Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) [Link]
Assorted Filings & Affidavits
Redacted and downloadable in PDF and/or live-link HTML, and permanently archived online.
Offshore Back-ups in the United States and Europe: https://archive.org | https://archive.ph (AKA archive.today)
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Named Person, 2024 SCC 21 at paragraph 1;
“When justice is rendered in secret, without leaving any trace, respect for the rule of law is jeopardized and public confidence in the administration of justice may be shaken. The open court principle allows a society to guard against such risks, which erode the very foundations of democracy. By ensuring the accountability of the judiciary, court openness supports an administration of justice that is impartial, fair and in accordance with the rule of law. It also helps the public gain a better understanding of the justice system and its participants, which can only enhance public confidence in their integrity. Court openness is therefore of paramount importance to our democracy — an importance that is also reflected in the constitutional protection afforded to it in Canada.”
Note: Links typed into https://archive.ph are case sensitive (lower-case only). Only one page can be typed into the search field at a time.
​​Remember to REFRESH the page if any images appear to be missing in the archive.
Evidentiary Milestones
A True Chronology.
The brief below contains a detailed event chronology from inception (September 2020) through to the date of its filing on March 21st, 2025. The stamps below indicate other dates when a chronology of event milestones was filed into the court of jurisdiction at the time, and supported by evidence. A transcript excerpt concerning a hearing held in June 2025 is shown below the brief, and should be read carefully. Any third-party information concerning the scandal detailed on this website, including from authorities, must reconcile with the accounts published on this site.
Detailed Chronology Brief [Inception to March 2025]
1.1 The Shareholder Scandal
1.2 Related PsyOps, Zersetzung, & Police Obstruction
1.3 Neurotech Crime
1.4 The Compelled BC Civil Lawsuit & Following
1.5 August 2024 Incarceration (Events)
1.6 August 2024 Incarceration (Health Records)
2.0 Case Law Review
3.0 Post-Democratic Institutions
4.0 A False Dilemma
![RGC March 21 2025 Brief NSSC 529459 [Filed]_66.png](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5b4df5_4df24d5a91114086b3c26e207b6fa3a4~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_978,h_1266,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/RGC%20March%2021%202025%20Brief%20NSSC%20529459%20%5BFiled%5D_66.png)
A June 2025 Transcript Excerpt
Read This Carefully.
The motion judge implied that she was excused from considering the issues in the scandal because she did not have the jurisdiction to correct them. Her comments present a false dilemma (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 at paragraph 104). A judge is never permitted to ignore relevant contextual evidence in a motion that is nonetheless expected to impact its decision (Colburne v. Frank, 1995 NSCA 110 at paragraph 9; Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9 at paragraph 48; Coast Foundation v. Currie, 2003 BCSC 1781 at paragraphs 13 and 15; inter alia). It was within her jurisdiction to order a stay civil contempt proceedings to prevent the enforcement of a felony and possible incarceration (R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraphs 76-78; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391 at paragraphs 91 & 110; Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79 at paragraphs 36-37; and United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587, 2001 SCC 19; inter alia). The entirety of what happened is hidden from public view. See the Civil page (here), and the Felony Page (here). Learn about the sealing orders (here).
