Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) [Link]

Reasonable Grounds Part II
Exploring obstruction of justice in letter correspondence from the RCMP and CRCC
March 1st, 2025
The RCMP's Fauxpology
As a companion to the February 7th, 2025 blog, this update exposes my more recent efforts to solicit RCMP support. In October 2024, the RCMP professional standards unit pointed me toward the CRCC (The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission). The CRCC correspondence is appended below an RCMP apology letter issued in its wake, by a decorated Superintendent. My response letters to both are exhibited on this page, which respond to a palpable obstruction of justice on the part of the police regulator, as well as the RCMP itself.
​
At the letters section on this page, the RCMP admitted to denying a reasonable response in late 2021 / early 2022 in Surrey, British Columbia. Their letter omits a significant portion of the criminal offences involved, and makes no offer to address the ongoing and evolving characteristics of the scandal. The RCMP has not responded to subsequent follow-up. As of the date of this blog post, I pursue an Appeal in the Federal Court of Canada in seeking an Order of Mandamus, and injunctive relief the SCC did not provide through its refusal to add the matter to its docket.
​
Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, 2007 SCC 41 at 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.”
What Would Unbiased Readers Conclude?
The Standard is Reasonableness (Hill at paragraph 3)
Before delving into the RCMP and CRCC letter correspondence, I asked machine-learning model ChatGTP to emulate an objective and unbiased reader who would be viewing this web page for the first time to get their first impression. To complete that exercise, I downloaded a PDF copy of the page and OCR'd it, prior to posting this new section with the output that was generated. An isolated chat instance was used for the document upload. What might an unbiased person new to the page conclude in reading the letter correspondence? Here is the output.




Which Perspective Might the Public Side With?



Would the Public Interest Favor Investigation, or Inaction?
Is This an Actionable Case?
I then asked ChatGPT to emulate an objective person and review the Zersetzung Guide page, in much the same manner. This exercise can be repeated with any of the other pages, but this is what the RCMP was initially asked to respond to in late 2021 before the snowball effect.


Concerning Investigative Scope.
Can an RCMP Investigation Reasonably be Pidgeonholed?
I asked ChatGPT if an objective reader would conclude that the substance of this website satisfies RCMP thresholds for Sensitive Investigations.




Is a Case of Human Experimentation Believable?



Is Inaction Willful Negligence?
It Sends a Signal Either Way.
When crime is ignored and goes unpunished, criminals are encouraged, and victims face despair. I asked ChatGPT to explain how RCMP inaction should be understood in this case.


What Stake Does the Public Have in an Investigation of the Issues Raised on this Website?

Twenty Million Online Citations. Sheridan et al., 2020






Letters & Responses
RCMP Letter of Apology




Response to RCMP Superintendent Bill Parmar's Letter



















The Civilian Review & Complaints Commission ("CRCC")
The CRCC Obstructs Recourse Through Error, Omission, & Misapprehension
The CRCC is a Federal police regulator, not unlike POLCOM as it pertains to Halifax Regional Police, as is detailed at the Guide page. In this instance it had acted as a gatekeeper. The text in the CRCC letter is aligned with the systemic manner of obstruction exhibited throughout this website as it pertains other adjudicative frameworks. My response letter, directed to the Surrey RCMP Professional Standards Unit as was requested, explores each paragraph and responds to the CRCC's numerous errors, omissions, and misapprehensions with facts and case law.
​
R. v Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89;
"..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 [...] A miscarriage of justice may be found where anything happens, 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."
CRCC Letter





That's what Stakeholder Interference Looks Like.
Response to the CRCC Letter












