Legal Framework
 

The Sherman Estate Test for Inference
Canada's Supreme Court in Sherman Estate v. Donovan (2021 SCC 25 @ paragraphs 97-98) established that logical inferences must be "grounded in objective circumstantial facts" and need not be "likely" but must exceed "negligible, fanciful or speculative" thresholds.
 

The Villaroman Standard
R v Villaroman (2016 SCC 33 @ paragraphs 35, 37, 41) holds that where there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence and no reasonable innocent explanation, the trier of fact is entitled—and required—to draw the inference that best fits the facts.
 

Both standards are met here.
 

Six Threads: The Evidentiary Mountain
 

1. Prima Facie Shareholder Fraud
 

A federally-supported Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) with NATO designation committed Criminal Code violations:
 

• Empty Central Securities Registers where 50+ shareholders should appear

• One-year accounting device concealing transfers

• Sworn contradictions and two facially-evident perjury accounts

• Court-ordered tax audit successfully avoided
   

Documentation exists in sworn Affidavits at refugeecanada.net/affidavitpart1 and refugeecanada.net/affidavitpart2, and [here].
 

2. Solicitor-Client Billing Scandal
 

Approximately $450,000 in legal bills for ten short chambers applications—84× standard tariff (737.7 hours billed)—certified and enforced without courts applying required customary jurisprudential guardrails (Bradshaw Construction v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1991, 54 BCLR (2d) 309 @ para 44; Beals v. Saldanha, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, 2003 SCC 72 @ paras 218, 220, 265; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2024 FCA 136 @ paras 68-70).
 

This billing fraud requires preemptive state-adjacent assurances and coordination to both initiate and succeed (Entreprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipality), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304, 2004 SCC 61 @ paras 25-26).  No correction mechanism activated across three court levels.  A +9,000% billing scandal cannot escape correction and remain invisible, across venues for three years, without state-adjacent assurances.
 

3. Cross-Provincial Institutional Obstruction
 

Four years of systematic procedural violations:
 

• Discovery ordered (April 1, 2022) then blocked

• Files sealed wholesale—sometimes before service and/or without submissions

• Secret hearings in ensconced chambers, denial of access to audio

• Public information asymmetry

• Procedural obstruction, abuse of process, and asymmetric pre-drafted orders

• Registry staff disregarding nine mandatory procedural rules

• Security for costs weaponized to chill appeals

• Jurisprudential guardrails consistently discarded

• Comity applied on the basis of conclusory decisions that ignore the probative record

• Wholesale disregard for binding case law, jurisprudence, and rules

• Custodial sentencing used to enforce disputed costs before any merits hearing (CN Rail v. Teamsters)

• A BCCA judge refused leave to appeal because the case "might create social unrest"
   

4. Systematic Police Obstruction
 

Three police agencies violated statutory duties (495793 Ontario Ltd. v. Barclay, 2016 ONCA 656 @ para 51):
 

RCMP (BC):

 

• First meeting February 2022: Officer from "mental health detachment" acknowledged criminal element verbally, but limited police report to civil proceedings involving the CAGE;

• Officer appeared to have preemptive knowledge of diffuse & disrupt activities in Surrey and New Westminster BC (2021-2022);

• Refused to act on credible evidence of AI-assisted online criminal mischief related to the CAGE, and no notation in report;

• Refused to obtain CCTV video footage which would have proven physical mischief in Surrey, BC, and identified physical perpetrators;

• Subsequent follow-ups to RCMP characterized as "harassing communications".

• RCMP Superintendent apologized for "substandard response", but refused to correct;

• CRCC omitted probative evidence and reported issues in a dismissal letter (here).
   

Halifax Regional Police:
 

• September 2022: Constable claimed "problems would stop when the CAGE lawsuit was dropped", preemptive pejorative MH framing;

• December 2022: Different officer acknowledged CAGE CEO's crimes by name in 79-minute recorded meeting, named him as offender, acknowledged relationship to psychological operations involving AI-assisted criminal mischief he identified as "beautiful evidence", articulated an investigation roadmap—and later became unreachable;

• FOIPOP report falsified the meeting record;

• NS Police Complaints Commissioner refused to review audio evidence that proved police obstruction (CCC 137);

• October 2024: Subsequent HRP engagement omitted key evidence in police report including implication of local actors (estranged relatives, biologically related to a key criminal actor);

• POLCOM again obstructed, dismissed summarily after 8 months; HRP chief inspector issued pejorative letter (Here).
   

Vancouver Police: Acknowledged but refused to investigate court staff obstruction despite clear CCC 139 violations.
 

Zero investigations.  Zero files opened.  Zero accountability.
 

5. Textbook Psychological Operations (Zersetzung)
 

Following November 2021 settlement, systematic harassment commenced requiring surveillance feedback loops:
 

• Cyber intrusions and daily stalking referencing CAGE CEO and private activities;

• 3-4 home invasions weekly with video footage from inside residence;

• AI-assisted psychological operations cotemporaneous with private events and sealed litigation milestones;

• Verbatim scripting and symbolism across social media 50+ channels;

• Sophisticated privacy violations impossible without technical capabilities;

• Key actor biologically linked to estranged Nephew and connected to state-adjacent influence.
   

Sheridan et al. (2020) documented "gang-stalking" as a "widespread phenomenon" involving federal agencies and major corporations.  Formal recognition in UN Report A/HRC/43/49.  PACTS International corroborates these patterns.  The scope and technical sophistication exceed mid-sized entity capabilities.  CAF whistleblower admissions, publications, personnel encounters, and the CAGE CEO's CAF legal counsel, a uniformed CAF legal advisor, add provide adjacent contextual analysis.
 

6. Personal Cognitive Anomalies
 

Baseline (15 years): Cautious, risk-averse, disciplined financial management.  Built six-figure savings, fully-paid home with motorcycles, sports car, exotic pet.  No criminal record.  No debt history.  Consistent habits.  Dislikes travel.  Dislikes drama.  Three degrees.
 

2021 departures:
 

• Anomalous health event in February 2021, taken to hospital via ambulance with IV painkillers.  No discernible diagnosis;

• June 2021: Retained BC law firm to take carriage of CAGE shareholder matter and manage remotely;

• July 2021: Listed and sold home (primary asset);

• July 2021: Relocated cross-country for legal matter BC firm could handle remotely;

• July - November 2021: Four purposeless cross-country relocations in short span (between Nova Scotia and British Columbia, by car);

• November 2021: Signed one-year lease without employment or plan two weeks after returning to NS and BC, following 2021 CAGE shareholder settlement.
   

Observation: These destructive and purposeless actions yield no psychological or practical sense absent external cognitive tampering.
 

Electronic attacks:
 

• February 2021: Unexplained acute abdominal pain (2+ hours).  Paramedic stated "I'd rather give you the MORPH-ine" despite documented morphine allergy. Week-long disorientation followed.

• January 2022: Online actor countdown before phone flash produced physical sensation unlike any light response—similar to optometry air-puff test (non-contact tonometry).  September 2023 eye exams revealed bilateral retinal anomalies absent from all prior records.
   

Applying Villaroman: Exhausting the Four Avenues of Explanation
 

Under Villaroman, we must identify which explanation correctly fits all six threads.  
 

Explanation A: Mr. Dempsey is the Problem

Causation theory: Mr. Dempsey is delusional, misinterpreting routine legal proceedings, and/or fabricating evidence.  Alternatively, he made poor decisions and is now constructing conspiracy theories to avoid accountability.
 

Why it fails completely:
 

The Documentary Record:
 

• Empty Central Securities Registers are physical documents (or their absence).  A BCSC judge ordered discovery whereas the same order was procedurally foreclosed thereafter;

• A sworn affidavit from CAGE lead counsel in BC cites $450,000 was reasonably required, and was billed, for ten short-chambers appearances requiring minimal out of court time.  That document is measured against the clerk's notes, transcript, and tariff schedule, which propose a metric in the $5,000 range;

• Court orders, sealed files, and procedural violations exist in official registries and cannot coincide with binding jurisprudence and the rules which were violated.  A library of applicable jurisprudence is shown at the Authorities page (here);

• Police reports that ignore binding case law concerning reasonable grounds and investigative thresholds, including a 79-minute audio recording of an HRP meeting that proves police obstruction and the fabrication of evidence;

• Over fifty (50) online actors using mirrored scripting, cotemporaneous with private events and sealed litigation milestones.

• A clear biological relationship between an estranged relative and a key criminal actor noted in the Affidavits since early 2022.
   

Obvious & testable: Over 100 case law citations are directly applicable to the matters at stake, which were not applied (here).  Over 200 computational audits engaging the file confirm the contents of the file, and that a scandal has occurred across multiple categories (here).  It is difficult to argue with sworn records, binding authorities, and a calculator.
 

The "He Could Have Done XYZ" rebuttal:

Critics might argue, "This 'scandal' is self-inflicted - Mr. Dempsey should have hired better lawyers / filed proper motions / followed correct procedures."
 

This again fails due to the documented record:
 

• Mr. Dempsey’s initial legal counsel acted with gross negligence, a fact acknowledged and documented in the settlement record (here).

• In the absence of any meaningful RCMP response to post-settlement criminal interference, Mr. Dempsey was effectively compelled to commence the 2022 BCSC proceeding (here).

• Subsequent counsel, including Pro Bono programs, declined engagement at the outset, before testing the merits of the file.

• Proper motions were brought; however, the courts declined to enforce their own procedural rules or to apply binding case law.

• Standard procedural steps were followed and documented, but were then systematically disregarded by court registries.

• Mr. Dempsey has no ability to control opposing counsel’s conduct, including solicitor-client billing claims 9,000% above benchmark, or to compel judges to follow binding jurisprudence.

• Most recently, in 2025, Mr. Dempsey paid $16,000 in security for costs—forty times the customary benchmark (Power v. Power)—in an effort to pursue ordinary appellate recourse, which was again unlawfully foreclosed (see the Gatekeeping section/page here).
   

Summary: The record demonstrates a clear, cogent, and convincing case of cross-institutional capture.  
 

The Cognitive Anomaly Problem:
 

If Mr. Dempsey fabricated the entire scandal due to mental illness or in bad faith:
 

• Why did he simultaneously document it with legal precision using proper authorities?

• Why are the 2021 extreme outliers so markedly different than a lifelong behavioural baseline?

• Why would delusions manifest as selling a his primary residence and making four meritless cross-country moves—then stop?

• Why is the police mental health / wellness frame expressly preemptive in character?
   

Summary: Mental illness does not typically produce legally sophisticated evidence gathering while simultaneously generating wealth-destroying behavior, then revert to baseline.

The piecemeal rebuttal:

Example: "Mr. Dempsey went through routine legal adversity, ordinary billing, standard procedural decisions, and unrelated personal misfortunes, then misread them as a connected conspiracy."
 

This fails because characteristics intertwine that require state-adjacent assurances, capability, and coordination:
 

• A prima facie shareholder scandal was first recognized and then discarded;

• A ~9,000% solicitor-client billing anomaly in the same file evaded correction;

• Courts engaged in rampant procedural violations and rejected binding authorities;

• Police deflected and obstructed after the CAGE CEO was named in connection with ongoing psychological operations (audio v. FOIPOP);

• Regulatory and oversight bodies refused to acknowledge evidence and foreclosed review at outset;

• Over 50 AI-assisted and scripted online actors have tracked sealed milestones, requiring the use of algorithms and feedback loops

• A family implication is involved in the file that is obvious on visual evidence alone

• The same pattern repeats across venues and jurisdictions, and converge on the same set of leading indicators
   

​These characteristics, which so cleanly cut against binding Supreme Court case law, would reasonably require state-adjacent assurances to initiate, coordinate, execute, and sustain.

The falsification test: any party claiming that Mr. Dempsey is the problem can strive to falsify his allegations by doing the following:
 

1. Produce the records
   Produce the Central Securities Registers and the derecognized shareholder-centric audit files, and the data concerning related firms.
    

2. Explain the $400,000 retainer
   Produce internal engagement records explaining:

   • why the CAGE CEO (likewise a very frugal individual) agreed it was reasonable to pay a ~$400,000 retainer for a handful of short chambers hearings managed primarily by articling students;

   • why seven lawyers assigned to overlapping tasks were prepared to sign their names to that bill in view of the Bradshaw test, the BC code of conduct for lawyers, basic professional optics, and their firm's code of best practices;

   • the chain of authorization at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP; and

   • any internal communications concerning the certification, taxation, and enforcement of that account.
      

3. Disclose influencer funding
   Produce charitable-donation records relating to the ecosystem of AI-assisted online influencers associated with the PsyOp activity.
    

4. Disclose targeting data
   Have Google produce its algorithmic data concerning contemporaneous targeting.
    

5. Audit Mr. Dempsey's 2021 legal counsel and 2022+ attempts to gain counsel
   Collect internal communications pertaining to the Dempsey file from his retained counsel in 2021 (filed confidential data invoking a default notice, redacted record to conceal wrongdoing, and withdrew), and the 20+ firms and ProBono programs that had denied Mr. Dempsey services in a preemptive manner from 2022 through 2025.
    

6. Resolve the HRP/FOIPOP conflict and audit the police files
   Release the full HRP recording, or provide a coherent explanation for the FOIPOP discrepancy with the recorded meeting, and review internal RCMP and HRP communications concerning the Dempsey files.
    

7. Justify the BCSC departures
   Explain why the BC and NS courts ignored a plethora of specific procedural rules (see litigation page and its sub-pages).
    

8. Justify the Jurisprudence
   Explain why binding jurisprudence, case law, and rules don't apply to Mr. Dempsey.
    

9. Prove AI is Broken
   Have the CTOs at OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, and PerplexityAI explain why their large language models, which over 600 million people use every day, and roughly 76% of legal professionals rely on for assisted review, are uniquely broken when applied to this record.
    

10. Explain the outliers
    Provide a cogent and believable explanation as to why Mr. Dempsey would torpedo his life in 2021, against a lifelong behavioral baseline.
     

No falsification attempts have been made.  The observed pattern has been that institutions have simply been unwilling to recognize record of these matters on paper (they are so glaring, that any such recognition would necessitate a response).  The fact that institutional actors instead sealed records, refused investigations, and prevented discovery reinforces the observation of institutional capture, which is recognized by way of appearance, as noted in R. v Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89;

"The clearest example is the conviction of an innocent person.  There can be no greater miscarriage of justice.  Beyond that, it is much easier to give examples than a definition; there can be no “strict formula .. to determine whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred”:  R. v. Khan, 2001 SCC 86 (CanLII), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823 per LeBel, J. at para. 74.  However, the courts have generally grouped miscarriages of justice under two headings.  The first is concerned with whether the trial was fair in fact.  A conviction entered after an unfair trial is in general a miscarriage of justice: Fanjoy supra; R. v. Morrissey (1995), C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.) at 220 - 221.  The second is concerned with the integrity of the administration of justice.  A miscarriage of justice may be found where anything happens in the course of a trial, including the appearance of unfairness, which is so serious that it shakes public confidence in the administration of justice: R. v. Cameron (1991), 1991 CanLII 7182 (ON CA), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 96 (Ont. C.A.) at 102; leave to appeal ref’d [1991] 3 S.C.R. x."

Explanation B: Organic, Ad-Hoc Corruption
 

Causation Theory: Every judge, registrar, clerk, and police officer had independently decided to turn the justice system into a perfectly synchronized criminal protection racket.
 

Why it fails: This requires spontaneous, airtight mafia behavior with:
 

• Zero leaks over four years

• Zero whistleblowers across dozens of actors

• Zero repetition in any other file

• Perfect coordination without communication

• Dozens of adjudicators independently relying on comity to violate settled constitutional law - it just doesn't happen
   

Result: It collapses under its own improbability.  The documentary record would be impossible absent an aligning mechanism.
 

Explanation C: Post-Democratic Institutional Capture (ie., Dr. Colin Crouch, Michel Foucault, Sheldon Wolin, Jacques Rancière)
 

Causation theory: Canada's courts, registries, and police operate as a closed, stakeholder-aligned system driven by class solidarity, comity pressure, and discretionary vetting.
 

This aligns with observed patterns:
 

• Yale Law School research: 171,600 judicial bribes annually in Canada

• National Post: Canada has the "world's most activist Supreme Court" (here)

• MacDonald Laurier article: "Unchecked Judicial Power" (here)

• Systemic ideological bias documented in Canadian institutions (here)

• Post-democratic trending (Crouch, Foucault, Rancière, Wolin, etc.) (here)

• The monograph series of articles (here & here)

• The distinctive alignment among adjudicators, police, and oversight  bodies; uncontroverted on the record

• The CAGE is sponsored by the federal government

• CAGE lead counsel is a uniformed CAF legal advisor
   

Why this alone is insufficient: 
 

• A facially-obvious scandal is vulnerable to leaks, residual ethics, judicial oaths, professional codes

• History shows captured institutions eventually spring leaks

• It cannot explain four years of flawless, risk-taking lockstep with literally zero dissenters

• It requires a categorical public ethics crisis across multiple jurisdictions

• Cannot account for the coordinated psychological operations or 2021 cognitive baseline departures
   

Human influence and ad hoc corruption are exactly what the Canadian judicial system, together with its network of advocacy agencies and appellate venues, is designed to catch.  Yet those fora have failed in unexpected ways, even when presented with a well-evidenced file supported by binding authorities that tell decision-makers how they are supposed to respond.  The information was presented clearly.  The pattern has been repeated foreclosure.  This matter makes the case that something else is required to glue the pieces together—something beyond traditional influence mechanisms.

Summary: This theory provides the bricks, but not the mortar.
 

Explanation D: External Coordination Mechanism
 

Causation theory: An external factor provided confidence, coordination, and plausible deniability—capable of influencing behavior, suppressing whistleblowing, and enabling "impossible" institutional alignment without obvious fingerprints.
 

Why this is disturbing but likely:  

It is no longer science fiction.  While explanation (C) provides the institutional framework; this explanation provides the mechanism ensuring compliance, or the "mortar".  A 26,000-word white paper supported by 450+ references outlines a compelling case, if not a concrete expectation, for non-consensual human experimentation pilots in Canada (here).  It is that comprehensive.
 

The mortar: Fourth Industrial Revolution ("4IR") technologies, used in lockstep with the characteristics outlined in (C).

Transhumanism—promoting a "New Human Being" through nano-bio-info-cognitive (NBIC) technology convergence—is identified as 4IR's dominant ideology (Journal International de Bioéthique et Éthique des Sciences, 2018).

Comprehensive Research
 

The aforementioned 26,000-word technical paper surveys 450+ peer-reviewed sources, defense-research contracts (including DARPA), and Canadian foresight documents, arguing that:
 

• Discreet, wireless brain-computer interface architectures using graphene-family nanomaterials are scientifically plausible

• Active research trajectory since 2004 with a half-trillion-dollar backing

• BCI has made its way into sociopolitical forecasting

• Non-consensual testing protocols are feasible, if not required in the present context
   

The paper maps development timelines and addresses the deployment question comprehensively.​
 

Scientific Foundations & Inferred Mechanism: Graphene Quantum Dots (GQD)
 

Peer-reviewed research establishes feasible neural interface mechanisms:
 

Blood-Brain Barrier Penetration: GQDs uniquely cross the BBB, unlike other quantum dots (International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Perini et al., 2020).  Neural Integration: GQDs are "taken up into human neural stem cells via endocytosis" without affecting viability or function (Nanoscale, Ko et al., 2014).  Wireless Neuromodulation: Current technology enables "bi-directional interaction" for "neural signal recording and neuromodulation" (Micromachines, 2024).  Systems provide "read–write agents for tapping into the brain" using "wireless power transmission and data telemetry" (Nature Reviews Bioengineering, Herron et al., 2024).  Documented Presence: Multiple researchers document "unusual artifacts" and "self-assembling nanoparticles resembling fractal antenna" in vaccinated blood samples via darkfield microscopy, consistent with GQD characteristics.
 

Falsifiability
 

A $300,000, 15-week testing protocol using ISO-17025 accredited laboratories could conclusively confirm or rule out the presence of such materials in widely administered injectables (protocol here).
 

This is the critical distinction: Explanation D is falsifiable with modest resources.  Explanations B and C are not, while A does not recognize the existence of a problem.  As a caveat, an individual case of non-consensual GQD experimentation involving Mr. Dempsey alone is plausible, but Explanation C would remain vulnerable in its own right.
 

Why the Risk?
 

Neither Mr. Dempsey nor the CAGE CEO appear to warrant high-level criminal conspiracy.  The CEO, though federally-sponsored with NATO designation, leads a mid-sized commercial entity.  Mr. Dempsey is an innocuous private citizen with no criminal record and a stable background.
 

Yet, a BCCA judge acknowledged the matter could "create social unrest"; among the more startling admissions in a four-year saga of institutional foreclosure.  Per McLachlin C.J. in Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007 SCC 41 @ para 37): "If the State commits significant errors in the course of investigation and prosecution, it should accept responsibility for the sad consequences."
 

A covert 4IR experimentation program justifies the observed risk-taking, sophistication, and four-year hermetic seal.  The WEF's explicit agenda for human-technology fusion, combined with GQD neural interface capabilities, establishes both mechanism and motive.
 

Applying Occam's Razor
 

Under Villaroman, the question isn't "Which explanation feels right?"; it's "Which explanation actually fits the evidence?"
 

Explanation A: The problem is imaginary.  This ignores the actual record.

​

Explanation B: Spontaneous mafia-style behavior across dozens of actors with zero leaks.  This fails basic probability.
 

Explanation C: Systemic institutional capture.  It is certainly plausible, but incomplete.  It cannot explain:
 

• Four years without a single whistleblower across venues

• Coordinated psychological operations

• The 2021 behavioral outliers and anomalous health incidents

• Perfect synchronization across jurisdictions

• The requirement for a systemic public ethics crisis across agencies bound by numerous ethics/values protocols
   

Explanation D: External technological coordination mechanism.  This fits all six threads:
 

• Explains impossible outcomes and institutional lockstep (neural influence over decision-makers, or alternatively, those who might object)

• Explains absence of whistleblowers (suppressed dissent.  See "Walking Faith" posts - "calming a room" / "changing others' thoughts")

• Explains psychological operations (surveillance feedback enabled by an IoB-fed feedback loop)

• Explains 2021 behavioral anomalies (direct neuromodulation)

• Explains health incidents (DEW-style anomalous health incidents)

• Explains risk tolerance (protecting critical program)

• Is available using documented capabilities (and perhaps undisclosed)

• Is recognized in United Nations HRC reports and resolutions as a critical concern

• Is recognized by neuroethicists and major publications (ie. TIME Magazine)

• Is falsifiable (can be tested empirically)
   

When one eliminates the impossible or highly implausible, what remains—however unsettling—is the hypothesis that must be squarely confronted.  Mr. Dempsey cannot compel a CSIS agent to admit this, for example, but he can provide layers upon layers of circumstantial evidence that satisfies the Villaroman framework in displacing less-likely alternatives.  Explanation (D) accounts for all issues, and it coheres.
 

Conclusion: The Bricks Require Mortar
 

The Sherman and Villaroman tests are satisfied, and a cognitive liberty crime is the best explanation that fits the overall framework.

The monograph (here), together with the white papers and materials in the Testimony and 4IR Portal, offers a researched gap analysis citing over 450 sources.  The hypothesis it advances is falsifiable through an ISO-17025 testing protocol, as outlined (here) in a reviewable white paper.
 

Key References
 

• Perini et al. (2020). Graphene Quantum Dots in Biomedicine. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21(10):3712

• Ko et al. (2014). GQD uptake in human neural stem cells. Nanoscale 6(17):10100-10109

• Herron et al. (2024). Neuromodulation and brain-computer interfaces. Nat. Rev. Bioeng. 2:475-490

• Wireless BCI systems (2024). Micromachines 15(11):1283

• Giesen (2018). Transhumanism as 4IR ideology. J. Int. Bioéthique 29(3):189-203

• Schwab (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum

• Sheridan et al. (2020). Gang-stalking phenomenon study

• 26,000-word technical paper with 450+ sources on BCI architecture and GQD systems (here)

• The GVP-2025 ISO lab testing protocol (here)