I Encountered a Tribe

As crises often do,

the events detailed on this website spanning past four years have compelled me to re-examine long-held assumptions.  A number of those assumptions concern my country.  My core convictions remain intact, yet the events chronicled on this site have shaken my confidence in Canada and my own civic identity.  Drawing on a fact-rich record—and applying the inference criteria set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, paragraphs 97-98—I have reached conclusions that most reasonable observers would find difficult to dismiss.
 

Until late 2021 I assumed Canada’s institutions functioned much as their statutes and policy manuals promised.  My life had given me no reason to think otherwise.  The past four years—spent navigating agencies with the power to reshape lives—have shattered that assumption. Experience has revealed how the country is actually run.  A formal separation of powers exists on paper, yet the executive, legislative, and judicial spheres often converge in practice.  The documents, links, and redacted records posted on this site expose that hidden reality and upend the comforting notion that adjudicative bodies can simply be taken at their word.

The oft-cited test in R. v Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89 states;

“A miscarriage of justice may be found where anything happens in the course of a trial, 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.”

As is expected to be clear, the murderous characteristics of the scandal this website details are well beyond the appearance of unfairness.

Consistency across jurisdictions exposes a systemic fault that leaves little room for benign explanations.  A Yale Law study (here) estimates that more than one million bribes enter the U.S. justice system each year, and—scaled per capita—roughly 200 000 reach Canada’s courts, police, regulators, and even jurors.  Yet this ad-hoc corruption, significant as it is, cannot account for the coordinated misconduct documented on this site: the margin for random error is too wide, and Canada’s three-tier court structure should rectify isolated miscarriages of justice.  Even with avenues for whistle-blowers and media scrutiny—both formally notified during appeals—the pattern persists, underscoring a deeper, systemic problem.

The Litigation, Guide, and Affidavit pages collectively expose a centralized stakeholder apparatus capable of steering adjudicative bodies toward private ends.  Beyond the stark optics of oppression, the legal test is simple: map each event, document, and decision against controlling case law.  The persistent mismatch reveals an architecture of influence that blocks access to justice in matters of grave consequence.  When every formal avenue of redress aligns with wrongdoers, victims have little left but whistle-blowers and providence.  These facts cast serious doubt on the present vitality of Canada’s constitutional heritage.
 

Over the past decade—and especially in the last few years—several critical inflection points have converged, indicating that Canada now functions less as a genuine democracy than as a cosmetic one.  Political scientist Dr. Colin Crouch of Warwick University describes this condition as post-democracy, a concept equally apt for a post-constitutional state.  In his 2000 essay “Coping with Post-Democracy,” Crouch defines the term as follows:

"A post-democratic society is one that continues to have and to use all the institutions of democracy, but in which they increasingly become a formal shell.  The energy and innovative drive pass away from the democratic arena and into small circles of a politico-economic elite."

Also see "Five minutes with Colin Crouch". London School of Economics. 5 February 2013 (here).

A question of cosmetic democracy can be approached by way of beliefs, philosophical trends, demographics & culture, vetting systems, economics, technology, big business, and the United Nations agenda for sustainable development, inter alia, which I will treat in cursory detail. 

Esteemed 20th century scholar Michel Foucault would argue that the contemporary zeitgeist in Canada has departed from the basis of law as defined in Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267 at paragraph 37, which held that Canada is a country; "Founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”  It is thus understood that Canadian legal heritage recognizes a transcendental basis of law, morals, ethics, and objective truths.

In Power/Knowledge, Michel Foucault argues that under a post-modern hermeneutic “truth” is produced by social consensus and power circulates through networks of mutually reinforcing actors.  Because postmodernism denies transcendental or absolute standards—ironically an absolute claim in itself—it clashes with the constitutional first principles reaffirmed in Ruffo and related authorities.  Canada thus retains its legacy institutional framework, yet that framework is increasingly steered by thinkers who reject the very absolutes on which it was built.  A judiciary permeated by postmodern sensibilities is therefore predisposed to side with influential stakeholder communities whenever their interests conflict with constitutional imperatives.  Foucault’s analysis reinforces the concern, voiced by Stéphane Sérafin and Kerry Sun in the National Post, that Canada’s courts are drifting away from their classical legal tradition. (here).  They write; 

“In conjecturing that Canada’s legal heritage has little value, the chief justice strikes at the very heart of the rule of law and envisages an unchecked judicial power. It is ironic that his annual press conference, itself an innovation ostensibly designed to improve the public’s confidence in the judiciary, should have precisely the opposite effect.” 

Likewise, the Honourable Marshall Rothstein opined;

"I'm not sure that I would be comfortable thinking that judges should be advancing the law with a social agenda in mind. It seems to me that the social agenda is the agenda for Parliament and if Parliament wants to advance the law in social terms, that's their job."

When law is severed from a transcendental foundation such as described in our Constitutional preamble, it slides toward a social-Darwinist logic that stratifies society into ideological castes.  This environment fosters codependent stakeholder networks, and opens the door for private interests to capture public institutions.  “Cancel culture” is a visible symptom of this drift—mob rule masquerading as a moral consensus.
 

Over time, the dominant cultural zeitgeist seeps into institutions through discretionary gate-keeping: a single hiring decision, a federal judicial appointment, or a party’s vetting of a candidate can all serve as filters.  Virtually every locus of authority in Canada passes through such screens, allowing like-minded stakeholders to entrench and expand their influence.  This cumulative process gradually erodes democratic accountability and constitutional constraints, paving the way for post-democratic, post-constitutional governance.

In a multi-stakeholder system, elections may be procedurally genuine yet have little bearing on the medium or long-term policy arc. Discretionary vetting ensures that, whatever the party label, only candidates acceptable to entrenched networks reach the ballot.  Whether the choice is “Freaky Freeland,” “Carbon-Tax Carney,” “Maple-Syrup MAGA,” or anyone else, the strategic trajectory scarcely shifts.  Structural forces—globalization, accelerating technology, artificial intelligence, and prevailing economic orthodoxies—ultimately eclipse traditional democratic benchmarks, as political sociologist Colin Crouch has observed. 

Sovereign states exist to balance competing interests, yet ideologically linked networks can stretch across borders and nullify that safeguard. Whenever clandestine stakeholders infiltrate public institutions—as this scandal indicates—they must be identified, exposed, and removed. Canadians, if asked, would overwhelmingly reject transnational interference: they expect meaningful control over their own lives and insist that constitutional rights be upheld and enforced—without exception.

Geography, technology, and demography each help shape a society’s governing style.  Humanity’s first political units were small settlements whose hierarchies were anchored to the land they occupied.  As populations expanded, splinter groups—whether through migration or conflict—carried their cultures into new territories.  For millennia, distance itself acted as a barrier that preserved social cohesion; well into the twentieth century, nations and peoples remained distinguishable by their particular beliefs, traditions, and institutions.

The Information Age has largely severed the traditional link between power and geography.  Like-minded networks now form and operate unconstrained by borders; an affinity group can be assembled with a few keystrokes.  Geography still matters, but far less than in prior centuries—and hardly at all when it comes to sustaining communities of shared ideology.  In this context, Foucault’s view of power circulating through networks takes on new force: transnational constellations of stakeholders (“families”) shaping policy behind the scenes are far more plausible than the superficial left-versus-right narratives that dominate public discourse.

WEF Advisor Dr. Yuval Noah Harari raised an important point concerning the advance of technology, in concert with its practical application, which likewise applies to business practices and our global economy.  He writes in the following article in the Atlantic (here);

“We tend to think about the conflict between democracy and dictatorship as a conflict between two different ethical systems, but it is actually a conflict between two different data-processing systems.  Democracy distributes the power to process information and make decisions among many people and institutions, whereas dictatorship concentrates information and power in one place.  [...]   However, artificial intelligence may soon swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.  AI makes it possible to process enormous amounts of information centrally.  In fact, it might make centralized systems far more efficient than diffuse systems, because machine learning works better when the machine has more information to analyze.”

I draw further support from the materials on the 4IR Portal and the quotations collected on the Vaccine page.  Citizens must recognize how imminent and pervasive biodigital convergence has become. As Dr. Klaus-Gerd Giesen observes in the paper featured on the Portal, transformative change is likely to arrive through orchestrated disruptions, followed by narrative spin and gradual cultural adaptation.

One looming shock concerns the fractional-reserve monetary system—an engine of fiat expansion that is mathematically unsustainable. In the United States, the privately owned Federal Reserve (aptly described as “no more federal than Federal Express”) creates money ex nihilo and lends it to the government at interest.  Former US President John F. Kennedy tried to loosen that grip with Executive Order 11110 and publicly warned of clandestine fraternities such as the Freemasons and Skull and Bones.  His unfinished project underscores how deeply entrenched these opaque networks remain.

The 2019 UN–World Economic Forum partnership adds yet another dimension.  Canada had already endorsed the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015 and later issued its own 2030 Agenda National Strategy, which the federal website describes as a “shared blueprint” aligned with the UN goals. As the site explains:

“In September 2015, Canada and all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda), a shared blueprint for partnership, peace and prosperity for all people and the planet, now and into the future.  The 2030 Agenda focuses on the commitment to "leave no person behind.”

There appears to be no provision in any UN document that suggests that Canada, fundamentally, can expect to be an independent artificer of its policies in this emerging dynamic.  Likewise, this language does not suggest that the Canadian Government enjoys a discretionary position in adopting a buffet approach to the UN mandate; accepting good ideas and discarding others; regardless of Canada’s Constitution.  While the UN agenda does denote differences in regional characteristics, the mandate itself is unified, and assumes a shared reality between nations.  This blueprint outlines that Canadian Policy Development and Values are tethered to the guidance of a global governance body.  The Government of Canada's policy foresight engine, Policy Horizons Canada, is chaired by the WEF's former Head of Strategic Foresight, Kristel Van der Elst, who also currently serves as CEO of consulting firm The Global Foresight Group.
 

On 19 June 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum signed a Strategic Partnership Framework pledging to “jointly accelerate” the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  The agreement effectively casts the WEF as an implementation arm of the UN programme.  Because Canada adopted a “shared blueprint” in its own 2030 Agenda National Strategy, the accord likewise creates a de facto policy conduit between the WEF and the Government of Canada.  The move sparked protests from hundreds of civil-rights organizations.

Finally, the text at the UN website (here) is remarkable;
 

“In September 2019, the UN Secretary-General called on all sectors of society to mobilize for a decade of action on three levels: global action to secure greater leadership, more resources and smarter solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals; local action embedding the needed transitions in the policies, budgets, institutions and regulatory frameworks of governments, cities and local authorities; and people action, including by youth, civil society, the media, the private sector, unions, academia and other stakeholders, to generate an unstoppable movement pushing for the required transformations.”

Careful readers will notice that institutions Canadians once assumed to be independent—media included—are cast in the documents as cooperative stakeholders pursuing a single agenda.  The media clip at the Guide page underscores that this alignment is not confined to one parent conglomerate.  In effect, the UN-WEF framework enables transnational interests to deploy Canada’s legal and administrative machinery to advance project-specific goals while preserving an outward façade of normalcy.  Chief among those goals is biodigital convergence, a technological accelerant that can achieve targets unimaginable within ordinary timelines.  Big Tech shows little patience, innovation outpaces regulation, and history offers ample proof of how easily human beings can be exploited in such gaps.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shields individuals from unjustified state intrusions into their private lives.  It secures a sphere of personal autonomy—­the right “to be let alone”—grounded in dignity, integrity, and self-determination (Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 at 159; R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281 at 292; R. v. Gomboc, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 211 at paras. 17, 75).  The state may penetrate this sphere only with lawful authorization (R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11 at para. 38).

If an inference of stakeholder influence in the public service were to be rejected, I would return to the original comments in this article.  One would need to rely on a competing inference that could explain what happened in the courts, with police, and with other stakeholders in the public service in my case, over the past four years, as measured against the applicable legal tests and rudimentary ethics.  In reviewing the redacted materials and legal tests, trained and untrained eyes alike will quickly realize the issue is not a matter of idiosyncrasy.  It is nothing less than state-sponsored violence, and indeed murder, in the service of a project interest. 

 

Legitimate Authorities as Enablement Mechanisms, and a Word From the King

Foundational belief systems remain the master switch that enables all else—­a point Foucault underscored.  Consistent with Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, at para. 41, this article examines how the prevailing cultural zeitgeist is reshaping both the roots of law and the practical work of public-service agencies.  Canadians should recognize that the legal landscape is shifting in tandem with cultural currents.

The Constitution is anchored in objective, transcendent principles—an outlook fundamentally at odds with postmodern theories that treat truth, and therefore ethics, morals, and law, as human constructs.  When such relativist assumptions take hold, they steer political will and inevitably redefine the purpose, character, and utility of our institutions.  For a deeper look at how these belief-driven dynamics have permeated mid-level Canadian bureaucracies and even public school curricula, please consult the closing section of the Litigation page.

Belief systems drive the expansion of unconstitutional 4IR programmes—whether led by CSIS or other actors—under the banner of progress.  Dr. Giesen identifies transhumanism as today’s dominant ideology, and one grounded in postmodern assumptions.  This worldview, akin to Democritus’ ancient atomism, recognizes no reality beyond material phenomena.  In transhumanist logic, biodigital convergence and radical genome editing promise safer, richer lives—albeit at the expense of privacy.  Policy Horizons Canada, joined by a chorus of tech executives, has repeated these themes ad nauseam.
 

I would quote the following from our Monarch, His Majesty King Charles III in his text, Harmony: A New Way of Looking at our World, 2010, ISBN 9780007348053, P. 13-14;  [Link] 

"Think of something as basic as a conversation that might take place in a biology lesson where a science teacher is called upon by pupils to address the moral and ethical questions of whether or not it is a good thing to manipulate genes.  At that point, does the teacher act as a philosopher or remain a science teacher?  I am pretty sure that the majority of teachers would certainly feel very uncomfortable about assuming the role of spiritual guide when such questions arise.  The essential point here is, how far our empirical knowledge can go before it begins to encroach on territory it is not qualified to discuss.  Let me be clear about it.  Science can tell us how things work, but it is not equipped to tell us what they mean.  That is the domain of philosophy and religion and spirituality.  Let me say again - empiricism has its part to play, but it cannot play all of the parts.  And yet, because it tries to, we end up with the general outlook that now prevails.  The language of empiricism is now so much in the ascendant that it has authority over any other way of looking at the world.  It decides whether those other ways of looking at things stand up to its tests and therefore whether they are right or wrong."

Human beings require grounding beliefs.  As Foucault observes, a “knowledge regime” forms when influential actors converge on shared convictions.  If empirical data alone becomes the ultimate source of meaning and law—divorced from any ontological anchor—legal authority drifts into subjectivity, and consensus among like-minded stakeholders replaces the traditional recognition of a higher guiding principle (Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267, at para. 37).  Democratic processes then pass through discretionary gate-keepers; dissenters are cast as obstacles because no authority stands above collective opinion, and disagreement risks halting progress.  Many Canadians trust they still live in the democracy the founders envisioned only by virtue of longstanding normalcy bias—a confidence that demands critical re-examination.

https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/unchecked-judicial-power-thats-chief-justice-wagners-vision-for-canada-stephane-serafin-and-kerry-sun-for-the-national-post/   

"I'm not sure that I would be comfortable thinking that judges should be advancing the law with a social agenda in mind. It seems to me that the social agenda is the agenda for Parliament and if Parliament wants to advance the law in social terms, that's their job."
- Marshall Rothstein CC KC, former SSC Puisne Judge

Among various authors, late 20th century academic Richard Rorty may have done the best job in summarizing the postmodern progress engine in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, 1989, ISBN 0521367816, P. XVI;  [link] 

"In my utopia, human solidarity would be seen not as a fact to be recognized by clearing away prejudice or burrowing down to previously hidden depths but, rather, as a goal to be achieved."

Per the current Prime Minister, Mark Carney, in Value(s): Building a Better World for All, 2021, ISBN 0008485240, P. 36, 95, 494  [Link] 

“Moral sentiments are not inherent.  To use the modern terminology of Richard Dawkins, they are social memes that are learned, imitated and passed on.  Like genetic memes, they can mutate, in behavioural cascades and tipping points.  [...]  Magna Carta was a desperate and probably disingenuous attempt at a peace treaty that failed almost immediately.  Brokered by the Church, and issued by King John in June 1215, the Charter sought to placate the disgruntled barons.  If Magna Carta was such a product of its time, how did it become to be so venerated? And once we cut through the legend, what is its significance for economic governance today?  [...]   The world is being reset.  Now we are on the cusp of what some have called a Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).  Applications of artificial intelligence are spreading due to advances in robotics, nanotechnology and quantum computing.  Our economies are reorganising into distributed peer-to-peer connections across powerful networks – revolutionizing how we consume, work and communicate.  Solidarity will determine the success of the 4IR, where the need for new institutions that live the value of solidarity is the greatest.”
 

Values Concern the Effects, but Beliefs Inform the Method

As Dr. Giesen notes, powerful corporate interests and entrenched ideologies can advance their agenda with little democratic oversight. Incremental reforms proceed quietly, while major shifts emerge through manufactured crises that bypass referenda.  In a postmodern outlook that denies any truth higher than human consensus, dissenters become obstacles to be cleared away.  Genuine dialogue on deeply held values requires a shared reference point—­a principle or law both sides respect.  Absent that, decisions on 4IR and biodigital convergence will not be democratic.  Citizens must grasp this reality: values follow beliefs, and today’s dominant belief system leaves little room for meaningful public consent.  

The quotations at the foot of the 4IR page—drawn from high-profile figures and agencies—speak of genome editing and privacy-eroding brain–computer interfaces with an almost breezy candor.  For postmodern technocrats, such tools appear to offer a shortcut to a utopia previous centuries could only imagine.  Transhumanists hold that the age-old flaws and limitations of human nature are no longer immutable facts, but problems awaiting technological solutions.  One might be tempted to chalk socialism’s past failures up to “flawed human nature” or the difficulty of knitting diverse populations into sustainable unity.  Yet, as former Y Combinator CEO Geoff Ralston has warned, disruptive technologies reshape society far faster than our moral and legal frameworks can adapt—a gap that utopian schemes routinely exploit;

“The very nature of the human race is about to change.  This change will be radical and rapid beyond anything in our species’ history.  A chapter of our story just ended and the next chapter has begun.  [...]  CRISPR techniques are getting better and better.  More accurate.  More predictable. Cheaper.  And we are learning more and more about the genetic code (partially thanks to our ability, now using CRISPR, to see what happens when we poke out one gene and replace it with another).  The trends are unstoppable and the conclusion unavoidable: in the not very distant future we will be able to program most any animal in most any way we wish, including human beings.  [...]  What will stop people from attempting to drive desirable characteristics into a population?  What will stop a government from mandating those changes in their population?  And what will competing governments then choose to do?"

Ralson's suggestion of eventual state-sponsored mandates is chilling, but nonetheless pragmatic to his ethos.  This vision echoes philosopher Nick Bostrom, who writes, “Transhumanists view human nature as a work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways” (Bostrom, “Transhumanist Values,” 2003).  The prevailing confidence in our power to “upgrade” biology dovetails with the conviction that, with enough technological progress, even the most fundamental aspects of identity and society can be engineered.
 

Yet this ethos rarely welcomes genuine public scrutiny or open debate.  Ralston likewise notes that meaningful oversight is unlikely: “The only way to slow this revolution would be to stop all biological research, everywhere, which simply isn’t going to happen” (Ralston, p. 4).  As Kevin Esvelt, a pioneer in gene-drive technology, observes, “It’s unlikely that we’ll put these sorts of fundamental questions to a public vote before they’re implemented” (Esvelt, Nature, 2014).  This closed-loop of progress and consensus reflects what Evgeny Morozov calls the narrowing of dissent under stakeholder capitalism: “Stakeholder capitalism tends to insulate itself from public input and democratic accountability, narrowing the space for dissent and alternative visions” (To Save Everything, Click Here, 2013).  Philosopher Jürgen Habermas sees the danger as even more existential: “Politics is transformed into administration, and citizens become clients rather than authors of the law” (The Theory of Communicative Action, 1984).  Bioethicist Carl Elliott similarly observes, “Biotechnological revolutions are rarely, if ever, subject to meaningful democratic debate before their consequences are felt” (Better Than Well, 2003)

A December 2021 DND article discusses BCI with an unsettling ease:

“The issue is not only that technology is evolving faster than regulatory frameworks but the exacerbation with differences in ethical, moral, and legal perspectives across nations in regard to human enhancement and augmentation.  [...]  It will be the role of local government to facilitate ongoing discourse and engagement reaching across state and society.”

Finally, from the desk of the Policy Horizons Canada Director:
 

“In the coming years, biodigital technologies could be woven into our lives in the way that digital technologies are now.  Biological and digital systems are converging, and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species.  More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural.”

Taken together, these perspectives suggest a future in which the most consequential decisions about the body, the self, and society may be subject to third-party oversight.

The foregoing quotes point toward AI-driven biodigital convergence, which will invariably be the apex issue of our day.  The real sociopolitical question does not reside in left vs. right distinctions which are often fabricated, but in technocracy versus Constitutional self-determination.  That dichotomy strikes at the meaning of life and humanity’s instinct to shape its environment in a world it did not create.  Because it ultimately concerns governance and natural law, I would in fact go further in stating the divide entails technocracy vs. the providence of God.  Proposals to exchange privacy for engineered environments—what some frame as “safe spaces”—raise fundamental questions about human rights and dignity.  Because the utility of AI-centric systems grows in proportion to the scale of data they can harvest, a direct confrontation with individual rights is not only possible, it is inevitable (Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, supra).  The drive toward data singularity is fueled by commercial interests for some, and by ideological ambitions for others, but its trajectory is clear and accelerating.  Where each person stands on this question ultimately depends on their core beliefs about life, meaning, and authority.  That assumes the Citizen will have a choice to begin with.
 

Technological convergence—especially AI, large-scale data-mining, and ubiquitous digital media—draws biometric information and inferred psychographic profiles into analyzable streams, engaging the Charter’s core privacy values recognized in Hunter v. Southam, and elaborated through informational-privacy cases such as R. v. Spencer, R. v. Cole, R. v. Jarvis, and R. v. Tessling.  As Dr. Yuval Noah Harari notes, “Never before has humanity had the power to manipulate the beliefs and emotions of billions with such efficiency”(Homo Deus, 2016).  As Shoshana Zuboff warned, “surveillance capitalists have created a world where our private experiences are now the raw material for behavioral prediction and control” (The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 2019).  Michel Foucault’s warning is prescient; “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true…” (Power/Knowledge, 1980).  

The upshot is that advances in AI, the Internet of Things, the Internet of Nano-Things, and related innovations increasingly render the inner life of Citizens legible to digital systems.  AI can deploy highly granular filters, and so-called “sustainability” models—powered by AI—may be programmed to flag even tolerant, non-harmful individuals whose biometric or psychographic profiles are simply deemed contrarian.  Within this environment, efforts to shape public sentiment—including, at times, by national security institutions—are often rationalized as technocratic extensions of multi-stakeholder priorities.  This logic is visible in initiatives like the RCMP’s Project Wide Awake (here), and is echoed in Canadian Armed Forces PsyOp / CIMIC articles such as this one (here), foreshadowing that future domestic interventions are expected to be ideological.  These trends amplify the concerns raised by former Major General Daniel Gosselin in his whistleblower reports (here).  Importantly, such practices engage the section 2(a) diversity protections articulated in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem.  As is written in Isaiah 29:14; "The wisdom of their wise ones will perish, the discernment of their discerning ones will keep hidden”. 

The scandal on this website concerns a non-consensual 4IR technology pilot in the manner of discreet brain-computer-interface ("BCI"), backed by robust and state-adjacent commercial interests.  Per the Testimony (here), I reasonably infer I was unknowingly made a non-consensual test subject.  There are no competing inferences that match the evidentiary record and context nearly as well.
 

I Encountered a Tribe

The sheer cohesion and orchestration observed in this scandal—spanning five separate courts, three police agencies, over fifty AI-assisted PsyOp contractors, regulators, and an array of related fora—cannot be plausibly explained by coincidence, incompetence, or isolated malfeasance.  Instead, such alignment strongly suggests the presence of a tightly coordinated “tribe”: a network of like-minded actors whose loyalties and interests transcend institutional boundaries.  As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu notes, “The cohesion of a group is measured by its ability to act as a single agent in pursuit of collective interests” (The Forms of Capital, 1986).  This type of coordination is simply beyond the reach of loose, unconnected actors.  
 

I use the term “tribe” broadly to describe the transnational networks of influence shaping today’s public institutional and private commercial landscape.  Others might call them “families,” “stakeholder communities,” or “networks”—but the effect is the same.  As Michel Foucault had argued, “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. … Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society” (The History of Sexuality, 1978).  Incremental discretionary vetting, layered atop decades of postmodern relativism and consumerist decadence, has—almost imperceptibly—produced a world in which like-minded actors organize, persist, and entrench their interests across borders and domains.  Categorical demarcations are the relic of a bygone era.  Today's reality concerns networking.
 

The characteristics of a tribe not only shape its methods and goals, but are reciprocally shaped by them.  As Benedict Anderson observed, “Communities are to be distinguished … by the style in which they are imagined” (Imagined Communities, 1983), and in our era, global networks “imagine” themselves into existence, transcending the boundaries of state, profession, or sector.  The internet, as Zygmunt Bauman writes, “abolished geography, and with it, all the obstacles and safeguards which the physical distance used to offer to both security and sovereignty” (Liquid Modernity, 2000).  Consequently, today’s most powerful adversaries to a state’s foundational values are not necessarily foreign governments, but networks entrenching themselves through discretionary vetting, whose allegiances are tribal rather than national.
 

When discretionary vetting practices—appointments, promotions, grants, institutional endorsements, or otherwise—systematically favor those aligned with a tribe’s worldview, public institutions gradually become instruments of that tribe’s agenda.  This is what Foucault called a “regime of truth,” where “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true…” (Power/Knowledge, 1980).  Dr. Colin Crouch has extended this logic to post-democracy, writing: “The era of ‘post-democracy’ is one in which elections exist and can change governments, but public electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle managed by rival teams of professionals” (Post-Democracy, 2004).
 

The scandal outlined on this site is a strong validation of these warnings.  The boundaries that once separated sovereign states, private and public sectors, professions, and political parties are increasingly porous, if not irrelevant, to networks with the means and motive to co-opt the machinery of power.  In this environment, transparency, accountability, and a citizen’s right to meaningful participation become fragile exceptions rather than the norm.  As Jacques Ellul warned, “Propaganda ends where simple dialogue begins” (Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, 1962).  Today’s “tribal” networks thrive precisely by avoiding such dialogue—substituting loyalty and consensus for truth and reasoned dissent.

Is a Robust Project Interest Sufficient to Execute the Scandal?

A powerful project interest is a necessary precondition, but the true anomaly is the extraordinary degree of stakeholder cohesion on display. History abounds with examples of ideological overreach, yet the level of synchronized action among agencies in this scandal is remarkable—and deeply troubling.  Achieving this kind of unified conduct would require a near-total collapse of ethical standards among key actors, a degree of moral bankruptcy that strains credulity.  What unfolded in the public service and the courts defies normal explanations and crosses the threshold into outrage, as confirmed by the relevant legal tests.
 

This invites deeper reflection on the themes documented in the BCI and Testimony pages, where extreme behavioral outliers are analyzed in detail.  The pattern is corroborated by external authorities—UN Reports A/HRC/57/61 & A/HRC/58/58, and UN Resolutions A/HRC/RES/51/3 & A/HRC/RES/58/6, the comprehensive dataset in Sheridan et al. (2020), the Gosselin Reports on the CAF, and numerous other sources cited in the Guide page.  Taken together with the research and quotations on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), the evidence satisfies a reasonable inference of cognitive tampering.  In this context, the likelihood of such external manipulation is not remote—it is, in fact, the most probable explanation.  Given the systemic moral bankruptcy which would be required for the alignment and breadth of obstruction observed, a cognitive liberty scandal impacting stakeholders and adjudicators may in likewise be the most believable explanation. 

Technologies that link the human nervous system to the internet trace back to Kevin Warwick’s pioneering 1998 implant experiments.  Today, research into nanoscale graphene quantum dots (GQDs) suggests they could form wireless neural interfaces—opening the door to covert and networked neuro-surveillance.  Such developments would constitute a profound public-health scandal and align with a post-modern sustainability narrative, much as Aldous Huxley once feared.  UN Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/57/61 explicitly notes the growing prevalence—and effectiveness—of crimes that violate cognitive liberty.  The following quotes are cited through the 4IR Portal with links, whereas I would point readers in that direction in exploring what such a public health scandal might look like with contemporary open source models.  Low earth orbit satellite constellations ("LEOs") such as Starlink in fact provide a viable dual-use framework.  It is not science-fiction.

"We have never seen such perfect, but scary, fibrils as these ones from the amyloid-producing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and pieces thereof.  The fibrils starting from the full-sized spike protein branched out like limbs on a body. Amyloids don't usually branch out like that. We believe that it is due to the characteristics of the spike protein", says Per Hammarström, professor at the Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology (IFM) at Linköping University.
- News-Medical.net

“In the past 6 months we have observed unusual structures in the blood of some of our clients since the administration of the various Covid 19 vaccines. These artifacts observed under darkfield microscope are very unusual in nature.  Dr. Diane and I have been working in this field for more than 20 years and have never witnessed such unusual artifacts in the live blood.  [...]  The clots we are seeing in Long COVID are not normal clots. They contain large anomalous amyloid deposits. They are not normal clots. They are aggregated blood cells which have been transformed into aggregated fibrils!”
- Qwest 4 Health, BC Canada

“Microsoft's patent alludes to the possibility of coupling nanotechnology with vaccinated individuals, effectively turning them into antennas or transmitters. This intriguing concept raises questions about the extent of integration between technology and the human body, blurring the line between biological and technological systems.”
- Keith Brown, Satellite Technician via Linkedin

"We present here our research on the presence of graphene in covid vaccines. We have carried out a random screening of graphene-like nanoparticles visible at the optical microscopy in seven random samples of vials from four different trademarks, coupling images with their spectral signatures of RAMAN vibration.  By this technique, called micro-RAMAN, we have been able to determine the presence of graphene in these samples, after screening more than 110 objects selected for their graphene-like appearance under optical microscopy.”
- Dr. Pablo Campra, Almeria University

“Judge Rickcola Brinton had been seeking a review of an October 2023 ruling by Chief Justice Michael Wood in his capacity as chair of the province’s judicial council.  [...]  Brinton filed the complaint in June 2023 alleging judicial misconduct by Williams, whose term as provincial court chief judge ended in August of that year. Her complaint said Williams applied undue pressure for her to disclose her mRNA covid-19 vaccination status and that the former provincial chief judge improperly contacted Brinton’s physician to obtain medical details related to a subsequent short-term leave.”
- Keith Doucette, The Canadian Press

 

Are Transhumanist Stakeholders Enlightened?

The quotations reveal an unrelenting, hard-wired drive toward 4IR, paired with an unchecked embrace of post-modern beliefs and values.  As Dr. Klaus-Gerd Giesen observes in “Transhumanism as the Dominant Ideology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” this techno-utopian momentum is anything but accidental;

“Transhumanist thought can be broken down into three main premises, each with an eminently political intent: Human beings in their ‘natural’ state are obsolete and ought to be enhanced by technology, which then becomes a means of artificially extending the hominization process. Thus, transhumanism sweeps human taxonomy into the political arena. An observation by Michel Foucault, written in 1976, comes to mind: ‘What might be called a society’s threshold of modernity has been reached when the life of the species is wagered on its own political strategies. [. . .] Modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being in question.’ In other words, transhumanists believe we have a duty to replace the category of human with a new creature, a post-sapiens sapiens.”

Dr. Giesen continues in the text;

“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.”

Finally, at the conclusion of his publication;

“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.”

For clarity, NBIC is an acronym for Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology, and Cognitive Science.

Transhumanists envision a utopia that defies the constraints of natural law.  They regard unaltered human nature as the final hurdle to lasting harmony and view its transcendence as the dawn of a new epoch.  By rejecting the limits—and the ethical duties—that natural law imposes, they implicitly deny any higher authority, including the “supremacy of God” affirmed in Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, citing the Constitutional preamble.  Scientific breakthroughs do not answer ontological questions; they sharpen them.  As Jürgen Habermas notes, postmodernity did not outgrow three millennia of philosophical tradition—it simply abandoned its object.  Hardline transhumanists are not heralds of enlightenment, but advocates of a technocratic creed whose new tools now press dangerously against the boundaries of human dignity.

No “enlightened” society or sustainability model can be built on bloodshed.  Cases where it remains unchecked point to the solidarity germane to captured institutions and their authority.  This scandal has shown me that Canada's institutional framework, across the plethora of fora (that rhymes..), has been effectively compromised in the service of private commercial interests.


In Summary
 

A neutral reader of the Litigation, Guide, 4IR, and Q/A pages can see the scope of what occurred.
 

Highlights (abridged)
 

• Biometric exposure: Personal biometric data trafficked on the dark web.

• Baseline deviation (2021): Liquidated my primary asset; drove coast-to-coast twice within one month—extreme outliers versus a lifelong, risk-averse behavioral pattern.

• UN-recognized harms: Coordinated “cyber-torture” by transnational actors using algorithmic feedback loops.

• Familial vector: A principal actor in the above cohort is understood to be the biological mother of my estranged nephew.

• Military approach: Individuals self-identifying as Canadian military spoke to me pre-emptively about elements later documented.

• Policing failures: Services refused; false reports filed after clear acknowledgements of the record, named actors, and articulated investigation roadmaps; police regulators foreclosed escalation.

• Judicial conduct: Shareholder evidence sidelined; procedural roadmaps curtailed; pre-drafted orders signed that facilitated felonious outcomes.

• Secrecy over scrutiny: Unconstitutional sealing replaced fact with curated public narratives.

• Counsel barrier: Repeated, pre-emptive impediments to retaining legal counsel, including pro-bono programs.

• Billing scandal: ~$400,000+ certified for 867 minutes of interlocutory court time with minimal prep, cited as “reasonably required” in a sworn counsel affidavit—an outcome that presupposes coordination and state-adjacent assurances.
   

The Pattern:  This cross-agency coordination indicates a centrally directed, multi-stakeholder apparatus.  Applying the inference standards in Sherman Estate v. Donovan (¶¶97–98) and R. v. Villaroman (¶¶35, 41), the most cogent explanation is that I was used—without consent—as a test subject in a state-adjacent commercial brain-computer-interface (BCI) pilot, likely involving inhaled/injected graphene quantum dots (GQD).  This inference accords with the documented testimony, which dates back to 2013.  I hold three academic degrees and lived a stable, successful life prior to these events.  Outlier effects of the magnitude described do not arise spontaneously, if they arise at all.
 

Post-Democratic Conditions:  The Constitution ascribes to authority transcending community-driven knowledge regimes, per Foucault's definition.  In cultures denying transcendental truths or categorical principles, governance tilts toward discretionary vetting practices where stakeholder castes form around shared interests and institutional access.  Through tightly aligned networks, these castes exert outsized influence over adjudicative institutions and oversight bodies—not through formal authority, but through discretionary gatekeeping that determines whose claims receive examination, and whose are foreclosed.  Public authority becomes instrumentalized: courts certify fraudulent billing, police decline investigation, regulators adopt opacity, sealing prevents verification—each institution protecting the others through mutual non-engagement.  This isn't democracy malfunctioning; it's post-democratic governance functioning as designed, where Constitutional principles exist on paper while networked stakeholders operationalize power through discretion.  When opaque technocratic processes replace transparent Constitutional adjudication, meaning is determined by proximity to institutional networks rather than adherence to law.  
 

Responsibility:  Ethical investigators must absorb these facts, weigh them against their oaths, and resist directives that obstruct justice.  The Constitution remains the law of the land, and Canadians expect institutions to function as written.  When opaque, technocratic gatekeeping suppresses transparency—as here—every citizen has a stake in demanding accountability from institutions they may one day need.  Since July 2025, independent, computer-assisted analyses (ChatGPT, Anthropic, and PerplexityAI) have validated what public stakeholders have declined to examine—significantly widening the visibility gap. 

Plausible considerations.  If a widespread surveillance apparatus is involved, the record here—together with sociopolitical and trending philosophical contexts—offers converging support.  Foucault and the authors cited above have explored these dynamics at length.  When the contemporary ruling class believes morality is a social construct that can and should be engineered (ie., Mark Carney in Value(s), at page 36), when its proponents claim community organizing combined with narrative management can (and should) revolutionize societies (Chrystia Freeland, Barack Obama), and when its proponents are laser-focused on 4IR technologies, including public think tanks like Policy Horizons Canada that publish utopian prose, prudent observers should pay attention.  This line of inquiry is well supported in the research of Benjamin Bratton, Shoshana Zuboff, Antoinette Rouvroy, Thomas Berns, Mark Andrejevic, Laura DeNardis, Lisa Parks, Eyal Weizman, Trevor Paglen, Wolfgang Streeck, Nancy Fraser, Jacques Rancière, James C. Scott, Byung-Chul Han, Evgeny Morozov, and Ruha Benjamin.  

In closing, a quote from the late Honourable Senator Ian Shugart - October 2023

“Public servants are responsible for keeping up with the speed and pace of things as they change.  We are at a time of significant change right now, and we’ve got to keep up with it.  We don’t always know what that looks like, that’s why reflecting on our values and ethics is so important.  We are stewards of the public trust.”