BCI and Cognitive Liberty

This Scandal Involves Cognitive Liberty.  Here's How I Got There.

Canada's Supreme Court has presented a test for making logical inferences in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 @ paras 97 and 98:

“This Court has held that it is possible to identify objectively discernable harm on the basis of logical inferences (Bragg, at paras. 15‑16). But this process of inferential reasoning is not a licence to engage in impermissible speculation. An inference must still be grounded in objective circumstantial facts that reasonably allow the finding to be made inferentially. Where the inference cannot reasonably be drawn from the circumstances, it amounts to speculation (R. v. Chanmany, 2016 ONCA 576, 352 O.A.C. 121, at para. 45) [...] Where the feared harm is particularly serious, the probability that this harm materialize need not be shown to be likely, but must still be more than negligible, fanciful or speculative.”

The legal test maintains a requirement for foundational evidence upon which inferences can be made.  The test requires a probability threshold that need not meet a threshold of likelihood to merit consideration by a Canadian court, but the inference should be in some way feasible.  I submit that an inference of state-sponsored 4ir experimentation surpasses the threshold of likelihood.  Let us begin by exploring the evidentiary foundation mentioned at paragraph 97 in the aforementioned Sherman test as it relates to this scandal.  

​

A Prima-Facie Case of White-Collar Crime
 

A Commercial and Government Entity ("CAGE") I held shares in committed a series of criminal code violations in the manner of fraud, collusion, and perjury.  Proof of the same is cited in Affidavit records (see links for specific page references).  For quick reference, you can see these records at the very bottom of https://www.refugeecanada.net/affidavitpart1, and most of https://www.refugeecanada.net/affidavitpart2 beginning at the top.  The entirety of the story is shown with relevant excerpts at the Litigation page (here).
 

Zersetzung
 

Following the close of an initial settlement which featured gross negligence by my retained counsel amid evidence of collusion, Diffuse & Disrupt events as detailed in the Zersetzung page began unfolding in November 2021.  These acts, initially evident in cyber intrusions and on-heels stalking, made direct reference to the CAGE CEO, the settlement, and my day-to-day activities in Surrey, BC, accompanied by ongoing home-invasions and related criminal mischief.  Criminal mischief also included video footage of the interior of my condo rental, and a persistent invasion of privacy otherwise untenable without sophisticated means.  Disruptions in my life and business relationships became prevalent, to the extent that my income opportunities had been compromised through external interference.  Likewise, new counsel had declined engagement in an a priori capacity, including ProBono programs.  Sheridan et al., 2020 described similar themes in a study which found sophisticated "gang-stalking" to be a "widespread phenomenon" which has received very little attention.  Advocacy group PACTS International has raised similar concerns (here), attributing them to efforts backed by federal government agencies and/or major corporations.  A series of related materials are furnished in the Zersetzung page.  Descriptors and analyses of these activities can be found in the Guide page.

The Scope, Characteristics, and Complexity are Disproportionate to the Interest and Resources of a Mid-Sized CAGE Entity
 

The CAGE entity, although federally-supported, is a mid-size company.  Although evidence does support an inference of retaliatory hate crime, the same evidence does not support this inference independent of other factors germane to the scandal.  Likewise, the CAGE entity Director could not have orchestrated these events independently, and whereas, the scope, severity, consistency, and interrelationship between these events precludes consideration of an isolated private actor.  Admissions by CAF whistleblowers, details in CAF publications, an encounter with CAF personnel, and the CAGE CEO’s lead counsel (a CAF legal advisor), provide further substance in accord with the Sherman test in that a state actor is the only reasonable inference that can be made.
 

Denial of Safe Avenue to Police
 

The misconduct of police agencies adds a crucial layer.  It is the role of police agencies to respond to and investigate what might be crime (495793 Ontario Ltd. v. Barclay et al., 2016 ONCA 656 @ paragraph 51).  The RCMP did not act despite diligent solicitation efforts.  An eventual audience was held with an RCMP officer outside the detachment building.  The officer had identified himself as a member of the mental health detachment.  Despite this officer requesting I do his taxes after our discussion (as I had apparently articulated the CAGE CEO’s shareholder crimes with acuity), no file was opened nor any action items considered.  Police inaction occasioned a premature opening of S-220956, and an urgent relocation across Canada in late February 2022 out of concern for physical safety.  Prior to relocation, I was experiencing 3-4 home invasions per week, ongoing cyber attacks, and daily on-heels stalking.  The important component here is that no investigation efforts were made.  A series of serious complaints were brushed aside.  Subsequent attempts to solicit the Department of Justice were likewise turned aside.
 

In September 2022, a Halifax Regional Police (“HRP”) Constable suggested the (zersetzung) problems "would go away when the lawsuit against the CAGE CEO was dropped".  In December 2022, a different HRP constable, in a 79-minute meeting, acknowledged the CAGE CEO’s shareholder-related crimes, and his substantial connection to the criminal mischief components outlined in the Testimony and Zersetzung pages.  This officer identified the CAGE CEO by name, articulated the crimes he is implicated in committing, and articulated an action plan to proceed with a formal investigation.  Despite this, the officer was not able to be reached thereafter.  Based on events over the past year, I had executed a live recording of this meeting with HRP as a precaution.  A FOIPOP report obtained in January 2023 mischaracterized the meeting and its participants, and declared an absence of evidence.  I exhibited the unedited audio transcript and FOIPOP report in an Affidavit which the BC court subsequently refused to acknowledge, despite it being filed well in advance of the hearing.  Likewise, the NS Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner ("POLCOM") refused to process a complaint concerning the related act of police negligence, and advised it would not review the audio recording or transcript (see Litigation page).

Vancouver Police Department, when presented evidence of obstruction in justice on the part of BC Court staff (CCC 139, Litigation page), acknowledged the complaint but refused to investigate in accord with its mandate.
 

These data points are compelling and crucial.  What interest would three police agencies have in refusing to act in accord with their oaths and mandates concerning Constitutional law?  Similarly, a civil-criminal distinction cannot apply in preventing police participation, because criminal activities external to the civil matter were impacting the civil proceedings and my personal well-being.  A systemic refusal by law enforcement agencies to address prima facie evidence of criminal conduct reinforces a well-founded inference of third-party interference.

Obstruction of Justice in the Courts
 

Glaring procedural violations by provincial and federal registry employees, and the disposition of civil hearings themselves following an initial order for audit discovery made on April 1st, 2022, are able to demonstrate systemic obstruction of justice at face value to reasonable persons absent any legal training.  They are likewise sufficient to raise serious alarm when measured against the applicable legal tests that courts and legal professionals rely on to guide their conduct, as are shown in the Authorities page.  The Litigation page and the Affidavits in the Links page yield a two-year chronology of compromised proceedings, which culminated in grand-theft felony concerning retainer fees that were certified in an amount eighty-three (83) times customary tariffs (see Felony Affidavit; Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.), paragraph 44).  Irrespective of the conditions by which S-220956 was opened, reasonable persons would demand to know how a prima facie account of fraud, collusion, and perjury could transition into a $445,489.50 windfall for the perpetrators.

The evidentiary milestones reveal a concurrence in the manner of outrageous scandal, to the extent that it is unnatural.  A study by Yale Law School held that over one million bribes are paid into the US Judicial System each year, with a comparable amount in Canada per capita.  This assumes 171,600 bribes are paid in Canada each year utilizing the research metric.  Under normal conditions, palpable errors in fact and law made at the Provincial Supreme Court level are expected to be corrected at the Appellate court above it, and likewise reviewed and corrected at the Supreme Court of Canada if needed.  This did not happen.  The same manner of obstruction, error, and injustice was in fact replicated and reinforced in Appellate venues, and later enforced out-of-province.  The SCC refused to grant leave without written reasons, and later refused to submit a motion for reconsideration, despite an overwhelming case evidencing the use of legitimate authorities to facilitate crime.

The evidentiary footprint, as shown in the Links page, might be compared to a hockey game where the goals scored by one’s team are consistently credited to the opposing team’s scorecard, without any rebuttal from coaches, referees, or even the fans in attendance. 
 

What was (and is) Capable of Generating the Degree of Consensus Observed?
 

The next data point in accord with the Sherman test involves an exploration of the factors which might occasion a systemic obstruction of justice, across multiple courts, adjudicators, law enforcement officers, and public servants.  To this end, there are a number of possible explanations, but very few probable explanations.  I will treat a series of possible explanations below.
 

"Mr. Dempsey's evidence, and/or his proposed explanation on what to do with it, is either fictitious or idiosyncratic."
 

This option is precluded from consideration by means of the irrefutable and obvious nature of the evidence presented, coupled with volumes of jurisprudence and rule citations.  It is exceptionally easy for both legal professionals and laypersons to perceive a scandal, and a significant one, at face value.  A comprehensive book of authorities and list of jurisprudence is cited in my December 11th, 2023 letter as linked here.  The BC Supreme Court and Halifax Regional Police likewise acknowledged the issues before they were unlawfully obstructed thereafter in both venues.  
 

"All stakeholders involved received bribes in the form of money and/r services, or had received threats."
 

Notwithstanding the onerous results of the Yale Law study, this would assume every stakeholder and touch point involved in this scandal (and by stakeholder I mean adjudicator, police officer, lawyer, and agency director among others) is morally bankrupt.  I am not prepared to make that declaration as it is unreasonable to assume.  Moreover, it might be expected that a stakeholder’s colleagues would call out gross misconduct.  Again, while isolated cases of misconduct are common, the manner and scope of consistency in this matter precludes a suggestion that the obstruction in justice as considered is primarily due to bribes and/or threats alone.

"The stakeholders were provided false information from an authoritative source understood to be credible, thereby influencing their conduct.”

Third-party influence is reasonably inferred.  However, the caveat is that in a properly functioning court of law, any prejudicial third-party influence or opinion would normally be measured against a Petitioner's evidentiary record in a just legal proceeding.  Likewise, legal counsel are regulated by a code of conduct.  A trial of the common issues was prevented from happening at all times despite initial evidentiary acknowledgements from HRP and the BCSC, the latter resulting in an order by a now-retired adjudicator that the Canada Revenue Agency and three private entities involved in the shareholder matter must be afforded an opportunity to testify.  However, the foregoing ordinance was not permitted to unfold.  Besides this, no conversation had taken place concerning the evidence presented.  As a result, neither the adjudicative agencies involved nor my counsel had acted in accordance with their governing rules and principles.
 

"All stakeholders involved are aligned with an overarching belief that obstructing justice in this case serves a greater good."
 

This option is more likely in our day than it would have been ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, based on reflections I had made concerning postmodern assumptions and culture.  My Q/A II page also details examples of systemic ideological bias in Canadian institutions, including Elections Canada.  The National Post recently reported that Canada has the most activist Supreme Court on the planet.  Nonetheless, and further to the previous paragraph, the conduct of public servants are guided by a system of rules and ordinances which are expected to be followed.  I again remind readers that the BCSC had willfully refused to enforce a plethora of procedural rules governing the style of proceedings in S-229680.  How and why was this allowed to take place?  It again seems unlikely that obstruction in justice at this scale could be permitted to unfold with impunity in agencies with many staffers.  It would likewise suggest public servants are bereft of morals and guiding principles. 
 

"The stakeholders involved were appointed at specific times and in specific capacities."
 

This inference is viable, albeit it would be more appropriate in a brief matter.  This scandal is well into its third year.  It involves multiple courts and agencies, all of whom acted in a similar capacity to obstruct justice.  The weak point in this inference concerns the likelihood of peripheral whistleblowers.  A carefully choreographed scandal would be difficult to execute with respect to any potential variables which could arise. 
 

"The stakeholders are under the influence of 4IR technologies."
 

In exploring this option, one must first conclude that the foregoing paragraphs occasion a need to venture beyond common assumptions regarding what might explain a consistent mode of negligent conduct among adjudicators, police, and counsel as shown in the evidence.  In keeping with the Sherman test, we must likewise acknowledge that the foundational evidence is compelling and demands an explanation.  

My consideration of Fourth Industrial Revolution (“4ir”) technologies initially began in December 2021 through online harassment narratives from criminal actors related to the CAGE CEO.  These highlighted specifics regarding my day-to-day activities which were otherwise private.  At the time I was unaware of the existence of 4ir technologies, nor the extreme emphasis various governing bodies have placed on 4ir as an enabling vision for future governance.  UN/WEF publications position 4ir as a pivotal and necessary sustainability component for our future.  To that end I reiterate my Testimony and 4IR pages, and the links available on this site pointing viewers to research papers, scientific studies, and opinion papers, and formal declarations.

A growing body of medical professionals and researchers have expressed concern over a consistent discovery of “unusual artifacts” in the live blood samples of vaccinated persons.  Visible by means of darkfield microscopy, examples of self-assembling nanoparticles resembling fractal antenna are shown in a number of publications (three examples here, here, and here).  Complementary research by the same and other professionals has occasioned consideration of Internet of Bodies (“IoB”) capabilities, including the possibility of wireless neuromodulation.  Various articles which detract from these positions have offered differing opinions (ie. here), but have shied away from addressing the subject matter in actual test environments.  Most researchers advise the topic requires further inquiry.  By means of the same, we have sufficient grounds to explore that an extraneous factor might be present in the form of 4ir and potentially quantum dot technologies facilitated through the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine.  The same meets the listed test criteria in Sherman, supra, at paragraphs 97-98.  

Besides the forgoing options, an earnest investigator at this point would be left with very few options to explain the scope and magnitude of the events in this scandal, other than to suggest that the public sector and legal professions are suffused with morally bankrupt people who are willing to compromise their statutory and ethical obligations at the drop of a hat.  It really is a question of one or the other at this stage, based on the evidence compiled.  

Why Would Obstructing the Constitutional Rights of a Canadian Citizen be Worth the Risk?

In practical terms there is nothing significant about either myself of the CAGE CEO, albeit the latter is sponsored under the Federal Government and carries a NATO designation.  Notwithstanding, high-level crimes are generally avoided by means of the risks associated in committing them.  
Conversely, a covert state-funded (or state-facilitated) project involving non-consenting 4ir experimentation might justify such risk in the mind of perpetrators.  Further to that point, a BCCA judge advised that the issues considered could "create social unrest", whereas the matter was not tried in that court either, despite the BCSC refusing to enforce nine (9) foundational rules of procedure.  In other words, the importance of a preexisting program would be seen to justify the degree of obstruction and sophistication outlined in this website and the Affidavits.  
 

Readers are invited to review the Testimony and 4ir pages to learn just how pervasive discussions have been concerning Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, and the role they are expected to play in regard to addressing social sustainability and existential questions.  A detailed research paper can be found (here).  This unsettling topic has not been promulgated in the media, which in its own right is a peripheral concern related to the same problem.  Notwithstanding, with only a modicum of research, readers will understand that the topic of transhumanism as it relates to politics and the future of our societies is at the absolute top of policy considerations.  

In closing, do the foregoing elements meet the test criteria in Sherman?  Absolutely.  What does the jurisprudence suggest should happen at this point?  Should a victim’s life-savings be pulled from his bank account, and should victims be jailed for standing upon their Constitutional rights, while state-sponsored perpetrators escape with impunity and a paycheque?  Or, should adjudicative institutions function as required in upholding rights and enforcing Constitutional law?  The obsession UN/WEF stakeholders have in exploring invasive biometric adaptations to address social sustainability and existential questions, an obsession apparently shared by Canada's political elite, have created a political climate that mirrors pre-war Nazi Germany.  History continues to repeat in updated forms.

As it relates to the specifics of perpetrators, it remains more likely that a program such as this would find the backing of the Federal Cabinet, by means of the efficacy of the obstructions in justice throughout the past two years, as opposed to a specific group of actors, such as a rogue CAF department connected to the CAGE CEO's CAF counsel.  I likewise highlight my testimony page, citing circumstantial evidence dating back to 2013, and whereas, my retained counsel had acted in gross negligence in the initial shareholder settlement prior to the onset of zersetzung in November 2021.  It is possible this scandal is ten years old, or older.  My Fifth Affidavit in S-229680 details these topics.

Per McLachlin C.J. in Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, 2007 SCC 41 @ paragraph 37;

"As Peter Cory points out, at pp. 101 and 103: If the State commits significant errors in the course of the investigation and prosecution, it should accept the responsibility for the sad consequences  [...]  Society needs protection from both the deliberate and the careless acts of omission and commission which lead to wrongful conviction and prison."
 

Electronic Attacks

Finally, I must look to my own experience and decisions.  I am mindful of two “electronic attacks”, for lack of a better term.  The first occurred in February 2021 during an intense winter storm, whereas I had experienced an unnaturally intense, localized pain in my upper abdomen which persisted for over two hours before I called an ambulance.  During my trip to the QEII Emergency Room, I had advised the paramedic of an allergy to certain pain medications, including morphine.  The paramedic inserted the IV and said, “I’d rather give you the MORPH-ine”.  I was able to recuperate in an ER bed, before returning home later the next day.  There were no other data points involved which would explain the source of the pain or how it originated.  I recall feeling disoriented in the week that followed.  
 

The second incident occurred in January 2022 while viewing content on my smartphone from the online criminal group detailed in the Testimony, Zersetzung, and Zersetzung Guide pages.  The actor counted down from five to zero, upon which a strong flash emanated from the phone.  I felt an acute physical sensation similar to an air-puff test one would experience during a visit to an optometrist.  Sensations like that do not happen upon flashes of light.  This was something more; a technology I have yet to understand.  On September 25th, 2023, I had a series of eye exams done, which revealed retinal anomalies in both eyes, which were not present in any previous exams on record.  The optometrist referred me to a specialist for further review; an appointment which remains outstanding.  
 

Outlier Decisions
 

I can reasonably infer I was victimized in the manner of cognitive liberty in 2021 in view of the events that had unfolded over the course of that year, and by means of the actions I undertook.  In saying this, I focus on two significant actions I undertook which were diametrically opposed to my typical modus operandi and living habits, and which likewise placed me in great jeopardy.
 

In July 2021, I hired a law firm to pursue the shareholder dispute detailed in the Litigation page.  The outlier resides in the fact that I had listed my home for sale, packed my bags, and relocated to BC in further support thereof.  I am not at all given to disproportionate extremes such as these, which were entirely unnecessary and without merit in view of the circumstances at that juncture.  Those familiar with me would suggest I am often loath to drive across town to attend a function I enjoy, let alone drive across the country to pursue a legal matter that is expected to be managed by a law firm in the same area, and list my dream home for sale on MLS.
 

I had worked for years to develop my personal real estate, which was at that time fully paid for and renovated.  I had two motorcycles in the garage, a specialty sports car in the driveway, an exotic pet, and a six-figure bank account.  That required a lot of work to achieve, and I did it through discipline and smart choices over a number of years.  Because the law firm I retained in BC could have handled the matter while I remained in Nova Scotia, there was no merit nor value in the excursion, or the home sale.  On arrival in BC in late July 2021, I remained in a Condo from August through October while coordinating with the law firm on the shareholder dispute.  My home sold in late September that year.  Following the close of the settlement, I drove back to Nova Scotia from British Columbia by car to reside with my Mother. 
 

Two weeks following my return to Nova Scotia, during the first week of November 2021, I found myself once again driving to British Columbia.  I had no distinct plan in mind; only that I was under the impression that the shareholder matter remained unresolved, and that I had to return to BC again in person to address it.  Having said that, I made no plans nor preparations to visit the court.  I arrived in Surrey, BC on November 10th, 2021 to a condo I had rented through Craigslist.  It was shortly after that that the zersetzung events as described in the testimony and Q/A pages began in earnest.  To reiterate, I signed a one-year lease without a vision, without employment, and drove across Canada again after emerging from a perilous shareholder dispute.  That is about as far removed from my typical decision-making as ice is to fire.  These actions are just as absurd as the adjudicative concurrence detailed in the Litigation page, and the actions taken by various public servants in the scandal.
 

I submit I would not have sold my home and embarked on these excursions were my cognitive liberty intact.   Prior to the onset of these events, I had lived quietly my entire life and had focused on the career I had nurtured through my skill-set in enterprise sales.  I have no criminal record, I was never in debt, and I have avoided bad decisions that lead to destructive outcomes.  I am careful by nature, and I avoid conflict where possible.  Ultimately, if a person has a tendency to make reckless decisions with their life and money, they would have had to have won the lottery to achieve what I did though hard work, patience, and discipline over many years.  Investigators will recognize that it doesn't add up.

As for the CAGE CEO, I had maintained amicable relations due to the strategic value in doing so, as I had with the numerous other business contacts I had worked with over the course of a fifteen-year career.  In fact, I had developed a new venture with him after an initial fall-out in 2018.  I do not mix business with my personal life, nor do I allow setbacks to change the guiding parameters that govern my decision-making.
 

When approached with an epistemology of coherence, there is very little if any merit in dismissing a reasonable inference of cognitive tampering at face value.  In partnership with influential private sector commercial interests, actors in the Canadian Public Sector are alleged to be involved in human experimentation in the sphere of cognitive liberty.  Crimes such as this, notwithstanding their damaging effects, are actionable under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) [Link].