POLICE DUTY TO INVESTIGATE THIS CASE: WHY THE THRESHOLD IS MET AND DISCRETION IS EXHAUSTED
 

I. QUESTION AND SHORT ANSWER
 

Question: Do police have a statutory and legal obligation to investigate the facts of this case, and if so, why?
 

Short Answer: Yes.  On the evidence summarized here, the legal threshold of reasonable grounds to believe that multiple Criminal Code offences may have been committed is not just met but substantially exceeded across five interlocking domains:
 

• State-adjacent coordination

• Interference with the administration of justice

• Psychological operations (PSYOP)

• Institutional capture

• Emerging dual-use / neurotechnology concerns as a sensitive, high-risk dimension
   

Once the customary thresholds are engaged, police discretion concerns how to investigate, not whether to investigate at all.  Under the RCMP Act, analogous provincial statutes, and the common-law duty in Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth, police cannot decline to investigate simply because the pattern is systemic, complex, or implicates institutions.
 

The combination of:
 

• documentary evidence,

• timing correlations, and

• statistically implausible patterns
   

creates a compelling, credible, objective basis that makes investigation a legal obligation, not a discretionary favour.

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: WHEN DOES A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE ARISE?

1. Statutory Duty (RCMP Act and Peace Officer Role)
 

RCMP Act, s. 18 requires RCMP members to:
 

“perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province.”
 

In plain terms: once there is a reasonable basis to believe Criminal Code offences may have been committed, police are under a duty to take reasonable investigative steps.  This is not optional where life, liberty, or serious systemic-integrity issues are at stake.  Municipal and provincial forces operate under analogous statutory and common-law duties.
 

2. “Reasonable Grounds”
 

Two key authorities define the threshold:
 

• R. v. Loewen – Reasonable grounds exist where there is an objectively reasonable belief that an offence was being or had been committed; certainty is not required at that stage.
   

• Mugesera v. Canada – Reasonable grounds exist where there is an objective basis for the belief, grounded in compelling and credible information.
   

This standard is:
 

• lower than balance of probabilities;

• much lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt;

• a gateway that, once crossed, triggers investigative obligations.
   

3. Duty to Investigate vs. Negligence
 

In Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth, the Supreme Court of Canada:
 

• recognized the tort of negligent investigation; and

• confirmed that once reasonable grounds exist, police must act as a reasonable investigator would in the circumstances.
   

Police are not entitled to refuse to investigate until evidence is overwhelming.  Investigation is the mechanism by which overwhelming evidence is developed.
 

4. Cumulative Effect and Pattern Recognition
 

Canadian criminal law recognizes that patterns of circumstantial evidence can be more probative than any single fact:
 

• R. v. Harding – The cumulative effect of individually innocuous facts may create a compelling inference of wrongdoing.

• R. v. Villaroman – Fact-finders must consider whether innocent explanations remain reasonably plausible once the entire pattern is considered.
   

At the investigative stage, the question is not: “Is guilt proven?”, but: “Does this pattern, taken as a whole, require further investigation by a reasonable officer?”
 

This is the question this memorandum answers.

III. OVERVIEW OF THE FACT PATTERN
 

The evidence—largely documentary and independently verifiable—converges in five domains:
 

1. State-adjacent coordination
   Highly anomalous, synchronized responses by courts, regulators, police, and media that consistently prevent examination of shareholder evidence and related irregularities, while enabling enforcement of manifestly disproportionate costs.
    

2. Interference with the administration of justice
   A sustained sequence of judicial and procedural decisions that systematically block discovery, seal records without applying Sherman Estate, and enforce an approximately 9,000% costs markup without scrutiny.
    

3. Psychological operations / harassment (PSYOP)
   A multi-domain campaign (online, physical, cyber, break-ins, “algorithmic” content) that escalated until the complainant was forced into an emergency cross-country evacuation, consistent with patterns identified in cybertorture and “organized stalking” literature.
    

4. Institutional capture
   Over twenty institutions, across multiple jurisdictions and mandates, respond in ways that produce a 100% rate of declination or non-examination of core evidence over four years.
    

5. Emerging dual-use / neurotechnology concerns
   A set of medical, behavioural, timing, and institutional-response anomalies closely tracking risk indicators identified in recent UN reports on neurotechnology, cognitive liberty, and institutional integrity (A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58, A/HRC/RES/58/6).
    

Individually, each fact might be explained away.  Taken together, they form a pattern that no reasonable police officer can dismiss without investigation.

IV. STATE-ADJACENT COORDINATION
 

Potential Criminal Code provisions engaged
 

• s. 139(2) – Obstructing justice

• s. 122 – Breach of trust by public officer

• ss. 423, 423.1 – Intimidation (public or justice-system participant)

• s. 465 – Conspiracy

• s. 426 – Secret commissions (if assurances involved financial or professional inducements)
   

1. Key Facts (Each Arguably Innocent Alone)
 

Across four years and two provinces, more than twenty touch points (judges, registries, police, regulators, media) produce a uniform practical outcome: probative evidence is never examined, while facially impossible billing is certified and coercively enforced.  Core elements include:
 

• Massive billing markup
   

  • ~737.7 hours billed for ~14.5 hours of actual court time across nine short BC hearings, plus 89 hours billed for a single 20-minute NS hearing.

  • Aggregate uplift on the order of 9,000% compared to tariff-like expectations.

  • Those amounts were later certified and enforced.
     

• Court certification without proportionality analysis
   

  • Certification of this quantum with no meaningful assessment under Bradshaw, Boucher, Gichuru, Okanagan, etc.

  • No attempt to reconcile the billing with the actual procedural simplicity and short hearing times.
     

• Discovery deflection
   

  • A proper discovery route opened by Master Cameron (CRA evidence, third-party records) is systematically reversed and then shut down through referral-judge orders, blanket sealing, and summary-hearing acceleration.

  • As a result, shareholder records, FY2020 derecognition, and contradictory affidavits are never independently tested.
     

• Police declination
   

  • RCMP non-responsiveness, non-engagement with record, apology but no willingness to correct, subsequent engagement characterized as "harassing communications".

  • Preemptive mental health framing.

  • A 79-minute meeting with HRP where an officer praised the PsyOp evidence as serious and well organized is followed, within five days, by a form-letter declination (“civil matter / insufficient evidence”) and no investigation, with a pejorative mental health tag.

  • Subsequent nonengagement with record, key evidence omitted from FOIPOP reports.

  • Police regulators (CRCC, POLCOM) insulate misconduct.
     

• Sealing orders beyond the Sherman Estate framework
   

  • Multiple courts impose blanket or pre-service sealing with no genuine necessity or minimal-impairment analysis, and no serious consideration of redaction, contrary to Sherman Estate, Vancouver Sun, CBC v. New Brunswick, CBC v. Named Person.
     

• Media removal
   

  • A Vancouver Sun article referencing aspects of the case is first published, then quietly removed from the website, with no explanation and no further reporting despite repeated outreach.

  • Post Media (Canada-wide) approved creative visuals for RefugeeCanada.Net newspaper ads, signed an ad contract, and accepted payment, but subsequently cancelled the engagement prior to publication through managerial intervention.

  • References to this website appear to be blacklisted and shadow-banned in online forms and social media (test them).

  • Radio stations refusing to air paid advertisements after signing contracts.
     

• Timing correlations and anticipatory responses
   

  • Rapid (many < 24-hour) institutional responses that presuppose knowledge of sealed filings or non-public events—for example, affidavits and orders that respond to new sealed content on timelines inconsistent with ordinary internal process.
     

• Health disregard until external visibility
   

  • Detailed medical evidence of a serious autoimmune condition is filed and ignored for roughly ten months in the contempt/enforcement track, only to be acknowledged and accommodated the day after a public broadcast email surfaces the same evidence outside the sealed record.
     

• Registry cooperation in irregular steps
   

  • Registry staff rubberstamp facially egregious orders, refuse to provide record copies, and violate procedural rules.  No whistleblowers.
     

• Across-the-board institutional declination
   

  • Every venue contacted—police, securities regulators, law societies, privacy and human-rights bodies, ombuds, courts, politicians, media—either:
     

    • declines jurisdiction,

    • dismisses without real investigation, or

    • affirms the existing trajectory without engaging the underlying record.
       

Alone, each item might be put down to error, editorial choice, resource pressure, or misunderstanding.  Together, they form a coherent pattern.
 

2. Cumulative Pattern and Statistical Improbability
 

Three features stand out when these events are viewed together:
 

• Directional uniformity
  Every key decision tends in the same direction: blocking or discouraging examination of the shareholder evidence, billing arithmetic, and PSYOP/neurotech indicators, while enabling and escalating enforcement of the contested judgments (up to and including custody risk).
   

• Cross-institutional and cross-jurisdictional persistence.  The pattern persists across:

  • time (2021-2025),

  • personnel (multiple judges and officers), and

  • institutions (BC and NS courts, registries, RCMP, regulators, media),
    all converging on the same functional outcome

Statistical implausibility of random failure

​​

• Even with a crude 50/50 model (“favourable/unfavourable” to proper examination), the chance of zero favourable outcomes across 20 independent decision points is <1 in 100,000. The exact figure matters less than the intuition: this is not what random or uncoordinated error looks like.

Under Villaroman, Loewen, and Mugesera, a circumstantial pattern that is both:
 

• highly unlikely on innocent assumptions, and

• entirely consistent with coordination,
   

is precisely the kind of signal that triggers a duty to investigate.
 

This pattern also matches the “coordination through declination” profile highlighted in the UN Special Rapporteur reports on neurotechnology and institutional integrity (A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58) and General Assembly resolution A/RES/58/6.
 

3. Specific Indicators of Informal Coordination
 

Beyond the overall pattern, several discrete events point directly to informal information-sharing and state-adjacent assurances:
 

• RCMP Mental Health Unit designation (11 Feb 2022)
  An RCMP officer attends a pre-arranged meeting wearing Mental Health Unit insignia before any court filing or medical assessment has raised mental-health issues.  This implies prior informal characterization of the complainant and access to information or narratives outside open proceedings.
   

• Pre-service sealing (26–27 Jan 2023)
  The Charter proceeding S-229680 is sealed before the petitioner even learns it exists.  Registry staff later confirm that sealing pre-dated his awareness.  Under Sherman Estate, sealing is supposed to follow notice, submissions, and a necessity/minimal-impairment analysis.  The timing suggests behind-the-scenes coordination to suppress potentially exculpatory or embarrassing material.
   

• Pre-drafted reversal orders (24 May 2022)
  Just 53 days after Master Cameron opens a CRA-based discovery route, a referral judge unfamiliar with the file is presented with a pre-drafted summary/acceleration order that effectively extinguishes that discovery pathway, with no articulated reasons.  Drafting a reversal order in advance of argument suggests foreknowledge that this would occur.
   

• Anticipatory responses to sealed filings
  In at least one instance, a sealed affidavit is filed on Day 1, and by Day 2 a protection-order application appears directly addressing its key contents—on a timeline incompatible with ordinary access, review, drafting, commissioning, and filing.  The only realistic possibilities are improper access to sealed materials or real-time monitoring of court activity.
   

• Health-response timing as operational “tell”
  Comprehensive autoimmune documentation sits in the court file for about ten months with no sign of judicial engagement.  Within 24 hours of a public broadcast email surfacing the same health evidence outside the sealed record, the court acknowledges the diagnosis and softens the custodial risk.  This strongly suggests reputational visibility, not legal merit, drove the response.
   

Each of these events supports an inference that informal channels—not just formal filings—are shaping institutional responses.
 

4. The 9,000% Billing as Operational Architecture
 

The billing pattern cannot credibly be explained by ordinary “hard-fought litigation”:
 

• ~737.7 hours billed vs. ~14.5 hours of actual court time in BC (short chambers matters using standard forms).

• 89 hours billed for a single 20-minute NS hearing.

• Approximately $400,000 in total fees where tariff-style benchmarks would suggest ~$4,500–$6,000.
   

For this to occur:
 

• No rational client accepts that quantum unless they are highly confident that:
   

  • the bills will be certified without proportionality review;

  • cross-provincial enforcement will be granted;

  • contempt and possibly custody will be used to coerce payment; and

  • the billing will never be forensically examined.
     

• No rational court certifies such amounts unless it is effectively confident that:
   

  • higher courts will not seriously scrutinize proportionality; and

  • public exposure will be contained (e.g., via sealing, dismissal of complaints).
     

This implies a chain of expectations and assurances:
 

Firm → Trial courts → Enforcement judges → Appellate courts → Registries/administrative gatekeepers → Media/public-facing actors

That chain is not a speculative flourish; it is a necessary precondition for the behaviour actually observed.  It is therefore evidence in itself, justifying questions such as:
 

• What understandings, if any, were communicated about this file?

• Who knew what, and when, about the billing, sealing, and enforcement strategy?

• Were any public officers or state-adjacent actors encouraged, induced, or assured that departures from ordinary standards would be protected?
   

5. Result: Reasonable Grounds for State-Adjacent Coordination
 

Taken together—the billing, discovery deflection, sealing practices, RCMP and regulatory declinations, registry behaviour, media removal, timing correlations, and health-response pattern—there is an objective, compelling, and credible basis to suspect that:
 

• state and/or state-adjacent actors have coordinated, informally or covertly, to shape institutional outcomes in this matter; and

• that coordination may engage offences including obstruction of justice (s. 139), breach of trust (s. 122), intimidation of a justice participant (ss. 423, 423.1), conspiracy (s. 465), and possibly secret commissions (s. 426) if assurances were tied to material benefit.
   

Under Loewen, Mugesera, and Canada’s UN-level obligations (A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58, A/HRC/RES/58/6), this pattern clears the reasonable-grounds threshold.  It is no longer open to police, in good faith, to dismiss these concerns as “civil” or “speculative” without a proper criminal investigation into the coordination itself.

V. INTERFERENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
 

Potential offences

​

• Criminal Code s. 139(2) – Obstructing justice

• Criminal Code s. 463 – Attempt

• Criminal Code s. 465 – Conspiracy

• Criminal Code s. 380 – Fraud

• Criminal Code s. 131 – Perjury
   

The conduct here centers on two linked mechanisms:
 

1. A sustained, multi-judge deflection of discovery after a court had already found it necessary; and

2. A pattern of sealing orders that depart from Sherman Estate and function to keep that same evidence permanently out of public and adversarial view.
    

Both tracks have the practical effect of preventing core evidence from ever being tested, which is the essence of interference with justice—whether successful (s. 139(2)), attempted (s. 463), or concerted (s. 465).  They also map directly onto the type of institutional foreclosure flagged by the UN Special Rapporteurs on neurotechnology and institutional integrity (A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58; A/HRC/RES/58/6).
 

1. Discovery Deflection Following Court Order
 

On 1 April 2022, Master Cameron issued a reasoned order authorizing CRA discovery, expressly recognizing that:
 

• the shareholder-record issues (CSR freeze, FY2020 derecognition, unexplained transfer/POA) could not be resolved on affidavits alone;

• independent third-party evidence from CRA and related entities was necessary to test the company’s and CEO’s claims; and

• such discovery was legally grounded in Slattery, Hryniak, Teal Cedar, Spar Aerospace, etc.
   

From that point, the file should have moved along a proportionate, evidence-developing track.  Instead, a one-way deflection unfolded:
 

• 24 May 2022 – Tammen J.
   

  • Extends blanket sealing order in an ensconced hearing.

  • Signs a pre-drafted order permitting the CAGE to seek "any type of relief" that might contrast with the Cameron order.

  • Practical effect: Structural preemptive support for the procedural foreclosure that followed.
     

• 27 June 2022 – Tucker J.
   

  • Issues a blanket sealing and protection order on the grounds that the Petitioner had intended to serve court documents extrajudicially; requiring Petitioner to seek leave (permission) to execute the April 1 2022 order's terms. 

  • Order was issued on an allegation the CAGE raised which they admitted was speculative in the same hearing, and despite a written agreement between parties concerning the Cameron order.  

  • Practical effect: relitigated April 1 2022 order, and reconfigured the tone of the proceedings.
     

• 12 Aug 2022 – MacNaughton J.
   

  • As referral judge, states limited familiarity with the broader file yet dismisses the CRA route and accelerates to a summary hearing.

  • Offers no careful explanation why discovery previously found necessary is now unwarranted.

  • Signs pre-drafted orders that directly conflict with the Cameron mandate.

  • Practical effect: Procedural roadmap is effectively derailed.
     

• 13 Sept 2022 – DeWitt-Van Oosten J.A. (BCCA)
   

  • Refuses a stay to pause summary disposition and allow proper evidence development, and interlocutory appeal of MacNaughton order.

  • Does not engage with the systemic issue that the evidence-testing mechanism identified as necessary is being dismantled step by step.

  • Closed chambers immediately when ITA 241 (3.1) was raised concerning a lawful tax record discovery avenue of AI-assisted contractors related to the proceeding.

  • Practical effect: Appellate-level foreclosure of procedural roadmap; the file moves forward without CRA and third-party materials.
     

• 4 Oct 2022 – Crossin J.
   

  • Authorizes summary petition to move forward in absentia.

  • Ignores legal test, and the discovery order that remains outstanding.

  • Practical effect: A clear concurrence among adjudicators to suffocate the proceedings through procedural foreclosure. 
     

• 8 Nov 2022 – Majawa J.
   

  • Characterizes the shareholder-record evidence as “likely irrelevant” because the CSR is “not part of the Settlement Agreement”, and dismisses the petition.

  • Wrongly claims the Tucker order was correct because Petition materials were disclosed (they were not).

  • Does not explain why Cameron’s earlier conclusion that third-party evidence was necessary has been effectively nullified, contrary to Vavilov’s requirement to “meaningfully grapple” with key issues and prior analysis.

  • Practical effect: Ignores hard evidence, prior adjudicative validation, and applicable case law to close the matter.
     

Features of concern:
 

• Unidirectionality – Every step moves away from discovery and transparency; no judge restores or even partially implements Cameron’s order.

• Non-engagement with prior reasoning – None of the subsequent judges grapples with Cameron’s reasoning or explains why it is being abandoned, contrary to Vavilov.

• Compressed timing and shortcuts – The reversal unfolds rapidly via pre-drafted orders, blanket sealing, accelerated summary hearing, and an in-absentia appearance, despite documentary contradictions and credibility issues that ordinarily counsel more evidence, not less.
   

On a cumulative view, this not “hard luck” or random judicial variation.  It is a multi-actor pattern whose practical effect is to ensure that the shareholder evidence is never properly examined after a court had already said it must be.  Under Villaroman, Harding, and Loewen, such a pattern requires explanation and can support an inference of obstruction or coordinated deflection.  At the investigative stage, it easily clears the reasonable-grounds threshold. 

Continued review of the proceedings in BC 2023, the enforcement hearings NS, and the SCC leave to appeal / certiorari attempt, which continue this track, are available through the Litigation portal (here).
 

2. Sealing Orders and Non-Compliance with Sherman Estate
 

Running parallel is a multi-year sequence of sealing and publication-control measures in both BC and NS.  Across these decisions:
 

• Key Sherman Estate elements—demonstrated necessity, serious risk to an important interest, proportionality, consideration of alternatives (redaction), and minimal impairment—are either missing or treated superficially.  Blanket sealing is imposed where tailored orders should have been considered.  In some cases, sealing was made prior to service, prior to a hearing, and prior to submissions, including public content the public could locate on YouTube and TikTok.
   

• Permanent sealing is paired with a revised public chronology that diverges from the sealed record, raising concern that sealing is being used not just to protect privacy or commercial sensitivity but to control the narrative and limit scrutiny of how earlier steps were handled.
   

• Multiple levels of court repeat the same errors:

  • failing to genuinely consider less-restrictive alternatives;

  • failing to articulate why openness would create a serious risk;

  • failing to weigh the open-court principle under Vancouver Sun and CBC v. New Brunswick.
     

If one judge misapplied Sherman, it might be framed as an honest legal error.  When multiple judges, over years, in the same matter repeatedly replicate the same errors, the issue becomes systemic:
 

• The effect is to keep a controversial procedural history and contested materials (including shareholder anomalies and the 9,000% billing) out of public and media view indefinitely.

• The sealing pattern dovetails with the discovery deflection sequence; together, they ensure that the substance of the evidence and the irregularities never receive proper daylight.
   

3. Result: Reasonable Grounds for Interference with Justice
 

Viewed together—as Babos, O’Connor, and C.U.P.E. instruct, focusing on overall process fairness—the discovery-deflection sequence and sealing-order pattern provide an objective, compelling, and credible basis to suspect:
 

• Obstruction of justice (s. 139(2));

• Attempts to obstruct (s. 463), even where deflection may have been partially unsuccessful; and

• Conspiracy (s. 465) or concerted understanding among multiple actors.
   

Under Loewen and Mugesera, and Harding concerning the cumulative effect, there are clearly reasonable grounds to investigate interference with the administration of justice.

VI. PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS AND AI-ASSISTED HARASSMENT
 

1. Legal and Human-Rights Framework
 

Domestic Criminal Code provisions potentially engaged include:
 

• s. 264 – Criminal harassment (repeated conduct causing the complainant, reasonably, to fear for their safety)

• s. 423(1) – Intimidation (wrongful conduct intended to dissuade or punish someone in relation to legal proceedings)

• s. 372(3) – Harassing communications

• s. 430 – Mischief

• s. 342.1 – Unauthorized use of computer (cyber-intrusions, interference)

• s. 162, 184 – Privacy
   

Internationally, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture’s report A/HRC/43/49 establishes that severe psychological suffering intentionally inflicted for a coercive purpose can constitute torture without physical contact.  It introduces “cybertorture”: digitally mediated campaigns of harassment, surveillance, and reputational attack that produce prolonged mental suffering in conditions of effective powerlessness.

Within that framework, use of PSYOP-style tooling against an individual litigant is not merely “mean speech” online; it is potentially torture-adjacent conduct if coordinated, persistent, and tied to prohibited purposes (intimidating a justice system participant, silencing a complainant, protecting institutional interests).  A research paper that delves further into this is published at the Zersetzung page (here).
 

2. From Classical PSYOP to Domestic, Data-Driven Harassment
 

In brief, and in accord with the research article, the doctrinal background is well established:
 

• Classical PSYOP doctrine (e.g., JP 3-13.2, FM 3-05.301) treats behaviour change as an operational objective, emphasizing:
   

  • target-audience analysis,

  • message design,

  • repeated multi-channel delivery,

  • synchronized timing with real-world events,

  • plausible deniability.
     

• NATO’s “cognitive warfare” turn (du Cluzel, NATO ACT) explicitly treats the human mind as a battlespace, with operations aimed at reshaping how people think, operating continuously below armed-conflict thresholds.
   

• A/HRC/43/49 warns that networked, digitally mediated harassment and surveillance can amount to cybertorture, especially where:
   

  • the target is isolated,

  • institutions refuse assistance, and

  • operations remain deniable.
     

• Whistleblower evidence (e.g., GCHQ/JTRIG’s “4 Ds” – Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive; Cambridge Analytica’s psychographic micro-targeting) shows that Western intelligence and private contractors have operationalized PSYOP methodology on digital platforms, including reputation destruction, content seeding, and behavioural nudging.
   

• Sheridan et al. (2020) empirically document the phenomenology of “organized stalking”: continuous surveillance, coordinated following, technology interference, reputational attack, and systematic institutional dismissal.  The study emphasizes the seriousness of the lived experience and the need for investigation, concluding it is a "widespread phenomenon subject to very little scientific examination".
   

Canadian reporting on domestic information operations confirms that capabilities exist inside Canada.  The live questions are where they are pointed, who authorizes them, and whether they are being misused against domestic litigants and whistleblowers.
 

3. Application: A Coordinated, Time-Stamped Campaign
 

Against that backdrop, the complainant’s record shows a multi-year, multi-domain pattern structurally indistinguishable from PSYOP architecture, with AI-assisted amplification:
 

• Multi-domain harassment and forced relocation.  Beginning in late 2021, the complainant documents a campaign combining:
   

  • online hostility tied to the recently-closed shareholder settlement;

  • physical stalking and recurring vehicles/unknown individuals near the residence;

  • apparent break-ins where items are disturbed rather than stolen;

  • cyber-attacks and unexplained device interference;

  • sustained pressure culminating in emergency cross-country evacuation in February 2022;

  • continuation of the same online offenses, tracking private activities and sealed litigation milestones, to this day.
     

• This maps directly onto Sheridan et al.’s phenomenology: persistent surveillance, technology-mediated interference, social/occupational disruption, and institutional inaction.  The relocation shows the fear was not theoretical.  My BIO shows a lifelong history of reasoned behavioural patterning, and strong stability indicators (no debt, paid-off home, no criminal record, solid career statistics, etc.).
   

• Sub-24-hour “prophetic” content aligned with sealed/private events
  Over four years, the complainant archived content from ~50 online channels whose videos and posts:
   

  • track sealed court filings and private events within hours or days, and sometimes minutes;

  • mirror specific imagery and phrases from affidavits, medical records, or live incidents;

  • show clear verbatim scripting patterns and thematic uniformity across supposedly independent accounts (see Guide page).
     

• The 13 May 2023 incident illustrates this succinctly:
   

  • A sealed affidavit (11 May) and clinical notes reference a small backyard fire where nearby flowers caught fire.

  • On 13 May, after a rapid emergency response (police and fire within 3 minutes, arriving after the fire was out), the complainant was involuntarily taken in a white psychiatric van to the Halifax QEII, detained ~5 hours, and released with minimal intervention.

  • Within minutes of the arrest, a PsyOp cohort YouTube channel uploads “Ur So Special They Wasted time and $$ Coming for You” featuring AI-generated flowers, white-van imagery, and commentary depicting the specifics of the event.  

  • Hospital records are sealed and the detention was not public knowledge.  The convergence in timing and symbolism, along with a special target designtion, is extraordinarily difficult to explain as coincidence, particularly in light of dozens of similar episodes.
     

• There are scores like this, albeit this evenly matched to the official NS Health record.  These track other private and sealed litigation events.
   

• Family-adjacent tasking vector: The complainant identifies a family-adjacent content creator (understood to be the biological mother of the complainant's Nephew by egg donation) operating a YouTube channel (MyFatherIsJoy / FurnaceForged):
   

  • appearing in key visual evidence since 2021;

  • the Nephew is geographically proximate;

  • named in sworn affidavits, with an appearance obvious to any unbiased observer;

  • alleged to be connected to interests implicated in the inflated-billing scandal;

  • repeatedly referenced in reports to police, yet never meaningfully interviewed by local police, RCMP, or any court.  Record silence.
     

• In PSYOP and intelligence tradecraft, family-adjacent tasking is classic: it offers natural access, plausible cover, emotional leverage, and deniability.  Institutional refusal even to interview such a plainly relevant actor is another example of “coordination through declination.”
   

• Halifax Regional Police 79-minute meeting and subsequent record reversal: On 8 Dec 2021, the complainant met with a HRP officer for 79 minutes, presenting evidence of coordinated harassment.  This meeting was discreetly recorded on my smartphone, and subsequently reduced to paper in an unedited audio transcript.  The officer:
   

  • praised the quality and organization of the evidence;

  • identified the CAGE director as a criminal suspect implicated in the PsyOp dossier by name; and

  • articulated an investigation roadmap and a follow-up plan, including a plan to name other related actors.
     

• A FOIPOP report issued three weeks later, after subsequent silence, indicated the following;
   

  • omission and denial of the recognized evidence, and a mischaracterization of the meeting;

  • introduction of a pejorative mental-health characterization that had presumably influenced the May 13th, 2023 response.
     

• This about-face, coupled with psychiatric reframing, is consistent with the target discreditation tactics documented in JTRIG materials and discussed by Sheridan et al.  It is noteworthy to mention that POLCOM refused to accept the audio recording, and dismissed the complaint that followed.  This pattern is well established in the file.
   

Viewed cumulatively, these elements form a coherent operational picture:
 

• multi-domain pressure forcing relocation;

• algorithmically amplified content mirroring sealed/legal events in near real time;

• a surveillance feedback loop capable of informing the AI-assisted actors ("the cohort");

• a family-adjacent vector with natural access and institutional insulation;

• documented police defamatory obstruction that satisfies CCC 137 for the fabrication of evidence.
   

This is not mere unpleasant speech; it is a system that looks, feels, and functions like a psychological operation directed at a justice-system participant.
 

4. Result: Reasonable Grounds for Harassment, Surveillance, and Intimidation Offences
 

Under s. 264 and s. 423, police need not prove the entire architecture at complaint stage.  The question is whether there is an objectively reasonable basis to believe that:
 

• the complainant was subjected to repeated conduct (online, physical, cyber, institutional) that would cause a reasonable person in their circumstances to fear for their safety or be intimidated in relation to legal proceedings; and

• this conduct was intentional and coordinated, not random.
   

On this record:
 

• Objective basis – Time-stamped videos, sealed records, hospital notes, affidavits, FOIPOP disclosures, relocation records.

• Compelling quality – Temporal proximity (minutes to hours), symbolic specificity, verbatim scripting, and multi-channel repetition.

• Credibility – The evidence is third-party generated (medical notes, court filings, police correspondence, corresponding posts).
   

Layered over A/HRC/43/49 and Sheridan et al., this configuration is exactly what international bodies say should trigger serious investigation, not dismissal as a fictitious delusionary construct under the civil proceedings umbrella.
 

Under Loewen and Mugesera, that is more than sufficient to cross the reasonable-grounds threshold.  Under Hill, once that threshold is crossed, police cannot lawfully refuse to investigate on the ground that the evidence is not yet overwhelming.  Investigation will complete the record.

VII. INSTITUTIONAL CAPTURE
 

Potential offences and doctrines
 

• Criminal Code s. 122 – Breach of trust by public officer

• Criminal Code s. 139(2) – Obstructing justice

• Criminal Code s. 426 – Secret commissions (if assurances/benefits were involved)

• Common law – Misfeasance in public office
   

This category addresses a sustained, cross-institutional pattern of “coordination through declination”.
 

1. The 100% Declination Pattern
 

Over roughly four years, more than twenty institutions were approached, including:
 

• Police – HRP and RCMP (general detachment and MH unit)

• Securities regulators – BC Securities Commission

• Professional regulators – NS Barristers’ Society, privacy and FOIPOP bodies

• Courts – BC & NS trial courts, Courts of Appeal, SCC Registry, plus registries and staff

• Oversight bodies – Ombudsman, Human Rights Commission, other complaint channels

• Media – e.g., Post Media, Radio Station, social blacklisting
   

Across all of them:
 

• No stakeholder undertook a meaningful, merits-based examination of core evidence:
   

  • shareholder anomalies (CSR freeze, derecognition policy, transfer/POA contradictions);

  • ~9,000% billing markup later certified and enforced;

  • discovery-deflection sequence and Sherman Estate violations;

  • timing correlations between sealed/private events and external responses;

  • systematic AI-assisted harassment and institutional foreclosure.
     

• Instead, every institution either:
   

  • declined jurisdiction (“civil matter,” “not our remit”);

  • minimized or re-characterized the complaint (e.g., HRP FOIPOP reframing a 79-minute evidence-based meeting as “paranoia”); or

  • closed procedural routes (blocked discovery, blanket sealing, prohibitive securities, enforcement with no merits review).
     

The pattern is:
 

• Cross-institutional – police, regulators, courts, registries, oversight, media;

• Cross-jurisdictional – BC and NS agencies behave similarly;

• Cross-temporal – declination persists from 2021–2025, despite personnel changes.
   

Even with a conservative 50% assumption, zero serious examinations out of 20+ independent actors is statistically extremely unlikely if decisions are truly independent.  The law does not require mathematical proof of conspiracy; it asks whether a reasonable officer, confronted with this pattern, could honestly say there is no reasonable basis to suspect coordinated or captured decision-making.  Given the evidence and the perfect 100% declination rate, the answer is clearly no.  Under Loewen and Mugesera, that alone satisfies the reasonable-grounds standard for opening a criminal investigation.
 

2. Breach of Trust and Misfeasance Concerns
 

For public officers and bodies, this pattern also engages s. 122 breach of trust and misfeasance in public office.
 

The record shows:
 

• Persistent departures from clear legal mandates, including:

  • repeated non-compliance with Sherman Estate, Vancouver Sun, CBC on openness and sealing;

  • refusal to examine obviously disproportionate billing violating Bradshaw, Boucher, Gichuru, Okanagan;

  • contempt/enforcement pursued without testing underlying orders as Carey, Chong, & CN Rail v. Teamsters require;

  • ten months of ignoring filed medical evidence about an autoimmune condition until public exposure forces acknowledgment;

  • systematic failure to “meaningfully grapple” with key issues contrary to Vavilov (CSR contradictions, derecognition, timing correlations, surveillance indicators, and fraudulent billing).
     

• These departures consistently favour one side (well-resourced, state-adjacent corporate respondents) and consistently harm the complainant (sealing, cost escalation, contempt exposure, credibility attacks).
   

• The pattern persists over extended periods, with personnel rotations that never change the trajectory: new judges, officers, staff, same outcome—no examination, escalating enforcement.
   

On that record, it is reasonable to suspect that some actors may have:
 

• Used their offices for an improper purpose—not to apply law impartially, but to ensure certain evidence (shareholder manipulation, surveillance, coordinated harassment, 4IR-type capabilities) was never tested; and/or
   

• Acted with reckless disregard for:
   

  • the complainant’s Charter rights (ss. 2(b), 7, 8);

  • the integrity of the justice system; and

  • Canada’s obligations under the UN framework on psychological and technology-mediated abuse (A/HRC/43/49, A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58, A/HRC/RES/58/6).
     

This goes to the core of breach of trust and misfeasance: knowing or recklessly indifferent misuse of public power for improper ends, foreseeably harmful to a specific individual.
 

3. Result: Reasonable Grounds for Institutional Capture-Type Offences
 

While each institutional decision can be rationalized in isolation (“busy,” “not our jurisdiction,” “costs are discretionary,” “sealing is routine”), the universal, cross-institutional pattern of declination is powerful circumstantial evidence of institutional capture or coordinated non-responsiveness.
 

That pattern:
 

• fits the “coordination through declination” model in the post-democratic governance analysis;

• closely tracks the UN’s description of how captured institutions behave where Fourth Industrial Revolution/neurotech capabilities are at stake;

• falls squarely within the facts that require police to investigate potential breach of trust, obstruction, misfeasance, and related offences, even if charges ultimately cannot be proved.
   

On any honest view of the reasonable-grounds standard, this category is clearly met.

VIII. EMERGING DUAL-USE / NEUROTECHNOLOGY CONCERNS
 

1. Purpose and Claim
 

Parts I–VII already establish reasonable grounds to investigate coordination, obstruction, harassment, and institutional capture based on ordinary evidence: court records, invoices, timelines, and documented decisions.
 

This section is supplemental, but inherently central.  It does not claim that a specific neurotechnology has been deployed.  It argues that:
 

• The international framework (UN reports A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58 and resolution A/HRC/RES/58/6) recognizes that emerging neurotechnologies and digital systems can threaten mental privacy and institutional integrity if misused;

• The fact pattern here aligns with several of the “warning indicators” those texts flag; and

• A reasonable investigation post-2020 should therefore include limited, specialist checks to rule in or rule out any technological component, rather than presuming it impossible.
   

The duty to investigate arises from Parts I–VII.  This section only affects scope and design, not whether the duty exists.
 

2. UN Neurotechnology Framework and State Obligations
 

The Special Rapporteur reports A/HRC/57/61 and A/HRC/58/58 warn that:
 

• Neurotechnology and related digital tools can be deployed in ways that undermine cognitive liberty, mental privacy, freedom from non-consensual experimentation;

• Problems often manifest as patterns, not single events: behavioural anomalies, timing correlations, institutional foreknowledge, systematic deflection, harassment, unexplained medical/legal escalations;

• Structural asymmetries (only institutions control labs/logs/infrastructure) make it hard for individuals to prove/disprove technological involvement without State help.
   

Resolution A/HRC/RES/58/6 calls on States to:
 

• investigate credible allegations involving neurotechnology or related systems;

• safeguard institutional integrity; and

• ensure effective remedies where rights may have been affected.
   

States are not told to assume these risks are speculative or unreal; they are told to take them seriously and investigate when case patterns match warning signs.
 

3. Alignment Between UN “Warning Indicators” and This Case
 

The UN identifies several red-flag indicators, many of which are present:
 

• Timing correlations / apparent real-time awareness

  • Repeated sub-24-hour responses to sealed filings; anticipatory filings that appear to rely on sealed content without ordinary process channels.
     

• Institutional foreknowledge of non-public information

  • Pre-service sealing and other steps taken before the complainant even knew proceedings existed.
     

• Systematic institutional deflection

  • 20+ stakeholders across two provinces all declining to substantively examine core evidence despite relevant mandates.
     

• Harassment and forced relocation

  • Multi-domain harassment culminating in emergency cross-country relocation, consistent with coercive impacts described in A/HRC/43/49, A/HRC/57/61, & A/HRC/58/58.
     

• Unexplained medical/legal escalations tied to sensitive case events

  • The 13 May 2023 incident as one example: disproportionate emergency response and custodial transport closely tracking contemporaneous public content echoing very specific details of the event.  Repeat occurrances tracking litigaton milestones.
     

These features do not prove technological deployment.  But taken together, and viewed through A/HRC/43/49, A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58, &  A/HRC/RES/58/6, they make the possibility of a technological component a reasonable investigative question, not an irrational one.
 

4. Targeted Specialist Checks Requested
 

Consistent with UN guidance, the complainant does not ask police to assume advanced tech is involved—only to check in a proportionate way, for example:
 

• Digital device forensics

  • Full forensic imaging/analysis of devices (phones, computers, tablets) for:

    • unauthorized remote access/control;

    • surveillance malware;

    • data exfiltration;

    • correlations between device events and key institutional responses.
       

• Access-log and timing analysis

  • Court and institutional system logs for sealed filings and related documents (who accessed what, when, from where).

  • Timeline reconstruction to see whether observed sub-24-hour reactions can be fully explained through ordinary internal processes.
     

• Escalation if warranted
   

  • If device/log analysis leaves serious, unexplained foreknowledge or timing patterns, police could consider:

    • limited RF spectrum sampling at key locations;

    • independent expert input on whether further technical tests (including medical/forensic) are justified.
       

• Expert consultation

  • Engage experts in digital forensics, communications, and neurotechnology/human-rights to interpret any anomalies in light of A/HRC/43/49, A/HRC/57/61, A/HRC/58/58, & A/HRC/RES/58/6.
     

5. Effect on the Duty to Investigate
 

In summary:
 

• The duty to investigate is already triggered by domestic facts (Parts I–VII: Loewen, Mugesera, Hill).

• UN instruments add an international layer: when a case exhibits multiple recognized indicators, States should not dismiss it as “impossible” without any technical inquiry.  If Canada recognizes these crimes at the UN in Geneva, Canadian police should not reject them domestically.

• A reasonable investigation in 2025 therefore includes basic specialist checks alongside the core inquiry into coordination, obstruction, harassment, and institutional capture.
   

This section is not a separate prerequisite; it is a narrow, UN-aligned argument about how a modern police service should structure the investigation it is already obliged to conduct.

IX. CROSS-CATEGORY SYNTHESIS: WHY THIS LOOKS LIKE A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
 

When the five domains are viewed together:
 

• State-adjacent coordination explains how multiple institutions appear to move in lockstep.

• Interference with the administration of justice explains why documentary testing and public scrutiny are systematically blocked.

• PSYOP / harassment explains how the complainant is isolated, discredited, and exhausted.

• Institutional capture explains why, despite obvious red flags, no body engages in substantive examination.

• Neurotechnology risk indicators explain the apparent ability to anticipate filings, synchronize responses, and provoke behavioural changes.
   

This integrated pattern is exactly what Villaroman contemplates: individual facts may each have an innocent explanation, but the whole pattern makes innocent explanations increasingly implausible.
 

Crucially, at the investigative stage, police do not need to decide which exact mechanism (coordination, cognitive tampering, informal “mandate,” or combination) is correct.  Their obligation is to recognize:
 

“There is a coherent, multi-domain pattern here that reasonably suggests criminal activity.  We must investigate to find out which mechanisms, if any, are operating.”
 

That is the essence of reasonable grounds.

X. WHY THE POLICE DUTY IS ENGAGED AND CANNOT BE DECLINED
 

1. Statutory and Common-Law Duty
 

• RCMP Act s. 18 and analogous statutes governing HRP conduct impose a positive obligation to prevent crime and enforce the law.

• Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth confirms that where reasonable grounds exist, a refusal to investigate can amount to negligent investigation, especially when stakes are high.
   

Here, the stakes include:
 

• potential collusion toward grossly fraudulent billing, surpassing life savings;

• potential wrongful imprisonment via contempt enforcement;

• possible systemic corruption or capture affecting courts, police, and regulators;

• potential technological assault on cognitive liberty, privacy, and bodily integrity;

• ongoing threats to safety via harassment;

• potential to allow a clearly-evidenced framework, and powerful (unregulated) new invasive technologies, to impact other victims.
   

2. Charter Dimensions
 

• s. 7 – Life, liberty, security of the person
  Emergency relocation, psychological trauma, and custodial risk clearly engage s. 7.  A failure to investigate credible threats and systemic manipulation can itself offend s. 7.

• s. 8 – Unreasonable search or seizure
  If sealed filings and private communications have been surveilled, this raises serious s. 8 issues requiring investigation.

• s. 9 – Arbitrary detention
  Practices that effectively confine a person’s choices or liberty via coercive harassment or manipulated processes may engage s. 9.
   

Under s. 24(1), the existence of Charter violations strengthens the expectation that the state will investigate and remediate, not stand aside.
 

3. International Obligations
 

As a state party to key human-rights instruments, and with UN bodies actively warning about neurotechnology risks, Canada has a duty to:
 

• provide an effective remedy where credible allegations of serious rights violations are made;

• ensure institutions are not complicit in covert programs or systemic obstruction.
   

A refusal even to open a file when the factual profile aligns with multiple UN indicators is difficult to reconcile with those obligations.

XI. ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES
 

• “This is a civil matter.”
  Civil issues (shareholder disputes, costs) exist, but multiple Criminal Code provisions are engaged: obstruction, breach of trust, conspiracy, harassment, possible mischief/unauthorized computer use.  Civil dimensions do not erase the criminal dimension.
   

• “The evidence is not strong enough.”
  The law does not require overwhelming proof to initiate investigation—only an objectively reasonable belief based on compelling, credible information.  Court records, invoices, medical records, FOIPOP results, and the uniform declination pattern easily satisfy this.
   

• “The issues are too complex / specialized.”
  Complexity affects how police organize the investigation (specialized units, external experts), not whether they investigate at all—especially in systemic or high-tech contexts.
   

• “Judicial independence prevents inquiry.”
  Judicial independence protects adjudicative functions, not judges from criminal investigation where there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal conduct.  Judges, like other public officials, are subject to criminal law.
   

• “Institutional consensus is that there is no need to investigate.”
  A consensus that contradicts the objective legal test is irrelevant.  A 100% declination pattern over 20+ public stakeholders, despite serious and documented allegations, is itself a reason to investigate, not an excuse to defer.
   

• “Resources are limited.”
  Resource constraints may influence prioritization, but where life, liberty, systemic corruption, and potential technological assault are credibly at issue, a complete refusal to investigate is inconsistent with statutory, common-law, Charter, and international duties.
   

XII. CONCLUSION
 

The central question was: Do police have a statutory obligation to investigate this case, and if so, why?
 

Based on the legal framework and the evidence summarized:
 

• Yes, they do.
   

Statutorily, the RCMP Act and analogous laws governing HRP conduct impose a duty to prevent crime and enforce the law.  At common law, Hill and negligent-investigation jurisprudence require reasonable investigation once reasonable grounds exist.
 

Why?
 

Because across five domains—state-adjacent coordination, interference with justice, PSYOP harassment, institutional capture, and emerging neurotechnology risk indicators—the evidence collectively provides an objective, compelling, and credible basis to believe that serious Criminal Code offences may have been committed, many of which remain ongoing alongside their impacts.
 

What follows?
 

• Police discretion is now about scope, resourcing, and method, not about whether to investigate.

• A continued refusal to investigate in the face of this pattern is itself a reviewable and compensable breach of duty, and may deepen the very institutional-capture concerns the investigation is meant to address.
   

In short: under existing Canadian law and Canada’s international commitments, this is no longer a situation where police may investigate if they wish.  It is a situation where they must investigate if they are to fulfil their statutory, common-law, Charter, and human-rights obligations.