Q. DrDon, what can the proverbial little guy do to help you fight these psychotics that have tried to ruin you by dragging you through the courts?
A.   You can help by purchasing Todd Russells DVD collection that includes an informative documentary about my case.

Q. Are you going to start your perfectshots website again. If so, when?
A. The trauma inflicted on us by individuals that abused their authority makes the thought of running a member site overwhelming.  At this time I don't have any productions in the works. I will anounce any planned new releases on the main index page in the future.
 

Q. Maybe you can explain why you think the government had no right to prosecute you. What was your argument based on? 
A.  No "explicit sex" coupled with "violence"  =  no violation of the law.  It's that simple. You cannot have the "undue exploitation of sex and violence" without first having explicit sex acts that are "undue".  Explicit sex acts are sex acts at the extreme end of the spectrum of sexual activities such as sexual intercourse and other non trivial sex acts. I didn't write the law, but I did obey it. The Crown cannot make that claim. They thumbed their noses at the Supreme Court and violated my personal right to freedom, privacy and security.
 

Q. Can you give me the basic facts of your case in a nutshell?
A. Yes! Look at the answer to the second question above. For more info you can go here.
 

Q. What do you make of the Crown's argument concerning harm to society?
A.   Stupid! The government is the number one purveyors of harm to society in Ontario. The Butler decision states that the "harm" must be "pressing and substantial".  The Crown knew about my website for six long months and  they  did nothing  until Gobeil entered the picture.  Gobeil  began a campaign of  phoning the Toronto Crown Law Office. He recruited and encouraged his fellow officers to do the same. He knew that if enough officers made inquiries that the Crown would get involved.  The slowness of the Crown to act indicates that they did not see this as a "pressing and substantial" concern. 

Q. Was it purely a case of artistic interest as far as you were concerned?
A.  Yes.   I produced materials to entertain people in the action and horror film genre and to make a living for my family in the same way any other film maker does.
 

Q. Who started the criminal proceedings against you and why do you think they did it?
A.  OPP Cst. Scott Gobeil started the action and was assisted by Cst. Brad Williams. Williams had been told by his superiors that my productions and websites were not illegal and he told me that as well. When my family left the church that Gobeil and his family attended, we were shunned by the church members, including Gobeil.  Gobeil's pastor expressed animosity towards us.  The pastor's animosity was exacerbated when he found out about my productions. Gossip ensued and Gobeil decided to get involved. His goal was to punish me and cause me and my family extreme mental suffering, financial losses and hardship. He continued to harass us well after the trial.
 

Q.  How did the Crown convince the jury to ignore all the evidence of community standards that was presented at your trial?
A. Howard Leibovich told the jury,  "that stuff is illegal too for all we know".  Leibovich's statement demonstrates that he did not know what was legal or what was illegal, therefore,  he should not have been prosecuting me.  But the jury didn't catch that.  They only heard what they wanted to hear, and ignored the rest. 

   One should not ignore the love affair between the Crown and Judge Pierce either. Judge Pierce continually sided with the Crown and swayed the jury to convict. When we asked the Court to privide the jury with a copy of the Rv.Butler decision Judge Pierce asked the jury to leave the courtroom and then stated that: 

If Pierce believed her own statement she had a duty to dismiss the jury for being mentally incompetent.  But Judge Pierce did expect the jury to understand the psycho babble from two Crown experts as well as her 72 page jury charge which contained an improper definition of explicit sex and a whole lot of her own personal bias.
 

Q. Why do you think the Crown wanted the judge to order you off the internet for 3 years?
A.   They are vindictive and malicious. They wanted to take away my ability to earn a living. They wanted to impose a punishment that would adversely effect my wife and children to such an extent that it would cause our separation. To support my statement you only need to look at the probation order.   The judge ordered that I was to inform her (through probation) if there was any change in my marital status. The only reason the court was interested in knowing that was because that was their goal....to cause our separation.  Then the judge said I could not reside in a home with Internet access.   The only reason for doing this was to create a wedge in our family in the hope that it would cause our separation.
 

Q. Do you really think the cops and the Crown are motivated by tunnel vision and noble cause corruption?
A.   Yes. They took the moral high ground and used it to justify criminal charges under obscenity despite  there  being  no  "explicit sex" coupled  with violence (a requirement to have violate the law).   They used the media to gain moral support and blamed me for causing damage to women and society. That is how noble cause corruption works in the minds of those infected. They care little about the real damages they cause to real people and more about winning their case at all costs.
 

Q. Do you know how much your prosecution has cost the tax payers of Ontario?
A.  We guess they have blown close to 2 million dollars.   We considered the number of officers that  worked on the case, travel, hotels, meals, court time, wear and tear on police vehicles, gas, oil, judge's salaries and travel expenses, Crown salaries and travel expenses, volumes of disclosure, paper pushing, man hours, long distance phone bills, etc.etc.

Q.   In upholding the conviction for distribution of third party written material on the member's only web site,  the Court of Appeal said that the Crown “demonstrated that these stories did not have artistic merit. Clearly under the Butler test, these stories are obscene.”   Are they saying those third party stories are obscene because they have no artistic merit?

Yes!  HOWEVER,  They missed the fact that the charge was possession of obscene materials for the purpose of distribution.  There was no evidence that I distributed the three stories. Possession alone is not an offence.  I  was convicted because they saw the stories as obscene, not because they had facts or evidence to support a finding that I distributed them.  Furthermore, the Crown did not demonstrate that the stories had no artistic merit. That statement ignores the obvious. My factum contains facts from the trial concerning  Dr.David  Annandale's  testimony demonstrating  that the three stories do indeed have artistic merit.   My factum also mentions  the  evidence  of community standards which was entered into evidence through Dr. Annandale.  My lawyers argued that the stories had artistic merit and therefor were not obscene. The Crown had no reply evidence to our artistic merit defence. The Crown's factum contains no arguments or facts with regard to my position that the stories in fact do have artistic merit and that I had not distributed them. The Crown simply argued that the stories were obscene because of the sex and violence found in them.  The appeals court ignored all of our arguments, facts and references to evidence and blindly sided with the Crown. I find this especially hard to swallow because Justice Rosenberg posed a question during oral arguments which suggested to the Crown  that my removing the stories should have been sufficient to ward off criminal charges. The Crown of course disagreed because they wanted to punish me for having done nothing more than offend them.
 

Q. Is serialkillersunderground.com an appropriate name? Isn't it glorifying serial killers?
A. Yes for the first question and No for the second one!  It has always been part of the genre to shock and horrify. Horror films are a safe way for artists and viewers to come to grips with their anxieties. Satire has been part of the horror genre since it's begining. Serialkillersunderground.com is a name used in a satirical way, to grab the attention of horror fans. 
 

Q. What's your view of the Crown's censorship efforts?
Censorship sucks. The Crown's case sucks. People have the right to choose not to go to these sites. Others have the right to choose to visit them. That's what freedom is all about: the right to choose one way or the other. If the government censors something, they have taken away everyone's right to choose, whether it be to look, or not to look.