Skip to content

Breach of Undertaking

False Arrest and False Imprisonment

The Breach of Undertaking charge was based on one single mail package, marked by police as Exhibit #83. The package comprised a cover letter and other documents in a manila envelope which was addressed to a journalist named Jill Strelieff at the Star Phoenix.

The first reference – anywhere – to the Breach of Undertaking or to Exhibit #83 was in the police Occurrence Reports written by Sergeant Bracken and Constable Lee Jones on June 24, 2002. That was the same day the Breach of Undertaking charge was laid.

The long Police Occurrence Report contains 9 separate accounts of the postmark date found on the Exhibit #83 envelope.

It is a eureka moment to isolate the postmark accounts from the verbiage of the long Report, to lift out the 9 accounts and list them sequentially on a separate page.

They form a maze of contradictions, a labyrinth — yet all were written by one person, Sergeant Bracken.

In his Occurrence Report, Sgt. Bracken began his description of the Exhibit #83 envelope by claiming: The date on the stamps is difficult to read, however I am satisfied that it was sent sometime around the 5th or 6th of June 2002.

Within his lengthy report Bracken returned time and again to the timeframe, offering more accounts of what date the envelope was posted, of what date it was received by the Star Phoenix, and of what date Bracken visited the Star Phoenix to pick it up. Those accounts vary wildly. It is a eureka moment to lift the accounts from the report and list them on a separate page. They form a maze of contradictions – yet all were written by one person, Sgt. James Bracken.

In his report, Bracken also described the contents of the package and the exhibit number. He itemized these details several times, sometimes in depth, sometimes briefly. All these descriptions remain precisely consistent. It is only the dates which form a confused tangle.

The Breach charge was laid in June 2002. But, contrary to the rules of disclosure, the physical exhibit was not shown to the defence until June 2005. Once the envelope was in hand, the reason for stalling became clear: Bracken was lying about the postmark date.

Analysis of the Postmark

One look at the Exhibit #83 envelope shows that Sgt. Bracken's observation was wrong: This postmark is not at all difficult to read: It is not smudged or faint; it is not blurred; the ink is crisp and clear. Stamped on the envelope's top right corner, the postmark is a circle of diameter 2.35 cm with these features:

  • The postmark is printed right side up, sitting slightly too high. The top arc of the circle is cut off, but comparison with other postmarks shows that only the word CANADA is missing.
  • The base, or lower arc, of the circle displays the postal code S7K 2L4 clear and dark. This matches the address of the Main Post Office building at 202 – 4th Avenue North, Saskatoon. At this location the mail was sorted.
  • Centered in the circle we find the postmark date, printed on one line as 11 IV 02 in the order day-month-year (analysis below). The postmark date is 11 April 2002.

Put on your Sherlock Holmes cap to deduce the postmark date:

Year – The package was mailed, then sorted at the Post Office where the stamps were cancelled with a postmark, then delivered to the Star Phoenix whose address is on the envelope. Afterward, those steps were described in Sgt. Bracken's Occurrence Report written June 24, 2002.  That report must be chronologically later than the postmark. That fixes the year:  Of the three numbers in the center of the postmark circle, the year cannot be 11 or IV and therefore it is 02 (representing 2002).

Month – Since the postmark year is 2002, the month must be June or earlier.  Of the two numbers remaining, the month cannot be 11 (November), so it is IV (April).

Day – The remaining number 11 represents the day.

Deduction – The postmark date can only be 11 April 2002.

Date of a Legal Agreement is Paramount

A legal Undertaking is similar to contract law. In that realm this point is trite: An action cannot be said to transgress an agreement unless that agreement actually exists. The agreement must have been signed, or drawn up, or at least broached between the parties before the supposed transgression. When evaluating the events, the timeframe is paramount: Did the action occur before or after the agreement? All other elements, such as who committed the action, are secondary when answering the question: was an agreement (or Undertaking) breached?

My Breach of Undertaking charge is proved false and malicious based on dates alone:

Date of agreement versus date of action
May 23, 2002 Date my Undertaking was first proposed, drafted, and signed.
April 11, 2002

Date of the action said to Breach the Undertaking. Note this date is earlier than the Undertaking.

The specific action was the writing and mailing of Exhibit #83 (in law, called publication). Exhibit #83 includes a manila envelope with a postmark whose date unequivocally reads April 11, 2002. Conclusion: The action said to breach the Undertaking occurred a full six weeks before my Undertaking ever existed.

Sgt. Bracken hid Exhibit #83 in his desk or at home, then unveiled it later for the express purpose of manufacturing a Breach of Undertaking charge. This led to my false arrest and false imprisonment for two days during June 24–26, 2002. This was a devastating experience for a common citizen, and a titanic struggle for someone with fragile physical health as I have. Other malfeasance in tandem:

Sgt. James Bracken – suppressed the written statement that I made at the Police Station on June 24, 2002.

Sgt. James Bracken – pressured the Crown to cancel the recent Muirhead Order for Disclosure (which the Provincial Court had granted me based on my status as a self-represented client). In this way, Bracken kept the evidence out of my reach.

Legal-Aid – could not be denied the Disclosure, but even they never received or viewed Exhibit #83 (confirmed via a sharply-worded letter from Tanis Talbot to the Crown).

This false Breach charge arose less than three weeks after I wrote my History/Affidavit which blew the whistle on persistent and disgraceful sexual harassment from Dr. Joel Yelland. This is Police Exhibit #69.

Sgt. Bracken misused his authority as a police officer, and he misused Exhibit #83 with premeditated intent. Sgt. Bracken contravened sections 137, 140(1), and 279(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code

Canadian Criminal Code
Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice:  Misleading Justice

Fabrication of Evidence

CCC s 137  –  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.

Public Mischief

CCC s 140 (1) –  Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by:

  1. making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
  2. doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
  3. reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed.

(2) –  Every one who commits public mischief (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Canadian Criminal Code
Offences Against the Person and Reputation

Forcible Confinement

CCC s 279 (2) –  Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of:

  1. an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
  2. an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Canadian Criminal Code
Sureties to Keep the Peace

Breach of Recognizance

CCC s 811  –  A person bound by a recognizance who commits a breach of the recognizance is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Georgena S. Sil
Saskatoon, Canada
Physicist & Technical Writer
Alumnus: University of British Columbia

Copyright © 2008-2018 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.