Back in November, Toronto police made history when they charged an alleged child pornographer with “theft of telecommunications”, believed to be the first time such a charge was laid in Canada. Now, it seems, that Peel Regional Police (Peel is a municipal region to the northwest of Toronto) have caught on, too. The following was forwarded to me on May 21 me by a reader of the Hamilton Spectator (an old employer of mine, incidentally). I reproduce chunks of it below as the Spectator's Web site is set up mostly for subscribers. Thanks, JPiercy, for the pointer.
Psychiatrist faces Internet theft charges A Burlington psychiatrist accun Msed of possessing child pornography and banned from the Web has been charged with stealing a neighbour's Internet. Dr. Allan Beitel, 57, was charged Wednesday with two counts of theft of telecommunications, two counts of breaching his bail conditions, and unauthorized use of a computer. Police accuse Beitel of accessing his neighbour's wireless Internet connection to conceal his Internet activity. He remains in custody awaiting a bail hearing. Beitel faces charges of possessing child porn and stolen property from 2003 for allegedly stealing a laptop computer. He was charged in January with possession of stolen property, fraud, personation and breach of recognizance. Beitel was barred from using the Internet as part of his bail conditions. Peel police Detective Kelly Kippen said yesterday that investigators discovered Beitel was hacking into his neighbour's wireless Internet service with a laptop. The computer has been seized. —[snipped]— Beitel remains in custody awaiting a bail hearing tomorrow at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton.
UPDATE: On May 16, 2009, I received the following e-mail message. As the sender did not provide a telephone number and the e-mail originated from a free Web-based e-mail service, I have not been able to satisfy myself that this is authentic or that the information passed on to me is, in fact, true. That's not to say it is not authentic or correct. Because of the issue involved, however, I present it now and hope to be able to check into it later in the week.
Mr. Akin
Your website shows a May 23, 2004 article about me which appears when my name is “googled”.
All of the charges referred to in your article were stayed by the Crown on February 3, 2009 after 6 years of fighting the charges.
I would appreciate it if this article were removed from your site as it causes unwarranted ongoing prejudice.
Sincerely
Allan Beitel MD
Can you really call yourself a journalist, Mr. Akin?
According to you, your original post was the result of something forwarded to you by an old employer, JPiercy. You thank him for the 'pointer' regarding the charge of 'theft of telecommunications' which you consider newsworthy since the Peel Regional Police 'have caught on, too'. Caught on to what –
the fact that this charge never even made it to the preliminary inquiry has no news value, right. This was one of 20 charges laid by your friend Peel Police Detective Kelly Kippen all of which were dropped by the crown. This has no news value either, apparently.
You are merely a mouthpiece for the Kippen-Piercy-Spectator character assassination pipeline, Mr. Akin and you have no business passing yourself off as anything more substantial.
You are a sick man, and you really shouldn't be counseling anyone..as an ex-patient I would think my opinion is warranted.
My guess is that you just want to contribute to the innuendo. If indeed you are an ex-patient, your opinion is relevant if you have any information to contribute apart from the rubbish reported in the Spectator and in Mr. Akin's blog. The doctor has never received any complaint about his practice from any former patient.
i wouldn't consider any of the information found in this article or any other articles i have been able to find to be rubbish. whether or not the charges have been “stayed” doesn't eliminate the fact that questionable content regarding child pornography was found oh HIS stolen laptop!
from my experience i would say he is paranoid, and extremely judgmental. Unprofessional and disheartening. He had no memory retention or recollection of medication he prescribed, or of any of the prior sessions.
Have you never heard of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' … it happens to be the law; the charges were stayed … there is no reason for you to believe that any of the charges were valid. You seem to believe the charges anyways even though the crown had no evidence to proceed. The one who is paranoid is you. Go get yourself the help you need instead of tilting at windmills.