Q & A
Part I

The Issues

FIFTY Social Influencers
FIVE Courts
THREE Police Agencies
ONE Scandal

What is the purpose of RefugeeCanada.net and why was it created?

Refugeecanada.net and its domain pages were created to (1) raise awareness of a scandal involving felonies facilitated through agencies in the public service, (2) highlight a compelling public stake in addressing its enabling factors, (3) attract whistleblowers, and (4) contemplate a framework to assist other victims impacted by similar crimes and effects.

Everyone has problems. But, there are lawyers, law enforcement, and institutions who can help. Why do you need a website?

Refugeecanada.net was created due to the importance and severity of the issues it considers, and because recourse and safe avenue has been consistently unavailable through customary means, despite diligent efforts (see Blog table of contents here). These same efforts have been documented and notarized. This site was launched in March 2023, eighteen (18) months after these issues this site chronicles became acute.

Is it a public issue, or is it your issue?

Both. The matters considered are inherently public in nature as they concern the use of public institutions to facilitate heinous crimes. Public trust in government is only fostered through consistency, transparency, and accountability (Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 75 at paragraph 53). The matter further involves health and privacy crimes which invite public concern both at present, and in the years to come.

Alright, so what is the issue?

It is reasonably ascertained that I am the unwitting and unconsenting subject of a commercial project concerning biodigital convergence (defined here), that has the blessing and support of Canadian state actors. It would otherwise be described as a cognitive liberty crime.

Are cognitive liberty crimes a thing? Sounds like sci-fi.

This is 2025. Unfortunately, cognitive liberty crimes are easy to execute with the right tools, and those tools are readily available to state-adjacent actors. The first human brain-computer interfaces were tested in 1997 (Philip Kennedy), and 1998 (Kevin Warwick's online interface). Prior to that, animal testing was ongoing since in the 1960s and 70s. Today, inhaled or injected graphene derivatives can achieve a discreet remote BCI when coupled with RF/THZ/EM or NIR. Crimes that affect a person’s cognitive liberty are recognized under UN Human Rights Council reports A/HRC/57/61 (here) & A/HRC/58/58 (here), and Resolutions A/HRC/RES/51/3 (here) and A/HRC/RES/58/6 (here). The issue has attracted the interest of Time Magazine and the Harvard Gazette, among the scores of articles detailed at the 4IR Portal (here). The tinfoil era is over.

Per the UN definition in A/HRC/57/61 at paragraph (5);

“Neurotechnologies are unique and socially disruptive because they generally: (a) enable the exposition of cognitive processes; (b) enable the direct alteration of a person’s mental processes and thoughts; (c) bypass the individual’s conscious control or awareness; (d) enable non-consensual external access to thoughts, emotions and mental states; (e) are nurtured by “neurodata”, which are needed for their own functioning, calibration and optimization; and (f) collect, analyse and process large personal datasets of a highly sensitive nature.”

Likewise per neuroscientist Dr. Nina Farahany in the Harvard Gazette and TIME Magazine;

“Cognitive liberty is the right to self-determination over our brains and mental experiences, as a right to both access and use technologies, but also a right to be free from interference with our mental privacy and freedom of thought,” said Farahany. [...] Corporations and governments are already hacking into people’s brains.

As it pertains to this case, the evidence unerringly suggests my cognitive liberty was compromised through technological means consistent with UN HCR reports A/HRC/57/61 and A/HRC/58/58. The characteristics of the proceedings, which are glaring, also allow such an inference concerning public stakeholders (R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000 at paragraphs 35, 41, 56). The AI-assisted contractors shown on the site demonstrate coordination and the algorithmic delivery of relevant messaging timestamped to milestones. Police have ignored binding performance standards as defined in the case law (here) consistently and across agencies. These are not isolated issues, and the effects are murderous. By mid-2022, it became reasonably apparent that my biometric data was available to bad actors in the dark web.

How would you begin talking about that? I mean, how could you prove something like that?

In the absence of whistleblower testimony, there are three key components to consider. The first concerns extreme and dangerous behavioural outliers as measured against a lifetime BIO of consistent baseline behaviours.

The second consideration involves a sophisticated criminal group that uses biometric data as a vehicle of harassment and a mode of surveillance (here).

The third consideration involves the concrete event chronology, which is documented on this website. These concern the same organized criminal group, a shareholder scandal (here), a scandal concerning adjudicative agencies and police (here & here), and detailed information exhibits concerning the Fourth Industrial Revolution ("4IR") and associated technologies (here). Each of these intertwined matters are compelling in their own right, and occasion the existence of a compelling project interest.

Throughout the site, you will notice various case law references like [Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 75 at paragraph 97], which are applied against evidentiary records and commentaries. These references provide further assurance that the information considered is not treated in an idiosyncratic capacity. Readers can look up the case law in websites like CanLi, or read the descriptors at the Authorities page (here), or the police standards page (here).

I see the topic pages. Can you describe the behavioural outliers?

Travel Records

The details description is on my Testimony page (here), and also the BCI page (here). I sold my newly renovated home that I had intended to live in for the foreseeable future, along with most of my belongings, and made four coast-to-coast trips by car in support of a shareholder dispute that I had already retained a BC law firm to manage on my behalf remotely. I then returned to BC two weeks after the 2021 shareholder matter was closed, without any discernible plan, on the basis that it seemed as though the matter was unresolved.

These reckless behavioural outliers are about as far removed from my typical decision-making as ice is to fire, and would not have occurred under normal conditions. My BIO and bank records will reveal over 25 years of prudent decision-making and living habits, who has always weathered the ups-and-downs of life in prudent capacities. Simply put, I’m a homebody with simple habits and interests, and I have been all my life. Those familiar with me would suggest I am sometimes loath to travel across town to enjoy an entertainment venue, let alone drive across Canada four times without any discernible reason, and liquidate my primary and cherished asset.

With respect to the commercial and government entity I was in dispute with (the "CAGE"), I had maintained amicable relations and relied on it's linkedin testimony to further other business interests, following a four-year business engagement that ended in 2019. Given that context, it is irrational to believe I would suddenly liquidate assets and derail my life over a shareholder dispute already in the hands of retained counsel. An unbiased investigator would find such self-destructive behaviour to be starkly out-of-character, requiring an external explanation.

Are you sure you were not just overly upset at the CAGE and/or stressed?

Not to the extent that I would liquidate my primary asset, needlessly crisscross the country four times, and launch a new civil matter in the wake of a troubled settlement. These actions served no discernible psychological purpose, cut against a lifelong behavioural baseline of prudent decision-making throughout all seasons, and cut against recent customary and prudent steps such as retaining a law firm in BC to manage the shareholder matter on my behalf. Likewise, I had maintained a phlegmatic relationship to the CAGE following our four-year business engagement, and was very cautious before deciding to pursue legal action initially (here). Events. Characteristics. Occam's Razor. I was hacked.

How do you suppose that happened, and how did it affect you? How would you suggest it affected you? Ie., what was different?

In my testimony I cite an event chronology that dates back to 2013. I’m not cognizant of the precise enablement mechanism, only that it is likely to involve implantable nanoscale technologies, such as GQD (Graphene Quantum Dots), that can establish a discreet remote brain-computer-interface. The same is contemplated in this deleted linkedin article (here). GQD nanotech can plausibly interface with smartphones, many of which can function as EEGs in their own right, as has been noted in the early 00’s (here). Having said that, I suspect it would involve a technology that the public is unfamiliar with that affects the nervous system. I began noticing that things felt “different” following an acute event that compelled me to call an ambulance on February 8th, 2021, which can be best described as an anomalous health incident.

Who might the perpetrators, be, and what might be the motivation?

It is appropriate to employ Occam’s razor and eliminate the less-likely explanations. A robust private technology interest is inferred, alongside the cooperation of state actors in allowing that interest to be facilitated. This is due to the scope and characteristics of the aspects of the scandal which are unable to be explained through any other means (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 1101 at paragraph 76).

The scope and characteristics of a crime like this would invariably require a project interest, and/or a host of robust converging interests. I would highlight Klaus-Gerd Giesen’s text, Transhumanism as the dominant ideology of the fourth industrial revolution (here), in response. Concerning BioDigital Convergence and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Dr. Giesen writes;

“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.” [...] “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. [...] 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.”

While a retaliatory hate crime in response to a troubled shareholder dispute is feasible as an initial consideration, the scope of the scandal involved is disproportionate to the commercial interests of a modest federally-sponsored CAGE entity alone. The CAGE would comprise a peripheral interest, alongside estranged relatives with biological connections to one of the key criminal actors. The latter are exceptionally well-connected to wealth and influence.

State interests in brain–computer interface (BCI) research and the broader Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) are already well-documented in Canada and internationally. These interests are actively explored through multistakeholder venues such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), with which both federal Cabinet members and research bodies like Policy Horizons Canada maintain close policy alignment. The programmatic use cases identified in these frameworks—and echoed in the work of leading neuroethicists such as Nita Farahany—outline how cognitive biometrics and brain data could underpin predictive governance or “pre-crime” models designed to support social stability through anticipatory analytics. The underlying rationale parallels the familiar precautionary adage: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

While such models are often described in ethical terms of safety, sustainability, and social cohesion, they raise profound Constitutional concerns in liberal democracies. In Canada, entrenched Charter protections against unreasonable search, compelled self-incrimination, and state intrusions on cognitive privacy present formidable legal barriers. Yet, as discussions by figures like Dr. Yuval Harari and the WEF indicate, the global policy momentum behind data-driven governance gives reason to consider whether those Constitutional constraints may in due course yield to technocratic imperatives favoring centralized, predictive oversight. These are practical realities concerning how human beings organize their lives, in lockstep with the beliefs of moving stakeholders and commercial trends. Per Dr. Yuval Noah Harari in the Atlantic (here);

"The conflict between democracy and dictatorship is actually a conflict between two different data-processing systems. AI may swing the advantage toward the latter."

If a state-adjacent human experimentation scenario might seem far-fetched despite the detailed documentation at the Testimony and 4IR pages, it remains that an evidentiary record like the one captured on this website must find an appropriate place to land, and there are not many options. WW2 was just 80 years ago, the CIA-funded MKUltra experiments happened in Canada in the 1960s, and the Prime Minister, and much of his Cabinet (and former PM Justin Trudeau) believe morality is a social construct that can and should be engineered (Value(s), at page 36). Think tanks like PHC likewise note concern over the fact that 4IR technologies are developing far faster than they can be regulated. Thus, either a scenario involving wealthy private actors (which is valid in this case) or a state-adjacent apparatus is viable under Villaroman, with likelihood tilting toward the latter by way of the consistent conduct of public agencies in the scandal, and their egregious effects. The protracted timetable in my Testimony (here) dates back to 2013.

You’re saying five courts, three police agencies and an organized criminal group had aligned to destroy your life? Wouldn’t it be easier to assume that you’re the problem?

An unbiased person familiar with the facts on this website could not draw that conclusion. While the species of scandal are obvious by way of appearance, the proof is in the case law at the Authorities and Police Test pages (here & here). The same case law further outlines that the likelihood of scandal is discerned by way of appearance (R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 at paragraph 67; R. v. Davey, 2012 SCC 75, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 828, at para. 51, citing R. v. Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89). It is a scandal of such magnitude that each constituent element would qualify as a serious scandal in its own right. The substance of this is in fact sufficient to question the authenticity of the state. In July 2025, I conducted an audit with three trusted machine learning models (here), all of which arrived at the same conclusions. Samples below, click to expand.

Concerning the criminal cohort featured on this site, do you have any analogues?

The data in Sheridan et al., 2020, and BAE Systems Detica and London Metropolitan University, 2012 are important hallmarks. The Guide page (here) contains additional links, as does the Zersetzung page (here).

The text in Sheridan et al., 2020 (here) that suggests crimes such as this might be widespread. Sheridan began with a dataset of over twenty million online testimonies, which is half the population of Canada. That staggering metric is too big to preclude the ultimate conclusion of the study (here), which recognized that sophisticated gang-stalking is a “widespread phenomenon” that was "subject to very little scientific examination". A crime such as this requires the existence of a framework, and frameworks are never developed for the sake of an isolated project. To that end, I would infer that the same overarching project interest might be applied to countless other victims, which reinforces the importance of whistleblower support.

How do you know this online criminal cohort is targeting you specifically?

Through numerous examples such as this:

As above per the embellished HRP report that was provided to EHS. Full details at the HRP Page (Here).

May 13, 2023 Live Audio Recording Hfx QE II

How do you know this online criminal cohort is targeting you specifically? (Continued)

The group leverages biometric data and AI-assisted tools in their activity. I use that example because the corresponding event is backed by a medical record stored at the Province as well as a live audio recording with the medical resident. The original capture likewise resides on the capture device and other media. The Guide page details a number of milestone events with references that are quite obvious, which likewise concern references to the CAGE, and others that involve political themes.

Irrespective of that, Most of the messaging is shown to address a single recipient. Ie., “They took an oath to kill you”, or, “You messed with the wrong ones”, “this is about your settlement”, etc. If I am not the intended recipient, another person would be. A large number of these actors are also scripted, as is shown below. At the most basic level, these actors are shown to be targeting specific individuals in a coordinated manner, like a pack of wolves.

How do you know this online criminal cohort is targeting you specifically? (Continued)

The most painful strand is the biological link between a key perpetrator and estranged family members (here). Ms. Partrick - a known egg donor and the biological mother of my Nephew - appears prominently in the photograph below, tying the criminal network directly into my immediate circle. The evidentiary trail reaches back to December 2021 for proximate events, and as far as 2011 with respect to the broader timeline. These parties are connected to wealth and influence.

Egg Donor

Nephew

How do you know this online criminal cohort is targeting you specifically? (Continued)

The test in R. v. Loewen, 2010 ABCA 255 at paragraph 32 concerning police response is easily satisfied by way of these observations in that the presence of an ongoing and organized criminal engagement cannot be ruled out.

“To establish objectively reasonable grounds, the Crown needed only to show that it was objectively reasonable to believe that an offence was being committed, not that it was probable or certain.”

Other tests for reasonable grounds are shown (here), and include but are not limited to the tests in Baron v. Canada, 1993 CanLII 154 (SCC), [1993] 1 RCS 416 at page 447; R. v. Phung, 2013 ABCA 63 at paragraph 10; Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 RCS 100, 2005 SCC 40 at paragraph 114; Gordillo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 23 at paragraph 112; Sittampalam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1211 at paragraph 11; R. v. Harding, 2010 ABCA 180 at paragraph 10; R. v. Loewen, 2010 ABCA 255 at paragraph 32; R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12, paragraph 24; 495793 Ontario Ltd. (Central Auto Parts) v. Barclay, Supra; and Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, Supra, at paragraph 58. These tests carry an exceptionally low threshold, and are satisfied in the substance of the complaint brought before the RCMP and HRP. The mandamus test at Canada (Health) v. The Winning Combination Inc., 2017 FCA 101 at paragraph 60 is likewise satisfied.

The public interest in diligent and reasonable police response is highlighted in R. v. Beaudry, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2007 SCC 5 at paragraph 35; Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, 2007 SCC 41 at paragraphs 1, 36, 37, 44, & 140, inter alia. These tests underscore the fact that public confidence is most certainly shaken in the absence of reasonable police responses to crime, including events that might be actionable under the Canadian Criminal Code (495793 Ontario Ltd. (Central Auto Parts) v. Barclay, 2016 ONCA 656 at paragraph 51).

There seems to be a lot of those actors. How can you knit them together?

Taxonomic analysis, the systematic classification of observable traits, can expose online criminal networks that hide behind public-facing platforms. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) endorses the categorical framework developed by BAE Systems Detica and London Metropolitan University (2012) as a benchmark. With enough data points over time, investigators can link actors by matching recurring behavioural markers to circumstantial contexts, just as motorists learn to interpret traffic signals. Applying this method to the original intruders - introduced through direct PC compromise and manipulated social-media algorithms - allows one to link them to other actors who display the same signatures in comparable contexts. This approach satisfies the reasonable grounds threshold as described in R. v. Loewen, 2010 ABCA 255 ¶32. Moreover, section 241(3.1) of the Income Tax Act authorizes forensic discovery of charitable-donation and related tax records with respect to criminal activity.

R. v. Harding, 2010 ABCA 180 ¶10 (Sgt. Topham’s synthesis of multiple clues) reinforces the point: insights must be objectively reasonable, though not necessarily probable - a standard echoed in Loewen. The analyses presented on the Guide page exceed these minimum requirements in view of a balance-of-probabilities threshold. Taxonomic themes include but are not limited to;

Tailored delivery mechanisms via pop-ups, cyber, and social media algorithms;
The direct and visceral nature of the threats and subject matter received;
The use of scripts;
Allusions to event milestones (ie - petition dismissal, cost scandal, bank freeze, etc.);
Allusions to the CAGE entity and its CEO;
Allusions to repetitive themes (ie - settlement payback, court hearings, inheritance, etc.);
Consistent props, clothing, symbolism & buzzwords;
Cognitive dissonance in identity (Christians do not utter death threats or plug Satanists);
Allusions to DEWs, transhumanism (human 3.0), and electronic attacks;
Allusions to estranged relatives;
Allusions to occult & esoteric themes;
Allusions to sponsorship by state actors, including dog whistles from public servants;
Allusions to charitable donations as a means of forensic discovery (fear of discovery);
Video clips depicting local CIMIC harassment in Nova Scotia.

The strength of the same taxonomy is reinforced by volume and consistency, whereas over 76 gigabytes of data have been collected over a three-year period. It is obvious that these scripted actors are not who they portray themselves to be.

Why do you think these criminal actors are state-sponsored, or alternatively, state-adjacent?

In accord with the test in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 1101 at paragraph 76, there are two key reasons that preclude any alternative explanations;

The first is that police have repeatedly declined to investigate or prosecute; a stance echoed by oversight bodies such as the CRCC and POLCOM. Established thresholds for reasonable grounds were ignored, and officers also filed demonstrably false reports (here) that implicate them when compared to audio recordings of the same meetings. A pattern of obstruction is expected to originate from executive-level direction.

The second involves the use of sophisticated AI-Assisted technologies and social algorithms. The campaign relies on advanced algorithms and biometric exploitation far beyond the reach of loosely connected actors in low-resource regions. Sheridan et al. (2020) suggests many other victims worldwide; such scale and complexity require backing from powerful private-sector entities, and, within Canada, at least tacit state approval.

Finally, certain operators, such as Useless Farm, are in fact employed by our government.

Why do you think these criminal actors are state-sponsored, or alternatively, state-adjacent? (Continued)

In R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20, ¶67, the Supreme Court—echoing R. v. Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2, ¶89 -confirmed that a scandal is assessed chiefly by its outward appearance to a reasonable and objective observer who is privy to the subject matter. No legal training is required; only rationality, objectivity, and basic familiarity with the facts. The visuals at issue clearly meet that standard and should compel serious attention from the RCMP.

Why do you think the Canadian Military is involved?

I was approached in person by self-identified members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) who, strikingly, discussed material that would later appear on this website. It is also notable that CAGE’s lead counsel in British Columbia is a uniformed legal adviser to the CAF - an overlap too significant to ignore.

The Guide page chronicles repeated intrusions by CAF Influence Activities into unlawful domestic operations targeting Canadian citizens. These concerns align with whistle-blower revelations by retired Major-General Daniel Gosselin, first reported in the Ottawa Citizen. Additional evidence of PsyOp and CIMIC tactics appears on both the Guide and HRP pages, including video samples documenting CIMIC-style encounters directed at me since March 2022. Under the visibility-and-credibility test in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, ¶¶ 97-98, CAF involvement is thus a plausible and compelling inference.

As geographic boundaries fade and ideological campaigns proliferate, it is unsurprising that a post-democratic state might redeploy its military for domestic social-engineering interventions, precisely the scenario Gosselin warned about. The Politics page and Q/A II explore this emerging reality in greater depth with supporting articles and quotes from CAF brass.

"Covid Lights", Daily Since March 2022.
This Quiet Street is not Times Square.

Where can I find materials to the effect that police and police regulators had consistently denied you services?

Click through to the HRP and RCMP pages (here & here), and the Guide page (here). I likewise have original audio recordings on file. Case law for policing standards can be found (here). The live audio transcript excerpt below will indicate the scope of police consistent obstruction involved. The obstruction appears to have trickled down from the leadership in both agencies.

What proof do you have that you were denied income and legal counsel?

A series of examples concerning the preemptive denial of legal support are located (here), beginning with a clear case of collusion involving the initial law firm I had retained, and continuing with persistent preemptive refusals of service by both private and Provincial BroBono programs alike, which still persists at the time of this April 2025 update.

Likewise, the existence of disruptive effects can be discerned in relation to consistent past experiences. The SCC recognized in Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, 2007 SCC 41 at paragraph 58 that evidence usually becomes overwhelming only by the process of investigation.

At present, investigators can draw reasonable conclusions by way of my tax records and BIO, which demonstrate unerring consistency for the entirety of my adult life up until the inception of the criminal activities in November 2021. Reasonable persons do not destroy their lives willingly, especially when they are accustomed to a lifestyle afforded by a six-figure income. These factors contribute to an inference concerning state interference alongside the numerous other factors cited (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, Supra).

What proof do you have that the CAGE committed shareholder fraud?

It's evident at face value; click through to the Shareholder page (here). Below are limited summaries provided by machine-assisted audit. No less than seven (7) computer models audited the court records, and they have all arrived at the same conclusion, and the court records can be checked by investigators. The proliferation of uncorrected legal error by five courts, over a four year period, is central to the scandal (Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at paragraph 17).

In a heated letter, HRP Inspector Ron Legere dismissed this website as frivolous and claimed you are mentally-ill. How do you address that allegation?

The HRP page (here) begins with two accounts of wilful obstruction, including a false report that was issued in the wake of a 79-minute recorded meeting. The same letter shown at the bottom of the page is suffused with unfounded and pejorative allegations. Finally, the text of the letter does not add up in comparison to the event timetable, contextual background, and my BIO. Analyses from public authorities must "add-up" (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 ¶104). The obstructive effort on the part of HRP, and also by the RCMP as shown (here) is easily discerned by way of appearance. I back up my position with facts and sound reasoning, not conjecture.

The audio recording shows Cst. Pothier acting in good faith: he named CAGE Director a criminal actor linked to the online group and outlines a viable investigative plan. Based on that interview and the audio record, the decision to halt engagement thereafter appears to have originated higher up the chain of command. Whether HRP leadership accepted inducements can be determined only through a forensic audit. Material from police-oversight bodies points to a coordinated, multi-stakeholder posture within law enforcement.

How do you know that the CAGE is related to the criminal mischief detailed at the Zersetzung and Guide pages?

The criminal network surfaced immediately after the 2021 shareholder dispute, repeatedly invoking the settlement and circulating caricatures of CAGE CEO. These attacks capped a two-year run of bad-faith conduct - including probable collusion with my former counsel (here). Whereas the RCMP refused to act, I opened action S-220956 as a de facto life-insurance measure. As noted in my 20 May 2022 affidavit, I did intend to revisit the settlement at some point, but never under such coercive conditions. Cohort messaging coincides with milestones both within and outside the civil proceedings.

How do you know that the CAGE is related to the criminal mischief detailed at the Zersetzung and Guide pages? (Continued)

The PsyOps closely tracked litigation milestones, and had telegraphed and reflected its egregious effects through messaging and symbolism (see Guide). The proceedings detailed at the Civil page (here) describes a crippling structural scandal by way of its species and consistency. Further visuals concerning the related criminal element are buttressed with the same, likewise reflecting an ongoing surveillance provision.

The proceedings culminated in a scandal involving the CAGE’s BC retainer fees, which reflect nine (9) short-chambers hearings at 737.7 hours of work involving seven (7) lawyers and two (2) paralegals assigned to overlapping tasks at egregious time blocks. Such arithmetic could not survive scrutiny without the CAGE and its counsel receiving assurances prior to onset, from a state-adjacent (or embedded) stakeholder capable of providing them. The big question is why.

CAGE Director

Court Clerk's Notes

Click

What proof do you have that the CAGE entity and its CEO were the beneficiaries of state interference in the proceedings?

Irrespective of the disposition of proceedings (here), the related criminal mischief (here), and the shareholder scandal (here), the retainer fee scandal is among the strongest indicators of third-party interference. The CAGE CEO did not agree to a $376,201.97 retainer bill to service nine (9) hearings under sixty minutes of modest complexity, as paragraph 10 at the October 17th, 2023 Affidavit of counsel Emily MacKinnon claims (here). The MacKinnon Affidavits implicate the following persons and entities in felony;

The CAGE and its CEO, because no rational litigant would agree to be billed that retainer, let alone pay it, instead of choosing a different law firm;
The CAGE’s BC law firm Osler, Hoskin, & Harcourt LLP, as no reputable law firm would offer an outrageous retainer as measured against the scope;
The adjudicators who signed counsel’s draft certificates in BC, and enforced those costs in both provinces, including the same motion judge in March 2024, given the legal tests in Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.), paragraph 44;

“Special costs are fees a reasonable client would pay a reasonably competent solicitor to do the work described in the bill”;

and Gichuru v. Smith, 2014 BCCA 414 at paragraph 155;

“When assessing special costs, summarily or otherwise, a judge must only allow those fees that are objectively reasonable in the circumstances”.
The Supreme Court of Canada Registry Staff who violated SCC rules 51(1) and 54(4) rules concerning the motions filed in response to stay those costs, and SCC justice Suzanne Côté, for precluding docket entry concerning the leave application without explanation, irrespective of the test in R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19 at paragraph 137;

“There is no basis to believe that a serious argument pointing to a miscarriage of justice would not meet the public interest standard for leave to appeal to the Court [...] The Supreme Court would and does exercise its leave requirement in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

An unbiased and rational judge would further recognize that the aforementioned characteristics are expected to be impossible under ordinary conditions, without the same persons and entities receiving assurances from other persons and/or entities capable of offering them - before the proceedings began. It is satisfied that the same assuring stakeholders would need to occupy a position of overarching power and influence.

These observations contribute to a thesis of state and third-party interference which is well established in the Affidavits that every judge involved in the scandal had refused to acknowledge (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, Supra). Likewise, it confirms the existence of a project interest important to the goals of those offering the assurances.

Fundamentally, it is clear by way of observation that the characteristics of the proceedings do not resemble a fair proceeding before an unbiased judge that involves two parties in a shareholder dispute. It is obvious there is much more at stake here.

It says in the clerk's notes in the cost felony page that you didn't attend certain court hearings? Why?

By September 2022 the obstruction was so blatant and systemic that the abuse-of-process tests in R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16 ¶¶76-78, U.S.A. v. Cobb, 2001 SCC 19 ¶53, and Canada (MCI) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391 ¶¶91, 110 became unavoidable. Each decision holds that when an ongoing appearance—or effect—of injustice offends fair play and decency, a stay of proceedings may be the only acceptable remedy. The CAGE litigation fits that paradigm (here).

Canada (AG) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26 ¶¶55-56 re-emphasizes that courts are constitutional guardians of the rule of law. Yet the B.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal repeatedly endorsed CAGE-drafted orders that rewrote the factual backdrop while ignoring both evidence and controlling legal tests. Continuing under those conditions would, as Babos warns, “condone unforgivable conduct and erode public confidence".

It must be noted that attendance and participation are distinct: although I stopped appearing in person, I continued to file detailed written submissions and affidavits, with clear references to what was happening. The same obstructive pattern unfolded in Nova Scotia, and even before the Supreme Court of Canada, as documented at the Enforcement page (here).

Could the procedural issues be considered irregularities?

No. Per R. v. Tayo Tompouba, 2024 SCC 16, ¶72;

"Miscarriages of justice can be quashed where a trial was unfair, regardless of whether the error was procedural or substantive in nature” (Vauclair, Desjardins and Lachance, at No. 51.250; see also Khan, at paras. 18 and 27). The question to be decided in this regard is whether the irregularity was so severe that it rendered the trial unfair or created the appearance of unfairness (Khan, at para. 69, per Lebel J., concurring; see also Fanjoy, at pp. 238‑40; Davey, at paras. 50‑51; Kahsai, at paras. 67‑69)."

The violations detailed in the proceedings page involve glaring violations in three courts, and likewise, occasion a clear case of miscarriage of justice at the bench that was perpetuated and denied redress. These are listed at the proceedings page (here), the litigation page (here), as measured against the case law in the authorities page (here).

With respect to the retainer fee scandal, two courts had in fact coordinated concerning the obstruction of procedure rules and timetables. A Charter file was sealed prior to the CAGE accepting service, and the BC Supreme Court ignored nine (9) rules of procedure, carte blanche, upon the emailed request of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada. These are kangaroo court conditions. To an objective observer, the appearance of scandal is unmistakable. It defies reason to think that a person or company implicated in shareholder fraud could walk away from such proceedings with impunity - and a half-million-dollar cheque - absent external interference.

You Can't Make This Up.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the Petition dismissals appear to have been politicized. A typical court filing stamp appears on the left. To its right, a filing stamp proximate to justice Majawa's dismissal of S-220956. Registry staff violated key procedure rules in three courts. Surveillance and PsyOps accompanied the proceedings at all times. See the Guide, Civil, Shareholder, Fiduciary, and Felony2 pages for details.

Are you saying that a murderous hate crime was facilitated through our courts, while police closed the door to any help?

In responding, I must remain anchored in the observable effects, the evidentiary record, the case law, and the resulting harms. The scandal’s effects can fairly be described as a hate crime, yet its execution only makes sense within the broader context of a third-party project interest capable of justifying the risk and expenditure required.

As outlined earlier, the criminal cohort behind this scandal exploits AI-assisted tools within the frameworks of Influence Activities, PsyOps, and MKUltra-style covert torture. The imagery below suggests possible use of deepfake video content, though whether that occurred is ultimately secondary. What is known is that Registry staff violated procedural safeguards so thoroughly that the proceedings adopted the hallmarks of a kangaroo court in lockstep with the adjudicative outcomes. This result is only possible with significant, coordinated support.

Whatever one’s philosophical grounding, there is broad agreement on first principles: murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and breaking rules designed to uphold justice is wrong. In this case, those basic tenets were systematically inverted—and no avenue of redress was permitted.

How or Why could it be possible that so many agencies had aligned to support a specific cause in a manner antagonistic to their mandates, especially one involving two relatively unknown subjects (the CAGE and yourself)?

That question sits at the heart of the scandal. The evidence is both obvious and compelling, and Canadian law is clear and well-codified. The first point of acknowledgment is simple: it happened, and it's happening. The scale, consistency, and multi-jurisdictional character of this scandal - spanning several courts and police agencies across three provinces - rules out the CAGE Director as a lone perpetrator. It likewise makes ad-hoc corruption an implausible explanation. One CEO cannot, on their own, destabilize a national justice system to this extent.

As outlined earlier, the drivers behind this affair point to a broader project interest. CAGE itself is a mid-sized technology vendor, and I am an ordinary, relatively unknown citizen. The evidence in this context instead points inexorably toward a larger framework tied to biodigital convergence. In an event my testimony were set aside, the observable effects nonetheless require a compelling explanation in that investigators would be hard-pressed to avoid an irrefutable inference of a state-sponsored or state-adjacent project.

Your opening comments describe cognitive interference crimes. Is there any evidence that public stakeholders, including judges, may have been compromised in the same or similar fashion?

I submit it could not be ruled out. A review of the four-year chronology - spanning five courts, three police services, and multiple regulators in two Provinces - reveals a pattern of outcomes so synchronized and anomalous that an external coordinating mechanism cannot be responsibly dismissed. This website documents a structural scandal with verifiable exhibits: sealed and missing records, retainer fees immensely disproportionate to hearing time, incriminating shareholder records, and repeated procedural refusals and obstructions that have thwarted ordinary avenues of redress. These effects that might best be described as unnatural, as one would readily expect them to be corrected.

Under the inference test articulated in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, paras 97-98, courts may draw conclusions from “objectively discernible harm on the basis of logical inferences,” provided those inferences rest on concrete, circumstantial facts and do not slip into speculation. When harm is grave, the feared consequence “need not be shown to be likely, but must still be more than negligible, fanciful or speculative.” On that guidance, the aggregated record here demands an explanation more persuasive than ad-hoc incompetence or coincidental error. To accept that dozens of professionals - judges, clerks, police officers, and regulators -simultaneously abandoned their statutory and ethical duties would, in itself, require an extraordinary evidentiary foundation. A competing hypothesis - that some form of coordinated cognitive interference distorted decision-making across institutions - now appears at least as plausible on a balance of probabilities. I would supplement that with my aforementioned testimony of compelling behavioural outliers in 2021.

The site’s 4IR portal surveys enabling technologies (e.g., NIR neuromodulation, Starlink-scale delivery platforms), historical precedents for non-consensual experimentation (MK-Ultra), and contemporary neuro-rights scholarship. UN HRC report A/HRC/57/61 offers a normative framework for cognitive-liberty violations, while scholars such as Professor Nita Farahany (Duke) have for a decade warned of the commercial and ideological drivers behind covert neurotech deployment, and dual use scenarios. Taken together, these data points render an inference of deliberate cognitive tampering uncomfortably cogent - and, under Sherman Estate, sufficiently grounded to warrant serious investigative attention. Should that inference ultimately be proven, the public-interest ramifications would be profound.

Have any actors involved in the scandal made suggestive reference to neurotech crime?

AI-assisted timeline analysis shows that key uploads by this cohort track closely with major litigation and personal-impact milestones. Their content invokes ideas associated with cognitive liberty violations and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) - domains propelled by commercial interest, but also, as Dr Giesen observes in his study (here), by distinct ideological aims.

Figure 3 highlights a December 21st, 2023 video from the YouTube handle Walking Faith - the same creator who circulated interior footage of my BC condominium in December 2021. Viewers unfamiliar with the context can nonetheless detect clear departures from the channel’s brand with respect to doctrinal assertions, thematic references, and links to users who trade in occult symbols (cf. Psalm 26:2-5; Rev 21:8, 22:15). In the YouTube upload, the speaker openly describes an intrusive cognitive interference effect on third parties - language far outside the mainstream Christian teaching - yet directly relevant to the neuromodulation concerns raised here.

Anthropic's large-language-model summarization frames the clip as a techno-spiritual metaphor:

“Spiritual authority” ≈ neuromodulation capability
“Sphere” ≈ effective signal range
“Permission” ≈ network authentication / gating
A “simple phone” ≈ a nearby transducer delivering focused neural interference—potentially supported by a wider 4IR infrastructure (e.g., Starlink or Amazon's Kuiper).

Within this schema, abrupt withdrawal, mood shifts, or transient cognitive disarray could mark targeted neuromodulation events triggered by proximate signal nodes within range. Translating faith-coded language this way offers a coherent lens for otherwise enigmatic psychological or social phenomena in high-surveillance, data-rich settings.

Notably, December 21st, 2023 - day 666 of the Russia-Ukraine war - also marks the date the Supreme Court of Canada declined docket entry on the very scandal documented on this website. Such numerically and symbolically charged timing aligns with the cohort’s established pattern of coded language, icons, and algorithmic distribution (see Guide). The purpose of the present AI-assisted synthesis is thus to surface recurring patterns among known actors that, in aggregate, reinforce the broader evidentiary mosaic. Similar themes are likewise shown in the first two Figures below ("disarmed authorities, shamed counsel, condemned already", etc.).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Coded Language & Dog Whistles.

Covid-19 Vaccine Research [Click]

___________________________________________

You infer on this website that adjudicators and other public stakeholders may have also been subject to cognitive tampering. Is that a reasonable inference, or is it speculation?

The record allows for, and in fact requires, the use of broader inferences to discern the modes of causality at stake. The aforementioned case law in Sherman Estate v. Donovan is utilized in this exercise, as well as the guidance of the supreme court in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, concerning the elimination of less likely explanations; not unlike Occam’s razor. At paragraph 35; “The issue with respect to circumstantial evidence is the range of reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it”. Specifically at paragraph 41;

“To justify a conviction, the circumstantial evidence, assessed in light of human experience, should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative — a helpful way of describing the line between plausible theories and speculation.”

The case law continues at paragraph 56 in quoting the Alberta Court of Appeal in Dipnarine, at para. 22., which noted that, “Circumstantial evidence does not have to totally exclude other conceivable inferences”.

This site documents a structural scandal through four years of verifiable evidence across two Provinces, and three if the SCC engagement is counted, that can and does shock the conscience of the community (R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16; R. v. Regan, 2002 SCC 12; and R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; inter alia). The scope and characteristics of this evidence permits a very narrow range of plausible explanations, as coupled with the fact that the scandal has consistently evaded correction through customary means. As measured against governing law and reasonable public expectation, it is reasonable to infer that some form of cognitive tampering has influenced the conduct and decisions of key stakeholders, judicial and otherwise. The science and means of executing cognitive interference crimes are well established, as is outlined in UN Reports A/HRC/57/61 & A/HRC/58/58, and UN Resolutions A/HRC/RES/51/3 & A/HRC/RES/58/6.

The alternative to cognitive tampering would require a systemic ethics crisis across these institutions that is in fact less reasonable to believe given the effects and cross-agency consistency. The scope likewise precludes modes of ad-hoc corruption for the same reason. Ethics scandals are expected to self-correct through time and venue, especially when the effects appear severe at face value, and when the tensions between the effects and the applicable governing law are crisp.

When coupled with my personal testimony (here), the transcript evidence concerning key criminal perpetrators, the availability of enabling technologies, the court, police, and regulator records, the sundry evidence, the lack of competing explanations, and the leading indicators suffused in today’s sociopolitical landscape (see Politics page here), there is a solid footing to draw an inference of cognitive interference affecting some or many stakeholders.

Your landing page and 4IR portal examine the emerging threat landscape around neurotechnology crime over and above the minimum viable use-cases reasonably considered. Can you give me the coles-notes?

The computer models explored a dual-use amplification scenario in which low-Earth orbit (“LEO”) constellations—such as Starlink—are leveraged to scale the utility and reach of covert surveillance and targeted behavioural interventions. Without speculating on the entirety of use-cases available, it is enough to recognize that the substrate is in place, and that compelling philosophical and sociopolitical arguments can be made concerning the likelihood of state-adjacent and clandestine use-cases that cannot be dismissed summarily given the characteristics of today's world. The project-centric language exemplified above by WalkingFaith, and MyFatherIsJoy (the latter using the "FurnaceForged" alt account) as shown below, among other linked actors, accentuates this concern.

The Politics page (here) engages the work of Michel Foucault, Colin Crouch, Yuval Noah Harari, and Klaus-Gerd Giesen. Additional contemporary research scholars whose analyses favor the plausibility of such mechanisms over presumptive modes of normalcy bias include 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. It is a use-case that cannot be ignored, and I say that with a four-year dossier of hard evidence that affords a very narrow range of causal explanations. From a plethora of angles, and in lieu of a public ethics crisis that would require a systemic mode of moral bankruptcy that is realistically unlikely, a scenario like this satisfies the test criteria in R. v. Villaroman.

Why do you have a "Politics Page" (Here)?

On this website and in my court filings, I have endeavoured to buttress the probative record concerning the conduct of public agencies and institutions from a wide variety of angles. While the cross-institutional pattern on this site might seem counterintuitive in a constitutional governance framework that operates “by the book”, the politics page explores practical sociopolitical trends germane to our day. To that end, it serves as further contextual data to inform reasonable inferences (R v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33).

Across the scholars noted in the foregoing paragraph, the through-line is that power today works less through formal, visible institutions and more through infrastructures, data flows, logistics, and private governance. Foucault’s point that “power is everywhere… because it comes from everywhere” helps explain why contemporary control is dispersed through technical systems and everyday practices rather than institutional structures. Dr. Colin Crouch adds that in “post-democracy,” “elections certainly exist… [but] public electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle… [and] politics is really shaped in private”. Their work explains how a Constitutional façade can remain while the will of influential communities are expressed through opaque, technocratic networks that establish themselves in political, institutional, commercial, academic, religious, advocacy, and information-centric theatres over time through discretionary vetting. Foucault used the term "knowledge regimes".

Profiling is important to a knowledge regime's efficacy and longevity, and many would argue that a data-driven governance revolution has already occurred. Shoshana Zuboff names the logic plainly: "surveillance capitalism unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for behavioral data", which companies then refine to predict and shape what we do next. Rouvroy and Berns describe this as "algorithmic governmentality"—a system where "networks of data evolving in real-time… aggregate as profiles", governing us pre-emptively rather than through rules we can debate. Mark Andrejevic shows how this represents a fundamental shift: "automation results in post-disciplinary forms of monitoring that no longer rely on the subject's internalization of the monitoring gaze". Power moves from watching people to letting machines decide about them. And because, as Laura DeNardis observes, "most areas of internet governance are dominated by the private sector," we face a de facto "privatization of governance" that operates beneath any Constitutional radar.

This transformation rests on a deeper philosophical shift: treating life itself as data. Yuval Harari identifies an emerging ideology he calls "Dataism," which holds that "the universe consists of data flows" and assigns value by how much you contribute to processing power—a worldview custom-built for mass profiling. James C. Scott provides the historical precedent: modern states learned to govern by making societies "legible" through standardized identification, addressing, and metrics. Platforms have now perfected and privatized these techniques. Jacques Rancière reminds us that any established order—what he calls a "police" system—"defines the allocation of ways of doing, ways of being, and ways of saying", deciding in advance what becomes visible and speakable. Today, algorithms increasingly make those decisions. At the sensory edge of this system, Trevor Paglen observes that "invisible images are actively watching us… guiding our movements", while Byung-Chul Han warns that "the society of transparency is not a society of trust, but a society of control". Benjamin Bratton names the planetary infrastructure that holds it all together: "The Stack"—the layered architecture (from User to Interface to Cloud to Earth) through which these systems compute and govern at scale.

So how accurate is this picture compared to the comforting belief that we live in a rules-based democracy where individual choice reigns? These thinkers argue—with substantial evidence—that citizen-profiling mechanisms aren't speculative or marginal—they are the operating system of contemporary governance and commerce, and they consistently outpace public-law accountability. What feels like democratic choice is often channeled by predictive scoring, infrastructural chokepoints, and private standard-setting that never appears on any ballot. In Wolfgang Streeck's stark phrase, the neoliberal project has worked to "divorce capitalism from democracy, or rather, to set the first free from the second". Digital infrastructure provides the mechanism.

Whether these scholars' diagnosis remains accurate depends partly on whether it describes passive emergence or active construction. There is ample reason to maintain that the same ethos is a driving ideology in contemporary circles of power. Prime Minister Carney’s book, Value(s), is a compelling example [Link]. At page 36, Mr. Carney rejects an objective basis for moral sentiment, comparing it to “genetic memes”. Per the exact text;

“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."

The passage crystallizes what the scholars above describe in systemic terms: the philosophical foundation beneath algorithmic governmentality and post-democratic technocracy is fundamentally anthropological—a claim about what humans are, echoing former WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab’s quotes which are shown elsewhere on this website. If moral sentiments are merely memes subject to cascades and tipping points, then engineering them through coordinated intervention is not manipulation—it is instead responsible stewardship. Carney treats morality like fashion—arbitrary patterns spread through imitation—which transforms "building a better world for all" from a democratic project into a technical one: those with command of financial and digital infrastructure can rationally optimize society toward preferred outcomes, unencumbered by superstitious deference to "inherent" human values.

Importantly, and as contemplated at the politics page, contemporary postmodern assumptions reject the categorical imperatives Canada’s governmental and legal heritage was built upon, albeit not through the same exercise of intellectual rigor of our forefathers. When an objective basis of truth is called into question, the basis of law, ethics, and morals are also understood to be social constructs, subject to a given “knowledge regime” in the Foucauldian sense.

The technocratic vision isn't confined to progressive elites, in the traditional “left/right” characterization. UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama both established government "nudge units" in 2010 and 2008 respectively, institutionalizing behavioral economics as state policy. Cameron organized seminars with economist Richard Thaler, included Thaler's book "Nudge" in Conservative MPs' reading lists, and championed what he called "libertarian paternalism"—the belief that elite technocrats can subtly engineer citizen behavior "for their own good" without formal coercion. But the most explicit rejection of democratic governance comes from the libertarian-right. Peter Thiel declared in 2009: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible," arguing that "the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms".

Thiel's Palantir—which provides surveillance and predictive analytics to immigration enforcement and military intelligence—represents "the soft architecture of control" he champions: privately governed systems operating beyond democratic accountability. His intellectual mentor, Curtis Yarvin (writing as Mencius Moldbug), argues that American democracy should be replaced by "accountable monarchy, similar to the governance structure of corporations," where a CEO-sovereign governs efficiently without the "bureaucratic complexity" of democratic process. Yarvin's ideas have proven influential among prominent Trump-administration figures including Vice President JD Vance and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. Whether progressive (Carney/Freeland) or libertarian-conservative (Cameron/Thiel/Yarvin), the through-line is identical: democratic participation is structurally inadequate for complex governance, moral sentiments are malleable rather than inherent, and elite coordination through technical systems must supersede popular sovereignty. The left builds this architecture through financial regulation and climate frameworks; and the right through surveillance platforms and corporate governance models—but both arrive at post-democratic technocracy, differing only in which elites should program the system. Political camps can be cosmetic. What matters are Beliefs.

This thinking forms the substrate for citizen profiling frameworks such as the RCMP’s Project Wide Awake, and any other such frameworks that may exist, do exist, and/or will exist, that the general public may not be privy to. As compelling as these observations are, the dossier on website is rooted in actual events, and it points to court records currently under sealing orders.

Couldn’t you have just walked away at the beginning?

No, given the chronology and the substance.

Soon after my second return to B.C., the criminal mischief described on the Guide page (here) intensified. In the absence of RCMP action, I filed S-220956 as a de facto life-insurance measure. I had already sworn an affidavit in January 2024 and carried it for weeks while being stalked in person and receiving threats tied to CAGE (from December 2021 onward). After acute cyberattacks and related mischief and without RCMP assistance, I filed a Petition. The court later ordered service on the CRA and three private entities connected to CAGE, but service never materialized. Within weeks, I was forced to evacuate my Surrey BC residence and relocate to NS.

The perpetrators conducting the cybercrimes were, in fact, domiciled in the adjacent condo. I could hear them laughing and describing, in real time, the remote control of my computer. The RCMP declined to obtain CCTV or pursue other obvious investigative steps (here at part one). These events are documented in my May 20, 2022 affidavit - sworn shortly after a forensic audit was ordered in the file (an audit that was subsequently prevented). In that affidavit, I also note that the officer I spoke with appeared preemptively familiar with the events.

The civil action, supported by proof of perjury, was intended to compel CRA testimony on all issues, including the role of external criminal actors. Those actors themselves had signaled that a forensic audit is a viable vector of discovery (see imagery and case law below).

Until the drama is fully uncovered, I remain trapped in this position, searching for a lawful solution. As Dickson J. observed, the situation imposes an “intolerable burden” (Perka v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232, at p. 246).

Can you walk away now?

Four years after the initial events in Surrey BC, these matters remain unresolved, albeit the evidentiary record is now substantial. My intention is to keep talking, keep contending for residual discretion, keep fighting unconstitutional censorship, and keep seeking whistleblowers.

I am effectively cornered: a half-million-dollar judgment - well beyond my means - hangs over me, and the scandal presents an ongoing privacy violation that I reasonably surmise is neurotech-related (potentially injected or inhaled GQD). After the Supreme Court refused to hear my case, I was jailed in August 2024 for opposing the billing scandal, which elicited the medical issues referenced below the text. As of September 2025, remain under house arrest. My July 29th, 2025 email blast highlighted four autoimmune conditions triggered by that first custodial sentence. Although the judge acknowledged my medical evidence, she still declined to exercise her residual discretion to halt the enforcement of felonious enrichment (see Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, ¶220; Morguard Investments v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; inter alia). The judge also stated she “would not be reading” an Affidavit containing 268 pages of machine-assisted audit, which was likewise included in the July 29 transmission. Although my efforts to document the scandal may result in some measure of mitigation at some point, any realistic hope of reclaiming a normal life depends on credible whistle-blower testimony. The scandal really is about a BCI crime.

The public dimension is pivotal. Ethically, walking away - even if that were possible - would be indefensible because the same framework is poised to harm others. Documentary evidence shows that key Canadian institutions now answer to third-party interests; a system that serves Citizens only until it doesn’t. These revelations call the state’s authenticity into question and strike at the core of human dignity. In practice, Canada functions as a post-constitutional polity, governed less by its Charter than by informal networks of like-minded stakeholders. Abandoning one’s constitutional rights would only accelerate that drift and further erode the democratic order Canadians chose. If you are reading this and could potentially contribute to the case, please consider the bigger picture at stake.

You recently read Prime Minister Mark Carney's book, "Value(s)". Would the text coincide with a troubling interest in 4IR Technologies?

In some ways, yes. A free copy of the Prime Minister's text can be downloaded (here).

Carney argues - drawing on Adam Smith and Richard Dawkins - that moral sentiments are learned “social memes,” not innate qualities (page 36). Yet, Smith himself held that humans possess inherent moral instincts, merely shaped by social forces. Rejecting an innate moral core invites an unhinged pragmatism: if virtue is purely constructed, society must engineer it - an assumption that underpins an ideological enthusiasm for Fourth-Industrial-Revolution (4IR) technologies shared among a technocratic elite (ie., Y-Combinator's deleted CRISPR article).

At page 95, Carney applies the same lens to Magna Carta, portraying it as a time-bound political compromise whose importance was overstated by later thinkers like Edward Coke. That stance clashes with Canada’s Constitutional preamble, which grounds the country in the supremacy of God and the rule of law (Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 2672003 SCC 72, ¶37). Many Canadians see Magna Carta’s endurance not as myth-making but as evidence that it articulates timeless, inherent rights. Rights that depend only on shifting consensus are privileges, not true rights. Carney claims the "world is being reset", and explores the need for "new institutions working in solidarity...to support the 4IR", at page 494 and following.

In practice, Carney’s philosophy aligns with the Davos vision of human enhancement through 4IR tools - from programmable currencies to neuro-technology. This “synthetic virtue” agenda presumes humanity must redesign itself because no fixed moral order exists. The Politics page (here) discusses how such technocratic ambitions push Canada toward a post-democratic model. At its core, and by increment and/or disruptive change, 4IR poses a choice between engineered control and the idea of an inherent, God-given dignity - a question that cuts to the meaning of rights and governance. Dr. Giesen suggests the odds are lopsided among stakeholders (here).

Pictured below is a preamble from Mr. Carney's Davos colleague, Kristel van Der Elst; the current Director of Policy Horizons Canada, a think tank under the Federal oversight. The fact that the PHC website contains a disclaimer is immaterial. What matters, fundamentally, are the beliefs.

"The Media".

Might a new and different government address and intervene to fix the challenges detailed on this website?

A swapping of parties (ie., Liberal vs. Conservative) is window dressing; it is not expected to resolve the structural problems documented on this site. Four years of evidence demonstrate that Canada’s statutory firewalls between public and private power have collapsed. Commercial interests are shown to have bled freely into an institutional framework codified to be diffuse on paper, and the pattern is too coordinated to be dismissed as ad-hoc corruption or an outlier. Five courts and three police services in three provinces have followed the same obstruction script, and that requires a mature organizing principle.

Political theorists such as Colin Crouch, who coined the term “post-democracy,” and Michel Foucault, who analyzed power as exercised through diffuse networks, describe systems in which democratic institutions persist but real authority shifts to opaque discretionary networks. The misconduct showcased here fits that model: democratic rituals remain on the surface, while discretionary vetting behind the scenes determines outcomes. This drift is propelled by Fourth-Industrial-Revolution ideology. Mark Carney, echoing UN and WEF policy papers, frames the 4IR as a wholesale “values reset” that requires new institutions built on enforced “solidarity.” Yuval Harari warns that AI and big-data governance naturally favor centralized control over distributed democracy. It's about how human beings tend to organize themselves, coupled with changing conditions and prevailing beliefs. The case file in fact resembles the characteristics of a surveillance state.

Efforts to alert elected officials confirm the cross-party nature of the problem. Email campaigns and a Change.org petition that gathered more than 4,500 signatures drew perfunctory acknowledgements but no meaningful action, reinforcing the notion that real power flows through networks rather than party lines. Recourse to regulatory bodies (ie., POLCOM, CJC, and the LSBA, and NSBS), met stiff opposition. CRA likewise had aggressively opposed Master Cameron's April 1st, 2022 discovery order in S-220956 without a jurisprudential or objective basis. The indifference among MPs and opposition among regulators carries Constitutional implications. In Charkaoui (2007 SCC 9, ¶23), the Supreme Court held that even national security imperatives cannot override fundamental justice, yet the sealing orders and procedural shortcuts in these cases defy that principle and reduce Charter rights to revocable privileges.

The path forward therefore depends on transparency, sustained legal challenges, and, above all, whistle-blower testimony capable of piercing the institutional fog. Until insiders come forward, challenging unconstitutional sealing orders, publishing evidence, and invoking precedents such as Beals v. Saldanha and Morguard remain essential. I invite consideration of the Politics page, which, in synthesizing the arguments of well-respected theorists and the evidentiary record at stake, proposes that the multistakeholder model espoused at the UN/WEF is Canada's reality.

The website discusses the Covid mRNA vaccine. Why?

I began investigating the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines after the events of 2021-2022 and found the results deeply troubling. The Vaccine section of this site substantiates the following:

Peer-reviewed challenges to Health Canada’s position: MIT researchers have published findings that contradict Health Canada’s guidance.
Public funds used to amplify questionable data.
Severe, disproportionate mandates for public servants—including the RCMP—under threat of job loss or career freeze.
Infectious-disease specialists who describe COVID-19 as “clinically similar to influenza.”
My own bout with COVID-19 mirrored those less-severe clinical descriptions.
Readily available, low-cost treatments (e.g., ivermectin) shown to be effective and safe, yet sidelined.
Physicians stripped of licences for prescribing such alternatives.
Unprecedented speed of vaccine development and rollout.
Evidence that mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines can integrate into human DNA.
Live-blood microscopy showing nanoparticles and fibrils “branching like antennae.”
A Microsoft patent capable of turning vaccinated individuals into biological “antennas/transmitters” (see link).
Alarming quotations by respected figures—archived here, on the 4IR Portal, and in my Testimony.
Laboratory confirmation of graphene oxide in vaccine vials.
FDA’s request to seal vaccine-content data for 75 years.
UN/WEF and major-industry statements championing the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Aggressive suppression of dissenting scientific voices by mainstream media.
My documented experience of a cognitive-liberty violation, potentially related.
A bafflingly uniform response pattern—from judges, police, regulators, registry staff, and even private actors—suggesting coordinated stakeholder involvement.

The Testimony details my own experience of cognitive-liberty violation, and the 4IR portal explores whether or not something more elaborate might be plausible. Given the scale of Fourth Industrial Revolution investment - and the extraordinary behaviour of public bodies during the rollout - an external-tampering hypothesis related to the vaccine is plausible to consider. Taken together, these data points warrant an urgent, independent review of both the vaccines’ contents and the decision-making processes that drove their approval and enforcement.

"It's Just the Flu.."

4IR Portal [Click]

If a Source Insists Covid-19 Vaccines Do Not Contain Graphene Derivatives, Insist on a Science-Based Rebuttal.
The "Fact Checks" in Reuters, AP, and Other Mainstream Sources are Conclusory and are Rooted in Conjecture.

This is not a "Fact Check". When Reuters Posts Hearsay as a Determinative Scientific Rebuttal, it Does Not Settle the Issue.

The Actual Data is Compelling. At a Minimum, it Calls for Earnest Scientific Review - Not Conclusory Dismissal.

At least one poster on Reddit thought this website gave off “QAnon Vibes”. How would you respond to that type of characterization?

I want to first thank the Halifax Reddit community for their posts made in response to various signage I had posted. I have had some issues in generating reach (here), but community boards are extremely helpful so long as the posts aren’t removed quickly by moderators. I have made a few updates to the landing page as I understand that some viewers prefer to skim the contents. My thanks again to SultanOfSwing7, Low_Spectre, and the other posters.

This is a non-fiction record. Court documents, orders, and police reports are as “real-life” as it gets. The shareholder records (here), retainer-fee affidavits and clerk’s notes (here), and proceedings materials (here) are redacted copies of originals. The 4IR and UN/WEF materials are authentic (here). The Politics page (here) sets out the philosophical context with citations. For the online criminal element (here), the original posts are archived and sometimes presented in collage to show linkages. I am not fabricating digital content.

I don’t follow conspiracy communities like QAnon or Pizzagate. Any references to esoteric or occult motifs on the Guide page reflect recurring themes in third-party imagery and posts and not my creations. That includes the Narcity article featuring devil horns over Rideau Cottage. Many actors involved - including estranged relatives shown on the Guide page - display an interest in esoteric themes. Any mention of Freemasonry is contextual, not determinative.

More broadly, people in positions of power hold overarching beliefs like anyone else. Documentaries such as Riddles in Stone (here) raise questions about symbolism and architecture that merit consideration. I do not claim to know hidden motives; I ask readers to weigh the documented conduct of public agencies alongside the 4IR materials. In an era of potent technologies, beliefs shape outcomes, and should be assessed by their fruits.

"Do no violence to the poor, because he is poor: and do not oppress the needy in the gate: Because the Lord will judge his cause, and will afflict them that have afflicted his soul." - Proverbs 22:22-23

The Supreme Court of Canada Registry broke rules 51(1) and 54(4) to delay expedited motions to stay a Cost Scandal for over five (5) months, before dismissing them contrary to customary docket entry tests, along with the leave App. The date below might explain why, if the broken rules cannot. This is big. Courts can be tapped to facilitate special interests in Canada, with ease.

This Required a Framework.

Côté J. Denied Docket Entry W/O Reasons

Per Justice Iacobucci in R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19 at paragraph 137 concerning the Supreme Court of Canada Docket Test

“There is no basis to believe that a serious argument pointing to a miscarriage of justice would not meet the public interest standard for leave to appeal to the Court. [...] The Supreme Court would and does exercise its leave requirement in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

At the proceedings pages, you mention that a BCCA justice refused to grant a time extension to appeal because Charter matter S-229680 (concerning the topics on this website) “might cause social unrest”. Does she have a point?

No. Framing this as a clash between “national security” and individual rights is a false dilemma. The decision, drafted before the hearing even began, is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court confirmed in Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, ¶¶22–23, 27, Charter protections override blanket appeals to security or “greater-good” rhetoric. When judges, police, or regulators misuse their powers to advance private or ideological agendas, they remain personally accountable; constitutional governance is not “majority-rule by impunity.” Bad actors must be removed and replaced with officials who meet the ethical standards the Constitution requires. Canadians voted for a constitutional democracy; not an ideological caste system.

If I understand correctly, a recent out-of-province judge placed a sealing order over the entirety of the file that detailed this, and published a revised narrative?

Yes. With the backing of the Provincial Attorney General’s office, the court sealed the entire file, which underscores the need for this website. I managed to take the adjacent photo, which used the same color scheme as my posted signs. The court ignored a detailed affidavit with supporting documents and case law concerning my Charter right to freedom of expression (see Authorities page).

Concerning that sealing order, there are no competing interests that could justify departing from the open-court principle: I am not subject to a shareholder or other confidentiality agreement regarding commercial information implicating the CAGE and the proceedings related to it (Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41, ¶55). The secrecy itself calls into question Canada’s democratic commitments; hiding the case from public scrutiny adds yet another layer to an already precarious structure.

I also sought media oversight. Courts routinely alert media to potential sealing so that interventions can be considered; I contacted CBC, CTV, Rebel News, Postmedia, and Epoch Times, among others. None responded.

The court sealed the file, and published a revisionist narrative on its website to stand in its place. The same chronology widely detracts from the actual event chronology. One blanket Constitutional violation of that magnitude is enough to question the legitimacy of the institution, and readers are asked to consider the impact.

I have a happy life and you're not part of it. Why should I care about this?

Because this scandal effectively questions the authenticity of the State.

Because while the conduct of the government you live under and the institutions you and your loved ones depend on might not be a concern today, it might be a concern tomorrow. Two-tier justice systems work for you until they don't. As the saying goes, “you rest when you die”.

Because two police agencies, including Canada's federal police force, protected organized criminal perpetrators, and because a big data study, Sheridan et al., 2020, had proven that these crimes are widespread and largely ignored (here). I could have been anyone. So could you.

Because biodigital convergence technology and cognitive interference crime is involved.

Because finally, fill in the blank: ________________________________________________________.

Twenty Million Online Citations. Sheridan et al., 2020

Q & A Part I

The Issues

FIFTY Social Influencers FIVE Courts THREE Police Agencies ONE Scandal

Q & A
Part I

FIFTY Social Influencers
FIVE Courts
THREE Police Agencies
ONE Scandal