Duchess of Dirt

HRM Didulo appeared in Court on January 14. I’ve been providing ongoing commentary from an (ex)lawyer’s perspective. This time the issue was "disclosure" complaints initiated by HRM. In Canada prosecutors and police have an obligation to provide their case to the accused in advance of trial. This is “disclosure”. Unlike movies, surprise is not generally permitted in a criminal prosecution. In fact, if disclosure misses relevant information, that’s a basis to end criminal proceedings against the accused. A literal “get out of jail free” defect. So the Crown and police tend to “over-disclose” to avoid that possibility. Disclosure is sometimes described as “the case against the accused”, but it’s broader. If the police have information about an alternative suspect, that must be disclosed. If police learn something that indicates a gap in their theories, or that supports the accused’s claims, or that there’s “a bad cop” on the team? All that must be disclosed. Didulo at the last hearing made a huge list of disclosure demands. That obviously surprised the Crown. The Wednesday hearing was the Crown’s response to those demands. I predicted we’d get a look at HRM’s plans to argue her case from the disclosure demands. Sure enough, we got that. What Didulo wanted is a mixed bag. She demands bodycam footage from RCMP searches. The judge agreed and ordered that disclosure. That makes sense, and I’m a little surprised that material wasn’t already disclosed to HRM. But more on that later. A sensible defence strategy is to try to establish some defect in the searches that produced the evidence that the Crown will use at trial. (If the prosecution gets to trial.) So, that disclosure request is legitimate. There’s some possibility that search video could provide a basis to make Charter-based challenges. But other aspects of Didulo’s planned defence are just not likely to work. At all. First, is a classic pseudolaw strategy - you demand the Crown provide disclosure of law, and legal things. Didulo demanded disclosure of statutes and “proof of their jurisdiction”. The first request deserved a “fuck off idiot” response. There was a time back in the 2000s and earlier where there were no public sources for up-to-date legislation. Back then it was a sound and even sneaky argument to say “I can’t look up the Income Tax Act in its exact current form. How am I supposed to know the law?” Clever. But now legislation in Canada is available for free, in up-to-date forms from sources like CanLII. So that’s a bullshit strategy. Didulo probably trolled that up from old pseudolaw templates. The second half, the demand for proof of jurisdiction, that tells us that one of Didulo’s defences/arguments is going to be that she is Her Royal Majesty, Arcturian Goddess of Space, Queen of Canada. How dare you filthy peons, you Chinese Communist Agents, you pedo fiends, how dare you intrude on her? The Crown won’t and can’t disclose a basis for jurisdiction - she’ll be looking for a contract, explicit or “invisible”. Don’t have that? No jurisdiction. HRM will probably apply as a preliminary step that she’s released and charges dropped because she is outside Canadian jurisdiction. This is also an ancient and standard pseudolaw scheme. Won’t work. Canadian jurisdiction is established by location. HRM Didulo’s alleged misconduct occurred in Richmound Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan courts have authority. I recently ran across an interesting set of cases that went further, and said you can’t even argue jurisdiction in a Canadian court. The question is “nonjusticiable.” Canadian courts cannot reject Canada exists, or has authority. I’m not sure if that entirely makes sense, but the long and short is this defence strategy won’t go anywhere. Other information the Didulo is seeking in disclosure involves the the lengthy interactions between her cult and the Richmoundians, and probably broader. The obvious objective is HRM wants to establish that there’s hostility, persecution, so that should somehow counter the criminal proceedings. Maybe I did do something illegal, but look at all the bastardly stuff I faced? The problem with this strategic direction is that for the purposes of a criminal proceeding, that’s irrelevant. What matters is whether the Crown can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Didulo engaged in the illegal activity, intimidation of a justice system participant. (2) Didulo knew that was illegal, or was willfully blind to that. That’s it. The rest doesn’t matter. That’s irrelevant to the investigation, search, and prosecution. Some people in the media said nasty things? Irrelevant. The Richmoundians were hostile? Irrelevant. Note, none of this is part of the Crown’s case against Didulo. So there’s no basis for disclosure, and it appears the Crown Prosecutor said exactly that. The Crown promised to send Didulo another disclosure package (usually an electronic data source like a harddrive or ramstick these days). This time that delivery would be personally handed off by an RCMP officer. That tells me, indirectly, that Didulo has complained she didn’t get disclosure, like nothing was delivered. Which is highly unlikely, and a weak knee-jerk defence strategy I saw all the time from self-represented litigants. All that does is creates a record that Didulo is not a good faith litigant, by making such highly implausible claims. Now the Crown is going to give her even less leeway. Sloppy. Didulo also proposed that she might need more time to review disclosure. That suggests a delay strategy, that Didulo is hoping to push back her criminal proceedings one way or another. With enough delay that can entirely end a prosecution. In Canada, a trial like Didulo’s must start within 30 months of charges (with some wiggling), otherwise Didulo is presumed to have had her timely trial rights breached, and she “gets out of jail free”. That’s a viable, permitted way to game the system, though HRM has to be careful to avoid causing delay - that doesn't count for the 30 month drop dead deadline. So, the combination of “I didn’t get disclosure!” and “I need time to review that late disclosure!” is probably going to count as Crown delay, not Didulo gaming the system. Though she almost certainly is. The other tidbit I noticed was there’s evidence the RCMP have not managed to access HRM’s cell phone. Now, I can’t really comment on the implications of that, but it’s interesting. I’m not a tech guy, but that does suggest HRM is data security conscious. More evidence she’s more calculating than some have suggested. The next hearing is in a couple weeks to update the judge on the progress of disclosure issues. Realistically, I think Didulo has exhausted her quiver for reasonable requests. More demands will probably lead to unfavourable findings. But in the larger picture there’s little harm to trying. In Canada a criminal accused gets all the advantages and indulgences. The deck is stacked against the Crown in a procedural and proof sense. Here's the media report I used as the basis for this analysis: swiftcurrentonline.com/artic… Nice clear reporting - I appreciate that.

Latest media report on HRM Didulo indicates three unnamed followers are facing obstruction charges for not providing their names to the RCMP, and HRM Didulo's preliminary hearing is scheduled for March 2, 2026 - over six months out. cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche… The obstruction charges are comparatively minor, and not likely a basis to detain the charged individuals in pre-trial custody. Don't be surprised if those charges are ultimately discontinued, or settled for a non-custodial result. The preliminary hearing is roughly equivalent to a grand jury procedure in the US, but instead evidence to substantiate charges will be evaluated by a Saskatchewan provincial court judge. Because Didulo has opted for a jury trial in the Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench there will almost certainly be a publication ban on the preliminary hearing. Which in a sense is unfortunate, as otherwise we'd learn the Crown's theory and evidence supporting the intimidation of a justice system participant charges. If the prosecution proceeds after the March 2026 preliminary hearing - and that's an "if" because the law is not well settled on how pseudolaw operates as intimidation in Canada - then the full trial would likely be six months to a year after that.