Paul and the CRCC,
RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley have been added to this email thread and are formally requested to declare and report any potential conflict of interest to the CRCC.
This section is addressed to Paul and the CRCC and has been placed at the end of the document for clarity. The full record remains accessible, organized, and easily navigable through the document index for all parties on thread. This ensures transparency regarding what is considered or disregarded by the CRCC, while also allowing Paul to quickly and directly reference and respond to the specific questions raised — which occupy under three pages with considerable white space. The responses to Paul's own comments are longer by necessity. Paul and the CRCC are not being asked to read or act on anything beyond what is directly addressed to them. What they choose to engage with and what they choose to disregard is itself part of the behavioral record being documented.
Given the serious and ongoing public safety issues being raised, this approach is the responsible one. It ensures that the CRCC understands that media organizations, legal representatives, political officials, oversight bodies, and other parties are able to independently fact-check the actions and responses of Paul, the CRCC, and the RCMP. This ensures accountability across all parties while providing full disclosure to the CRCC, NSIRA, and CSIS for independent review.
An approximate and ongoing record of all CRCC correspondence from March 27, 2023 to present can be found at:
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/3xaeexvv Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/All%20CRCC%20Follow%20ups.html
All statements made in this submission can be independently verified at www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com. The reader is encouraged to use Google, Bing, ChatGPT, Claude, and traditional media outlets to verify the claims, evidence, and institutional records referenced throughout.
HTML Copy of this letter / document (Short URL): https://tinyurl.com/3m5e7twk
HTML Copy of this letter / document (Full URL): https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-03-23_Detailed%20Response%20to%20CRCC%20questions%20from%202026-03-17.html
INDEX
Note Regarding Paul and CRCC Review
It should be noted that Paul is not a frontline intake agent. Paul confirmed in writing on October 30, 2024, that he is a manager of the Commission’s intake office. As manager, he has supervisory responsibility for the conduct of CRCC intake staff, including Carole, David, and Rebecca, and is therefore responsible for their conduct, which is directly in question.
“Good afternoon Scott Jewers. My name is Paul and I am a manager of the Commission’s intake office. I have read your October 22, 2024 submission, R2024-005807, along with CRCC files 2024-3291 and 2023-1031.”
The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP has established formal service standards under section 45.37 of the RCMP Act, which state that:
- The Commission is to conduct its review and issue either a Satisfied Report or an Interim Report within 120 business days after receiving all relevant material.
The CRCC accepted this case for review on July 17, 2025. As of March 20, 2026, approximately 169 business days have elapsed—approximately 49 business days beyond the Commission’s stated service standard.
Source: https://crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/services/service-standards
This is in addition to the earlier RCMP handling, where Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen opened the case on June 1, 2025, and closed it on June 4, 2025—after approximately 800 days—without contacting the complainant, while acknowledging that this was outside their mandated timeframe.
Further, Paul and the CRCC did not respond to repeated follow-up requests for approximately eight months.
Paul has refused to escalate the case, refused to notify his HR department, and refused to arrange for any independent contact so that it can be confirmed that someone other than an individual whose conduct is in question has reviewed the case, including the serious public safety, national security, and conflict-of-interest issues being raised.
These facts now form part of the formal record.
Detailed Video Reviews for New Readers to Help Catch-up
All videos were shot live and in real time while calling the voice mail of Shelly Mews (RCMP Special Victims Unit) 902-220-2013. And so comments Section contains logic “Patches”.
S4E5 Call to RCMP The Fraud of Cory Bushell and the CRCC Review of False Arrest – March 13th 2023 – https://youtu.be/EkbkumKe-Hs (1:23:48)
S4E6 Deep Dive into False Arrest, Torture, and Sexual Assault on August 2nd 2022 – https://youtu.be/KOE2qzYTpng (2:34:03)
S4E7 Deep Dive of Police Abuse / cover up of sexual assault / Connecting Postmedia to Mueller Report – https://youtu.be/JzMIxrZlHNc (2:25:55)
Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley,
You have been repeatedly notified of this matter through formal CRCC submissions and sustained public documentation across email, Facebook, X, and YouTube since 2023. The RCMP acknowledged as early as September 2021 that it was monitoring the complaint thread.
A detailed CRCC submission regarding 14 different RCMP officers, including audio recordings of the abuse, is available here:
https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-03-16_CRCC%20Detailed%20submission%20regarding%20mutiple%20officers.html
Given this, it is not credible to suggest that you are unaware of the allegations, which include:
- A reported violent sexual assault while under NSHA care;
- Alleged retaliation by RCMP officers;
- Fabricated or inaccurate records;
- A CSIS referral under Attachment 5566;
- More than 1,082 days without meaningful investigation; and
- Inaction by Shelly Mews for over one year on case 2025-21595.
The consistent pattern across this matter—including the non-documentation of a reported sexual assault, disputed or inaccurate contact records, the loss or deletion of voicemail evidence, and the substitution of mental health intervention for criminal investigation across multiple detachments and over multiple years—raises serious concerns about systemic failures in process and oversight.
I am formally requesting that this matter be immediately referred to SIRT (Serious Incident Response Team), or an equivalent independent authority with no connection to the RCMP or HRP chain of command implicated in this complaint.
Given that Commissioner Duheme oversees the RCMP nationally, and that senior HRP leadership—including Dan Kinsella and Robin McNeil—were in positions of authority during the relevant period, there is a reasonable concern regarding conflict of interest if this matter remains within existing institutional structures.
Accordingly, I request that this conflict be formally acknowledged and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure independent review and oversight.
This matter raises serious concerns regarding whether the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute. It requires a response that reflects the seriousness of those concerns and ensures that the process moving forward is both independent and credible.
Director Daniel Rogers / CSIS — Attachment5566@smtp.gc.ca
The evidence submitted under CSIS reference “Attachment 5566” (Attachment5566@smtp.gc.ca) has been available for over a year and has been included in all relevant correspondence throughout this process. Despite the volume of direct supporting evidence, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC) continues to obstruct the process while minimizing the seriousness of the matters raised.
The CRCC’s position—treating a CSIS case reference as being of unclear relevance, while failing to properly document or address a reported sexual assault, foreign interference concerns, alleged spyware use, and election interference issues—raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of the process at every level of the Commission.
This creates a clear contradiction. The CRCC’s actions imply either:
- that the CSIS file was opened without sufficient basis; or
- that the reference itself is not being treated as legitimate.
Further, the situation creates a significant procedural gap. If CSIS-related communications or recordings were released publicly, there may be legal exposure for the complainant in doing so. At the same time, the CRCC has indicated that it cannot assess external recordings. This creates a scenario in which relevant evidence cannot be safely disclosed by the complainant and, even if disclosed, may not be meaningfully reviewed by the Commission.
Notably, the CRCC does not appear to have taken even basic steps to verify the reference directly, such as contacting CSIS to confirm its status.
At this stage, the record indicates potential obstruction at the intake, review, and director levels within the CRCC, and now poses a serious risk of reputational impact on CSIS.
Accordingly, I am formally requesting that Director Daniel Rogers of CSIS directly engage with CRCC leadership to independently verify the status of Attachment 5566.
I am also requesting written confirmation of the following:
- That CSIS reference “Attachment 5566” remains an active file.
Scott Jewers
National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) — info@nsira-ossnr.gc.ca
This is a formal request for a full review of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission’s (CRCC) handling of this matter, including its conduct and policies relating to national security disclosures.
This complaint was originally submitted on March 27, 2023. The CRCC later acknowledged, on July 17, 2025, that it would proceed to review, subject to its published service standard of 120 business days.
As of March 20, 2026, approximately 246 calendar days (or 169 business days) have elapsed since that acknowledgment—placing the review significantly beyond the Commission’s own published service standard:
https://crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/services/service-standards
This delay follows an earlier phase in which RCMP officers Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen closed the matter after approximately 800 days without contacting the complainant, which they themselves acknowledged was outside their mandated timeframe.
The CRCC’s own written correspondence further demonstrates a pattern of conduct that raises serious concerns regarding obstruction and the failure to properly process material evidence, including evidence submitted by a technical expert which is supported by a CSIS case reference (Attachment 5566).
The CRCC serves as an oversight body for the RCMP. NSIRA exists to provide independent oversight in matters involving national security. This case reflects a breakdown in that oversight chain, where:
- The underlying complaint has not been independently examined
- The procedural handling itself is now in question
- Established service standards have not been met
- The prior RCMP investigation appears not to have been conducted in good faith
The CRCC cannot investigate its own conduct. NSIRA exists to ensure that oversight remains effective where institutional processes fail.
Accordingly, I am formally requesting that NSIRA:
- Conduct an independent review of CRCC files 2023-1031 and R2024-005807
- Assess whether the CRCC properly handled material involving national security considerations
- Determine whether procedural failures, delays beyond service standards, or obstruction occurred at the intake, review, and reporting stages
- Examine the RCMP handling of the complaint, including the acknowledged delay and lack of contact over approximately 800 days
I have made every effort to ensure that the evidentiary record is accessible and organized for independent review.
Scott Jewers
CTV, CBC, Postmedia, TorStar, Globe and Mail, W5, Fifth Estate, Canada Land, The Walrus, National Observer – Please Review
I am writing to request that your organizations review a matter that has now been ongoing for approximately 1,100 days without meaningful resolution. At this stage, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC) and the RCMP appear to be operating well outside their mandated timeframes, and the record raises serious concerns regarding obstruction and failure of process.
My request is straightforward: I am asking that you write to the CRCC and the RCMP to request that this matter be formally investigated and escalated to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley, with independent oversight.
The record demonstrates a structural conflict of interest. The CRCC review process involves forwarding findings, including interim reports, to RCMP leadership—specifically Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley. These same individuals are connected to the subject matter of the complaint and are positioned within the decision-making chain that will receive and respond to the CRCC’s findings.
If this matter proceeds through that chain without independent oversight, the integrity of the review is compromised at a structural level. This raises serious concerns about whether the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute, and whether the process remains capable of independent function.
Specifically, I suggest that you seek clarification on the following:
- How my phone’s GPS location was set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, Nova Scotia, without my knowledge or consent;
- How this relates to the RCMP spyware-related inquiry referenced in August 2022;
- Why this issue has not been addressed at any stage of the complaint or review process; and
- Why a reported sexual assault was not investigated by either the RCMP or the CRCC.
At this stage, independent scrutiny is necessary to ensure that this matter is examined transparently and that appropriate investigative steps are taken.
If you require any additional information or documentation, I am available to provide it.
Politicians
Request for Parliamentary and Legislative Review — CRCC File R2024-005807 / 2023-1031
A 2023 Federal Court decision confirmed that when public officials use communication platforms to share government-related information, restricting access (including blocking) can raise serious legal concerns related to access to information and public participation.
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steven-guilbeault-must-unblock-ezra-levant-1.6964294
Delivery confirmations and response patterns to this correspondence are being recorded and may be referenced publicly as part of the broader record.
The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC)—a body mandated to provide independent oversight of the RCMP on behalf of Canadians—has demonstrably failed in that function across multiple stages of this complaint. Its own written correspondence indicates that it will not escalate the matter, will not refer it for independent investigation, and has provided inconsistent positions regarding whether the national security dimensions of the complaint are being considered after more than three years.
I am requesting that you write to the CRCC, RCMP, CSIS, and NSIRA and formally request that these matters be reviewed and escalated under:
- CRCC Files R2024-005807 and 2023-1031; and
- CSIS Reference: Attachment 5566 (Attachment5566@smtp.gc.ca).
The CRCC is funded by Canadian taxpayers and exists to hold the RCMP accountable on their behalf. When the CRCC fails in that function—and when that failure is evidenced within its own written correspondence—the responsibility to ensure accountability shifts to elected representatives.
That responsibility arises in this case.
Scott Jewers
A Review of CRCC Correspondence from March 27th 2023 until July 17th 2025
An approximate record of All CRCC Correspondence from March 27th 2023 until present can be found at:
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/3xaeexvv
Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/All%20CRCC%20Follow%20ups.html
It should be noted that Paul is not a frontline intake agent. Paul confirmed in writing on October 30, 2024, that he is a manager of the Commission’s intake office. As manager, he has supervisory responsibility for the conduct of CRCC intake staff, including Carole, David, and Rebecca, and is therefore responsible for their conduct, which is directly in question.
“Good afternoon Scott Jewers. My name is Paul and I am a manager of the Commission’s intake office. I have read your October 22, 2024 submission, R2024-005807, along with CRCC files 2024-3291 and 2023-1031.”
The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP has established formal service standards under section 45.37 of the RCMP Act, which state that:
- The Commission is to conduct its review and issue either a Satisfied Report or an Interim Report within 120 business days after receiving all relevant material.
The CRCC accepted this case for review on July 17, 2025. As of March 20, 2026, approximately 169 business days have elapsed—approximately 49 business days beyond the Commission’s stated service standard.
March 2023 — Original Complaint
CRCC file 2023-1031 was opened on March 24, 2023. That complaint clearly outlined multiple forms of abuse including break and enter, threats, assault, and the involvement of EMIC contracts. Direct quotations from police officers were included along with audio recordings involving Jessica Welke.
Carole did not record the substance of that complaint. In her response of May 17, 2023 she stated that the RCMP had acknowledged the complaint on April 19, 2023 and would be in contact within 45 days — indicating a contact date of approximately June 3, 2023. No one contacted me.
As a result I continued to submit additional details and supporting information. Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/mptjajvr
May 25, 2023 — EMIC Referenced in CRCC's Own Letter
The CRCC's own letter dated May 25, 2023 explicitly references EMIC — demonstrating that the Commission was fully aware of the companies involved and the alleged connections to Cambridge Analytica. This is not terminology introduced solely by the complainant. It is language used directly within the CRCC's own documentation.
The letter further records that another officer had to place his hand on Jessica Welke's shoulder and ask her to stop, and states:
"He then specified that it was the same female officer who had said something along the line of 'don't you think it's something you're not supposed to know,' as noted in his original public complaint when he tried to report that his GPS location showed as being at an alternate location (not his point of contact), which he appears to link to the EMIC contracts. Please note there is also an attachment included with letter."
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/295bmbu5
This is consistent with the abusive response captured in the May 24, 2023 audio recording involving Jessica Welke, in which a voice can be heard stating "Good" after I outlined the abuse and threats made against me. In the same recording I explicitly state that I felt terrorized.
Shortly thereafter on May 27, 2023 I received a call from MHMCT — which directly aligns with those statements of being terrorized and raises serious concern regarding how the report was being characterized and handled internally.
July 27, 2023 — Sexual Assault Reported in Writing
In my July 27, 2023 submission I again explicitly referenced the sexual assault. The CRCC acknowledged receipt and stated that the information was forwarded to the RCMP. Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/mrjyrjnf
August 4, 2023 — CRCC Minimization of Sexual Assault
On August 4, 2023, Rebecca, an Intake Agent with the CRCC, referenced the incident only as an "assault" in correspondence — despite it having been reported as a sexual assault and explicitly raised on July 27, 2023. This demonstrates a clear pattern of minimization by CRCC staff of an allegation that had already been reported directly to Jessica Welke, who was responsible for investigating the matter.
The CRCC's own position at this stage was:
"The role of the Public Complaint Investigator is not to conduct criminal investigations into reports of abuse, assault, break and enter or any other criminal offences."
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/bdesexwz
September 6, 2023 — Sexual Assault Again Explicitly Referenced
In my September 6, 2023 submission I again explicitly referenced the sexual assault. The CRCC acknowledged this and confirmed the information was forwarded to the RCMP. Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/mrjyrjnf
Sergeant Stevens — Assigned Investigator
When Sergeant Stevens — assigned by the RCMP to investigate on behalf of the CRCC — contacted me, there was no reference to the sexual assault, the GPS location being set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS, the audio recordings involving Jessica Welke, or the public website containing the evidentiary record released June 30, 2023.
Despite being informed of police retaliation, abuse, and threats involving both HRP and the RCMP — and being directly advised that Dennis Daley, Mike Duheme, Tim Houston, and Dan Kinsella were implicated — Sergeant Stevens dismissed the matter and stated nothing could be addressed unless I attended in person. When asked where such concerns should be reported, he repeatedly responded: the police — despite the allegations involving police misconduct specifically.
Sergeant Stevens later claimed he had attempted to meet with me multiple times. This is false. I clearly stated I would only provide submissions digitally or by telephone due to the documented pattern of police abuse and retaliation — abuse he was himself assigned to investigate. It was not reasonable to expect me to attend a police detachment under those circumstances.
The CRCC's own December 19, 2023 correspondence reflects this directly:
"After being threatened, falsely arrested, terrorized by Police... would any of you drive in there and trust him when he can't even tell me who to report the issues to while claiming he doesn't investigate them?"
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/bddkr7mu
The CRCC's summary of that interaction misrepresents what was said — framing the concern as frustration that the investigator could only examine RCMP misconduct rather than the underlying incident. In reality I refused to attend in person because the investigator had already stated the matter could not proceed unless I did. Those are two fundamentally different positions and the CRCC's characterization shields the investigator while obscuring the actual concern.
The CRCC's own summary states:
"Scott JEWERS confirmed that his additional details were intended to be additional general information for file 2023-1031. Scott JEWERS is frustrated that the public complaint investigator is only able to investigate the RCMP members' misconduct and not the incident itself that he reported. Scott JEWERS said he has reached out to the police 15 times in an attempt to have the initial incident investigated but no members will investigate."
These are not equivalent positions. The CRCC's characterization protects the investigator while obscuring the actual concern raised.
The December 19, 2023 submission also explicitly requested contact from a senior official. That request was not acted upon — forming part of a broader pattern in which requests for oversight were redirected, ignored, or misrepresented in the official record.
April 3, 2024 — Further Submission After Four Months of Silence
In the more than four months leading up to April 3, 2024, no one from either the RCMP or the CRCC contacted me. As a result I made a further submission requesting resignations while clearly stating that children, a disabled woman, and cancer patients had been threatened. Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/ms8f3my6
That submission included images of RCMP vests found at a suspected drug drop site, documentation of multiple instances of being stalked by RCMP including while protesting racism, and a newspaper article corroborating that conduct with witnesses — despite living approximately 40 km from the nearest RCMP station.
Short URL — RCMP vest image: https://tinyurl.com/yux2xdd4 Short URL — Newspaper front page: https://tinyurl.com/rycaz93u Short URL — Newspaper page 2: https://tinyurl.com/yh72dy8x
That submission again directly asked:
"How did my GPS get set to XXXX Stillwater NS which is 41km from where I live? Why are there pictures of the registered owner at Irving Shipbuilding? What are the associations with EMIC — SCL Group — Cambridge Analytica (Global Interference?) http://TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com"
April 11, 2024 — CRCC Attachment Acknowledging Submission
The CRCC provided an attachment acknowledging the April submission. Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/t9m5nbkf
That submission reiterated that the conduct of both the CRCC and the RCMP demonstrated why public trust in policing remains deeply compromised — and raised specific unanswered questions including how my phone's GPS was set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS, why images of the registered owner at Irving Shipbuilding appear with signed certificates from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and what the contractual relationships are between DND, EMIC, Cambridge Analytica, and SCL Group.
Short URL — EMIC and Irving connection: https://tinyurl.com/bde6y2mc Short URL — EMIC contract connections: https://tinyurl.com/5ca7edez Short URL — TAA methodology: https://tinyurl.com/ap3zh4rv Short URL — GPS spyware documentation: https://tinyurl.com/mv63tyw3
That submission explicitly stated this constituted global foreign election interference, identified it as psychological warfare consistent with NATO definitions, and stated that the GPS manipulation strongly indicates the use of spyware. This clearly establishes that foreign election interference concerns were formally raised and notified to both the CRCC and the RCMP — with supporting images and links confirmed in the CRCC's own attachment records as forwarded to the RCMP.
The CRCC also confirmed receipt of my fax dated March 28, 2024. That fax was a formal request for a Crown Prosecutor to investigate the matter. I also physically delivered requests to the Crown office and submitted the same request by fax.
This demonstrates that I actively attempted to have the matter investigated through all available channels, including direct engagement with the Crown.
The CRCC acknowledged receipt of this material in writing:
“The Commission received your fax dated March 28, 2024. Can you please tell me what was your intention in sending that fax to the Commission? It appears to be addressed to the Crown Prosecutor.”
March 13, 2024 — Public Demonstration Outside Sheet Harbour Detachment
On the anniversary of my second false arrest I walked through Sheet Harbour carrying signs asking how my phone's GPS was set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS and stood across from the RCMP detachment. I also reported the matter again to Zachary Lechene of RCMP Sheet Harbour in February 2024.
Short URL — Demonstration video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IGtnHlru40
August 22, 2024 — Corporal Atwell Attends Residence
On August 22, 2024, Corporal Atwell of RCMP Musquodoboit Harbour attended my residence as a result of a Facebook post made July 15, 2024 regarding Jessica Welke, the audio recording of the "Good" response, and the reported abuse. During that interaction he laughed in my face about the sexual assault, laughed about my phone's GPS being set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS, and dismissed the other reported abuse. Upon being told that GPS manipulation constitutes unauthorized use of a computer and potential spyware, he stated he would contact me but never did.
September 13, 2024 — Recorded Call with Corporal Atwell
The following audio recordings were provided directly to the CRCC on March 16, 2026.
Recording 1 — Corporal Atwell acknowledging the sexual assault and dismissing it: Full URL: https://youtu.be/gDysMWEeueM
- Scott: "Right. Which was brought on because of the serious issues reported in the complaint. When you read that, you read there was a sexual assault — but you're okay with that and not okay with someone being upset about a police officer. That seems strange. Because anybody would know a sexual assault is exponentially worse than anything I said."
- Atwell: "Well I'm pretty confident in our members' abilities to investigate things, but I'll have a look…"
Recording 2 — Corporal Atwell claiming the CRCC would never fail to record a sexual assault: Full URL: https://youtu.be/cC08LLQjN2o
- Scott: "That's what I mean — I reported it. When I reported it to the Civilian Review Board, the woman didn't record it. I brought it up multiple times and he didn't record it either."
- Atwell: "I can guarantee the Civilian Review Board is pretty hard on us. I can guarantee they would have created a report — they do every time someone calls."
- Scott: "But I'm telling you they didn't in this case. They didn't, sir, and I reported serious abuse towards me and my family."
Recording 3 — Corporal Atwell falsely claiming he would follow up: Full URL: https://youtu.be/Rjgk_FozXHs
- Atwell: "And if I don't reach you today then I'll try again on Monday, okay?"
- Scott: "Okay, thank you. Have a good day, bye."
Corporal Atwell did not contact me as claimed. When I returned the call he stated he had attempted to reach me — which is not supported by my records and raises concern that a false record was being constructed. I have repeatedly requested that the CRCC obtain phone logs from Corporal Atwell, Jessica Welke, Shelly Mews, and Curt Wallace to verify these claims. That request has not been acted upon.
It is also relevant that Corporal Atwell operates out of a detachment adjacent to Jessica Welke — the central subject of the complaint — raising additional concerns regarding independence and potential conflict of interest.
August 30, 2024 — Call with David at CRCC
On August 30, 2024 I spoke with David from the CRCC. I was visibly distressed and explained how severely the situation was affecting me. I specifically told him that Carole had failed to record the abuse I reported. His response was: "Carole wouldn't do that" — despite the record clearly showing the abuse had not been properly documented and had been repeatedly raised throughout 2023.
September 16, 2024 — CRCC Response With No Reference to Sexual Assault
On September 16, 2024 the CRCC responded without any reference to the sexual assault, confirming only that they had asked their Complaint Directorate to have Trevor Allen contact me. The file was then closed:
"It was initially not clear to us whether your complaint related to an incident within our jurisdiction, however, after a phone discussion with one of our intake officers in which you expressed a desire to be contacted by the newly-assigned public complaint investigator, the Commission contacted the RCMP's National Public Complaint Directorate to request that Sgt. Trevor Allen contact you. Your file has now been closed."
This allowed Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen, and CRCC staff to again claim plausible deniability — pointing back to the complainant as the problem — despite the sexual assault allegation having been clearly in their records since early 2023.
September 23, 2024 — Detailed Letter to CRCC
On September 23, 2024 I wrote a detailed letter to the CRCC reiterating the abuse, referencing the closed file, and again advising that the sexual assault and other serious matters had not been recorded or investigated by Carole, David, Sergeant Stevens, or anyone else at the CRCC. Media, government representatives, and lawyers had been added to the email thread. That letter was posted publicly to Facebook and X — with Premier Tim Houston tagged directly.
October 3, 2024 — David Merges Submission Into Closed File
David acknowledged receipt of an online submission dated October 3, 2024 and merged it into file 2024-3291 — which was already closed. This effectively obscured the details of what David had said about Carole and the failure to document the sexual assault by burying the submission in a closed file:
"Please be advised that your online submission, R2024-005448, dated October 3, 2024, has been merged into file 2024-3291 which is closed."
October 18, 2024 — Response to CRCC
On October 18, 2024 I responded making clear that merging a new submission into a closed file was an attempt to cover up what Carole, David, Sergeant Stevens, and the CRCC had done. I requested that the complaint be extended to include Corporal Atwell of Musquodoboit Harbour and again stated that the correspondence had been posted to Facebook and X with Premier Tim Houston tagged directly.
October 30, 2024 — Paul Sends Five Pages of Questions
On October 30, 2024, Paul from the CRCC sent approximately five pages of questions. By this point the correspondence thread included the following recipients — meaning Paul's questions were sent with full awareness that every response was being monitored by media organizations, legal firms, oversight bodies, political representatives, and all provincial and territorial premiers:
Complaints-CRCC, POLCOM Nova Scotia, Professional Conduct CPSNS, Crystal Morgan CPSNS, CBC Nova Scotia, Atlantic News Bell Media, CTV News, W5, CBC national and regional desks across Canada, Global News Halifax and Calgary, Go Public, Fifth Estate, Avery Haines, Sandie Rinaldo, all provincial and territorial premiers, Valent Legal, BWB LLP, Cox and Palmer, Boyne Clarke, Pink Larkin, Stewart McKelvey, Patterson Law, Henein Hutchison, Information Privacy Commissioner Nova Scotia, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, McInnes Cooper, Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Pierre Poilievre, and others.
Tim Houston was specifically included on this thread. This will become especially important in
May 10, 2025 — Detailed Answers Submitted to Paul's Questions
Having waited as requested and received nothing further from Paul or the CRCC, on May 10, 2025 I submitted detailed answers to Paul's October 30, 2024 questions. Paul's response was to advise that future submissions should be limited to 6 pages:
"Thank you Scott Jewers. In the future, please limit your online public complaint submissions for each individual complaint to 6 pages. If your submission exceeds 6 pages, the Commission may refuse to accept it. For the current case we will make an exception."
This response is particularly concerning given that Paul's own October 30, 2024 questions ran to approximately 5 pages. Simply quoting those questions in full and answering them in complete sentences would have consumed the entire permitted submission length. If Paul's questions required 5 pages to ask, the matters being raised are by definition complex enough to require a detailed response. The 6 page limit applied to answers but apparently not to questions — an asymmetry that functionally disadvantages the complainant.
June 3, 2025 — Request for Policy Clarification
On June 3, 2025 I asked Paul to clarify the policy basis for the 6 page limit. Paul did not respond.
June 4-6, 2025 — RCMP Final Report Received
A detailed rebuttal to the RCMP final report can be found here:
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/uawbhwr8 Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/July9th2025_Response_to_RCMP_June-6_Letter_and_CRCC_Investigation_Request.html Detailed Video Review (1:23:48): https://youtu.be/EkbkumKe-Hs
On June 6, 2025 I received the RCMP letter from Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen. The letter confirmed they had opened the case on June 1, 2025 and closed it on June 4, 2025 — four days — without contacting me, without any reference to the evidence submitted, without any mention of the sexual assault or the broader abuse documented throughout the file, and while acknowledging the matter was outside their mandated timeframe. This was over 800 days after the complaint was originally filed.
Cory Bushell stated in writing:
"Mr. Jewers, I would like to offer a sincere apology for the length of time it took to finalize this public complaint. It is beyond the mandated response time to complete a Public Complaint investigation and to provide a Final Report. We will strive to provide a timelier response in the future."
The report also confirmed that Sergeant Stevens had been identified as a conflict of interest and the investigation reassigned:
"The investigation was reassigned to Sergeant Allen based on a potential conflict of interest for Sergeant Stevens, as per the above noted CRCC submission on January 4, 2024."
Sergeant Stevens never recorded any of the abuse or sexual assault. He also misrepresented the contact history — claiming he had attempted to meet with me multiple times. This is false. I asked to provide submissions digitally or by telephone — a reasonable and clearly stated position given the documented pattern of police abuse and the existence of the public evidentiary record at www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com since June 30, 2023. Sergeant Stevens never once asked me to complete any public complaint form. His claim that I refused to cooperate is directly contradicted by the record.
Critically — Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen did not take any written statement whatsoever from Jessica Welke or any other officer involved. What the record shows is that the interaction amounted to coaching — alerting Jessica Welke and the officers involved that a serious complaint was coming while producing no substantive investigation and fabricating a false record of attempted contact.
It is also documented that during this period I made a direct call to the RCMP Special Victims Unit asking to press charges. That call is recorded and publicly available:
Full URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tZoNy0to7k
June 24, 2025 — No Response from Paul After 45 Days
By June 24, 2025 — approximately 45 days after submitting detailed answers to Paul's questions — I had received nothing further from Paul or the CRCC. No acknowledgment. No update. No next steps. The 287 day period of silence that followed is documented throughout this submission.
July 9, 2025 — Formal Review Request Submitted
On July 9, 2025 I submitted a formal request to the CRCC portal asking that the case be reviewed. The submission included videos, the written rebuttal identifying material inaccuracies in the RCMP's final report, and the full chronological history.
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/uawbhwr8 Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/July9th2025_Response_to_RCMP_June-6_Letter_and_CRCC_Investigation_Request.html
July 17, 2025 — CRCC Review Unit Acknowledges Receipt
On July 17, 2025 the CRCC Review unit wrote back confirming receipt of the review request and advising that the relevant information had been requested from the RCMP. The 120 business day service standard clock began running from the date all relevant RCMP materials were received — a date the Commission has still not confirmed in writing despite being formally asked.
Tiny URL Mapping to Full URLs:
- Showing Carole from CRCC said RCMP should contact me by June 3rd 2023
- https://tinyurl.com/mrjyrjnf
- Showing Rebecca from CRCC replied stating “assault” but seems to have omitted sexual.
- https://tinyurl.com/295bmbu5
- Direct Rebuttal to Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen
- https://tinyurl.com/bddkr7mu
- Found RCMP Vest at suspected drug drop location
- Guysborough Journal (Nova Scotia Newspaper), me on Front Page
- Front Page
- Second Page
- EMIC Contract #1
- Target Audience Analysis (TAA)
- EMIC, Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group Wikipedia Entry
- Showing NATO deems Target Audience Analysis (TAA) as PsyOps (Psychological warfare) in their own Docs
- April 11th 2024 reply from CRCC with their attachment and evidence they forwarded to RCMP
Linking Tim Houston and Justin Trudeau to David Pugliese, CRCC Action, Election Interference, Fraud, and Abuse
Reference: Section A — Review of CRCC Correspondence from March 27, 2023 to July 17, 2025, which documents these events alongside serious escalation within the CRCC.
Overview
This section responds directly to the Commission's questions regarding national security and election interference, specifically as they relate to Premier Tim Houston. It documents a sequence of events spanning January 2023 through October 2024, drawing on prior written submissions, CRCC correspondence, and publicly verifiable actions. All events are presented based on recorded dates and acknowledged submissions. The relationships between them are established by timing and documented record alone.
The connections between EMIC, SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica, and Justin Trudeau — particularly in relation to the 2019 and 2021 federal elections — are noted as relevant context. David Pugliese is a documented point of overlap between those threads and the events described below.
David Pugliese — Documented Timeline of Anomalies
From the original ALPHA release of The Wolf and The Neural Network on July 11, 2022, journalist David Pugliese of Postmedia and the Ottawa Citizen was the only individual to have a dedicated tab within the platform. This reflected documented concerns about timing correlations between his posting patterns and events directly connected to the core matter of this complaint.
Original ALPHA version: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Versions/Pages/ALPHA/2022_07_11_ALPHA.html
The pattern appears to have begun on November 8, 2018 — the day after my job position was posted with JD Irving, and shortly after Bill C-18, the Online News Act, was announced. These are not asserted as connected events. They are documented data points presented for independent examination.
Around March 6, 2019 — shortly after SaltWire in Halifax became a Postmedia client — Pugliese entered into a public media dispute with Irving Shipbuilding and began using the SaltWire platform to republish and amplify his articles. This occurred during my employment at Irving Shipbuilding, which ran from February 4, 2019 to July 26, 2019.
JD Irving publicly stated they would pursue legal action if certain stories were released. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada subsequently sided with Pugliese, finding that Procurement Canada and the Government of Canada had broken privacy rules by sharing his name with Irving Shipbuilding. Parties involved expressed concern about the specificity of Pugliese's information, which suggested a serious internal leak.
The EMIC contracts started July 5, 2019 — twenty-one days before my last day at Irving Shipbuilding. I discovered the EMIC contracts specifically while investigating Pugliese's posting pattern. This establishes a direct temporal overlap between internal corporate events, federal contract activity, and external media reporting patterns, all converging within a narrow timeframe that warrants independent examination.
On August 5, 2020 — as part of a formal investigation at Irving Shipbuilding involving myself, Jim Perrin (former Commander of the Criminal Investigation Unit and Superintendent of HRP), and several Directors and VPs — I sent a submission that is documented within TWNN. Premier Stephen McNeil announced his resignation the following day. Just prior, Pugliese had contacted the OPP regarding the Mark Norman case. It subsequently emerged that the RCMP had never forwarded the Mark Norman file to the OPP despite identifying themselves as a conflict of interest — and that the entire file had gone missing.
That article corresponds to Tuesday, August 4, 2020 — placing its publication at least one day before my own submission. At the same time, the Liberal Government was facing the WE Charity scandal, which led to the resignation of Bill Morneau on August 17, 2020.
Reference: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-justin-trudeau-decision-1.5689890
The convergence of the Mark Norman events, the WE Charity scandal, and the EMIC contracts would almost certainly have triggered a federal election and would have required public explanation from the RCMP, the Liberal Government, and DND — simultaneously, across interconnected institutional structures. It would also have required an account of how my phone's GPS was set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS — an address whose land transfers correspond to July 5, 2019, the start date of the EMIC contracts — while also correlating with the Postmedia, Mark Norman, and suspected spyware-related events during the same period. The GPS manipulation is a measurable data point that intersects directly with the EMIC contract timeline, raising questions about whether these events are isolated or part of a broader pattern requiring investigation.
To verify the address and land transfers: visit viewpoint.ca, create a free account, and search 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS. To verify the EMIC contracts: https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/ — search "EMIC." To verify EMIC, Cambridge Analytica, and SCL Group connections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica
On October 13, 2020, Pugliese published: Canadian military spent more than $1 million on controversial propaganda training linked to Cambridge Analytica parent firm — https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-military-spent-more-than-1-million-on-controversial-propaganda-training-linked-to-cambridge-analytica-parent-firm
The Howling Wolves Connection
On October 2, 2024, Pugliese published: Legal action underway to force Canadian Forces to release propaganda documents — https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/legal-action-under-way-to-force-canadian-forces-to-release-propaganda-documents
This article directly addressed the Howling Wolves letters — the same mock wolf howling that was replicated in my submission to Irving Shipbuilding on August 5, 2022, the day before Premier Stephen McNeil announced his resignation. The article confirmed that DND was aware the wolf letters were not Russian disinformation, even as DND and a U.S. propaganda expert had attempted to characterize them as such. It also confirmed that the operation had targeted Black Lives Matter protesters. This establishes that known psychological operations were mischaracterized at the institutional level while simultaneously intersecting with the timeline of this complaint.
This is directly relevant to events in this matter. When I was protesting in connection with Black Lives Matter events, the Department of Transportation attended and parked in the background. The registered owner of 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS — the address to which my phone's GPS was set without my knowledge or authorization — holds a desk at the Department of Transportation, has signed certificates from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and has documented connections to Irving Shipbuilding. This links a physical location tied to GPS manipulation with identifiable institutional and federal-level affiliations. These connections are documented within TWNN and have been submitted to the CRCC and RCMP through official channels. Psychological warfare and Howling Wolves in Nova Scotia can be searched across multiple newspapers, with results correlating to August 2020 and consistent with the context of the Irving Shipbuilding investigation.
Tim Houston — Documented Timeline
When elected, Premier Tim Houston effectively dismissed the existing board of directors of the Nova Scotia Health Authority, removed diversity provisions, and installed his own appointments — most notably Karen Oldfield — giving him direct personal control over NSHA. This is significant because it establishes direct executive control over the institution central to the events described in this complaint.
Reference: https://tinyurl.com/mw2mmzjd
On the morning of January 29, 2023, my mother passed away at approximately 1:18 a.m. at Saint Martha's Hospital in Antigonish. Premier Tim Houston attended the hospital that morning. This was not anticipated and was not sought. The interaction is documented in detail in the submission dated February 17, 2023.
Full HTML version: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/February17th2023_Mom_Passed_Away_Tim_Houston_Present_At_Hospitol.html
That same morning, neighbours reported lights moving in my house while I was at the hospital. Separately, a family associate standing in line at a Tim Hortons a few kilometres from the hospital was approached by an individual who identified themselves as being from CSIS. Each of these individuals came forward independently with no knowledge of the other's experience.
The CRCC's own intake manager, Paul, acknowledged Premier Houston's attendance in writing in his October 2024 questions: "You stated that you reported the premier showing up the morning your mother passed away." That acknowledgment is part of the formal record. The Premier's presence — combined with his direct control over NSHA — places a senior executive authority within the timeline of events central to this complaint, and is a documented fact that warrants independent examination.
Overlap with CRCC Reporting and Election Interference
Throughout 2023, I raised concerns about election interference on multiple occasions through the CRCC and publicly. On September 23, 2024 — before any election had been called and before any public indication that one was imminent — I again advised the CRCC that the reported abuse, including the sexual assault, had not been referenced anywhere in their responses, and stated directly that I had evidence of individuals potentially attempting to alter election outcomes.
Tim Houston then disregarded his own fixed-election-date legislation and called a snap election on October 27, 2024 — thirty-four days after that correspondence and four days after Paul sent his five pages of questions. The election took place on November 26, 2024. I could not have known about the snap election when I wrote on September 23, 2024. The election interference concern was raised before the election was called. That sequence is documented, timestamped, and cannot be attributed to retrospective framing.
Nova Scotia snap election announcement: https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/10/27/premier-tim-houston-calls-snap-election-nova-scotia-residents-to-head-to-the-polls-nov-26/ 2024 Nova Scotia general election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Nova_Scotia_general_election
On October 25, 2024 — two days before Houston called the snap election — former Conservative MP Chris Alexander testified before the federal foreign interference committee claiming that evidence found in a Ukrainian archive indicated Pugliese was a Russian spy, alleging "long-running covert ties to Moscow" and tabling documents he said chronicled a KGB recruitment operation. Pugliese publicly and categorically rejected the claims, calling them false and stating he had never been approached by any foreign intelligence service. Global News reported that the heads of both KGB document archives in Kyiv confirmed they had no such materials, and the head of Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service archive stated no information about Pugliese was found. While a document examiner retained by Alexander assessed the papers as physically authentic, multiple academic experts on KGB records noted the documents showed only that Soviet officials had considered Pugliese as a potential target — not that he was ever approached or recruited. Pugliese attributed the allegations to his reporting on military misconduct and an ongoing $7-million libel suit.
Reference: https://globalnews.ca/news/10831226/reporter-david-pugliese-false-russian-spy-allegations/
The significance of allegations introduced under parliamentary privilege — and therefore outside the reach of defamation law — that were subsequently undermined by the very archives cited as their source has not been publicly examined. A publicly discredited spy allegation produces a clean parliamentary exoneration, creating the appearance that intelligence bodies examined the underlying connections and found nothing, while the substantive questions those connections raise are never examined on their merits. That observation is documented here as a question for independent examination. No conclusion about authorship or intent is asserted.
Summary Timeline of Key Events
- January 29, 2023 — Premier Tim Houston attends the hospital the morning my mother passes away. Neighbours report lights in my house. A family associate is approached at a nearby Tim Hortons by an individual identifying themselves as CSIS. Each reports independently with no knowledge of the other.
- September 23, 2024 — Election interference formally raised in writing to the CRCC. Sexual assault allegation again noted as absent from all CRCC responses.
- October 2, 2024 — Pugliese publishes the Howling Wolves article in the Ottawa Citizen, directly connected to core elements of this complaint.
- October 25, 2024 — Chris Alexander testifies before the federal foreign interference committee using documents later undermined by the very archives he cited.
- October 27, 2024 — Tim Houston calls a snap election, disregarding his own fixed-election-date legislation — two days after the Alexander testimony and thirty-four days after the election interference correspondence.
- October 30, 2024 — Paul sends five pages of questions to the complainant, including written acknowledgment of the Premier's presence at the hospital on January 29, 2023.
- November 26, 2024 — Nova Scotia provincial election takes place.
Each event in this sequence is individually verifiable. The sequence is presented as a documented analytical observation. The combination of these events — Tim Houston's presence at the hospital, the CRCC's written acknowledgment, the election interference correspondence, the Pugliese article, the Alexander testimony, and the snap election call — represents a pattern of documented events now forming part of the formal public record distributed to 139 recipients.
Chris Alexander is included on the distribution list at chris@chrisalexander.ca. David Pugliese received this submission at dpugliese@postmedia.com. Emma Briant — who documented EMIC's continuation as an SCL defence contractor spinoff and who is currently pursuing DND records through federal court — is also included on the distribution list.
Paul and CRCC. My Rebuttal to Specific Points made in Paul’s March 17th 2026 email.
“As I had not seen a letter from the RCMP dated July 6, 2025, I thought it might be important to your public complaint against the RCMP but you were apparently referring to the RCMP’s final report dated June 4, 2025 which you reportedly received on June 6, 2025. It would appear that you made an error when referring to an RCMP letter issued on July 6, 2025. We were already in possession of the RCMP’s June 4, 2025 final report for CRCC file 2023-1031. “
Paul’s statement regarding the RCMP letter date confirms a more significant issue than a clerical correction.
He acknowledges that the CRCC was already in possession of the RCMP’s June 4, 2025 final report for file 2023-1031. That acknowledgment establishes three critical points.
First, the CRCC had the RCMP final report that closed the file after approximately 800 days without investigation, without contacting the complainant, without obtaining written statements from officers, and without reference to the reported sexual assault. The CRCC received that report, was aware of its contents, and did not act.
Second, there has been no confirmation that the rebuttal submitted on July 9, 2025—which identified material inaccuracies in that report—has been formally applied to file 2023-1031. The rebuttal exists. It was submitted. The file is acknowledged. The absence of confirmation that the rebuttal is included raises concerns regarding the completeness and integrity of the review record.
Third, the consistent pattern across multiple individuals and stages—non-documentation, omissions, and reliance on incomplete records—indicates a systemic issue in how this matter has been handled.
This is particularly concerning given that the CRCC itself has issued prior findings identifying similar failures in RCMP sexual assault investigations. The contradiction between those findings and the inaction in this case is significant.
October 2, 2022 — Some RCMP officers still aren't taking sexual assault claims seriously enough, watchdog says:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-sexual-assault-1.6597502
“The civilian watchdog agency overseeing the RCMP routinely takes Mounties to task for bungling sexual assault investigations… [and] has issued 43 ‘adverse findings’ in cases involving sexual assault investigations since 2019.”
Accordingly, I am requesting a direct answer:
Has the July 9, 2025 rebuttal been formally applied to file 2023-1031?
Supporting materials:
- Rebuttal (Short URL): https://tinyurl.com/7ckd6v3p
- Full Document: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/July9th2025_Response_to_RCMP_June-6_Letter_and_CRCC_Investigation_Request.html
- Video Review (1:23:47): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkbkumKe-Hs
2) “At the risk of repeating myself, I will again point out to you that the maximum 60 minutes of video you referenced applies to the review stage of a public complaint, not the intake stage of a public complaint. R2024-005807 is at the intake stage. Video and audio recordings and photographs are not usually accepted at the intake stage. Audio and video recordings may be provided to the public complaint investigator assigned by the RCMP. “
Paul’s statement that audio and video evidence are not accepted at the intake stage raises a fundamental issue:
How can the CRCC reassign this matter to the RCMP for investigation, given what is already documented on the record?
This submission identifies 14 named officers across multiple detachments whose conduct raises serious concerns, including failure to document a reported violent sexual assault, inaccurate or incomplete records, missing evidence, and the substitution of mental health interventions in place of a criminal investigation. Paul has reviewed this material, engaged with the evidence, and is aware of the individuals, timelines, and patterns described.
He is also aware that the RCMP has already handled this matter. A file was opened after approximately 800 days and then closed within days without contacting the complainant, without obtaining written statements from officers, and without reference to the sexual assault allegation. That is the same process now being relied upon.
Referring this matter back to the same institutional structure—where conflicts of interest have been identified and the record itself is in dispute—raises serious concerns regarding the independence and integrity of any further investigation.
The CRCC exists to provide oversight in cases where internal processes are insufficient. Redirecting a complaint of this nature back to the RCMP does not resolve those concerns—it reinforces them.
To date, no explanation has been provided as to how an impartial investigation can be conducted under these circumstances, despite this question being raised consistently since August 7, 2025.
Accordingly, this question must be answered directly:
How can a fair and independent investigation be conducted by the same institution whose conduct is the subject of this complaint?
This concern is further compounded by the involvement and oversight structure connected to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley, as well as prior leadership within the Halifax Regional Police, including former Chief Dan Kinsella and former interim Chief Robin McNeil. Multiple members of the McNeil family are employed across HRP and the RCMP and are reasonably connected to both the underlying events and subsequent actions, including RCMP attendance at my residence.
Reliance on records produced within that same institutional framework—including HRP records that are themselves in dispute—further undermines the ability to conduct an impartial review.
Additional context regarding policing relationships referenced in this matter:
https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/morning-file/nova-scotian-forests-the-scottish-model/
“Your assertion that I could have escalated your complaint when the CSIS case number was provided is misleading. The relevance of the CSIS case number is unknown. When asked what the outcome was of your request to CSIS you were not able to provide a substantive answer, stating, “CSIS was provided with the relevant materials and made aware of the concerns raised. As an intelligence agency, CSIS does not publicly disclose investigative steps or internal assessments.” It would therefore appear that you have no idea what importance, if any, CSIS has attached to the material you provided to them. “
Paul’s characterization of the CSIS reference reflects either a misunderstanding of how CSIS operates or a misrepresentation of what was communicated.
CSIS does not publicly disclose whether it has opened an investigation or the weight it assigns to submitted materials. The absence of a substantive public answer is not evidence of inaction—it is standard operating practice under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. This was explained directly. Paul was advised that the matter was accepted under reference Attachment 5566, and that CSIS explicitly instructed that all supporting materials continue to be submitted through Attachment5566@smtp.gc.ca—an address included on every relevant communication throughout this process and verifiable by the CRCC.
The relevance of the CSIS reference is not abstract. It is directly tied to the substance of the evidence submitted: documented connections involving EMIC, SCL Group, and Cambridge Analytica, GPS manipulation linked to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, Nova Scotia, and allegations involving senior officials, including RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme, Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley, and Premier Tim Houston. Paul’s prior correspondence confirms he was aware of these elements. Characterizing the CSIS reference as being of unknown relevance without addressing that substance is not a neutral analytical position—it is a dismissal without engagement.
This is further reinforced by the CRCC’s own correspondence. In its responses to submitted materials, the CRCC explicitly referenced foreign interference considerations on May 29, 2023, and again on April 3, 2024. These references confirm that the Commission was aware—at multiple points in time—of the national security dimension of this matter.
- Supporting document (short URL): https://tinyurl.com/ms8f3my6
- Full document: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/CRCC%20Attachments/2024-04-03_Redacted%20CRCC%20Complaint%20Transmission%202023-1031%20Scott%20Jewers.pdf
- Additional context (“All CRCC Follow Ups”):
https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/All%20CRCC%20Follow%20ups.html
In addition, multiple submissions directly included the EMIC contracts, along with detailed video materials analyzing those contracts and their broader implications, spanning from 2023 through to the present. These materials were not incidental—they formed a central component of the evidentiary record.
Taken together, this establishes that the CRCC was not only aware of the CSIS reference, but had already engaged with and acknowledged the underlying subject matter, including foreign interference considerations. Any subsequent characterization of the CSIS reference as being of “unknown relevance” is therefore inconsistent with the Commission’s own documented record.
CSIS involvement arises precisely when conventional oversight mechanisms fail. In this case, the RCMP closed the file after prolonged inaction without investigation, and the CRCC failed to properly document key elements of the complaint across multiple stages. Under those conditions, escalation beyond standard channels is not only appropriate—it is the mechanism the system is designed to produce.
Paul’s position creates an impossible standard. When detailed evidence is provided, it is characterized as excessive. When clarification is requested, responses are delayed or not provided. There is no identifiable threshold at which the submission would be considered sufficient. This is not a functional oversight process—it is a closed procedural loop in which no outcome other than inaction is possible.
This issue is compounded by the CRCC’s stated position that video and audio evidence are not usually accepted at the intake stage. If CSIS-related recordings are disclosed publicly, there is potential legal exposure for the complainant. If they are not disclosed, the Commission asserts it cannot assess them. This creates a structural contradiction in which evidence cannot be safely provided, yet cannot be reviewed if withheld.
At the same time, the CRCC has the ability to independently verify the existence of CSIS reference Attachment 5566 through direct contact with CSIS using publicly available channels (for example, 613-993-9620). Choosing not to take that step, while simultaneously characterizing the reference as being of unknown relevance, demonstrates a failure to pursue a readily available verification pathway. That failure is not neutral—it reinforces the pattern in which available investigative steps are not taken.
To date, no explanation has been provided as to what additional steps could be taken given the material already submitted. Further, there is no indication that the CRCC has any established process for handling a complaint involving an active CSIS reference. The absence of such a process is now being used to justify inaction while the evidentiary record continues to expand without meaningful review.
Paul’s position leads to only three possible conclusions:
- That CSIS assigns formal intake references without cause
- That the complainant is fabricating a CSIS case reference—which would itself likely constitute a federal offence
- Or that the reference is being dismissed without any engagement with its underlying basis
None of these conclusions are consistent with how CSIS operates. The existence of the reference—and the continued instruction to submit evidence through Attachment5566@smtp.gc.ca—indicates that the material met the threshold for intake and ongoing review.
The issue of evidence handling remains unresolved. Materials, including visual evidence, were provided and made accessible through publicly available sources. The inability or unwillingness to engage with that evidence does not negate its existence—it reinforces the documented pattern in which procedural limitations are applied in a manner that prevents substantive review.
Where external links, audio, and video are not being reviewed, the only remaining option is to submit key evidence in-line within this document. Any characterization of that material as excessive reflects the same procedural limitation described above.
Given the serious public safety considerations involved, supporting images are included below so that the record clearly reflects what was available, what was submitted, and what the Commission chose to engage with—and what it did not.
For a light overview of some of the connections, also see the section Linking Tim Houston and Justin Trudeau to David Pugliese, CRCC Action, Election Interference, Fraud, and Abuse
Supporting images are provided below.
INLINE IMAGES SUPPORTING SMALL PERCENT OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
(See Image: EMIC contract dates match land registry records for 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS — the location to which my phone's GPS was set without authorization. This correlation supports the conclusion that the GPS manipulation was targeted and linked to EMIC-connected entities, consistent with the deployment of spyware.) Jump to Index
Image: EMIC Contract Start Dates Correspond with Dan Kinsella's Appointment as Chief of Halifax Regional Police
This image demonstrates that the EMIC contract start dates align directly with the commencement of Dan Kinsella's tenure as Chief of the Halifax Regional Police. These contracts were subsequently removed from the federal government procurement website in October 2022 — the same period during which the Halifax Regional Police Association held its historic vote of no confidence, with 96.6% of participating members voting against Kinsella's leadership. The contracts were only restored to the website weeks after that vote concluded. The timing of both the contracts and their removal is consistent with the broader pattern of evidence documented in this submission. Jump to Index
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/26tvzcu8 Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2019-07-05_EMIC%20Dan%20Kinsella%20Land%20Registration%20Dates.png
Image: EMIC Contracts Removed from Federal Procurement Database During Period of RCMP Harassment and HRP Vote of No Confidence
This image documents that EMIC contracts were actively removed from the federal government procurement database at https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/ during the same period in which RCMP officers were repeatedly attending my residence in a manner I believe constitutes harassment and retaliation against myself and my disabled mother.
This removal occurred simultaneously with the Halifax Regional Police Association's historic vote of no confidence in Chief Dan Kinsella — the first such vote in HRP history. 84% of members participated. 96.6% voted no confidence. The EMIC contracts were only restored to the federal database weeks after that vote concluded.
The timing is not coincidental. The RCMP had already acknowledged reviewing the emails in which I raised concerns about the disappearing contracts and confirmed those emails contained nothing threatening. Officers were nonetheless dispatched to my residence during this same window. The removal of the contracts, the vote of no confidence, the RCMP attendances, and the restoration of the contracts after the vote are a sequence — not a series of unrelated events. It demonstrates that the RCMP was aware of the significance of what was being documented and that institutional activity was occurring in parallel with the concerns being raised. Jump to Index
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/4zpbn3pr Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2023_08_30/2022-08-2_Proof%20EMIC%20contracted%20existed%20August%2029th%202022%20and%20Sepotember%2015th%20but%20as%20of%20October%2026th%202022%20they%20cant%20be%20found.jpg
Image: Statistical Probability Analysis — Odds of GPS Location Being Set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS by Random Error
This image presents a probability analysis calculating the likelihood that a phone's GPS location could randomly default to the specific 1,000 square foot area corresponding to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS as the result of a technical glitch rather than deliberate targeting.
Assuming a 40 km radius search area — a generous assumption already favorable to the alternative explanation — the total area of the circle is approximately 5.41 × 10¹⁰ square feet. The probability of a random GPS error landing on any specific 1,000 square foot section within that area is approximately 1.85 × 10⁻⁸, or roughly 1 in 54,000,000.
The odds of this occurring by chance are approximately one in fifty-four million.
This analysis was generated to address the suggestion that the GPS anomaly could be explained as a technical malfunction rather than deliberate interference. At one in fifty-four million, the random error explanation is not statistically credible. The GPS was set to that location because someone set it there. Combined with the documented connections between EMIC, the land records for 9330 Highway 7, and the broader pattern of surveillance evidence, this probability analysis supports the conclusion that the location was deliberately targeted and that the targeting was linked to the entities and individuals identified in this submission. Jump to Index
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/mu55m6k8 (confirm or update) Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2019-07-05_Odds_of_Randomly_finding_my_address_set_ti_stillwater_NS_assuming_40KM_radius_and_1000_sq_feet_residence.jpg
Image: Target Audience Analysis (TAA) — Cambridge Analytica / EMIC — Psychological Warfare and PsyOps as Recognized by NATO and the UK Parliament
This image documents the connection between EMIC contracts on the federal government procurement website and the Target Audience Analysis (TAA) methodology — a technique formally recognized by NATO and investigated by the UK Parliament in the context of SCL Group and Cambridge Analytica's influence operations. Jump to Index
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/yrayak64
Image: Wikipedia — Cambridge Analytica Aftermath Section — EMIC Directly Identified as SCL Defence Contractor Continuation
This image captures the Wikipedia entry for Cambridge Analytica, specifically the Aftermath section, which states:
"A firm called EMIC, set up by staff from the original SCL defence contractor, were revealed in 2020 by Emma Briant to be continuing to work for governments."
This is a publicly accessible, independently sourced confirmation of three critical facts. First, EMIC was established by personnel from SCL — the defence contractor that operated Cambridge Analytica. Second, EMIC was revealed to be continuing government work after Cambridge Analytica's collapse and public disgrace. Third, this was documented by Emma Briant, a academic researcher and expert on propaganda and psychological operations who gave evidence to the UK Parliament on SCL and Cambridge Analytica's influence activities.
This Wikipedia entry directly corroborates the assertion made throughout this submission that EMIC is not an unrelated procurement entity. It is a continuation of the same organizational structure that operated Cambridge Analytica — a structure that the UK Parliament described as deploying weapons-grade psychological influence methodology. EMIC contracts appearing on the Canadian federal procurement website, corresponding with the start of Dan Kinsella's tenure as Chief of Halifax Regional Police, linked to 9330 Highway 7 Stillwater NS where my phone's GPS was set, and subsequently deleted from the procurement database during the period of documented harassment, must be understood in that context.
The relevance of this to the CRCC complaint is direct. Paul was provided with this information. The CSIS case reference Attachment 5566 exists in connection with this evidence. The characterization of the CSIS case number as being of unknown relevance was made by someone with access to a submission that included this Wikipedia entry, the EMIC contracts, the NATO TAA documentation, and the UK Parliament findings. That characterization is not credible. Jump to Index
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/5ca7edez
Image: Howling Wolves — Military Psychological Operations in Nova Scotia and Correlation with Timeline of This Complaint
This image documents the connection between the Canadian Armed Forces “Howling Wolves” psychological operations incident in Nova Scotia and the broader timeline outlined in this submission.
The Howling Wolves operation, conducted in September 2020, involved military personnel distributing a fabricated government letter regarding wolf reintroduction and broadcasting wolf sounds in rural areas to induce public concern. The exercise was later investigated and found to have lacked appropriate oversight. It was publicly reported by multiple outlets, including CBC News, the Ottawa Citizen, The New York Times, and VICE.
The relevance to this submission is based on timing and documented overlap:
- References to “Howling Wolves” appear in my December 2019 complaint to Irving Shipbuilding and were used throughout the JD Irving investigation in early 2020.
- On August 5, 2020, I contacted JD Irving and then–Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan requesting escalation to senior leadership.
- On August 6, 2020, Premier Stephen McNeil publicly announced his resignation.
- A Department of National Defence–related letter tied to this context is dated August 3, 2020 — immediately preceding these events.
- During this same timeframe, my phone’s GPS location was set to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, Nova Scotia, without authorization.
These events align with materials referenced as EMIC Contract 1, which outlines Target Audience Analysis (TAA) and psychological influence methodologies consistent with NATO-defined frameworks. EMIC Contract 2 aligns with subsequent events, including missing correspondence from ESDC during the same period.
The significance of this correlation is not based on a single data point, but on the convergence of:
- A confirmed military psychological operations exercise conducted without oversight in Nova Scotia
- Documented references to similar themes in advance of that operation
- Concurrent technical anomalies (GPS manipulation)
- A sequence of institutional responses and omissions that followed
Taken together, these elements form a timeline that warrants independent examination rather than dismissal as coincidence.
For transparency, journalists and officials who reported on or were directly connected to these events — including Brett Ruskin (CBC), David Pugliese (Ottawa Citizen), and then–Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — have been included in the distribution of this submission.
Short URL : https://tinyurl.com/3xu4sj7j
Image: Ottawa Citizen — Legal Action to Compel Release of Canadian Military Propaganda Records (Including “Fake Wolves” Exercise)
This article by David Pugliese (Ottawa Citizen, October 2, 2024) reports that Emma Briant — an associate professor at Monash University and a recognized researcher in military propaganda — filed for judicial review in federal court on September 27, 2024. The application seeks to compel the Department of National Defence to release records relating to Canadian military propaganda activities targeting the public, including the 2020 “fake wolves” exercise conducted in Nova Scotia.
The relevance to this submission is based on convergence of subject matter, timeline, and independent inquiry.
Emma Briant’s work has examined the broader ecosystem of military and political influence operations, including entities connected to SCL Group and Cambridge Analytica. Her current legal action is directed at obtaining official records concerning the same category of activities — and the same specific exercise — that aligns with the Nova Scotia events referenced in this submission.
This creates a parallel track:
- An independent academic expert is seeking disclosure of official DND records related to the “fake wolves” operation
- This submission documents a timeline in which that same operation, or similar methods, intersect with specific events and technical anomalies in Nova Scotia
David Pugliese has reported both on the original “Howling Wolves” incident and on this subsequent legal action seeking disclosure of its underlying records. As such, the reporting now spans both the event itself and efforts to obtain institutional documentation about it.
For transparency, both the reporting journalist and the academic researcher have been included in the distribution of this submission.
The significance is not that this article independently proves the claims made here, but that it establishes that:
- The “fake wolves” operation is real, documented, and subject to scrutiny
- There is an ongoing federal court effort to obtain full records of that operation
- Independent experts and journalists are actively investigating the same subject matter
Taken together, this reinforces that the issues raised in this submission align with matters already recognized as warranting formal review, disclosure, and external scrutiny.
Source: Ottawa Citizen, David Pugliese, October 2, 2024 https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/legal-action-under-way-to-force-canadian-forces-to-release-propaganda-documents
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/y6u5urus
Image: Global News — Allegations Against David Pugliese and Response (October 25, 2024)
This Global News article reports that David Pugliese — an Ottawa Citizen journalist known for reporting on Canadian military activities, including the “Howling Wolves” incident and related defence matters — was publicly accused by former cabinet minister Chris Alexander of being a Russian agent. Pugliese rejected the allegation as false.
The relevance to this submission is contextual.
Pugliese has reported on the same subject matter addressed here, including unauthorized or poorly overseen military information operations and the subsequent efforts to obtain related records. His reporting forms part of the publicly available record concerning these events.
The allegation made against him, and his response to it, illustrate the broader environment in which these issues are being discussed — one in which claims, counterclaims, and credibility challenges are present in the public domain.
For the purposes of this submission, the significance is limited to the fact that:
- The “Howling Wolves” incident and related defence activities are established subjects of national media reporting
- Journalists covering these topics have been publicly engaged and, at times, subject to controversy
- The underlying issues themselves remain matters of public record and ongoing scrutiny
This section is included to reflect the broader public context in which reporting on these events is occurring, not as evidence of the underlying claims themselves.
Source: Global News, Stewart Bell and Jeff Semple, October 25, 2024 Full URL: https://globalnews.ca/news/10831226/reporter-david-pugliese-false-russian-spy-allegations/
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/bdj9wm8j
Image: The Walrus — Forged KGB Documents Used to Smear Journalist David Pugliese in Parliament — Forensic Experts Confirm Evidence Was Fabricated
This article, published in The Walrus on October 3, 2025, reports that documents used by former Conservative MP Chris Alexander to accuse Ottawa Citizen journalist David Pugliese of being a Russian spy in a parliamentary committee hearing have been determined by forensic experts to be fabricated. A digital font created in 1993 was identified in documents supposedly produced in 1990. Ukrainian archives could not verify the files. Handwritten portions across supposedly different authors and time periods were found to share identical penmanship characteristics. The conclusion of the forensic review is that the documents were, in the words of researcher Giuseppe Bianchin, the product of a coordinated character assassination campaign.
Source: The Walrus, Taylor C. Noakes, October 3, 2025 Short URL: (add TinyURL) Full URL: https://thewalrus.ca/a-veteran-reporter-was-branded-as-a-russian-spy-the-proof-didnt-hold-up/
On the Forensic Finding Itself
The conclusion that the documents were forged does not establish who forged them or why. The assumption that Russian actors fabricated them to smear Pugliese is one interpretation. A second interpretation — equally consistent with the forensic finding — is that a forgery designed to be eventually discovered serves a fundamentally different purpose than one designed to permanently deceive.
A publicly debunked Russian spy allegation produces a clean parliamentary exoneration. It creates the appearance that intelligence and defence bodies examined the underlying connections and found nothing — while the substantive questions those connections raise are never examined on their merits. A forgery that cannot survive forensic scrutiny is not necessarily a failed operation. It may be a successful one whose intended outcome was the exoneration rather than the conviction.
State-level intelligence services do not routinely make elementary forensic errors such as using a digital font that did not exist at the time the documents were supposedly produced. That observation has not been publicly examined. It warrants independent examination by an appropriate body.
On Documented Anomalies Regarding David Pugliese
Several data points regarding David Pugliese are documented within this submission and are presented here as anomalies requiring independent examination. They are not conclusions about his conduct or affiliations. They are observations that the data supports and that an independent investigator with access to the full record should examine.
David Pugliese began a notable and specific posting pattern in November 2018 — one day after a position relevant to the timeline of this complaint was posted with JD Irving. On July 11, 2022, he was the only individual to have a dedicated tab within www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com — a documented fact that has not been explained. He was subsequently the only journalist called before the parliamentary committee in the specific context described in this article. These three data points in combination represent a statistically anomalous pattern. They are documented. They are verifiable. The probability that they are coincidental decreases as each additional data point is added to the sequence.
Pugliese has spent years reporting critically on DND, military propaganda operations, and the organizational infrastructure that this submission connects to EMIC, SCL Group, and Cambridge Analytica. That reporting intersects directly with the evidence in this submission. The question of what flows in both directions through that intersection — and who his sources are within the institutions his reporting covers — is a legitimate question for independent examination. It is raised here not as an accusation but as a documented analytical observation that the pattern of data supports.
It is also worth noting that Postmedia, Pugliese's employer, and JD Irving are both named entities within the broader evidentiary record of this submission. The organizational connections between those entities, the timeline correlations documented above, and the question of who benefits from the clean exoneration produced by the debunked forgery are presented here as a cluster of documented anomalies warranting independent examination — consistent with the TAA 1% event framework applied throughout this submission.
On the Broader Pattern
The mechanism documented in this article is the same mechanism documented throughout this submission at the individual level. When a person produces evidence that threatens powerful institutional interests — whether that person is a veteran defence journalist or a civilian in Nova Scotia reporting abuse and foreign interference — the response is not engagement with the evidence. The response is an attack on the credibility of the person presenting it.
Pugliese's reporting was targeted with forged KGB documents introduced in Parliament under parliamentary privilege so they could not be challenged through defamation proceedings. This complainant's reporting was met with mental health interventions, fabricated RCMP records, deleted voicemail evidence, and a CRCC process designed to ensure the substance was never examined. The mechanism is the same. The scale is different. The intent is identical.
Chris Alexander — who introduced the forged documents into Parliament — is included in the distribution list for this submission at chris@chrisalexander.ca. Emma Briant — who documented EMIC's continuation as an SCL defence contractor spinoff and who is now pursuing DND records through federal court — is included in the distribution list at EmmaLBriant on Facebook. David Pugliese — whose reporting intersects with the EMIC thread and whose anomalous data pattern is documented above — received this submission at dpugliese@postmedia.com.
The documented anomalies, the forensic questions, and the broader pattern are presented here as observations and questions at the level the evidence supports. What independent examination of those questions reveals is properly a matter for investigators with the appropriate mandate and access to the full record.
This entry is classified as a TAA 1% event cluster. It does not imply causation. It is published as transparent disclosure for investigative review and public debate.
Source: The Walrus, Taylor C. Noakes, October 3, 2025 Short URL: (add TinyURL) Full URL: https://thewalrus.ca/a-veteran-reporter-was-branded-as-a-russian-spy-the-proof-didnt-hold-up/
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/mvth4ae5
“With respect to your requests in Section 10. Requests for Escalation:,
The Commission will not be escalating the matter to our Human Resources department, as I have previously told you.
Michelaine Lahaie will not be reviewing this matter. The federal government has yet to appoint a new Chairperson for this Commission since Michelaine Lahaie’s departure.
The Commission does not report to CSIS. If the Commission feels that this complaint is closely related to national security, which is still being considered, then the Commission will adhere to current legislated reporting requirements.”
On the Refusal to Escalate to Human Resources
Paul states that he has previously advised that this matter will not be escalated to Human Resources. That is accurate—he has stated this. What he has not done, at any point in the correspondence, is explain why.
The request for escalation was made because the documented conduct of CRCC personnel—specifically Carole, David, and Paul—goes beyond case management and engages the conduct of staff directly. This includes the repeated failure to properly record a reported violent sexual assault, which occurred following the complainant’s false arrest and while in the care of NSHA, across multiple separate interactions.
A refusal to escalate without explanation is not a procedural position. It is the protection of the individuals whose conduct is at issue. That refusal is noted and forms part of the record.
I am requesting a direct answer in writing:
If a member of the Commission—or a member of their family—reported a violent sexual assault to an oversight body, and that body failed to record it on multiple occasions, then years later redirected the matter back into institutional processes without addressing that failure, what would be considered an acceptable timeframe for action? At what point would that process be considered inadequate?
This is not a rhetorical question. It is a request for a defined standard.
The standard being applied in this case—where over 1,000 days of documented institutional failure is met with procedural redirection and refusal to escalate—must be a standard the Commission is prepared to defend as appropriate in all comparable cases. If it is not a standard that would be accepted internally, it is not a standard that should be applied here.
There is also a liability issue that remains unaddressed.
If another individual is harmed by any of the officers named in this submission, or if a serious incident—such as a sexual assault—is reported and again not properly documented or acted upon, despite prior conduct having been reported to the CRCC over an extended period without meaningful action, and if the Commission’s failure to investigate or escalate contributed to that outcome, the question of institutional liability arises.
The CRCC had notice. It had audio evidence. It had a CSIS reference. It had identified officers and a documented pattern of non-recording and omission, including the failure to properly document a reported sexual assault that occurred within a separate institutional setting. At each stage, the matter was redirected rather than escalated.
If the consequence of those decisions is further harm, that outcome is not administrative. It raises serious questions regarding institutional accountability.
This submission, and prior efforts, were made not only to protect the complainant, but also to mitigate foreseeable risk to other individuals and to the Commission itself, including potential legal liability arising from notice, foreseeability, and a failure to act on documented information.
On Michelaine Lahaie
Paul states that Michelaine Lahaie has departed and that a new Chairperson has not yet been appointed. This is noted.
However, the request for Chairperson review was made precisely because this complaint involves the conduct of CRCC personnel, which cannot be adequately reviewed within the same operational structure. If the matter is not escalated to Human Resources, clarification is required as to what independent internal or external oversight mechanism is available.
The absence of a permanent Chairperson does not remove the obligation of oversight—it transfers that responsibility to an acting authority.
Paul has not identified who currently holds that authority, has not indicated whether this matter has been brought to their attention, and has not confirmed whether any senior official beyond those directly involved is aware of the complaint. The absence of that information is itself significant and forms part of the record.
The lack of a Chairperson also raises additional concerns in the context of delay. This matter has exceeded the Commission’s own published service standards, and no explanation has been provided as to whether the absence of leadership has contributed to that delay.
The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP has established formal service standards under section 45.37 of the RCMP Act, which state that:
- The Commission is to conduct its review and issue either a Satisfied Report or an Interim Report within 120 business days after receiving all relevant material.
The CRCC accepted this case for review on July 17, 2025. As of March 20, 2026, approximately 169 business days have elapsed. This is in addition to the earlier RCMP handling, where Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen closed the matter after approximately 800 days without contacting the complainant, while acknowledging that this was outside their mandated timeframe.
Source: https://crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/services/service-standards
Accordingly, I am formally requesting:
- Written confirmation of who currently holds acting Chairperson authority within the CRCC
- Written confirmation that this complaint has been brought to that individual’s attention
These are straightforward questions requiring straightforward answers. Their continued absence from prior responses forms part of the record.
On CSIS and National Security
Paul states that the Commission does not report to CSIS, and that if the complaint is determined to be closely related to national security—an issue he indicates is still under consideration—the Commission will adhere to legislated reporting requirements.
Two issues arise directly from this statement.
First, the acknowledgment that national security considerations are still being evaluated directly contradicts Paul’s earlier position that the CSIS reference is of unknown relevance. It cannot simultaneously be of unknown relevance and under consideration for national security reporting. This contradiction is now part of the written record.
Second, the statement that the Commission will adhere to legislated reporting requirements if such a determination is made reflects what has been requested throughout this process. However, it has taken over 1,000 days, multiple identified officers, a documented failure to record a sexual assault, and a formal submission distributed broadly to produce acknowledgment that this determination is even being considered.
The legislated reporting requirements exist because there are circumstances in which standard complaint processes are insufficient and require escalation beyond internal mechanisms.
This submission has documented—through audio recordings, call records, analytical data, procurement materials, and supporting research—that such circumstances may be present in this case.
The question is no longer whether those mechanisms exist.
It is whether they will be applied.
The record establishes that the Commission has been explicitly provided with the CSIS reference Attachment 5566, along with the appropriate submission channel (Attachment5566@smtp.gc.ca) and publicly available contact information for CSIS, and has been asked to self-report in order to enable timely verification.
Accordingly, the Commission is not operating in the absence of information or a defined pathway. It has been provided with both. The Commission is also in a position to recognize that the allegations raised are serious in nature and engage national security considerations, and that the supporting materials have been provided in a detailed, organized, and technically structured manner.
A decision not to verify, not to engage, or not to escalate under these conditions is not a procedural limitation—it is an active choice. That choice, and its implications, now form part of the record.
“Contrary to your assertion that the CRCC assigned Sgt. Stevens to handle your public complaint, it is the RCMP, not the CRCC who usually assigns the public complaint investigator. The CRCC did not appoint Sgt. Stevens as the public complaint investigator for your public complaint.
With respect to your mention of asking me to escalate the case to Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley, that is not the role of the staff in the Commission’s intake office. If you have concerns with the outcome of a formal public complaint investigation conducted by the RCMP, you have the option to ask for a review, as you have done for file 2023-1031. It is during the review process that the Commission may correspond with the RCMP Commissioner, if it disagrees with the findings of the RCMP’s final report.”
All CRCC follow-up correspondence can be reviewed here:
https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/All%20CRCC%20Follow%20ups.html
(This allows verification of what information was provided and when.)
On Sergeant Stevens
Paul states that it is the RCMP — not the CRCC — that assigns the public complaint investigator, and that the CRCC did not appoint Sergeant Stevens. This may be technically accurate as a description of procedure. It does not address the substance of the concern.
The issue is not who formally appointed Sergeant Stevens. The issue is that Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen identified Sergeant Stevens as having a conflict of interest — and then relied on the record produced under that conflict as though it were accurate and uncontested. The RCMP's own materials confirm this:
"The investigation was reassigned to Sergeant Allen based on a potential conflict of interest for Sergeant Stevens, as per the above noted CRCC submission on January 4, 2024."
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/7ckd6v3p Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/July9th2025_Response_to_RCMP_June-6_Letter_and_CRCC_Investigation_Request.html
The conflict was not speculative. It was formally acknowledged. No corrective action was taken regarding the integrity of the record produced under that conflict. Paul's clarification about appointment procedure does not address this and does not explain why a conflicted record was treated as reliable.
Paul himself confirmed on March 20, 2026:
"Your concerns about the response of the RCMP to your report of a sexual assault are being considered / addressed via this pending public complaint, along with a number of other concerns that you have raised and for which I do not see a specific mention in the RCMP's final report for CRCC file 2023-1031."
Paul therefore has access to the file, has reviewed it, and can independently verify these facts. His clarification regarding appointment procedure does not address what he can see with his own eyes in the file he has reviewed.
On Redirecting to the RCMP
This also demonstrates the risk of redirecting this matter back to the RCMP without independent oversight. The record already contains a clear example of multiple officers compromising the integrity of the investigation — including the failure to properly document the complainant's evidence, statements, and audio recordings of threats. Full disclosure including audio recordings, video evidence, and transcripts of the misconduct of at least 14 different RCMP Officers was provided to Paul and the CRCC on March 16, 2026.
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/yuafunmy
Paul's own response on March 17th 2026 indicates he cannot or will not review that material:
"Video and audio recordings and photographs are not usually accepted at the intake stage. Audio and video recordings may be provided to the public complaint investigator assigned by the RCMP."
This creates the same loop that has persisted since 2023. The evidence goes back to the RCMP. The RCMP produces a record that omits it. The CRCC receives that record. The CRCC takes no action. Paul has now confirmed in writing that the sexual assault allegation, foreign interference concerns, threats, and other serious matters reported since early 2023 do not appear in the RCMP's final report — yet the proposed remedy is to send the matter back to the same institution whose report omitted them.
This also raises a serious and legitimate question. Did Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen use advance information from the CRCC to effectively alert Jessica Welke and other involved officers that a serious complaint was coming? If so that would constitute a fundamental breach of the complaint process — one that gave implicated officers the opportunity to prepare their accounts before any formal investigation began. The CRCC needs to address how it prevents this kind of potential abuse.
On Escalation to Senior Command
Escalating directly to Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley is not a procedural preference. It is the appropriate mechanism to bypass a conflict of interest that has already been formally acknowledged within the file, especially given that RCMP opened and closed a case after 800+ days without contacting the complainant and CRCC is clearly admitting they are aware of this. If Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley are themselves conflicts of interest and fail to self-report that fact, it validates the concern immediately — while also stopping other officers from being shielded from accountability. Direct escalation also protects the complainant from further retaliation by limiting the number of officers who have access to personal information — retaliation having been clearly and repeatedly documented in the record.
On the Two-File Structure and the 120-Day Delay
This situation raises a legitimate concern regarding the current handling of the matter. The CRCC appears to be distributing relevant information across two files — 2023-1031 (review) and R2024-005807 (pending complaint) — without providing clarity as to what information is contained within each file or how they interact. This lack of transparency limits the complainant’s ability to understand or respond meaningfully to the process.
The CRCC’s published 120-day service standard has now been exceeded by over 90 days. A reasonable question is whether this delay is procedural or artificial — specifically, whether the extended timeline is being used to gather additional information due to institutional liability exposure rather than to conduct a timely and substantive review.
It is also reasonable to question whether the dual-file structure and extended delay are being used in a manner that risks bad-faith outcomes — including the possibility of extracting further details from the complainant to construct a narrative protective of the institution rather than addressing the substance of the complaint.
A clear example arises from correspondence dated March 18, 2026, where the complainant stated:
“Before responding to your questions, I am formally requesting written answers to the following, which have been asked repeatedly and remain unanswered.”
On March 20, 2026, Paul from the CRCC responded:
“It is your decision whether or not you wish to reply to the Commission’s questions. The Commission will assess your pending complaint R2024-005807 based upon the information it has received.”
This response reframes a conditional request for procedural clarification as a refusal to engage. That distinction is significant, as such characterization appears to support internal summaries that dismiss detailed evidence and shape the overall assessment of the complaint.
These are not allegations, but reasonable questions arising from a documented pattern of conduct over approximately 1,100 days. They warrant clear and direct answers.
I now have a few follow up questions for you in relation to your March 16, 2026 submission:
In addition to these responses, I strongly recommend reviewing the section titled Paul and CRCC. My Rebuttal to Specific Points made in Paul’s March 17th 2026 email.
“With respect to recording 2 in relation to Officer Jessica Welke where you stated, in part, “The only option I can see at this point is that I have to officially press charges.”; press charges against whom and why?”
Response to Question 1 — "Press Charges Against Whom and Why"
The identity of the individuals and the institutional context were provided directly to Officer Jessica Welke during in-person interactions on March 31 and April 1, 2023. During those interactions, Kristen Holm of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) was specifically identified as the individual to whom the assault had been reported. That information was therefore in the possession of RCMP Sheet Harbour from that point forward.
During those interactions, I provided Officer Welke with specific details regarding the assault, including a description of what occurred, where I was touched, and the severe impact it had on me. I explained that I did not know how to proceed and that I needed help. I requested that she contact me within two weeks and advised that if no contact was made, I would have no alternative but to make the matter public through video documentation. No contact was made. The subsequent public documentation followed as a direct result, including the launch of www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com on June 30, 2023.
I also raised concerns regarding conduct at NSHA, including that Kristen Holm had fabricated records. Audio evidence shows clear discrepancies between recorded statements and written documentation, including material changes such as the substitution of individuals' names.
The reference to "pressing charges" was in relation to multiple parties and matters, including:
- The individual responsible for the assault at NSHA
- Kristen Holm and associated NSHA personnel regarding the fabrication of records in multiple cases
- The Nova Scotia Health Authority as an institution, regarding the fabrication of documents in several instances
- Related matters requiring investigation, including GPS manipulation linked to 9330 Highway 7, Stillwater, NS
It is also relevant that, during those same interactions, I indicated that I did not wish to pursue action against Premier Tim Houston at that time, as I wanted to allow involved parties an opportunity to come forward. This context is important because, without it, his actions — specifically his unexplained presence — could reasonably be interpreted as harassment or intimidation, particularly given the surrounding circumstances. As I was not contacted, it became clear that I wished to move forward with an investigation.
This also raises a legitimate question regarding Premier Tim Houston's attendance at the hospital on the morning my mother passed away. This is a significant event within the timeline and was acknowledged by the CRCC in its October 2024 correspondence. Given the GPS alterations that have been quantified and the EMIC contracts provided, the question of how my location was known — and whether tracking is ongoing — requires serious consideration.
Despite the seriousness of the information provided directly and in person to Officer Welke, none of it was reflected in any official record. No follow-up contact occurred. No case was opened. No statement was taken. No contact was made with NSHA. That failure is not a gap in the complainant's account — it is the substance of the complaint.
The call with Officer Jessica Welke occurred on May 24, 2023. During that call, she stated that she would contact me the following Monday. Instead, on May 27, 2023, I received a call from MHMCT. The recording demonstrates that I remained calm and respectful throughout the interaction, and my aunt was also present on the call.
Consistent with the pattern of inaction, Officer Welke did not contact me on Monday, May 29, 2023, as indicated. I followed up later that evening with the detachment and spoke with Justin Hall, who advised that he would ask Officer Welke to contact me. At that stage, each officer involved was aware of the situation and their prior inaction, yet no appropriate steps were taken to address the matter.
Recordings can be found in the previous CRCC submission:
- Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/yuafunmy
- Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-03-16_CRCC%20Detailed%20submission%20regarding%20mutiple%20officers.html
“Did you ever have direct contact with RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme? If so, how did that contact occur (i.e. – in person, letter, telephone, etc.), on what date did it occur, and what was the nature of the communication?”
“Did you ever have direct contact with RCMP Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley? If so, how did that contact occur (i.e. – in person, letter, telephone, etc.), on what date did it occur, and what was the nature of the communication?”
Response to Questions 2 and 3 — Direct Contact with Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley
The answer to both questions is the same and is provided together.
I did not have direct personal contact with Commissioner Duheme or Assistant Commissioner Daley in the form of an in-person meeting, telephone call, or direct written correspondence to which either personally responded.
Both are, however, direct recipients of this submission and are included on this email thread. They have received this document and all referenced evidence directly. That constitutes documented formal notice as of the date of this submission.
Beyond this submission, both were made aware of this matter through multiple documented channels over an extended period:
Every officer named in this submission and every CRCC representative was specifically and repeatedly asked to escalate this matter to Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley. Those requests are documented in audio recordings, written correspondence, and formal submissions spanning 1,082+ days. None of those escalation requests were acted upon by any party, including the CRCC.
RCMP national accounts have been directly and publicly tagged on Facebook, X, and YouTube since 2023 in connection with this matter. The RCMP acknowledged as early as September 2021 that it was aware of and monitoring the complaint thread. Both commissioners operate within the command structure that received that notice.
Assistant Commissioner Daley was named directly and on camera during the February 21, 2025 interaction with Zachary Lechene — who did not dispute the assertion that Daley was aware of the situation. That interaction is documented in the audio and video recording referenced in this submission.
The request for escalation to both offices was made repeatedly in formal written correspondence to the CRCC, to Shelly Mews directly during the March 13, 2025 call, and in every follow-up submission thereafter. Those escalations never occurred. The file remained open under Shelly Mews' name — confirmed when Halifax Regional Police contacted me in response to my aunt's inquiry — meaning the matter never progressed beyond the original compromised chain of handling.
Both Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley have now received this submission directly. The request for escalation to their offices is renewed here for the record and remains outstanding.
Adding email addresses for and being added to thread:
Mike Duheme (RCMP), Dennis Daley (RCMP), Dominic LeBlanc (Liberal Party of Canada), François-Philippe Champagne (Liberal Party of Canada), Patty Hajdu (Liberal Party of Canada), David McGuinty (Liberal Party of Canada), Evan Solomon (Liberal Party of Canada), Mélanie Joly (Liberal Party of Canada), Anita Anand (Liberal Party of Canada), Marc Miller (Liberal Party of Canada), Melissa Lantsman (Conservative Party of Canada), Tim Uppal (Conservative Party of Canada), Andrew Scheer (Conservative Party of Canada), Michael Cooper (Conservative Party of Canada), Don Davies (NDP), Gord Johns (NDP), Leah Gazan (NDP), Jesse Brown (CanadaLand), Noor Azrieh (CanadaLand), Sam Konnert (CanadaLand), Aviva Lessard (CanadaLand), Editor (CanadaLand), David Walmsley (Globe and Mail), Grant McArthur (Globe and Mail), Robert Fife (Globe and Mail), City Desk (Toronto Star), Letters to the Editor (Toronto Star), Rosemary Barton (CBC), David Cochrane (CBC), Catherine Cullen (CBC), Heather Hiscox (CBC), Ian Hanomansing (CBC), Andrew Chang (CBC), Fifth Estate Tips (CBC), Atlantic News Desk (CTV/Bell Media), W5 (CTV/Bell Media), Atlantic Desk (CTV), News Channel (CTV), News Desk (Bell Media), Todd Battis (CTV), Omar Sachedina (CTV), Heather Butts (CTV)
jesse@canadaland.com, noor@canadaland.com, sam@canadaland.com, aviva@canadaland.com, editor@canadaland.com, dwalmsley@globeandmail.com, gmcarthur@globeandmail.com, rfife@globeandmail.com, city@thestar.ca, lettertoed@thestar.ca, Rosemary.Barton@cbc.ca, david.cochrane@cbc.ca, catherine.cullen@cbc.ca, heather.hiscox@cbc.ca, Ian.Hanomansing@cbc.ca, Andrew.Chang@cbc.ca, fifthtips@cbc.ca, atlantic.news@bellmedia.ca, w5@bellmedia.ca, atlantic@ctv.ca, newschannel@ctv.ca, news@bellmedia.ca, todd.battis@ctv.ca, Omar.Sachedina@ctv.ca, heather.butts@ctv.ca, mike.duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Dennis.Daley@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca, francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca, patty.hajdu@parl.gc.ca, david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca, evan.solomon@parl.gc.ca, melanie.joly@parl.gc.ca, Anita.Anand@parl.gc.ca, Marc.Miller@parl.gc.ca, melissa.lantsman@parl.gc.ca, Tim.Uppal@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, michael.cooper@parl.gc.ca, don.davies@parl.gc.ca, gord.johns@parl.gc.ca, leah.gazan@parl.gc.ca, info@nsira-ossnr.gc.ca, pitch@thewalrus.ca ,davidmckiec@gmail.com, emmalbriant@protonmail.com
Undeliverable Addresses and Delivery Issues
The following email addresses were removed from the correspondence due to delivery failures or technical issues:
- ca@zachchurchill.com — Temporary delivery failure
- RCMP.NSIN-RISN.GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca — Address not found
- matthew@halifaxexaminer.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- nwall@pinklarkin.com — Message blocked
- Harjit.Sajjan@parl.gc.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- pakeeagok6@gov.nu.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- citywatch@halifax.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- conf@pifi-epie.gc.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- halifax@stewartmckelvey.com — Message blocked
- Info@pifi-epie.gc.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- Jagmeet.Singh@parl.gc.ca — Address not found or unable to receive mail
- media@thecic.org — Address not found or unable to receive mail