Vancouver Police Officer again threaten a low income man on behalf of Brenhill Developments.

brenhill developments

brenhill developments

Sandy Davidsen says she did nothing to provoke Const. Taylor Robinson, who shoved her to the ground. (CBC

Sandy Davidsen says she did nothing to provoke Const. Taylor Robinson, who shoved her to the ground. (CBC)

Was officer Emily Florkow relying on her Sergeant (Sergeant Beverly Mitchell) being lenient?  Or was officer Emily Florkow relying on the Office of Police Complaints Commission being corrupt?  Or was officer Emily Florkow thinking that a low-income middle-eastern man cannot afford to hire a lawyer?

 Emily Florkow was threatening the poor middle-eastern man on behalf of Brenhill Developments who were in the news lately regarding their actions.  The RCMP even received a complaint against them

Emily Florkow even resorted in disgraceful and insidious conduct when she was caught lying that she did not know the poor man’s telephone number.  Recently the Supreme court upheld lengthy jail sentences when officers were caught lying.  The Supreme court does not like liars.

Of course up to 99% of the Vancouver Police Force officers are professional and act with integrity.  However we did witness in the past how some crossed the line which caused harm to the Police Community and of course harm to the one suffering from the misconduct.

We recall when Const.Taylor Robinson, a Vancouver police officer, was been given a six-day unpaid suspension for pushing a woman to the ground in the city’s Downtown Eastside in June 2010.

In a case that gained notoriety after a video of the incident surfaced, Robinson was shown shoving Sandy Davidsen — who suffers from multiple sclerosis and cerebral palsy — to the ground as she tried to pass between three police officers on the street.

In what the adjudicator on the case, former B.C. attorney general Wally Oppal, called a “callous and reckless” decision, Robinson did not help Davidsen back to her feet.

 After an investigation by the New Westminster Police Department in 2012, which concluded the video clearly demonstrated abuse of authority and neglect of duty, it was recommended that Vancouver police take greater disciplinary action against Robinson.

The VPD was criticised for many things in that matter. Such as being too lenient.  VPD wanted to suspend that officer for only 2 days !!  There was a public outcry, and many agencies such as BC Civil Liberties and Pivot Legal become involved.  The result was a 6 day suspension in which the Complaints Commission concluded that it was a “CLEAR BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST”.

And to repeat. The VPD were admonished for taking the matter too lightly.

Which  on October 31 2017, lead to another VPD officer Emily Florkow threaten a low-income middle-eastern man, living in a SRO, with arrest and jail — without even hearing his side of the story.

Was officer Emily Florkow relying on her Sergeant (Sergeant Beverly Mitchell) being lenient ?  Or was officer Emily Florkow relying on the Office of Police Complaints Commission being corrupt?  Was officer Emily Florkow thinking that a low-income middle-eastern man cannot afford to hire a lawyer?

As you will read the letter below officer Emily Florkow threatened a low income middle-eastern man. living in a SRO and partially blind with arrest and jail.  Remember.  She did not even give him one minute to hear his side, which is clearly insidious.  However. When the middle-eastern man. living in a SRO, informed her that he plans to file a formal complaint, after that officer Emily Florkow wanted to hear his side.   Her conduct  is a clear case of misconduct, which Section 77 of the Police Act clearly condemns.

What is even more incriminating is that with one tongue she piggy-backed on a past spurious accusation which she stated that “she was aware of,” but then with another tongue stated that she did not have the phone number of the partially blind middle-eastern man?   Does it take grade 5 logic to see through that?

Who was Officer Florkow representing you might ask?  Was a local business owner?  No it was Brenhill Developments.  .   Jacqui Colby who is the executive assistant for Brenhill who accused the middle-eastern man. living in a SRO, partially blind, acting like a criminal.  All that middle-eastern citizen did was to stand up for his rights and to seek justice because Jacqui Colby caused him to lose a job with moving company.  All because he request that Brenhill Developments.   give him a few pots and pans that were labelled as “donations”.  When the middle-eastern man got excited because he cannot afford fine pots and pans, Jacqui Colby interpreted that as aggressive and called the moving company within minutes.   The next day the moving company told him that he lost his job, which would cause anyone a crisis.  A few hours later the middle-eastern man informed Brenhill about the actions of Jacqui Colby, and a few other concerns.  Then on October 31 2017, officer Florklow, instead of informing the accuser to get help for getting the poor man fired, officer Forklow decides to not even give the poor man 30 seconds and hear his side, but to threaten him, even after he was fired and had lost his job.

To many the actions of Brenhill Developments staff is high-handed and mean-spirited. My opinion is that their actions were malicious and insidious.  For those who are unaware, Brenhill has been the subject of many news articles.  In spring of 2017 the RCMP did receive a complaint against Brenhill Developments.  Then David Eby stated: “BC Housing gave a $40-million loan to a Brenhill Developments to finance the pre sale marketing of condos that start at $1.6 million each,” NDP housing critic David Eby said in the legislature.  

So as we have read above.  Brenhill expects the government (including the police) to treat them like ELITES.  Last time we saw the Canadian Charter of Rights . Now one has a right to be designated an ELITE.

To conclude. We earnestly request that you help us seek justice and help us protect a poor man living in an SRO who is partially blind.  He was threatened by officer Emily Florkow (badge 2665) with arrest and jail.  Contact the Office of the Police Complaints Commission and file a complaint against this insidious conduct which is a violation of Section 77 of the Police Act.

Below you will see the hostile and venomous letter from Officer Forklow which she said to the founder of BC Homeless, who has helped 1000’s of homeless.
You will also read a section of the police act.  And finally a video about the Brenhill incident.

Let’s take this one step further. What if he was planning to commit a crime against that accusser?  Was it not dangerous for Forklow not to question him in person to make sure that he ceases and desist?

Any clear thinking professional will admit that Forklow therefore knew that he was the innocent one, which is why she did not care about speaking with me, because she knew that there is no threat.  Please take 60 seconds to think that point through.  Take 2 minutes if you want.

One final act of misconduct and malice that Officer Forklow committed was to defame him.  Officer Forklow had no problem threatening his livelihood when she wrote in the police report that the middle-eastern man is a “Suspect in a Criminal Harassment” investigation.  Instead of listing the accuser as a suspect in a fabrication and malice investigation.  Next time the good citizen applies for a job it will come up.  But there will be a judgement day.

 

Here is a letter where Brenhill Developments had to stop exposing residents to harmful if not dangerous fumes.  They were FORCED TO STOP and use fans. Thanks to one member from the City of Vancouver who did not consider Brenhill Developments as ELITES.

Brenhill Developments

Brenhill Developments

 

POLICE ACT

Defining misconduct

77  (1) In this Part, “misconduct” means

(a) conduct that constitutes a public trust offence described in subsection (2), or

(b) conduct that constitutes

(i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or

(ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.

(2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely

(a) render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or

(b) discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member:

(a) “abuse of authority”, which is oppressive conduct towards a member of the public, including, without limitation,

(i) intentionally or recklessly making an arrest without good and sufficient cause,

(ii) in the performance, or purported performance, of duties, intentionally or recklessly

(A) using unnecessary force on any person, or

(B) detaining or searching any person without good and sufficient cause, or

(iii) when on duty, or off duty but in uniform, using profane, abusive or insulting language to any person including, without limitation, language that tends to demean or show disrespect to the person on the basis of that person’s race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age or economic and social status;

(b) “accessory to misconduct”, which is knowingly being an accessory to any conduct set out in this subsection, including, without limitation, aiding, abetting, counselling or being an accessory after the fact;

(c) “corrupt practice”, which is

(iii) using or attempting to use one’s position as a member for personal gain or other purposes unrelated to the proper performance of duties as a member, or

(f) “deceit”, which is any of the following:

(i) in the capacity of a member, making or procuring the making of

(A) any oral or written statement, or

(B) any entry in an official document or record,

that, to the member’s knowledge, is false or misleading;

(ii) doing any of the following with an intent to deceive any person:

(g) “discourtesy”, which is failing to behave with courtesy due in the circumstances towards a member of the public in the performance of duties as a member;

(h) “discreditable conduct”, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department, including, without limitation, doing any of the following:

(i) acting in a disorderly manner that is prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the municipal police department;

(ii) contravening a provision of this Act or a regulation, rule or guideline made under this Act;

(iii) without lawful excuse, failing to report to a peace officer whose duty it is to receive the report, or to a Crown counsel, any information or evidence, either for or against any prisoner or defendant, that is material to an alleged offence under an enactment of British Columbia or Canada;

(i) “improper disclosure of information”, which is intentionally or recklessly

(i) disclosing, or attempting to disclose, information that is acquired by the member in the performance of duties as a member, or

(ii) removing or copying, or attempting to remove or copy, a record of a municipal police department or any other police force or law enforcement agency;

(j) “improper off-duty conduct”, which is, when off duty, asserting or purporting to assert authority as a member, an officer or a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and conducting oneself in a manner that would constitute a disciplinary breach of trust if the member were on duty as a member;

(m) “neglect of duty”, which is neglecting, without good or sufficient cause, to do any of the following:

(ii) promptly and diligently do anything that it is one’s duty as a member to do;

 

Below you will read a letter that OFFICER FORKLOW slipped under the middle-eastern man’s door, because she was too afraid of being video-taped.  The good citizen was going to video-tape officer Forklow and ask her why won’t she accept the evidence.  That would have strengthened the case of misconduct, but he was very stealthy and slipped it under his door.

 

Here is a picture of the letter Officer Forklow slipped under the good citizens door.
Is she a mail carrier or a Vancouver Police Officer?

 

 

Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that is most frequently credited to Plato and his dialogues. The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so.

and

Clifford’s Principle) “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.

Pre·var·i·cate

verb

speak or act in an evasive way.

“she seemed to prevaricate when the good citizen asked pointed questions”

Fear·mon·ger·ing

noun

  1. the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

    “his campaign was based on fearmongering and deception”

    Fabricating Evidence – Fabricating evidence occurs when a person, who intends to mislead, fabricates anything which is intended to be used in a judicial proceeding. While this section of the Criminal Code does not define the term “anything”, presumably it can be interpreted as meaning anything that may be introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding.

    Making a False Statement – Making a false statement occurs when a person, who is not authorized or required by law to make a statement, makes such a statement by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition, knowing that the statement is false.

    Public Mischief – Public mischief occurs when a person causes a police officer to begin or to continue an investigation with the intention to mislead the police officer. A person can mislead the police officer by (1) falsely accusing another person of committing a criminal offence, (2) causing suspicion to be diverted from that person or causing another person to be suspected of having committed the criminal offence (3) reporting that an offence has been committed when no offence has actually been committed, (4) causing the officer to believe a person has died when that person has not died.

    A person can also be convicted of attempting to commit public mischief. The person can be convicted even where the officer did not believe the person and did not commence an investigation or was not misled.

    Punishment

    Crimes involving misleading justice are taken very seriously and can attract jail sentences.  For example, it is not uncommon for a sentence for perjury to range from 9 months to 2 years. In cases involving public mischief where individuals have made false allegations of criminal offence, our courts have imposed penalties ranging from a fine to a jail sentence.