Affidavits

Affidavit Reference Guide

This matter concerns a scandal involving networks of influence which are capable of adjusting the conduct of adjudicative institutions in Canada's public service from time to time, with relative ease.  In other words, it concerns a governance scandal.  Numerical references in the bullet points below concern Mr. Dempsey's redacted Motion for Reconsideration in the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"), as linked above in PDF format, unless otherwise noted.  The same document includes a full copy of the November 22nd, 2023 Affidavit as linked above in PDF and HTML.  The milestones are presented in loose chronological order.  Relevant information concerning medical records and exchanges dating from 2006 through 2013 as they relate to the 4IR components in the scandal were not captured in these Affidavit records.
 

• Unchecked workplace harassment at the CAGE Entity which eventually led to Mr. Dempsey’s resignation (pages 378-390);
   

• Notification on September 15th, 2020 of a pending M&A transaction involving the CAGE.  The CEO went silent following the signature of draft documents, and a separate share transfer and power of attorney document unlinked to any specific transaction or dollar amount.  He advised of cancellation on December 4th, 2020, blaming it on a then-partner company.  He advised the partner company agreement was in place for another two years, in alignment with the BC statute of limitations act (pages 98-116).  The termination date was later found to be false (page 115), and new data was located online which invited further investigation;
   

• An acute electronic attack, for lack of a better term, occurring on February 8th, 2021, which required ambulance service (health records, other court-filed Affidavits);
   

• Following months of silence by the CAGE CEO in the face of concerning online evidence, and his ongoing refusal to provide shareholder records under section 46 of the BC Business Corporations Act, I contacted the BC Registrar and explained the situation.  Following a customary two-week waiting period, the BC Registrar ordered the CAGE to disclose its shareholder records on May 3rd, 2021 (pages 211-213);
   

• The CAGE entity deletes its employee roster from its website following the compelled disclosure (page 144);
   

• Materials implicating the CAGE Respondents in shareholder fraud (pages 98-153, 192-247).  A detailed description with specific page links is likewise included in the Felony Affidavit, pages 23-31;
   

• Hiring of a law firm in New Westminster BC in July 2021 to open shareholder oppression matter in response to the CAGE, and to manage it on my behalf (page 126);
   

• The sale of my NS home, and an entirely unnecessary road trip across Canada in pursuit of the CAGE matter (irrespective of the BC law firm I had retained to manage the process on my behalf, remotely).  Both self-destructive acts being immensely antithetical to an established and life-long behavioral baseline.  These unexplainable actions are attributed to a cognitive liberty crime (UN Resolution A/HRC/57/61);
   

• Proof of perjury in the CAGE CEO’s September 22nd, 2021 Affidavit concerning the 2021 Settlement (pages 209, 223-226, 239-246);
   

• Collusion, bad faith, and negligence by Mr. Dempsey’s retained legal counsel in the 2021 shareholder dispute occasioning a notice of shareholder default through the filing of shareholder records at the Vancouver public registry without my knowledge, instruction, or consent, while I was still under a shareholder agreement (pages 219-221), redacting incriminating evidence concerning the CAGE beyond a judicial order, and terminating the contract thereafter;
   

• Returning to NS by car on October 14th, 2021, following the closure of the 2021 CAGE settlement with the help of a second law firm that had omitted its closure from its service records (page 127);
   

• Making a new trip from NS to BC again by car on November 7th, 2021, just two weeks after arriving in NS with the 2021 dispute closed.  I had no discernible reason to do this, no plan, and no life in BC to speak of.  Yet, I rented a condo in Surrey BC on craigslist, and drove from coast-to-coast again, whereas I felt a strong compulsion to return.  I attribute this to a cognitive liberty crime as there is no other explanation for it, and whereas, it is far removed from a lifetime of grounded and practical decision-making, regardless of circumstance.  Further details are furnished at the BCI page.
   

• Diffuse & Disrupt (“zersetzung”) activities beginning in mid-November 2021 in Surrey, BC conducted online and via physical crimes (pages 162-177; June 7th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 129-154; April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 68-77 & 82; May 20th, 2022 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, August 23rd, 2023 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, Exhibit A);
   

• Acute electronic “attack” delivered through an android smartphone while viewing content from the criminal harassment group, similar in sensation to a physical air-puff test at an optometry clinic.  Eye exam abnormalities cited at pages 83-86 of the April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey;
   

• Repeat and unsuccessful attempts to seek recourse to the RCMP D1 office at 10720 King George Blvd., Surrey, BC in late 2021 and early 2022 (pages 162-163);
   

• Consistent a priori preclusion of access to new fiduciary legal counsel, including ProBono support, to the extent that the Applicant has been forced to represent himself at all times since November 2021 (August 23rd, 2023 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 116-121; April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 82);
   

• The premature filing of S-220956 on February 8th, 2022 as an unemployed and unrepresented victim of ongoing and life-threatening criminal mischief, as a means to generate a record in the absence of help from police.  This included an Affidavit sworn on January 24th, 2022 implicating the CAGE CEO (pages 162-163; May 20th, 2022 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, paragraph 64; August 23rd, 2023 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 37).  My May 20th, 2022 Affidavit states I had no intention to open a legal matter under those conditions (paragraph 64);
   

• February 11th, 2022 Order of justice Burke to include the 2021 shareholder dispute Affidavit into the S-220956 Petition Record, concerning workplace harassment at the CAGE entity (page 377);
   

• Acknowledgement by the BCSC of the merit and substance in S-220956, and the April 1st, 2022 Order of Master Cameron to serve the case files including Mr. Dempsey’s Affidavits on Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), and an order to seek direction on how to serve the same materials on three private entities implicated in the 2021 dispute, with the intention of obtaining privileged audit data, and the testimony of CRA Officials (pages 154-155; April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 45);
   

• May 24th, 2022 hearing in private chambers in violation of BCSC Rule 22-1(5), during which the Respondents advised of an intent to strike S-220956 without explanation, and in the wake of the aforementioned outstanding discovery order.  Concurrently, the as-yet undisclosed May 20th, 2022 Affidavit was enroute to British Columbia via courier, which first chronicled external criminal mischief related to the CAGE Respondents beginning in November 2021 (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey in pages 60-61; August 23rd, 2023 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 39-41);
   

• On June 14th, 2022, and similar to the above, the Respondents filed an application for a protection order, specifically citing the September 20th, 2020 CAGE M&A share purchase memorandum, and claiming that public disclosure of the same document was at risk, irrespective of the sealing order over the entire file.  One day earlier, and as yet undisclosed, Mr. Dempsey exhibited the same memorandum in an Affidavit he had sworn as Deponent.  The memorandum had not been mentioned since October 2020, and it was the first time the document had appeared in any materials intended for filing.  The same is a further indicator of ongoing surveillance (page 9, at paragraph 23);
   

• On June 27th, 2022 at the protection order hearing, lead CAGE counsel admitted her concern regarding a breach of the sealing order was speculative in nature (pages 251-252), but nonetheless asked that the application be granted.  Justice Sheila Tucker, in palpable obstruction, placed a protection order over an already-sealed file, which required Mr. Dempsey to seek leave (permission) to carry out the mandate of the April 1st, 2022 order.  Furthermore, she suggested that the protection order was necessary for the sealing order to function, regardless of the agreement the Parties had arrived at in writing concerning the April 1st, 2022 order (page 250).  Finally, justice Tucker had validated the concept of preemptive justice as an actionable tenet at paragraph 32 of her written decision, which is doubly problematic in view of the evidentiary context.  Justice Majawa in written reasons concerning S-220956, had wrongfully stated that Mr. Dempsey had violated the sealing order prior to the Tucker hearing (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 45);
   

• Counsel for the CRA expressed unfounded bias and disproportionate resistance in addressing the order pronounced April 1st, 2022 concerning the introduction of testimony by CRA officials, which is baffling in that CRA is expected to be a neutral entity responsible for the enforcement of the Income Tax Act in any court of competent jurisdiction under section 222 (pages 254-258, Slattery (Trustee of) v. Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430).  Counsel was likewise informed of an actionable tax violation in the CAGE CEO’s September 22nd, 2021 Settlement Affidavit, visible through an act of perjury concerning a then technology partner company in the same Affidavit (pages 209, 224-226);
   

• BCSC Registry staff, the same being Provincial public service employees, authorized the scheduling of the CRA hearing on August 12th, 2022 in a short-chambers capacity alongside four other Applications filed by the Respondents.  This was done contrary to Mr. Dempsey’s scheduling requisition filed under BCSC Rule 8-1(21.1) reflecting a hearing date in September 2022, to likewise address the outstanding components in the April 1st, 2022 order.  This manner of overreach was repeated in S-220956, and again in S-229680 (page 266, 271-275);
   

• On August 12th, 2022, justice MacNaughton, identifying as a referral judge with no knowledge of the file, signed a pre-drafted order provided by Respondents’ counsel that authorized Petition S-220956 to be heard as a summary matter with a proximate hearing date, irrespective of the outstanding discovery order pronounced April 1st, 2022.  Germane to res judicata, Justice MacNaughton advised Mr. Dempsey could argue the merits of discovery at the petition hearing, which was already argued and adjudicated on April 1st, 2022.  The draft order likewise did not reflect the substance of the hearing.  Again, applicable legal tests concerning abuse of process were ignored (pages 253-254, 260-262; April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 47-48);
   

• On August 22nd, 2022, in a Leave to Appeal application concerning the unfounded Tucker protection order, BC Court of Appeal justice Wilcock awarded security of costs to the Respondents as a condition of the Appeal advancing.  In doing so, the court disregarded the applicable legal tests requiring the existence of “exceptional circumstances” as a prerequisite (Williams Lake Conservation Co. v. Kimberly-Lloyd Developments Ltd., 2005 NSCA 44 at paragraphs 11, 15).  Similarly, justice Wilcock replicated the Tucker protection order in the BCCA file, likewise ignoring relevant legal tests.  Furthermore, a Notice of Appeal had not yet been filed (page 316).  The same provisions concerning protection orders and security of costs were replicated in all BC Court of Appeal matters going forward, again irrespective of the appropriate legal tests;
   

• On September 13th, 2022, BC Court of Appeal justice DeWitt Van Oosten dismissed Mr. Dempsey’s application for a stay of execution concerning the August 12th, 2022 MacNaughton order concerning a proximate Petition hearing date in S-220956 prior to the April 1st, 2022 discovery order unfolding.  The applicable legal tests were again ignored.  The judge immediately closed chambers when Mr. Dempsey cited section 241(3.1) of the Income Tax Act charitable donation records as they relate to criminal actors, while pointing to evidence suggesting they are relevant (pages 263-265, April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 48-49) .  The applicable legal tests were again ignored, in the face of palpable evidence incriminating the Respondents and related external actors;
   

• On September 27th, 2022, justice David Crossin authorized a Petition hearing in Mr. Dempsey’s absence, having been served with Affidavit records and relevant legal tests concerning abuse of process, palpable proof of perjury in the settlement affidavit, evidence of collusion and fraud in the settlement, and an outstanding order for discovery.  Justice Crossin ignored relevant legal tests concerning fair process, fair play, existing mandates in the file, and the object of justice as cited in BCSC Rule 22-1(2) concerning the same topic (pages 267-268);
   

• On October 4th, 2022, justice Andrew Majawa, having received detailed written submissions concerning how S-220956 was opened, evidence of shareholder fraud and collusion concerning the CAGE Respondents, proof of perjury, evidence of criminal interference and denial of recourse, and an existing unactioned order in the file to adduce privileged audit data obstructed through the abuse of process, dismissed the Petition.  The nature of the dismissal was likewise fraught with palpable dishonesty and bias (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 46), and had violated a wide berth of applicable legal tests as a result;
   

• On November 3rd, 2022, the BC Court of Appeal heard a contempt Application filed in response to Mr. Dempsey’s disclosure of a summary Affidavit to specific government agencies and media outlets.  Mr. Dempsey had redacted biographical and commercial details in the Affidavit, whereas its contents coincided with applicable legal tests concerning the open court principle; Mr. Dempsey’s right under the Constitution.  The court found Mr. Dempsey in civil contempt, irrespective of the circumstances that had occasioned its disclosure, and irrespective of the copious legal tests Mr. Dempsey had relied on in his defense (June 7th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 198-204).  Much of the oral submissions concerned ongoing criminal mischief related to the Respondents, the implication of state-sponsored actors, the unwillingness of the police to respond to these crimes, and the unwillingness of the court to acknowledge these aspects (the same having occasioned the filing of S-220956 initially).  The applicable legal tests are detailed later in this document, and include the findings in R. v. Ruzic, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687, 2001 SCC 24, R. v. Hibbert, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973, Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79 among others;
   

• On November 7th, 2022, justice David Crossin placed a temporary but complete sealing and protection order over S-228567.  This file was Mr. Dempsey’s charter relief matter which was brought under an incorrect style of cause.  It was promptly discontinued and replaced by Claim S-229680.  The Affidavit in S-228567 contained no body of statements, and contained no biographical or commercial information.  It had solely consisted of public social media content concerning criminal mischief related to the Respondents beginning November 2021, and likewise related to and impacting the proceedings.  Among a plethora of other palpable errors, justice Andrew Majawa later cited the same order and replicated its effects in making the temporary Crossin seal in S-228567 permanent.  The same relevant legal tests concerning the Constitutional right to freedom of expression were ignored, as were the standards of review (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 55);
   

• On December 8th, 2022, and after months of attempted solicitation, Mr. Dempsey met with Halifax Regional Police (“HRP”) at his place of residence in NS along with his Mother.  During this 79-minute meeting, an HRP Constable acknowledged evidence implicating the CAGE Respondents in fraud, collusion, perjury, and criminal mischief, as facilitated through a wide range of online actors evidenced to be joined to a CAF PsyOp program.  The implication of state interference was likewise acknowledged as a result of a scope disproportionate to the capability and interest of one entity, the absence of help from law enforcement and regulators, and the outcome of S-220956.  The CAGE CEO was named a criminal offender at this meeting, and an investigative roadmap was articulated.  However, HRP was silent after the meeting, and filed a report which mischaracterized the meeting and advised no evidence was present.  Mr. Dempsey had recorded this meeting pursuant to CCC 183.1, had the audio transcribed by a professional firm, and exhibited the unedited audio transcript in an Affidavit (pages 155-156, April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 62-77).  POLCOM, the NS police regulator, acknowledged this evidence but turned a blind eye (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit, Supra, pages 78-80).  This event implicates both HRP and POLCOM in obstruction of justice (CCC 137), and underscores the governance scandal evident in this file concerning networks of influence capable of shaping the conduct of the adjudicative agency framework in Canada;
   

• On December 13th, 2022, the pleadings of S-229680, successor to S-228567, were sealed by justice Matthew Kirchner in an extrajudicial capacity, prior to the CAGE Respondents accepting service of the pleadings.  This extraordinary event was confirmed by BC Court Services Online (“CSO”) one day later (page 394).  The acceptance email by CAGE counsel arrived in Mr. Dempsey’s inbox while he was logged into CSO, where he had made the discovery;
   

• On January 26th, 2023, the BCCA certified $41,217.53 in retainer fees for a short-chambers hearing.  Respondents’ counsel advised retainer fees in this amount were reasonable and necessary to conduct the proceedings.  Three lawyers were assigned to overlapping tasks in the file at inflated time blocks, resulting in a cost request eighty-three (83) times higher than the amount certified in a matter of similar scope and complexity in an out-of-province court, which was costed at $500.  This is the first account of weaponized cost certifications in the overarching scandal.  The BCCA likewise ignored the substance in the file, and the disposition of the hearing (pages 317-346);
   

• On January 27th, 2023, BC Supreme Court Scheduling acknowledged Mr. Dempsey’s filed request for a Case Management Judge and Case Conference in S-229680 pursuant to BCSC Practice Direction 5, and the Class Proceedings Act [RSBC 1996] chapter 50, by which the Charter Claim was brought, having replaced Petition S-228567 in the proper style of proceeding (page 275);
   

• On January 30th, 2023, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada advised that S-229680 would instead be heard by BCSC chambers judge Andrew Majawa, the same who had dismissed S-220956 in a miscarriage of justice (page 273).  The same assertion is a direct violation of nine (9) procedural rules involving legislation in the BCSC Civil Rules, the BC Class Proceedings Act, and BCSC Practice Direction 5, which was authored by its Chief Justice;
   

• The BC Supreme Court remained silent after the January 30th, 2023 email by AG counsel.  Mr. Dempsey filed five (5) letters under BCSC Practice Direction 27 over a ten (10) week time period requesting corrective action, all of which were ignored.  Phone solicitation was likewise declined.  BC Provincial public service employees had refused to enforce nine (9) rules of procedure that had governed the Style of Proceedings, all of which were fundamental in characteristic.  On February 1st, 2023, both Respondent parties filed Applications to have S-229680 dismissed by chambers judge Andrew Majawa on Valentine’s Day.  These Applications likewise failed to reflect the appropriate style of proceeding (BCSC Rules 22-3(5), 22-3(6)(a)), notwithstanding the legislative requirements which were transgressed (pages 273-298).  This further examples palpable obstruction of justice by the state (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 1101 at paragraph 76);
   

• On February 8th, 2023, counsel for Halifax Regional Police (“HRP”) refused to acknowledge personal service of Mr. Dempsey’s Application to join HRP to Charter matter S-229680 concerning denial of service and obstruction of justice, in accord with Rules 4-5(1) and 4-3(2)(b)(iii) of the BCSC Rules and section 10 of the BC Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.  The BCSC remained silent, despite an Affidavit of Service being filed in accordance with the rules;
   

• On February 23rd, 2023, BCSC chambers judge Andrew Majawa dismissed S-229680 in violation of nine (9) rules of procedure (see list on page 297).  The common issues were not considered nor tried, a case management judge was not assigned, and the case planning conference BCSC scheduling initially acknowledged was not scheduled.  Justice Majawa’s written reasons are suffused with false accusations, omitted evidence, and discarded legal tests.  The order included a blanket sealing order over the entirety of its contents, both public and otherwise, and a vexatious declaration against Mr. Dempsey which incorrectly asserted Mr. Dempsey had filed duplicate proceedings.  S-229680 is a Charter matter intended to address the totality of state interference beginning November 2021, which had likewise impacted the proceedings in S-220956 (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 45, 46, 50; June 7th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 192-198);
   

• The unfounded vexatious order likewise prevented Mr. Dempsey from filing additional documents in the BCSC without leave, and likewise, prevented any actions filed in the BC provincial court “pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings” (pages 91-94).  Relevant legal tests in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470, Jonsson v Lymer, 2020 ABCA 167, and Girao v. Cunningham, 2020 ONCA 260 were likewise discarded, among a plethora of Constitutional tests concerning abuse of process under section 7 of the Charter.  Finally, justice Majawa’s own precedent in A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 914, likewise relevant to the subject matter, was ignored in a palpable double standard (J.R. v. Lippé, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114);
   

• On March 6th, 2023, the Respondents’ advised of a threat to strike Mr. Dempsey’s appeal of S-220956, which was intended to be considered alongside S-229680 before a Case Management Judge in the Charter matter by means of its related subject matter.  Mr. Dempsey had subsequently advised the BCCA Registrar of the same necessity by letter, and filed a notice of abandonment, as it had become clear that a pattern of obstruction was present in the file (page 290-294; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391 at paragraphs 91 and 110; Coast Foundation v. Currie, 2003 BCSC 1781 at paragraphs 13 and 15);
   

• On March 23rd, 2023, Mr. Dempsey launched this website as a means of seeking intervention and whistleblowers concerning what had by that time become a significant scandal concerning third-party influence and interference in the justice system, and the unlawful use of legitimate authorities and public resources to oppress Citizens and commit crimes.  The site exists as a result of Mr. Dempsey having been consistently denied safe avenue through customary channels.  The site grants the public an opportunity to learn of issues and crimes that would readily concern them and their loved ones.  This website makes no mention of the identity of the CAGE Respondents;
   

• On April 11th, 2023, BCSC Chief Justice Hinkson expressed that the court would not address Mr. Dempsey’s letters filed under BCSC Practice Direction 27 concerning the violation of nine (9) procedural rules in S-229680, and by extension, Mr. Dempsey’s application to join HRP and the RCMP to the now-dismissed Charter matter (page 296).  It should be likewise noted that BCSC Practice Direction 5 was authored by the same Chief Justice (pages 269-270);
   

• On April 11th, 2023, once it became apparent that Mr. Dempsey would continue seeking relief through the Charter concerning the common issues in S-229680, the CAGE Respondents filed an application to find Mr. Dempsey in civil contempt for a second time.  The object of the Application focused on a letter Mr. Dempsey had sent to PM Justin Trudeau almost three months prior on January 27th, 2023, regarding the events over the course of 2021 and 2022, and concerning the use of legitimate authorities to facilitate felonies, as had happened one day prior at the Outerbridge hearing.  PM Trudeau was in fact a client party in the Style of Proceeding, thereby mitigating any manner of breach.  The BCSC pronounced a contempt order and approved exacerbated retainer fees along with a $10,000 fine, which amounted to just shy of $25,000 for sending a letter to a Party in the file to raise awareness and request help.  Likewise, the written decision denied the existence of filed Affidavit evidence concerning police negligence and the false report filed by HRP (pages 155-156);
   

• In writing the letter, Mr. Dempsey was mindful of PM Trudeau’s December 2022 interview on CTV, including the following text from its transcript; (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-on-tough-economic-headwinds-unapologetic-for-tinfoil-hat-rhetoric-1.6204307)
  
  Sachedina: “You can do that without breaching ethics.”
  
  Trudeau: "When you do lots of things, every now and then people are going to make mistakes. And that is why it's a good thing that we have a system that catches those mistakes, that calls them out that, you know, shares them with Canadians, that that we explain and Canadians get to decide whether it was an honest mistake or whether someone was trying to fill their pockets.  I mean, we have a system that has the kind of accountability, transparency, that works and that is clear to reassure Canadians that if someone is taking advantage of the system — either deliberately or by accident — they'll get caught and called out on it. And that's an example of the institutions working.  Now, from my perspective, it sucks. Because you don't want people to be making mistakes. You want people to be able to focus on delivering good things for Canadians."
   

• Not long thereafter, on an Application to extend time to Appeal S-229680 and related matters, whereas a four-day delay past deadline was occasioned through Mr. Dempsey’s recourse to the BCSC concerning its rule violations in the same file, a BCCA judge used the two unfounded contempt rulings to impose an unjust reverse onus on granting the time extension to appeal.  A trial of the common issues in S-229680 will address the factors that had necessitated Mr. Dempsey’s efforts to seek aid through extraordinary means (Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79 at paragraphs 37, 62; R. v. Hibbert, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973 at paragraph 59; R. v. Ruzic, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687, 2001 SCC 24 at paragraph 35).  In a 15-minute dissertation, read from a prepared document immediately following Mr. Dempsey’s oral submissions, the judge advised a trial of the issues in S-229680 “may cause social unrest”.  This extraordinary remark was not provided to Mr. Dempsey thereafter via transcript, in violation of section 1.11.1 of the BC Courtroom Access Policy.  The remark indicates that the court was of the opinion that Mr. Dempsey should accept the impacts of the state crimes involved in the scandal as a scapegoat.  The same is in direct violation of Mr. Dempsey’s rights under the Constitution, which trumps any political and/or national security concern (June 12th, 2023 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 33-46, August 23rd, 2023 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 135; Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9  [2007] 1 SCR 350 at paragraphs 22, 23, and 27).  Refusal to address the common issues likewise enables criminal actors to escape prosecution, and prevents disclosure of a scandal concerning the public service which would invariably impact other victims;
   

• On June 6th, 2023, Mr. Dempsey opened a file in the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”).  Application for leave to appeal were filed alongside separate motions for Certiorari, a stay of all lower court costs, and a motion to expedite the stay.  Mr. Dempsey subsequently filed a motion to expedite the stay of costs on June 9th, 2023.  The motions remained derelict in violation of SCC Rules 51(1) and 54(4) by means of choices made by federal public service employees (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 29-42).  The same negligence had enabled the CAGE Respondents’ efforts to pursue collections efforts in earnest;
   

• On June 11th, 2023, the BCCA Registrar settled the second contempt order, again irrespective of the factual basis and applicable legal tests.  Furthermore, the Registrar arbitrarily doubled the costs sought by the CAGE Respondents for the hearing that day (pages 314-316);
   

• On June 28th, 2023, counsel for the CAGE Respondents issued cost estimates in an amount of $376,201.97 for the nine (9) short-chambers appearances the Respondents made in S-220956 and S-229680.  Seven hundred and thirty seven point seven (737.7) billable hours were cited.  Customary tariffs would tabulate the same proceedings at $4,500 ($500 maximum tariff * 9 hearings under one hour).  The one hearing in S-229680 was tabulated at $80,620.86.  S-228567, likewise concerning the same review cycle and single hearing on November 8th, 2022, was tabulated at $1,601.60 by way of customary tariffs.  These estimates considered seven (7) lawyers and two paralegals assigned to overlapping tasks in the file at egregious time blocks.  Irrespective of the disposition of these files, the retainer fee estimates demonstrate felony.  Mr. Dempsey’s Affidavits likewise reflects the activity of actors in the criminal harassment group that same day which described the milestone and its characteristics (pages 89-90);
   

• On July 26th, 2023, a out-of-province court dismissed Mr. Dempsey’s motion to stay costs previously certified in BC.  The judge acknowledged Mr. Dempsey’s right to a stay under section 8 of the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, and the balance of convenience with respect to the wide gap in wealth between the Parties.  However, paragraph (1) of his written reasons mischaracterized the contextual background, despite the judge being privy to submissions by both parties.  The judge stated that Mr. Dempsey was sued by the CAGE CEO in BC.  By means of this palpable misapprehension, the judge dismissed the motion on the basis that it would be unlikely that matters related to the Parties would be heard at the SCC.  The broad spectrum of issues of public importance and applicable legal tests, including the SCC docket entry test, were ignored along with the facts  (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, page 54);
   

• Shortly thereafter, an out-of-province court awarded a security of costs to continue an Appeal of the previous order, which Mr. Dempsey paid.  The award was predicated on an initial precedent set by the BCCA in 2022, which had likewise ignored the legal test in Williams Lake Conservation Co. v. Kimberly-Lloyd Developments Ltd., Supra, concerning the requirement of exceptional circumstances to be present.  The judge wrongly held that Mr. Dempsey was “acting in an insolvent manner” toward the Respondents, irrespective of Mr. Dempsey’s SCC motions to stay costs and expedite, which were omitted at paragraph (6) of her written decision, irrespective of the disposition of the BC hearings, and irrespective of the felonious retainer fees awarded thus far in BC, which were eighty-three (83) times higher than the comparable motion being appealed.  This written decision, similar to others involving the Parties, likewise casts a defamatory pall over Mr. Dempsey’s reputation;
   

• On September 25th, 2023, Mr. Dempsey attended a local optometry clinic for a routine eye exam.  Repeat testing found abnormalities in the retina which were not present in Mr. Dempsey’s previous eye tests.  Mr. Dempsey described the January 2022 event to the optometrist concerning an acute electronic attack which felt like an air-puff test while viewing content delivered by criminal actors involved in harassment.  The optometrist advised that the anomalies may or may not be a result of the same event, and that they were likewise unusual.  Mr. Dempsey was thereafter referred to a specialist (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 83-86);
   

• On October 10th, 2023, an out-of-province judge heard Mr. Dempsey’s confidentiality motion concerning a comprehensive Affidavit filed on August 23rd, 2023, which properly detailed the contextual background of the past two years, including an exhibit containing Mr. Dempsey’s May 20th, 2022 Affidavit.  Mr. Dempsey proposed modest redactions to the same Affidavit which coincided with customary legal tests.  These redactions were accepted on consent by the CAGE Respondents’ out-of-province counsel.  Contrary to the precedent the same judge had set in another matter, stating that settled Constitutional law cannot be re-litigated, the judge deferred the consensual motion to a panel of judges.  Mr. Dempsey’s August 23rd, 2023 Affidavit was later sealed in its entirety, irrespective of the applicable open court tests, on December 4th, 2023.  The same sealing order had thus replicated the unconstitutional sealing orders in BC;
   

• On October 17th, 2023, Mr. Dempsey was served three Affidavits sworn by the CAGE CEO’s lead counsel in British Columbia.  These Affidavits reflect the cost and time estimates Mr. Dempsey was served on June 28th, 2023, and state at paragraph 6 in each that the costs were incurred by the CAGE CEO, and were necessary to conduct the proceeding (June 7th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 36-46).  Namely, 737.7 billable hours or $376,201.97 to conduct nine (9) short-chambers hearings.  By means of the cost amounts and designation, these Affidavits confirm an intention to commit felony through the assistance of legitimate authorities.  The Affidavits likewise signal alarm concerning the applicable legal test in Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.), paragraph 44; that "Special costs are fees a reasonable client would pay a reasonably competent solicitor to do the work described in the bill.".  No reasonable client would agree to pay almost $400k to conduct nine short-chambers hearings with the customary tariff at $4,500, and no reputable law firm would deign to charge that amount.  By means of the same legal test, both the CAGE CEO and law firm Osler, Hoskin, and Harcourt LLP are implicated in felony.
   

• On November 16th, 2023, BCSC Master Scarth signed counsel’s hole-punched draft order and awarded 100% of the costs cited in CAGE counsel’s October 17th, 2023 Affidavits, thus transgressing the reasonableness test in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 653 at paragraph 104 among a plethora of other applicable tests concerning special costs, such as the aforementioned test in Bradshaw.  Likewise, the evidentiary substance of the justice scandal, which was by that time exceptionally well-documented, was entirely ignored.  Finally, Master Scarth had highlighted the issue of overlapping counsel as per the transcript (June 7th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 47-50).  In signing counsel’s draft orders, Master Scarth had enabled a legitimate authority to facilitate a grand-theft felony;
   

• On November 23rd, 2023, Mr. Dempsey filed a comprehensive 300-page Affidavit through the SCC electronic filing portal, and likewise delivered an original hardcopy of the same via courier.  This Affidavit, as housed in the motion for reconsideration, provided original copies of the shareholder evidence implicating the CAGE Respondents, transcripts of the proceedings in S-220956, and a library of relevant case law concerning what should have ultimately occurred were the proceedings legitimately conducted.  The SCC refused to accept the Affidavit for service, claiming that the deadline for filing had expired on November 20th, 2023 as a result of the case files being submitted to the court; several months after they were required to be submitted under SCC Rules 51(1) and 54(4).  A discretionary request was later rejected by the Registrar on December 11th, 2023 (pages 63-81);
   

• On December 4th, 2023, a panel of out-of-province judges dismissed Mr. Dempsey’s appeal of the first execution order, which only required a presentation of the correct contextual background to be successful.  Per the chambers transcript, the panel advised that it “did not matter” if the lower court judge mischaracterized the background through a “slip of the tongue”, thereby dismissing the substance of the Appeal without due consideration for the standard of correctness, and applicable legal tests authored by the very same judges (pages 32-38; Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Lawen Estate, 2021 NSCA 39 at paragraph 13, among others).  However, the error in the lower court decision was written, and was delivered nine days past the hearing.  The same precedent suggests written decisions from the same court and its Appellate court are not documents that the public can rely upon.  The panel likewise ignored the gravity of the overarching scandal;
   

• On December 21st, 2023, a SCC judge dismissed Mr. Dempsey’s Leave to Appeal Applications and all other motions filed by Mr. Dempsey in the same action number, irrespective of the SCC docket entrance test being easily surpassed, and irrespective of the criminal elements suffused in the file.  No written reasons were provided (pages 84-85);
   

• In early January 2024, Mr. Dempsey filed a motion for reconsideration in the wake of the SCC dismissal including all motions filed in 2023, alongside an affidavit of service in accordance with the rules.  The SCC registry acknowledged receipt of this motion on four separate occasions between January 2024 and June 2024, before it was denied entry on July 5th, 2024.  At all times prior to July 5th, 2024, the file had remained derelict as a result of decisions made by Federal employees, as was the case throughout 2023;
   

• On March 21st, 2024, an out-of-province court dismissed Mr. Dempsey’s motion to stay costs concerning a $300,000 portion of the retainer fee scandal certified on November 16th, 2023 in the BCSC.  The characteristics and disposition of this hearing is closely detailed in the April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey at pages 10-14, and 22-25.  The judge declined to allow Mr. Dempsey to discuss the evidentiary context of the retainer fee scandal in BC, and details concerning the characteristics of the scandal generally speaking.  Furthermore, the judge overcharged the chambers tariff amount by $1,000, and paved the way for Mr. Dempsey’s life savings to be confiscated through a palpable felony, authorized in the wake of a scandal concerning the conduct of public service agencies;
   

• On April 17th, 2024, out-of-province counsel for the CAGE Respondents filed an Application to find Mr. Dempsey in civil contempt for failing to respond to discovery subpoena in aid of the $300,000 execution order.  This was likewise filed after Mr. Dempsey filed an Appeal of the Smith order.  Mr. Dempsey cited copious case law relevant to the situation, and germane to his rights under the Constitution (June 7th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, Exhibit B), whereas compliance with such a mandate is tantamount to compliance with the felony it supports; 
   

• On May 2nd, 2024, an out-of-province appellate judge awarded a security of costs motion to the CAGE Respondents in an amount three times higher than the amount ordered in 2023 concerning a file of the same scope and character.  The two files are identical, and whereas, counsel was familiar with the material, thus requiring less work.  Mr. Dempsey had attempted to file a letter to the court concerning a palpable abuse of process, and obstructionist behavior in erecting barriers to the relief Mr. Dempsey sought at the SCC in the face of a capital crime with life-threatening impacts.  The Registry would not accept this letter for filing.  All the while, Federal employees at the SCC refused to allow Mr. Dempsey’s action to unfold, and refused to submit his motions to stay costs and expedite, concerning the retainer fee scandal (April 10th, 2024 Affidavit of Nathan Dempsey, pages 29-42).  The SCC file was subsequently closed months later without being heard by a judge;
   

• On June 11th, 2024, a US-based investigative firm confirmed the identity of US Citizen Mary Eliza Partrick, a prominent actor involved in criminal mischief relating to the Respondents, having been active prior to the BC proceedings.  Ms. Partrick is reasonably believed to be the biological mother of Mr. Dempsey’s estranged Nephew, who is likewise cited in Mr. Dempsey’s May 20th, 2022 Affidavit, among other Affidavits filed in BC and out-of-province courts concerning issues germane to the overarching scandal (Family Affidavit, Exhibit A).
   

• An out-of-province judge, on the the CAGE Respondents’ motion to place a confidentiality order over the enforcement proceedings, valued the consistent concurrence of his BC counterparts in maintaining a blanket sealing order over the entirety of materials, including public materials, despite being shown proof of an unjust concurrence concerning censorship.
   

• In August 2024, I was arrested by two Sheriffs and was taken to a Correctional Facility in handcuffs.  I have no criminal record.  I was told the arrest had to do with “social media content the CAGE wanted removed”, and that the sentence “would be shortened if the content were removed”.  I have no social media accounts, and as a result, no social media posts.  I can only assume it referred to this website, which describes the scandal above in a way that redacts the identity of the CAGE.  I later found out the arrest had instead pertained to my failure to respond to a discovery subpoena, filed in support of collection efforts concerning the retainer fee felony (here).  I was assaulted and beaten in my jail cell within the first forty (40) minutes of being incarcerated, and then deprived of meals by inmates, which forced me to drink tap water from the sink.  I was relocated to a different detention block on the third day.  I was denied access to legal counsel for the entirety of my 30-day detention by the provincial Duty Counsel agency; a right under section 10(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982.  See the Jailed page.
   

• Daily meals at the correctional facility were of good quality and well-balanced, though they had elicited a severe autoimmune response within the first ten days of being moved into a detention block where I could actually eat.   I have a host of GI-related autoimmune diseases related to Celiac disease, including but not limited to primary sclerosing cholangitis and chrons-colitis.  Trace amounts of gluten (> ten parts per million / day) will cause damage to my liver, bile ducts, and GI-tract.  In my case, the internal effects of gluten is visibly apparent on the skin surface via Dermatitis Herpetiformis.  The gluten-free diet regimen I requested had contaminants, likely a result of shared cook surfaces and airborne particles, whereas I began manifesting DH roughly two weeks into my August 2024 incarceration.  A subsequent incarceration term, which the CAGE now seeks, is expected to impact my physical health in a life-threatening manner.  See redacted medical records at Jailed.
   

• The CRCC refuses to process a complaint involving RCMP negligence.  The RCMP subsequently apologizes for refusing to provide assistance, but offers no corrective remedies, and refuses to launch an investigation (letters with my responses at the CRCC page).
   

• An out-of-province judge placed a permanent sealing order over the entirety of a matter containing a detailed review of the scandal.  The sealing order violates a basic Constitutional right under section 2(b) concerning freedom of expression.  The legal tests were not applied to the characteristics of the file.  Namely; Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 75 at paragraph 53; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Named Person, 2024 SCC 21 at paragraph 1; Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, 2004 SCC 43 at paragraphs 24 through 26; R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraph 85; United States v. Meng, 2021 BCSC 1253 at paragraph 23, 24, & 33; Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 at paragraph 55; Nguyen v. Dang, BCSC 1409 at paragraph 23(c); Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455 at paragraph 55; and Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 at paragraph 35.  The court THEN published a decision with a narrative that had entirely rewritten the chronological history and event milestones, which were sworn into an Affidavit in the same file.  It is difficult to believe this is happening in Canada, but here we are.  The proof is on file.