Five Courts  |  Three Police Agencies  |  Three Provinces  |  Fifty Contractors  |  One Scandal

Which of the following might seem to apply?
1.)  The subject is the target of a clandestine government program.

2.)  The subject has a four-year and unresolved evidentiary record of ongoing and palpable obstruction of justice, scandal, and felony, as measured against applicable case law, and it requires an explanation.

3.)  The patterns shown in the visual evidence are entirely coincidental.  There just happens to be scores of online influencers, who, by chance, post the same thematic subject matter concurrently, and which often include death threats directed at persons (ie., "they are bent on destroying you").
4.)  It seems as though the subject may have been victimized, but the evidence is inadmissible, the courts denied him a fair hearing (or in some cases, any hearing), and the police refused to respond.  Therefore, the courts and police are right, and the subject should remain a victim.

5.)  Clandestine government programs only happen in the movies.  This is because art and reality are distinctly separate; because history books belong in the literature section; because humans are always good (and Canadians are the best); because governments have never harmed their Citizens; because the CBC documentary on the CIA's Canadian MKUltra program is fake news; because bio-digital convergence does not involve people; and because big corporations with an interest in bio-digital convergence aren't seeking to develop and monetize new solutions.

6.)  The CAGE CEO decided it was prudent to pay retainer fees 83x in excess of customary amounts because the proposing law firm is the best litigation shop in Canada, and, because judges ALWAYS sign absurd draft orders presented by their counsel, and ALWAYS ignore evidence that incriminates their clients.

7.)  The shareholder evidence (here) is irrefutable, but since three levels of court turned it aside after a discovery order was made, a sclerotic consistency among adjudicators can be expected to overturn facts and law any day of the week.

8.)  The subject, who has been a homebody all of his life, who doesn't like to travel, and with a steady history of practical decision-making in all seasons of life, decided to made four separate road trips across Canada and sell his home to pursue a legal matter that BC counsel was hired to manage remotely, because he was obsessed with the CAGE entity, and not because of any other mode of external influence.

9.)  None of the events detailed on this website are factual; the subject is a talented online content creator with a lot of time on his hands.

Approaching the Scandal With Logic
To begin considering the above, it should be noted that carte blanche statements such as "I'm persecuted and oppressed by my government", spoken at face value, even when true, often invite scorn and disbelief, despite the findings in Sheridan et al., 2020, which leveraged over twenty-million online citations of subject experiences.  While credible true accounts of state-sponsored crimes might expect to be parsed from a data-set that large (and they were, leading to Sheridan's conclusion), it is sufficient to work with the data before us on this website in determining a question of state interference and third-party interests.  The legal tests I would rely on as a guide to my thought process are also included below.  Simply put, a sufficient causal standard is satisfied by way of inference on a balance of probabilities, and, the reasoning must add-up.  
 

• I submit comments (1) and (2) are correct, and whereas, responding to the remainder of the comments with facts and logic will lead reasonable and unbiased persons to the same conclusion.  
   

• In response to comment (3), the visual depictions are not normal.  They clearly target specific persons if not myself, and the content is visceral.  Many of these actors were initially introduced through direct cyber intrusion, and subsequently delivered via tailored algorithm.  The Guide page contains an exceptionally layered approach to the same exhibits from various angles; probably every angle a rational person can think of.  The only conclusion that can reasonably be made is that the actors shown in the visual collage exhibits on this website are contractors that operate not dissimilar to an online business, in the manners described in BAE Systems Detica and London Metropolitan University, 2012.  Likewise, the timing and relevance shown in the exhibits, as well as scripting, precludes a reasonable assumption that the actors are disparate.
   

• In response to comment (4), the Constitution is the Supreme Law of Canada, and whereas "it protects individuals against arbitrary state action" (Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26 at paragraphs 54, 55, 56).  I spent a copious amount of effort in compiling the Authorities page (here), and also, specific caselaw concerning reasonable grounds (here), to impress upon readers that the scandal is not presented by means of idiosyncrasy.  Notwithstanding, much of the scandal is obvious at face value.  Even children (sometimes, especially children) can recognize bullshit.  When systemic injustice occurs in any venue, or multiple venues, the onus is on the government to make things right.  Courts "have a duty to act as guardians of Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law" (Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26 at paragraph 56), and, "when the state commits significant errors in the course of investigation and prosecution (or, fail to act at all), it must accept responsibility" (Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, 2007 SCC 41 at paragraph 37).  The remedy often includes a declaration of invalidity (Nova Scotia Teachers Union v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2023 NSCA 82 at paragraph 7), and when appropriate, an award of damages against the state for overstepping its competence (Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, Supra, at paragraph 41).
   

• In response to comment (5), it would be a terrible miscarriage of justice to be denied police services because the police chief is too lazy to pick up a history book.  The reality though is that they are acutely aware.  Denying Citizens safe avenue in the face of crime is a choice.  Cst. Pothier had a choice to write a report in accord with the audio transcript, and execute the roadmap he had articulated during the meeting.  Cst. MacMullin had a choice to execute the roadmap he articulated.  Instead, both omitted crucial facts and construed reports in such a way to suggest any actionable matters were outside HRP jurisdiction.  It might be that these two officers had submitted to the direction of internal stakeholders, as is most certainly evident in the first report.  The reasonable grounds page is entirely focused on police duties, whereas both HRP and the RCMP (and also, Vancouver Police), had intentionally obstructed justice in refusing to act in accord with the standards of case law, which in some cases involved the publication of false reports.  The RCMP fauxpologized for not obtaining CCTV video footage in Surrey in early 2022 as they were required to do, but refused to address the remainder of matters, even though they are aware of its ongoing nature (here).  These actions and omissions are reprehensible.
   

• In further consideration of comment (5), I would quote Dr. Colin Crouch, Michel Foucault, Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, and Klaus-Gerd Geisen as they appear throughout the website, most especially (here).  Readers must understand that it is no longer our grandfather's Canada, and this is primarily due to shifting belief models and the assumptions that shape what we value, which include opinions on the basis of law and how adjudicative powers should be applied.  Those contributing factors are disseminated through discretionary vetting mechanisms, which include adjudicative agencies, political parties, and other modes of authority most people still believe to be democratic.  As Foucault points out, "One should try to locate power at the extreme of its exercise, where it is always less legal in character".  The reality of this is reflected in the current setting through the dispositions of the court decisions, the positions adopted by regulators, and the actions of law enforcement, and/or lack thereof.  One systemic example is sufficient to draw conclusions, but there are many (here).  Canada is a post-democratic (post-Constitutional) state, as defined by Dr. Colin Crouch in Post Democracy (here).  Case law, as measured against facts, informs the litmus test.
   

• In response to comment (6), I would direct readers to the cost scandal and felony pages (here) and (here).  No reasonable litigant would agree to and/or pay a $400,000 retainer to service nine (9) thirty-minute hearings.  No respectable law firm would propose it.  No unbiased litigator would certify it.  Finally, no self-respecting cop would turn a blind eye.  But, all of the above happened.  The compelling question is "why" it happened, which likewise allows for the matter to be considered a scandal.  Something like this requires a stakeholder governance scandal (politics page), and/or a public health scandal involving bio-digital convergence and cognitive liberty crime, potentially facilitated through the nanotech that former PM Justin Trudeau forced every public servant to take (here) on pain of income loss, while alternative safe Covid-19 treatments were available.  I was diagnosed with Covid-19 on December 22nd, 2024, and it was no worse than the flu.  Many doctors suggest the Covid data was cooked.  Irrespective, there are no precedents for an event like this.  As a very minimum consideration, reasonable and unbiased persons would have a "WTF" moment in digesting the CAGE counsel's Affidavits (here), and would demand to learn how and why this could happen, and remain broken.  It must be noted that the CAGE could not be expected to orchestrate something like this independently.
   

• Comment (7) aligns with my response to comment (4).  Whereas the shareholder evidence is so visceral, it underscores the species of scandal involved regarding the courts.  Obviously, when judges see proof of fraud, they are not expected to cover it up using unconstitutional sealing orders, punish the victim, groundlessly declare the victim vexatious to prevent further legal action (like a SLAPP action), and sign outrageous cost certificates.  A sclerotic alignment among adjudicators reinforces a systemic problem, germane to my response to comment (5).
   

• In response to comment (8), acute behavioral outliers are indicative of cognitive liberty violations, as is likewise held in UN Resolution A/HRC/57/61.   In my case, I am sometimes loath to drive across town for an event I might enjoy, and my decision-making is always reserved and practical.  By means of the same, it would be absurd to suggest that I might find merit in selling my dream home, and driving across the country to BC to pursue a legal matter that my BC lawyer was already handling, absent some manner of external influence.  I later drove BACK to BC after the settlement was closed; without any rhyme or reason.  Something was done to me.  I explore this at the testimony page (here), and the Q/A page (here).  The BCI page (here) further expands on the matter of behavioral outliers.  HRP failed to consider subject analysis in this regard, and claims I am obsessed with the CAGE, without any reasonable grounds.  The subsequent civil matter in fact was not predicated on the CAGE; it was a response to related criminal matters that the RCMP did not address (May 20th, 2022 Affidavit at paragraph 64).  HRP would be hard-pressed to convince an unbiased judge that twenty years of consistent behavioral patterns in my career life and personal life would give way to self-destructive behavior, absent compelling external factors such as a cognitive liberty violation.  Likewise, there are now layers of data concerning cognitive liberty crimes and their ease of facilitation.
   

• In response to comment (9), the entirety of materials on this website are discoverable, albeit an application or motion must be made to overturn the sealing orders over the court files.
   

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 653 at paragraph 104;“The internal rationality of a decision may be called into question if the reasons exhibit clear logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations or an absurd premise.  This is not an invitation to hold administrative decision makers to the formalistic constraints and standards of academic logicians.  However, a reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up”.

​​​

​Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101 at paragraphs 74-76;

"Three possible standards for causation are raised for our consideration: (1) “sufficient causal connection”, adopted by the application judge (paras. 287-88); (2) a general “impact” approach, adopted by the Court of Appeal (paras. 108-9); and (3) “active and foreseeable” and “direct” causal connection, urged by the appellant Attorney General (A.G. of Canada factum, at paras. 64-68; A.G. of Ontario factum, at paras. 12-17).

[...]  I conclude that the “sufficient causal connection” standard should prevail.  This is a flexible standard, which allows the circumstances of each particular case to be taken into account.  Adopted in Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307, and applied in a number of subsequent cases (see, e.g., United States v. Burns, 2001 SCC 7, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3), it posits the need for “a sufficient causal connection between the state-caused [effect] and the prejudice suffered by the [claimant]” for s. 7 to be engaged (Blencoe, at para. 60 (emphasis added)).

[...]  A sufficient causal connection standard does not require that the impugned government action or law be the only or the dominant cause of the prejudice suffered by the claimant, and is satisfied by a reasonable inference, drawn on a balance of probabilities (Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44, at para. 21)."

Today's Post-Democratic Reality

The 2019 agreement that merged the United Nations and the World Economic Forum in a modality of multi-stakeholder governance is an analogue to Canada's contemporary political landscape, whereas private interests are suffused through mid-level bureaucracy and adjudicative institutions by way of discretionary vetting processes.  The alignment and cohesion among stakeholders required to affect a scandal such as the one detailed on this website is only possible in such an environment.  The Politics page cites numerous authors such as Michel Foucault, Dr. Colin Crouch, Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, and Klaus-Gerd Geisen, who have either forecasted this reality, or speak of its current bearing.  The quotes on the Politics page, as well as those at the 4IR Portal, are essential contextual reading that buttress the comments above.  It is not our grandfather's Canada.  

Although I would be loath to single out one author among the many cited, Klaus-Gerd Geisen's article (here) concerning the intermingling of public and private interests and the fourth industrial revolution is especially relevant.  He writes;

“If government agencies and international organizations — including the Council of Europe — are heavily involved in the infrastructure underpinning ideological dissemination, it is even less surprising to see that the Silicon Valley elite also ascribe to and promote transhumanist ideology. The same goes for the countless start-up entrepreneurs who gravitate toward these ideas. Carrying great weight in the societal debate are the unprecedented sums invested by, among others, the billionaires Elon Musk (one of Musk’s companies, Neuralink, aims to harness efforts toward the development of superintelligent cyborgs), Peter Diamandis, and Peter Thiel — not to mention the inescapable GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft), well aware that their commercial interests in the high-tech space are directly at stake. These tech giants have already poured staggering amounts of money into the Fourth Industrial Revolution and are currently spending equally eye-watering amounts on political lobbying and social engineering initiatives.”  [...]   There is every reason to fear that the world will launch into the fourth industrial revolution without too much debate over what is waiting in the wings: the global political project that is transhumanism.  Today, it is as if the metamorphosis, via the “NBIC Great Convergence,” to a posthuman being, technologically enhanced and fully integrated with the machine, were already written in stone.  [...]  This is not an equal struggle. The societal debate has barely begun, and the dice are loaded. Transhumanist ideology is driven by certain factions within the state and, above all, by mighty multinational corporations that, it is fair to say, have the most to gain from seeing the NBIC revolution unfold without a hitch. In this respect, transhumanism is already a dominant ideology, as it crushes all other ideological positions regarding technological change — particularly those of humanists of all stripes and subscribers to “deep ecology” — under the sheer weight of money.”

Various articles other, such as those by Terence Corcoran (here) linked at my Testimony page echo similar insights.  A scandal that requires a reality such as this pulls opinion and conjecture into the practical realm.  The important thing to remember is that prior to the events in the scandal unfolding, I was minding my own business, and living life as I always had.  In a multistakeholder environment, private interests advance with the help of public agencies, while public-sector distinctions, once authentic, are in fact cosmetic (Dr. Colin Crouch, Post-Democracy, 2024).  The litmus test resides in legacy case law, in matters that meaningfully conflict with project-centric and/or ideological aims.