The Family & Influence Affidavit

This website references the activity of an online criminal organization that operates in manners germane to those described in Sheridan et al., 2020, and BAE Systems Detica and London Metropolitan University, 2012 (see Guide).  This criminal framework is substantially mated to the issues detailed on this website, and unfortunately, is mated to estranged relatives by way of a maternal relationship.

The redacted Affidavit below the visual preamble details a biological relationship between North Carolina resident Mary Eliza Partrick as a known egg donor to my estranged Nephew.  A lengthy collaboration between his known parents and the Halifax IWK Fertility Clinic prior to his conception is documented.  Ms. Partrick, for her part, is among the most prolific criminal actors in the scandal, among a host of online actors who cooperate together similar to an online business, and whose services are understood to be contracted to state actors (see Guide).  Ms. Partrick's Mother (my Nephew's biological grandmother) resides in London (UK).  His known parents and the aforementioned maintain longstanding connections to money and influence.  A prolonged evidentiary record dating back to 2011 makes cursory references to the events at present, and is suffused with esoteric (occult) references (again, see Guide page).  An evidentiary footprint likewise involves nuanced adjustments to the estate documents that make much more sense at the present time than they did in past years.  Under the CCC, collusion and estate theft are actionable crimes.

A time-stamped archive of the Family Affidavit below was shown to Halifax Regional Police in a face-to-face meeting in October 2024.  It was omitted entirely from their report.  HRP filed a false report concerning the organized criminal group Ms. Partrick belongs to in January 2023, as measured with a live audio recording of the same meeting, where reasonable grounds were initially acknowledged (here).  The RCMP refused to pursue investigative efforts, including after issuing an apology letter for refusing to respond to complaints made as early as December 2021 concerning the same criminal group, and the CRCC insulated them (here).  Vancouver police refused to respond to a matter concerning the conduct of BC Supreme Court Registry Staff (here).  Police agencies, and police regulators such as POLCOM and the CRCC, are protecting this criminal framework and the ecosystem of persons involved.  This further contributes to an irrefutable inference of post-democratic conditions in Canada (see Dr. Crouch's definition here).  A tiny caste of wealthy psychopaths can essentially orchestrate whatever they want in this country with impunity.

Police Standards Concerning Reasonable Grounds [here]

The SCC in R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 at paragraph 67, citing R. v. Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2, 229 N.S.R. (2nd) 222, at paragraph 89, held that scandals are predominantly ascertained by way of appearance, as deduced by reasonable and objective persons having insight into their context.  The test does not require that the observers require any legal training; only that the observers be objective, rational, and informed of the circumstances.  This alludes to an inherent sense of right and wrong shared by all persons, which is a primary formative component of English Common Law.
​
Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, paragraphs 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 license 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).  Para 98: The probability that this harm materialize need not be shown to be likely, but must still be more than negligible, fanciful or speculative."

Gordillo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 23 at paragraph 112;
“The “reason to believe” standard the provision sets out is similar to the standard found in other statutes.  For example, as the Federal Court observed in Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 338 at para. 8, it is similar to the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard found in paragraph 19(1)(j) of the former Immigration Act, RSC 1985, c I2.  The Supreme Court held in Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40 at para. 114, that that standard “requires something more than mere suspicion, but less than the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities” and that “[i]n essence, reasonable grounds will exist where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information.”

R. v. Loewen, 2010 ABCA 255 at paragraph 32;
“To establish objectively reasonable grounds, the Crown needed only to show that it was objectively reasonable to believe that an offence was being committed, not that it was probable or certain.”​​