It could have been one of the non-verbal insults that HPS members are so fond of (and, come to think of it, Ron Stamper and John Cerino) or it might have meant nothing. I really didn’t know.}

I ignored the gesture and put out the cigarette.
09:30 – 12:20 – Lavie writes in his notepad, and ignores me. He then carefully examines the room and notices a second camera sitting on the bookshelf (it wasn’t running, but was pointed at the room). He moved out of that camera’s view immediately. He then asked me to verify the unit number, which I did. He then went back to writing in his notebook.
12:50 – Lavie asks me for identification.
14:00 – Lavie asks for my cell phone number. I gave it to him.
14:30 – Lavie leaves the unit to speak to his “partner”.

There are ten minutes of silence in the audio recording at this point. Here’s what happened:

A short time later, I heard noises from downstairs, so I went into my bedroom and looked out the window at the front of the building and took the video camera from the tripod in the living room along. Jeremy Stamper was being arrested, so I recorded it from the window (Vid 75). At 00:34 of Vid 75, Richard Pollington tries to intervene in the arrest. It is necessary for French to physically stop Pollington. This incident is recorded in the Occurrence report (Doc 332) (“As police were getting statement forms from the vehicles, {Pollington} approached.”). Neither officer was at the “vehicle” when Pollington approached, and it was necessary for French to use force to stop him. I was very surprised by the officers’ reaction (or, to be precise, their lack of reaction) to Richard Pollington’s actions.
The conversation highlights how easily any conversation on the front deck, or front yard, can be heard from my bedroom window. At 01:57 of Vid 75, Christina Stamper announces “I’m calling John, Rick”. The rest of the arrest is conducted in a remarkably gentle and considerate manner for HPS. At around 3:30, Christina Stamper begins speaking to John Cerino. If my son were being arrested at 2:30 am, my first call wouldn’t be to my landlord.

{As an aside, that’s the best I’ve ever seen Jeremy treat the woman who was crying (obviously the mother of his child). In most of the interactions I saw between them (about a dozen) he was very abrupt and condescending to her. I’d seen enough of their relationship to come to the conclusion that Jeremy was an emotionally abusive asshole, but not violent towards her, at least not anywhere I could see or hear. Which meant that it was none of my business.}

24:55 – there is a knock at the door. It was Lavie, and I told him I’d witnessed the arrest.

25:11 – I ask Lavie if it’s just him coming in. His answer is abrupt. He was clearly angry at the situation. I had meant to raise the matter of Pollington’s interference in the arrest (which I believed was a crime), but his attitude and body language were so hostile that I did not. Lavie did sit where I told him to, on the couch to my left.

25:35 – I made a point of telling Lavie the camera was off. He was looking at it sitting on the coffee table as if it were poisonous. Lavie does not like cameras.

25:45 – 34:55 – Lavie takes my statement (a copy is included in Doc 332)

34:55 – Lavie informs me that Jeremy was “He’s under the impression that uh…you have a…ummm…a peace bond against each other”. Jeremy was mistaken on that point, if he did have that impression. And I have difficulty imagining where he might have gotten such an impression. There is some brief discussion about the arrest. Lavie won’t answer questions and looked more and more irritated as we spoke.

37:00 – In answer to my question “What will happen to Mr Stamper”, Lavie tells me he will be held overnight for a bail hearing.

38:00 – 39:41 – Lavie reads my statement back to me.

40:00 – Lavie asks me to sign the statement.

40:20 – I ask Lavie if he has an incident number. He says “Yup”. At this point he was looking around the apartment, almost ignoring me. He was doing something with his radio, and when I asked him for a card he told me he had none. Since experience had proven that it would be another ten minutes for him to get one (few HPS members seem to carry them or have them handy, you’ll see that as a recurring theme in the recordings of my interactions with them) I said to myself “Of course”. Lavie answered a call on his radio, then took offense at my words. He stood, placed his hand on his weapon and partially drew it. His weapon did not clear the holster (and may not have broken contact with the holster, I don’t know. I was looking at his upper chest, trying to read his next move and looking for either that tiny bit of relaxation that meant he’d decided not to draw his weapon, or that tiny bit of tension that meant he had.) His body language, and tone of voice, became threatening. When I told him I wasn’t doubting his word, he flatly contradicted me. As he did so, he had his hand on his service weapon. It was clearly intended as intimidation. It was quite clear that Lavie had taken a personal dislike to me.
I don’t know why. I had been as calm and to the point as I could, and had deliberately kept my posture, tone and choice of words to be as non-confrontational as possible (aside from one remark about police advising us to move. I made that remark hoping to avoid another “Why don’t you move?” conversation). Lavie’s actions made it clear that HPS were not interested in any complaint and had no interest in laying charges. It was also a clear, if unspoken, message that further complaints would be unwelcome, and that recording interaction with police would bias them against any complaint I had to make.
I have no idea if Lavie had read the Occurrence Report from December 8, 2018 and knew I was bisexual. His escalating disdain and bias may have been motivated by that knowledge, or it may have been motivated by his belief that I was provoking the incidents by recording them. It was clear he was biased against anyone using a camera.
He relaxed around the time I said “I do have something against police inaction on this file”, and looked disgusted. He also took his hand off his weapon and I took my right foot off the trigger of the device next to Lavie. I’d felt very threatened by him. Once he got control of himself, the threat subsided.
41:39 – I thank Lavie, and he returns my thanks. Like Allcroft, Centurioni and some others before him, he is unable to recognize my sarcasm. At this point I was angry, and just wanted him out of my home so I could try and get some sleep.
42:21 – Lavie leaves, after telling me he doesn’t know who Richard Pollington is. This suggests he has NOT read the Occurrence Reports for previous incidents.

Note that Richard Pollington (once again) tries to intervene on Jeremy Stamper’s behalf with police (he’d tried on November 23, 2018 as well). An inaccurate account of this event is included in the Occurrence Report (Doc 332).

“As police were getting statement forms from the vehicles, {Pollington} approached.”

Neither officer was at the “vehicle” when Pollington approached, and it was necessary for French to use force to stop him. There may, or may not, be clarifying details about this incident in the redacted portions of the Occurrence Report, but the video shows what happened.

There is a falsehood in the occurrence report:

On his driver’s license, Paul’s name is Paul Bosch. At some point, not during this investigation, he has identified himself to police as Peter Paul Bosch.

No, I hadn’t, and I have no idea where this came from. The inclusion of this statement appears to be for the sole purpose of discrediting me. It isn’t supported by ANYTHING I’ve said to any police involved in this matter, and, even if it were true it isn’t relevant to any of the events of July 12, 2019. And, finally, the name on my Driver’s License is “Bosch, Paul P”. The middle initial is for Peter, the name I usually go by (for the last 40 years) and you’ll hear me explain that to a few cops and LTB members if you’re watching the videos and listening to the hearing recordings.

All of the videos from these events have been combined into one, in chronological order (Vid 77).

Jeremy Stamper was released on conditions that he reside at an address on Hixon Road, and not to communicate with me, and not be be within 25 meters of anywhere I was likely to be (Doc 296). The Hixon Road address is Richard Pollington Jr’s address.

To this point there have been at least twelve complaints to police (at least 6 from our landlord and his crew) resulting in 11 responses, and charges being laid in two cases (against Jeremy Stamper). At this point, police were making it quite clear (without ever being explicit) that further complaints would be unwelcome.

Saturday July 13, 2019 – The Stampers and Pollington were fairly quiet during the day of Saturday July 13, 2019. It appeared the whole crew was going on a camping trip for the next week. There were sleeping bags draped over the deck railings, and a constant buzz of activity around the building, but they left me alone otherwise.

The only incident of note on July 13, 2019 was that I was approached by a heavyset young woman I could not identify while at the neighborhood convenience store. She tearfully demanded to know why I was “screwing with” her family, then became incoherent. I listened for a minute, then walked away. From what I could gather, she was the mother of Jeremy’s “newborn” son (the first I’d heard of a newborn infant) and was worried about taking care of the infant on her own. I didn’t know who she was at the time. The word newborn is in quotes because Jeremy’s facebook profile indicated his son was born at least ten months earlier.

Sunday July 14, 2019 – I walked over to a neighbor’s house to drop something off. Here’s the video as I left the building (Vid 76).

Vid 76 – 2019-07-14 – C Stamper makes comments – 20190714_123814

The video was made on my phone, which I was carrying in my hand walking as usual (ie: my hand was moving naturally as I walked, not holding the camera still). The comments made by Pollington, Christina Stamper and Larry Norman were intended for my ears, but not directed at me. I’d seen that tactic many times before. It is one of John’s favorite methods of antagonizing someone.

I didn’t take Richard’s threat to call the cops seriously. He’d been told enough times that filming someone in public was not against the law.

There were no incidents when I returned to the building, a few minutes later. (Vid 78).

Vid 78 – 2019-07-14_1246_dvd

A couple of hours later there was a knock at the front door. Richard Pollington had thoughtfully opened the security doors so the police could come right up. I had a camera handy, so I started it and held it in my hand while I spoke to them (Vid 79).

Vid 79 – 2019-07-14-1410-1_dvd

There does not appear to be an Occurrence Report associated with this incident. If one turns up, I’ll post it.

All night long there was the usual banging, loud music and sudden thumping noises that we’d grown accustomed to before an LTB merit hearing. Apparently, our landlord’s loony crew were using the same tactics for criminal court. The next day (Monday July 15, 2019) was the next court date for Richard Pollington’s private complaint.

To this point there have been at least thirteen complaints to police (at least 7 from our landlord and his crew) resulting in 12 responses, and charges being laid in two cases (against Jeremy Stamper).

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: