CPSNS,
A copy of this letter has been provided to 127 different email addresses.
A brief index for quick linking is provided first, followed by a detailed index with page numbers for each section. This structure is intended to accommodate both HTML and printed versions.
I am also formally requesting that Health Canada initiate an independent investigation into these matters.
I further request that this correspondence be forwarded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that a reported sexual assault, which occurred while I was in the care of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA), is properly investigated. Please confirm in writing whether this matter has been referred to law enforcement and, if not, provide the basis for that decision.
I have already opened a file with the RCMP Special Victims Unit (Shelly Mews, file number 2025-21595, contact: 902-220-2013), submitted related concerns to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, and escalated this matter to Commissioner Mike Duheme, Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley, Chief Superintendent Dan Morrow, and Jana Caines, Executive Assistant to C/Supt. Morrow. This matter is also being tracked under CSIS case reference “Attachment 5566.”
I am writing to formally document and raise serious concerns regarding:
- a reported sexual assault;
- discrepancies in medical documentation;
- multiple privacy breaches; and
- the handling of my complaint by CPSNS.
In 2022, while under the care of NSHA, I reported that an individual entered my room and touched me inappropriately. When I raised this, I was told, “they know they aren’t supposed to touch you,” and the matter was dismissed. I also possess audio recordings indicating that the medical record was materially altered, including changes to names and events.
This allegation was subsequently brought forward to CPSNS. It was not meaningfully investigated. Relevant evidence, including audio recordings, was not reflected in the record, and the actions taken during the review raise serious concerns regarding its completeness and integrity.
I am also concerned that my personal and confidential information was disclosed to Cox & Palmer despite a known conflict of interest. When this concern was raised with CPSNS staff, it was not addressed. Instead, on February 20, 2024, I was advised, “I confirm you have not requested an appeal,” and access to my complaint files was subsequently restricted. Personal and confidential information was disclosed again on April 24, 2024, while access to my files remained restricted. I believe this conduct is inconsistent with CPSNS’s obligations under section 46 of its governing legislation.
Given that this matter involves a reported sexual assault, it is not subject to standard limitation periods under Canadian law and must be assessed on its merits, particularly in light of public safety considerations. In addition, the underlying complaint process remained active until April 24, 2024, and involved interrelated matters concerning multiple individuals to whom the same allegations were reported.
Given the seriousness of these issues—including potential criminal conduct, privacy breaches, and the handling of a reported sexual assault—I am requesting that this matter be formally referred to and reviewed by the appropriate authorities.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise whether CPSNS will be conducting any further investigation.
The relevant events and supporting details are outlined below.
To assist in traversing this document, A digital copy of this letter can be found in HTML format at:
View Full HTML Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/4264t37m
View Full HTML URL: https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-03-27_CPSNS_Formal_Complaint_and_Request_for_Independent_Investigation.html
Download document Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/3zzp8ypu
Download document URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2026-03-27_CPSNS_Formal_Complaint_and_Request_for_Independent_Investigation.docx
Scott Jewers
902-220-9106
jewers.scott@gmail.com
Addendum – Supplemental Evidence (March 27, 2026)
Following submission of this complaint, additional evidence has been identified and is provided here for completeness. This includes Halifax Regional Police (HRP) reports which are directly relevant to the characterization of events in the medical record.
These reports do not indicate that I was protesting, which directly contradicts how events were described in NSHA documentation and relied upon in the CPSNS review process.
The remaining contents of these reports are also under review and will be addressed in a subsequent detailed release.
This evidence relates specifically to:
- Mischaracterization of the complaint; and
- Reliance on unsupported or inaccurate records.
Page 1
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/5yw7e5ak
Full URL: https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2024_04/2022-08-02%20HRP%20Police%20Report%201.jpeg
Page 2
Short URL: https://tinyurl.com/2x3e458a
Full URL: https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2024_04/2022-08-02%20HRP%20Police%20Report%202.jpeg
This addendum does not replace or alter the original submission. It is provided to supplement the record and should be considered alongside the materials already submitted.
QUICK INDEX
Detailed Index
Table of Contents
Procedural Obstruction — False Claim That No Appeal Was Requested with CPSNS and Cox & Palmer 12
Infographic Showing Conflict of Interest 13
Notice to Colin Clarke and Cox & Palmer — Conflict of Interest and Professional Obligations 18
Pre-Arrest Context — Documented Purpose of Attending HRP August 2nd 2022 20
Anomalous Activity in the Days Prior to August 2, 2022 20
Valent Legal Email — August 1, 2022 21
Attendance on August 2, 2022 21
Triage Issues — Records falsely state I was “protesting” at Halifax Regional Police. 26
Retaliation – Service by Bailiff Following CPSNS Complaint against Nancy Murphy 31
“violated your rights by having you involuntarily admitted to the Mount Hope Hospital; “ 39
“Humiliated you when you asked about your rights” 40
“had your belongings sent to Mount Hope Hospital without your knowledge;” 41
Nancy Murphy — The Belongings Transfer 41
“fabricated your encounter in the Emergency Department;” 48
“denied your request to contact a lawyer; and” 50
“took your blood and did imaging without your consent.” 51
Use of “Conspiracy” / “Theory” Label — Prejudicial Characterization 55
The Basis for Attending HRP Was Legitimate and Documented 55
The Assessment Substituted Assumption for Evidence 56
The Kristen Holm Discrepancy 56
Kristen Holm claimed that I was “protesting” outside Halifax Regional Police. 58
falsified documents and records; 60
Failure to Accurately Record My Mother’s Condition and Care Needs (Summary) 63
Failure to Record Reported Abuses — QEII and HRP 64
Failure to Record Relevant Supporting Material — TWNN ALPHA 65
Failure to Record Reported Sexual Assault 67
Engaged In coercive torture by Administration of Medication Without Consent 68
Failure to Investigate a Reported Sexual Assault 71
Reliance on Mental Health Characterization to Deny Investigation 74
denied you access to legal counsel; and 76
Denial of Access to Legal Counsel 76
engaged in reckless endangerment, fraud, and criminal and professional negligence. 78
The Circumstances of Admission — Sleep Deprivation and Duress 78
The August 2022 Psychiatry Note 91
Direct Contradiction from Dr. McDonald 91
Audio Corroboration — Real-Time Forecasting 93
The Second Entry — Glenda Said He Is Fine; Mother Used as Substitute Decision Maker 93
Additional Concerns – Inability to Raise Serious Complaint against Shante A. Blackmore 96
Detailed Review of CPSNS Findings and Dismissals March 13th 2023 98
Fabricated NSHA Triage Record and RCMP Varsadex entry March 13th 2023 105
Hana Marie Wiemer – Review 109
What the Record Omits — and What It Includes 110
Second Opinion and Conflict of Interest 111
John Adebayo Oguntade – Review 113
What Has Since Been Confirmed 113
Crystal Morgan (CPSNS Lead Investigator) 115
Follow-Up and Lack of Response 117
Cindy Campbell (Manager CPSNS) 118
Douglas Grant (Registrar and CEO, CPSNS) 120
Charter and IPTA Implications of the Review Failure 122
Torture, Coercive Conditions, and External Influence 132
Legal Definition of Torture 132
Conditions of Detention and Assessment 132
Application of the Legal Standard 133
Legal Significance Under IPTA and the Charter 133
Escalation: External Influence and Purpose 134
Intersection with Human Trafficking Principles 134
Allegations and Areas of Concern 139
Notice to Health Canada — Request for External Investigation 144
Email Addresses this has been delivered too 145
Disclaimer and Information
CPSNS issued findings in relation to complaints involving Nancy Murphy and Kristen Holm on January 15, 2024, followed by findings involving Hana Marie Wiemer on April 24, 2024, and later findings involving John Adebayo Oguntade. Upon review, I have identified material omissions, inconsistencies, and failures to address key evidence across these decisions.
CPSNS has previously advised that Section 46 of the Medical Act requires confidentiality of certain information provided by the College. However, as outlined in its own correspondence, this does not prevent me from describing the underlying events, the complaint, or the handling of that complaint.
Given the public safety implications of the matters described—including a reported sexual assault and the handling of that complaint—these issues extend beyond an individual complaint and warrant review in the broader public interest, as there are ongoing concerns related to public safety.
Throughout this document, I have included TinyURL links where appropriate. These provide simplified access to longer source links through a widely used redirection service that I do not control. This approach is intended to make references easier to cite and access, including when reviewing a printed version of this material.
As with the majority of my submissions, I encourage the reader to think critically and independently assess all information presented by all parties. To support this, I have developed a resource platform, www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com, which currently contains over 900 data points, the majority of which are hyperlinked. The platform includes tools for navigating by date, researching tags, and performing advanced searches across media sources. It is a custom-built system and will continue to be updated with additional features and improvements.
In addition to this platform, I recommend the use of traditional search tools such as Google and Bing, as well as search functions within media websites. Artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, or Claude may also assist in reviewing and contextualizing large volumes of information. However, these services may be hosted outside of Canada, and any data submitted could be subject to foreign jurisdiction. Caution should be exercised, particularly where personal or health-related information is involved.
Thank you.
Summary of Findings
This submission documents a series of interrelated failures arising from events in 2022 while under the care of the Nova Scotia Health Authority, and the subsequent handling of those events by CPSNS.
The evidence demonstrates the following:
- I was apprehended and involuntarily detained under circumstances that were not supported by clear, documented, or independently verified evidence
- Records created during and after these events contain material omissions, inaccuracies, and discrepancies when compared to audio evidence and documented facts
- A reported sexual assault during care was not investigated
- I was denied the ability to meaningfully document or challenge my treatment, including restrictions affecting consent and legal access
- Personal belongings containing sensitive information were transferred and accessed without consent, raising serious privacy concerns
- CPSNS relied on incomplete and contradicted records in reaching its decision
- CPSNS failed to address key evidence including audio recordings and documented inconsistencies
- Personal information was disclosed to Cox and Palmer despite a clear and documented conflict of interest involving individuals connected to JD Irving and Irving Shipbuilding
- The complaint process was closed on a false basis, preventing meaningful access to an appeal
Taken together these issues demonstrate that the factual record is unreliable, the complaint was not investigated on its merits, and the outcome of the CPSNS process cannot be considered valid.
Position
This is not a disagreement with the outcome.
This is a failure of process in which evidence was not assessed, contradictions were not resolved, serious allegations were not investigated, and conflicts of interest were not addressed.
Accordingly, independent review by a body not implicated in these events is not optional — it is the only mechanism capable of producing a reliable outcome.
Requested Action
Given the above, I am requesting:
- Independent review of the handling of this matter;
- Confirmation of whether the reported incident during care was formally investigated;
- Explanation of how contradictory evidence was addressed, if at all;
- Explanation of the basis for disclosing personal information to Cox & Palmer despite the identified conflict;
- Clarification of how the complaint was closed despite documented attempts to engage the appeal process.
Detailed Video Documentation of Alleged Abuse and Related Events from August 2, 2022, through March 13, 2023, to Present
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)
Short Videos as well as transcripts from False arrest March 13th 2023:
- https://youtube.com/shorts/vAGojH4lmi0
- Demonstrates that I was calm, composed, and speaking clearly immediately prior to any police intervention.
- “Well i have some great news, the Police didnt kill me this time or you know torture me or falsely arrest me or anything like that so that’s a positive i actually get to go home and see my dog tonight so. Yea, small things right”
- https://youtube.com/shorts/YoBWvnIlNpc
- Shows that I remained calm and compliant while seated in the back of a police vehicle.
- “So RCMP hunted me down and said that I’m some mental health threat and now I’m sitting in the back of a RCMP vehicle, they didn’t talk about doctor Holms and what she did, the recording or any of the evidence I’m like so screwed right now it doesn’t matter what i do right now there gonna...[sigh] anyways i tried everyone”
- https://youtube.com/shorts/-1kKtjV4gII
- Captures my reaction to reading the officers’ screen, which described me as “increasingly delusional.”
- “...their screen said I’m sending emails that are increasingly delusional, thats right its that bad, its not, they are full technical audits these people are lying and they are gonna torture me right now. I’m is a lot of trouble. I’m screwed, I’m screwed, it doesn’t...”
- https://youtube.com/shorts/euGRDp5cHNc
- At NSHA, i show my cuffs and face and calmly speak.
- “they know their lying”
- https://youtube.com/shorts/PoiP1DXvhJI
- Documents the conditions of detention of room i stayed in for almost 20 hours
- “So on top of like, not allowing me to record anything telling me i don’t have the right to, i get this little sheet and this to lay in. That’s right so they can record me while i just lay in here. That’s right, I’m an animal i don’t have rights”
Procedural Obstruction — CPSNS and Cox & Palmer — Undisclosed Conflict of Interest, Privacy Breach, and Obstruction of Appeal Rights
Statement
On February 20, 2024, Suzanne Husbands wrote:
“I confirm you have not requested an appeal. These files are now closed.”
Full record of interaction with Suzanne Husbands:
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/t77wfjhh
That statement is misleading and constitutes a serious mischaracterization of the interactions that occurred.
On the same day CPSNS asked whether I wished to initiate an appeal, I responded immediately and repeatedly. In those responses, I raised a critical issue: CPSNS had disclosed my personal and confidential information to Cox & Palmer.
The documentary record confirms that this disclosure was not incidental. The January 15, 2024 correspondence was copied to Mr. Colin Clarke of Cox & Palmer via TitanFile. This establishes that my personal and confidential information had already been transmitted to that firm prior to the February 20, 2024 communication.
This disclosure created a clear and disqualifying conflict. Stephen McNeil was employed by Cox & Palmer in a significant and active capacity and is directly connected to matters central to the complaint, including issues involving J.D. Irving. Cox & Palmer have themselves acknowledged a conflict of interest in relation to J.D. Irving due to their involvement in shipbuilding contracts (see Image 2).
- Appears to be Colin Clarke at Cox & Palmer: https://coxandpalmerlaw.com/people/colin-j-clarke-kc/
- Stephen McNeil at Cox & Palmer: https://coxandpalmerlaw.com/administration/hon-stephen-mcneil/
- Shipbuilding, Maritime & Transportation at Cox & Palmer: https://coxandpalmerlaw.com/services/shipbuilding/
I also made multiple follow-up attempts to have this conflict addressed:
- February 23, 2024 — Voicemail left for Crystal Morgan raising the conflict of interest with Cox & Palmer and concerns regarding Suzanne Husbands’ conduct, requesting a response.
- February 29, 2024 — Voicemail left for Crystal Morgan requesting clarification regarding which “public figures” I was allegedly delusional about, as no names had been provided in CPSNS correspondence. No response was received.
- March 11, 2024 — Voicemail left for Cindy Campbell (Manager, CPSNS), outlining evidence and again raising the conflict of interest with Cox & Palmer.
In these circumstances, the disclosure of my information to that firm raised immediate and legitimate conflict concerns that required assessment and resolution before any appeal could proceed. I explicitly requested that CPSNS engage Cox & Palmer to clarify the conflict.
I further advised Suzanne that CPSNS had, in my view, violated Section 46 of the Medical Act through this disclosure, and that I could not reasonably proceed until clarification and safeguards were provided.
Despite these concerns being raised, CPSNS did not assess or resolve the conflict. Instead, the files were closed.
The record further shows that on April 29, 2024, Douglas Grant and CPSNS again disclosed additional personal and confidential information to Cox & Palmer, specifically c/o Mr. Colin Clarke via TitanFile, in relation to the Hana Marie Wiemer matter.
This confirms that the disclosure was repeated after conflict concerns had already been explicitly raised, without any resolution or acknowledgment of those concerns.
Additionally, Kristen Holm characterized me as delusional in relation to references involving Stephen McNeil and his resignation following the Irving Shipbuilding investigation. However, the audio recording shows that Kristen Holm explicitly referenced Stephen McNeil by name. This reference is omitted from her written record and replaced with “Stephen Harper,” which is a material discrepancy and forms part of the evidence that the record was altered or fabricated.
A more detailed section: “Changing Stephen McNeil and Postmedia to Stephen Harper and Bell Media”
I have retained audio recordings of my communications with CPSNS, including the calls referenced above. These recordings provide a complete and contemporaneous record of what was said, when it was said, and the issues that were raised, including the conflict of interest and requests for clarification.
If CPSNS disputes or mischaracterizes the nature of these interactions, those recordings can be produced to allow independent verification of the record.
Infographic Showing Conflict of Interest
IMAGE 1Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/5bjn2uwj
%20violated%20section%2046%20of%20medical%20act%20sending%20my%20informaiton%20to%20Cox%20and%20Palmer.jpg){kind=link}
Transcript Evidence
The relevance of Stephen McNeil to this complaint is not speculative. The following transcript confirms Kristen Holm explicitly referenced him by name during my assessment.
Exact Time Stamp and Statement in Audio Recording: https://youtu.be/9dGY_N9ni1w?si=1SJPE4w_8YvLiwoo&t=811
- 13:31 – 13:36 — Kristen Holm: “I think that you're experiencing delusions which are fixed false beliefs.”
- 13:36 – 13:39 — Scott Jewers: “Specifically in relation to McNeil?”
- 13:39 – 13:46 — Kristen Holm: “McNeil, and how things that you have done have influenced other things happening… those connections that you're making…”
Additional Evidence
- Following February 20, 2024, I continued to contact CPSNS by phone
- Multiple voicemail messages were left identifying the issue with the appeal process and file closure
- No return calls or follow-up communication were received
- All calls were recorded
Conclusion
Conflict of interest checks are a standard and required practice in Canadian legal and administrative processes.
- Caravel: https://caravellaw.com/what-is-a-conflict-check/
- Canadian Bar Association: https://cba.org/fr-ca/sections/public-sector-lawyers/resources/the-duty-to-avoid-conflicts-of-interest-in-organizational-practice-settings/
The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society also confirms that conflict of interest checks are a required component of professional legal practice.
CPSNS did not simply receive no response. CPSNS received same-day responses that directly addressed the appeal and raised the conflict of interest and disclosure issues preventing the appeal from proceeding. These concerns were clearly communicated to Suzanne Husbands and directly affected any ability to proceed with an appeal.
Those concerns were not assessed or resolved. Instead, CPSNS closed the files on the basis that no appeal had been requested. The record reflects communications with Suzanne Husbands on February 20, 2024, and again on April 29, 2024. Further, Douglas Grant, in the case of Hana Marie Weimer, disclosed additional personal and confidential information to Cox & Palmer.
Following the closure, I continued to contact CPSNS by phone and left multiple recorded voicemails raising the same issue. No return calls or follow-up communication were provided.
As a result, the appeal process was not meaningfully available. It was obstructed by unresolved conflict of interest and disclosure concerns, and then terminated on the false basis that no appeal had been requested.
These conflict concerns were raised not only in relation to my own position, but also to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved, including Dr. Kristen Holm and Dr. Nancy Murphy.
If CPSNS maintains that no appeal was requested or that my conduct was inappropriate, they should provide:
- the specific dates and times of all communications relied upon; and
- complete call logs for the relevant period.
Further, the disclosure of personal and confidential information in circumstances involving an identified conflict raises potential statutory obligations:
- Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nova Scotia: https://oipc.novascotia.ca/
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/business-privacy/breaches-and-safeguards/privacy-breaches-at-your-business/gd_pb_201810/
Taken together, this is not a case of non-response. It is a case in which:
- a conflict of interest was identified,
- the process could not proceed without resolving that conflict, and
- the process was then closed on the basis that no appeal had been requested.
That characterization is inaccurate and does not reflect the record.
Image 2: CPSNS letters showing dismissal of complaint and transfer of personal information to Cox & Palmer, a firm with documented connections to Irving Shipbuilding through Stephen McNeil, raising conflict of interest concerns.
Tiny URL:https://tinyurl.com/5n8ayasy
Notice to Colin Clarke and Cox & Palmer — Conflict of Interest and Professional Obligations
I am writing to formally raise and document a clear and unresolved conflict of interest involving Colin Clarke and Cox & Palmer in connection with matters related to this complaint (See Image 1).
Cox & Palmer has already identified a conflict of interest in relation to entities and individuals connected to this matter, including relationships involving JD Irving, Irving Shipbuilding, and associated political figures including Stephen McNeil. Despite that acknowledgment, my personal and confidential information was disclosed to your firm and no corrective action, withdrawal, or formal disclosure addressing that conflict was provided.
This is not a procedural issue. It is a substantive failure to comply with fundamental professional obligations.
The matters at issue include the handling of a reported sexual assault, the alteration and omission of material facts within medical records, and the failure of regulatory oversight by CPSNS. In that context the involvement of a law firm operating under a known or reasonably foreseeable conflict — particularly where overlapping relationships exist with entities connected to federal procurement — renders the process fundamentally unreliable.
Any findings, positions, or reliance on materials that have passed through a conflicted channel are inherently compromised. This is not a question of perception. It is a question of whether the process can meet even a basic standard of independence.
I have formally requested that the Government of Canada consider the implications of this conflict in relation to federal contracts including those connected to Irving Shipbuilding. Where a firm is aware of a conflict and proceeds without resolving or reporting it this raises serious concerns regarding its suitability as a participant in matters involving public institutions, regulatory processes, or federal interests.
The continued reliance on any material, input, or involvement connected to Cox & Palmer or Colin Clarke places the CPSNS process in a position where its outcome cannot reasonably be considered independent or reliable.
I am requesting that Colin Clarke and Cox & Palmer provide a written response addressing:
- The nature and scope of the conflict of interest previously identified
- The basis on which my personal information was received and handled despite that conflict
- What steps if any were taken to disclose, mitigate, or report the conflict
Absent a clear and substantiated response the existence of this unresolved conflict raises a threshold issue regarding the validity of any process or findings that rely upon it. That threshold issue is now part of the public record distributed to the recipients of this submission including federal members of parliament, provincial premiers, national media organizations, NSIRA, and CSIS under reference Attachment 5566.
The disclosure of personal and confidential information in circumstances involving an identified conflict also raises potential statutory obligations under the following:
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nova Scotia: https://oipc.novascotia.ca/
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/business-privacy/breaches-and-safeguards/privacy-breaches-at-your-business/gd_pb_201810/
I remain available to provide further information. This matter should be addressed directly and in accordance with professional standards. The absence of a response will itself be noted as part of the documented record.
Image 1: CPSNS letters showing dismissal of complaint and transfer of personal information to Cox & Palmer, a firm with documented connections to Irving Shipbuilding through Stephen McNeil, raising conflict of interest concerns.
Tiny URL:https://tinyurl.com/5n8ayasy
Pre-Arrest Context — Documented Purpose of Attending HRP August 2nd 2022
I am a technical professional with over 18 years of experience in systems analysis, programming, and IT. I previously worked with Research In Motion as an escalation analyst, as well as with Dalhousie University and Irving Shipbuilding, where I left with both manager and director references on file.
On June 23, 2022, I received a response to a Freedom of Information request submitted at the direction of legal counsel regarding the 2019 theft of my wallet — a matter addressed in full elsewhere in this document. Halifax Regional Police had previously stated that matter was ongoing. However, the FOI response restricted information on the basis of another individual's privacy, creating a direct inconsistency that required in-person clarification.
As a result of this, and additional issues documented in The Wolf and the Neural Network, I attended Halifax Regional Police headquarters for the following purposes (non-exhaustive):
- to seek clarification regarding the FOI response;
- to raise concerns regarding police intimidation, stalking, and the unauthorized setting of my GPS to 9330 Highway #7, Stillwater, Nova Scotia;
- to raise additional documented issues referenced throughout this submission;
- to raise concerns regarding systemic racism in relation to the Wortley Report; and
- to file a formal complaint against Chief Daniel Kinsella.
My purpose in attending was lawful, pre-disclosed, and supported by documented evidence. There was no urgency, threat, or unpredictability requiring escalation.
On July 11, 2022, I submitted The Wolf and the Neural Network — ALPHA to multiple recipients, including HRP. This document contained over 400 structured, chronologically ordered, and cross-referenced data points, presented as a research submission with my bias explicitly disclosed throughout (see Image 1).
- TWNN ALPHA (original version): https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Versions/Pages/ALPHA/2022_07_11_ALPHA.html
HRP delivery confirmations acknowledged receipt and indicated a response within 7 days. No response was provided prior to the events of August 2, 2022.
Anomalous Activity in the Days Prior to August 2, 2022
In the days leading up to August 2, 2022, two separate and unusual events occurred that are relevant to the broader context of what followed.
Google Analytics Spike — July 28, 2022
On July 28, 2022 — four days before my arrest — Google Analytics data associated with my web property recorded a spike of approximately 500 views in a single day, with thousands of combined views over the surrounding period. I live in a rural area where one or two views per day is typical. This level of traffic is not consistent with baseline activity for this property (see Image 2).
This spike is consistent with a similar pattern observed in late September 2021, when analytics activity increased significantly following a disclosure — a matter addressed in full elsewhere in this document. The correlation between disclosure events and analytics spikes is noted.
Valent Legal Email — August 1, 2022
On July 29, 2022, I stated on the main email thread that I could not trace phone calls and requested that any further contact be made by email so that I could verify headers and origin (see Image 3).
On August 1, 2022 — the day before my arrest — I received an email appearing to originate from Amy Calder of Valent Legal. The email included an attachment styled to resemble official Government of Canada correspondence (see Image 3).
The email was flagged by Bitdefender as potentially malicious. I contacted Valent Legal within hours to verify its authenticity. On August 4, 2022, Valent Legal confirmed that the email did not originate from them. However, analysis of the email headers indicates that the message originated from within, or was transmitted through, Valent Legal’s domain. I advised Valent Legal to have their IT systems reviewed accordingly (see Image 4).
A subsequent technical review of the email headers, including AI-assisted analysis, is consistent with two possibilities:
- the email originated from within Valent Legal’s systems; or
- an account within their domain had been compromised and used to send the message.
In either case, the email cannot be attributed to a random external source and reflects either internal origin or a targeted security compromise within the Valent Legal domain (see Image 5).
This incident is consistent with a prior event on October 6, 2021 involving Burchells LLP. When I contacted Burchells LLP (BLP), I was advised that their phone systems had been compromised and that calls were being redirected (see Image 3). The timing of that incident corresponds with analytics spikes observed in late September 2021, while the Valent Legal email corresponds with the spike observed around July 28, 2022 (see Image 2).
Attendance on August 2, 2022
On the morning of August 2, 2022, I provided regular updates on the main email thread. All relevant parties — including law enforcement — were informed well in advance and had every opportunity to intervene or respond.
Before arriving at HRP, I attended the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to provide direct evidence. Reference: CSIS Case # Attachment5566.
Had HRP allowed me to file my complaint and engage with me directly, there would be a clear and complete record — which I am entitled to under Canadian law. Instead, what followed resulted in a record that does not reflect my stated purpose or the information I was attempting to provide.
Every relevant party had advance notice of my intentions, the evidence I intended to present, and the specific complaint I intended to file. All had ample time and opportunity to respond or intervene. None did.
The subsequent record bears this out. Within months of the events I have documented, Halifax Regional Police held a historic vote of no confidence in Chief Daniel Kinsella. 84% percent of members participated, and 96.6% voted no confidence. The union called for his resignation.
- November 2, 2022 — Halifax police union passes no-confidence vote on chief:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-police-union-no-longer-has-confidence-in-chief-1.6638316
That outcome does not exist in isolation. It is an institutional development that provides context to the environment within HRP at the time I attended to file a complaint against that same Chief.
Infographic — HRP delivery confirmations following release of TWNN ALPHA; identifies the work as a research paper, presented as chronologically ordered data points, and explicitly discloses my own bias.
IMAGE 1
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/2327xhjh
Full UR: https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Add_2024_03/2022-07-11%20-%20Delivery%20confirmations%20of%20ALPHA%20delivery%20to%20HRP.jpg
Image 2 – This image shows significant spikes in Google Analytics activity in late September 2021 and late July 2022, corresponding with the Burchells LLP incident, my July 29, 2022 request for email communication, and the August 1, 2022 Valent Legal email incident.
Tiny URL:https://tinyurl.com/24rk38fv
Image 3: This image shows that I requested parties contact me by email so I could verify message headers and origin. This request was made days before the Valent Legal email incident.
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/mu55m6k8
Image: This image shows the August 1, 2022 email appearing to originate from Valent Legal, along with Valent Legal’s confirmation that the email was not sent by them. It also shows the associated phone number, which matches the number referenced in the October 6, 2021 Burchells LLP / Bushells Lightning Protection incident.
Tiny URL:https://tinyurl.com/yc6k4576
Image: This image shows independent AI-assisted analysis (Grok and ChatGPT) of the August 1, 2022 Valent Legal email headers, confirming that the email passed authentication checks and originated from, or was transmitted through, Valent Legal’s domain infrastructure.
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/4hf9v2w9
Triage Issues — Records falsely state I was “protesting” at Halifax Regional Police.
Triage Notes — Characterization of Reason for Attendance
Statement
Triage notes state:
“BROUGHT IN BY POLICE. HE SAID WAS PROTESTING AT THE POLICE STATION.”
IMAGE 1
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/bdfv8ypb
Reality
I did not make that statement.
Halifax Regional Police records do not document that I was protesting, or anything similar. They reflect that I attended HRP to inquire about my wallet and to file a complaint regarding Chief Dan Kinsella.
On June 23, 2022, I received a response regarding the 2019 theft of my wallet, which HRP had previously stated was part of an ongoing matter. That response restricted information on the basis of another individual’s privacy. I attended HRP headquarters to seek clarification regarding that response and to file a formal complaint against Chief Dan Kinsella.
This was consistently explained to every individual I interacted with at NSHA, and no correction was made to the record.
At registration, a staff member took my blood pressure. I asked whether it appeared normal, and she confirmed that it was, particularly given the circumstances. She then asked if I understood why I had been brought in. I responded that I had attended HRP to file a complaint against the Chief of Police, that officers told me they were retrieving the necessary paperwork, and that they instead returned and arrested me. The staff member then looked directly at the officer and stated: “Really, are the handcuffs really necessary?”
Evidence
- NSHA has no statements from any Halifax Regional Police officer
- NSHA has no police documentation explaining why I was brought in
- No source exists for the statement in the triage notes
Conclusion
The “protesting” statement is attributed to me despite the fact that I did not make that statement and consistently denied it at every stage of interaction with NSHA.
No source is identified for this statement, and no supporting police documentation exists. Establishing the reason for apprehension is the responsibility of the apprehending officers, not the patient.
This characterization was carried forward into subsequent interactions without correction, resulting in my statements being treated as unreliable and materially affecting how my information was received and assessed.
As a result, this characterization is unsupported and unverified. Any clinical or administrative conclusions relying on this statement are not grounded in documented evidence.
Any suggestion that “this was all about me” or that actions were taken “to get me” is a fabrication by NSHA. It is not supported by my submissions and appears designed to fit a pre-determined narrative.
Any suggestion that “this was all about me” or that actions were taken “to get me” is a fabrication by NSHA. It is not supported by my submissions and appears designed to fit a pre-determined narrative.
CPSNS, in its responses, did not provide a single page reference or citation for the statements upon which it relied. This makes it effectively impossible for any independent body to review the evidence, confirm whether the information was actually recorded, or determine whether it reflects contemporaneous documentation or post hoc interpretation.
This creates a circular problem: generalized conclusions are presented without citation, and those same conclusions are then justified by reference to the length or complexity of the NSHA record. This significantly undermines transparency and makes it materially more difficult for any complainant to meaningfully respond to or challenge the findings. In effect, this allows NSHA and CPSNS to rely on a “God of the gaps” approach, continuously shifting the goalposts. Such an approach falls below the basic evidentiary standards expected in any serious professional, regulatory, or academic setting, where claims must be supported by clear references to the underlying record.
In contrast, each of my submissions includes specific page references and supporting materials for every point raised. This reflects a professional standard consistent with submissions intended for verification and independent review.
It is also consistent with The Wolf and the Neural Network – ALPHA, released July 11, 2022. This was a research-based document structured around over 400 data points organized chronologically in Excel and made available in web format throughout the CPSNS investigation. Each data point was individually assessable, rather than requiring interpretation through a single continuous narrative. The document explicitly cautioned against conspiracy theories, took an analytic approach, separated events, and urged independent verification. It cited all referenced articles and authors. It was not a personal account—it was a structured evidentiary submission compiled by a technical expert with over 18 years of experience.
The record shows that I was consistent in this approach well before the events of August 2022. The following demonstrates that the characterization of “this was all about me” is not only unsupported—it is directly contradicted by my own documented statements:
- During the investigation at Irving Shipbuilding, in discussions with directors, VPs, Jim Perrin, J.D. Irving, and federal and provincial government representatives, I made clear I was targeting a 70% confidence threshold. I detailed a 1% compounding reasoning method based on data points, explicitly acknowledged my bias each time, and asked all parties to independently verify the facts. They will confirm this.
- On December 23, 2021—eight months before the false arrest, torture, and sexual assault—when I released my security review of J.D. Irving, I stated explicitly (see Image 1):
“Introduction — I'm not saying this was all to deal with me, or about me. I suspect this was a general plan that spiraled out of control. I'll highlight how my role inside it was manipulated and how that seems to have evolved with time.”
(https://tinyurl.com/ehnh6vfx) - On July 11, 2022, when The Wolf and the Neural Network – ALPHA was released, the core email sent to dozens of involved parties stated (see Image 2):
“For research purposes, attached is a global security review in the form of a collection of data points that is wide open for interpretation… Within the dataset I have found a consistent pattern… All for you to build your own story, to make your own choices and interpret as you see fit.”
And further:
“I have not collaborated or conspired with anyone to write this. My intentions are not to slander anyone — that is why this was compiled as data points and relationships. Anyone can add and remove as to build their own story. All articles were referenced as well as their authors.”
Any statement by CPSNS or NSHA asserting that this was “all about me” should clearly define what “it” refers to, rather than attributing that characterization to me without evidentiary support.
Notably, had I submitted materials in the manner CPSNS and NSHA have—without citations or supporting references—it would likely have been characterized as disorganized, tangential, or unreliable. The standard applied by NSHA and CPSNS is indefensible and selectively applied.
Had CPSNS adhered to basic evidentiary practices, the reliability of its conclusions could be properly assessed. In the absence of such practices, those conclusions cannot withstand meaningful scrutiny.
The record is clear: I went to the police with compiled, well-organized evidence as a technical expert, supported by a valid FOI request and legitimate grounds to ask questions. I never claimed this was all about me—I stated the opposite, repeatedly, in writing, before any of these events occurred.
These deficiencies will be demonstrated in detail throughout this document.
Image 1: Shows I ever said this was all about me Introduction — I'm not saying this was all to deal with me, or about me. I suspect this was a General Plan that spiraled out of control. I'll highlight how my role inside it was manipulated and how that seems to have evolved with time."
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/5eb99em2
Letter HTML Version Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/ehnh6vfx
Letter HTML Full URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/December23rd2021_JDIrving_Security_Review.html
Image 2: Email sent to almost 100 addresses when TWNN Alpha Was launched. Clearly shows i stated this was not all about me, was released as chronologically ordered data points, almost all hyperlinked. Also Show HRP Delivery Confirmations.
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/2327xhjh
Full URL: https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Add_2024_03/2022-07-11%20-%20Delivery%20confirmations%20of%20ALPHA%20delivery%20to%20HRP.jpg
TWNN ALPHA Tiny HTML URL: https://tinyurl.com/4z49th3r
TWNN ALPHA Full HTML URL: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Versions/Pages/ALPHA/2022_07_11_ALPHA.html
Retaliation – Service by Bailiff Following CPSNS Complaint against Nancy Murphy
On August 15, 2023, I received confirmation from Crystal Morgan (CPSNS) that my complaint regarding Dr. Nancy Murphy had been received. The trespass notice is dated August 22, 2023; however, I was not served with this notice until August 31, 2023, when it was delivered by a bailiff. This delay and method of service were not explained or addressed by CPSNS.
The notice was issued in three copies (white (see Image 2), yellow, and pink (see Image 3)) and contains the following certification:
“The above notice was read to Scott Jewers by Anthony Jocko (Security Officer) in the presence of Vishwaraj Gohil (Police Officer or Witness).”
This statement is materially false.
The notice was not read to me on August 22, 2023, or at any other time. I was not present at any NSHA facility on or around that date, nor had I indicated any intention to attend one. I reside approximately 140 km away (one direction). There is no record of me causing any disturbance at any NSHA facility or with Halifax Regional Police, nor any history of behavioral issues in my medical file.
Further, the document raises significant concerns regarding its authenticity and the integrity of its completion. The handwriting in the “served by” and “witnessed by” sections appears substantially similar in letter formation, stroke pattern, and pen pressure, indicating that the same individual may have completed both sections, including signing on behalf of the purported witness. If so, the document falsely certifies both the presence of a witness and the occurrence of service as described. Alternatively, if it is asserted that separate individuals completed these sections, then either both are intentionally misrepresenting the events or there is the possibility of identity theft.
This may be connected to the prior theft of my book bag, health card (PHI), financial information, and personal belongings on August 2, 2022, when NSHA staff placed a large sticker on my book bag labeled “SCOTT” and then gave it to a homeless individual who was agitated and self-admittedly under the influence of drugs. The bag was subsequently transferred to the hospital before I had seen a doctor. As I was not present, it is unclear how this matter could be associated with me unless someone presented themselves as me or was in possession of my identifying information.
This raises serious concerns regarding the control, handling, and potential misuse of my personal identifying information, as well as the reliability of any records or representations derived from those circumstances.
The bailiff who ultimately served the notice indicated that the circumstances of the delivery, and the circumstances regarding how he had been contacted in relation to it, were not typical.
The timing and circumstances of this notice support a reasonable inference of retaliation. The notice was issued one week after CPSNS confirmed receipt of my complaint against Dr. Murphy, which raised serious and well-documented concerns regarding the accuracy and integrity of NSHA records.
These concerns are consistent with findings already acknowledged by CPSNS. Douglas Grant, Registrar and CEO of CPSNS, stated:
“Dr. Murphy acknowledges that her documentation of your Emergency Department encounter was incomplete. I advise Dr. Murphy to ensure her medical charting complies with the College’s Professional Standards and Guidelines Regarding Charting, particularly in cases where her medical-legal decisions, such as the need for involuntary treatment, may be challenged.” (See Image 1)
NSHA was contacted and asked to clarify these issues. Multiple voicemails were left for NSHA and CPSNS. No response or follow-up communication was provided.
The delay in service is also significant. For a period of nine days, I was unaware of the existence of this alleged trespass. During that time, I was exposed to the risk of arrest for unknowingly breaching conditions that had never been communicated to me. This was not a theoretical risk. My 80-year-old aunt regularly attends medical appointments at NSHA facilities, and I would ordinarily assist her. As a direct result of this notice and the uncertainty surrounding it, I was forced to drop her off at the curb and could not enter the property, leaving her to attend alone without assistance, including interpretation support.
Further, had I required medical attention myself, this notice would have effectively restricted my ability to access care, raising concerns regarding the denial or obstruction of medical services.
In this context, the issuance of a trespass notice containing false certification of service and witness presence, combined with delayed delivery and the absence of any underlying behavioral basis, raises serious concerns including, but not limited to:
- fabrication or falsification of official records;
- improper or defective service;
- possible unauthorized use of identity;
- abuse of process; and
- retaliatory conduct in response to a formal complaint.
This conduct is consistent with a broader, well-documented pattern of inaccuracies, omissions, and misrepresentations in records and statements associated with NSHA and CPSNS, as detailed throughout this submission.
By way of broader context, within a short period following the events underlying my complaints and the issuance of the NSHA trespass notice, which was fabricated:
- On November 2, 2022, the Halifax Regional Police union passed a no-confidence vote in Chief Dan Kinsella, with 96.6% voting no confidence (84% participation).
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-police-union-no-longer-has-confidence-in-chief-1.6638316 - On September 6, 2023—six days after I was served with this notice—Chief Dan Kinsella announced his retirement.
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dan-kinsella-chief-of-halifax-regional-police-announces-retirement-1.6958447 - On September 19, 2023, RCMP Commissioner Dennis Daley indicated there would be an RCMP apology regarding street checks, an issue directly related to the broader context of my complaints.
Source: https://x.com/RCMPNS/status/1704200385387208735
This matter has been referred to the RCMP for investigation, including potential offences relating to document fabrication, forgery, misuse of identity, and the provision of false or misleading information to law enforcement, including offences consistent with public mischief (s.140), obstruction of justice (s.139), fabrication of evidence (s.137), and forgery and use of forged documents (ss.366–368) under the Criminal Code of Canada.
Image 1
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/4rn5bv9c
Image2: Single
Page Tresspass Notice (White)
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/4dh3fnx6
Image3: 3 Pages of same trespass notice sent by NSHA, White, Yellow and Pink.
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/5cz6n6bn
Nancy Murphy
“You allege Dr. Murphy admitted you as part of a wider investigation into corruption and a cover-up by Nova Scotia Health.”
This is a false and defamatory statement intended to discredit and undermine my complaint. At no point have I ever said this or anything like it, nor have I implied that Nancy Murphy had knowledge of any broader “corruption” or “cover-up.” This is a fabrication by the College.
The statement appears designed to bias the reader by reframing my position into something that was never stated, allowing the College to dismiss the complaint under a mischaracterized premise while maintaining plausible deniability. All of my submissions were provided in writing. The College, or any professional body, could have directly quoted or cited the exact statement they relied upon. They could have provided a reference or link to where such a claim was made. They did not. This is a basic professional standard that was not followed.
For clarity, I refer to my October 10, 2023 submission (Reply to College regarding Nancy Murphy October 10th 2023.docx), which clearly does not state anything resembling the College’s claim:
Page 2:
“So given the inherent systemic bias and stigma that exists, I believe my best defense is to be completely honest and forthcoming… it’s important to be clear about some of the fundamental systemic bias that exists here and dismiss any notion of intentional ‘collusion’… Nancy Murphy, the College, and NSHA all have a shared interest in Nancy Murphy being innocent… While logically this same idea extends to HRP, RCMP and JDIrving.”
Page 3:
“…Nancy Murphy and NSHA knew that if they found me innocent that they would have to file a complaint and reasonably have to testify against Halifax Regional Police.”
Page 7:
“…HRP had already pulled the trigger of systemic bias… While had I been the ‘right kind of white’ such as an Irving, McNeil, or Trudeau then Nancy Murphy and NSHA in general would never have done what they did.”
There are no statements in my submission that suggest, imply, or support the claim that “Dr. Murphy admitted [me] as part of a wider investigation into corruption and a cover-up by Nova Scotia Health.” The record shows the exact opposite. I explicitly rejected the notion of intentional collusion and instead described systemic bias and institutional incentives.
This mischaracterization is not a minor error. It materially alters the substance of my complaint and is used to justify dismissing it. It undermines my credibility and reframes my position into something easier to disregard.
It is also a fact, independent of my personal views, that by the nature of Nancy Murphy’s role, if she had found me innocent in the context of a police-led detention, she would have been required to account for that finding, including testifying if necessary. She knew this. This reality exists regardless of my complaint and is inherent to the situation itself.
“violated your rights by having you involuntarily admitted to the Mount Hope Hospital; “
Nancy Murphy — Clarification and Record Issues
The overall record demonstrates that serious violations of my rights did occur, including the repeated denial of access to legal counsel.
Contrary to CPSNS’s statements, my belongings were transferred to Mount Hope before I had seen a doctor, and they were handled by another patient. This resulted in a serious privacy breach.
Nancy Murphy’s record does not address these issues. It also fails to document that Halifax Regional Police identified themselves as being in a conflict of interest, and no statement was obtained from HRP to support or justify the assertions being relied upon.
In addition, Nancy Murphy did not record The Wolf and the Neural Network – ALPHA, which was a structured research document discussed during the interaction. This document contained over 400 data points, acknowledged my own potential bias, and was presented in a clear, organized, and reviewable format. Its omission removes important context demonstrating that I was prepared and presenting information in a structured and evidence-based manner.
Nancy Murphy’s involvement is therefore relevant in that her record is incomplete and does not accurately reflect key facts, including that I was not protesting and the actual subject matter of our discussions. Instead, the record contributes to a narrative that does not align with what occurred.
At no stage did Nancy Murphy attempt to explain my rights to me.
It is also important to clarify an error in my original submission. Based on how names were provided to me by NSHA at the time, I initially attributed certain conduct to Nancy Murphy that was not accurate.
In my subsequent submission to CPSNS, I corrected this and issued a direct apology to Nancy Murphy. The records indicate that the conduct involving mocking and humiliation was carried out by Shante A. Blackmore, not Nancy Murphy.
This clarification is important to ensure the record is accurate. However, it does not change the underlying concern: the documentation remains incomplete, key facts were not properly recorded, and my rights were not clearly explained or facilitated.
“Humiliated you when you asked about your rights”
As clarified earlier, this did not occur with Nancy Murphy. At no stage did she actively degrade me, act in a condescending manner, or behave in a directly inappropriate way.
That conduct was attributed—based on how it was later presented to me by NSHA—to Shante A. Blackmore, who appears to have been a member of the Emergency Mental Health Team.
However, while Nancy Murphy did not engage in that conduct, she also did not take any steps to explain my rights.
At the time, she had been advised that:
- I had repeatedly requested access to a lawyer; and
- I was stating that I had been falsely arrested.
Despite this, no explanation of my rights was provided.
“had your belongings sent to Mount Hope Hospital without your knowledge;”
Nancy Murphy — The Belongings Transfer
The record confirms that my belongings were transferred to Mount Hope before I had seen a doctor and without my knowledge or consent.
Douglas Grant states in the CPSNS dismissal:
“There is no evidence to suggest Dr. Murphy had anything to do with the transportation of your belongings to Mount Hope, or that this was done prior to you being transferred there.”
The Mount Hope records directly contradict this. This evidence was provided to CPSNS multiple times, including being read directly over their voicemail. The internal note dated August 3, 2022 states:
“The client's belongings including wallet was brought to the unit with the previous client mistakenly.”
And then lists the contents of my wallet:
- Driver’s Licence
- Health Card
- Cash — approximately $40.00
- Scotiabank card and banking information
- Additional identification and financial items as listed in the inventory
This confirms three things:
- My belongings were already at Mount Hope before my arrival
- They were transported with another patient
- The transfer occurred before my assessment and without my knowledge or consent
Douglas Grant stated there is no evidence of this. The Mount Hope internal note is the evidence. It was in the materials he reviewed. His statement is directly contradicted by the record he claims to have reviewed in its entirety while it is another perfect example of NSHA fabricating false records and misconduct.
This is not a minor administrative issue. The record shows that my wallet was accessed and inventoried without my knowledge and contained personal identification, financial information, and my health card — which constitutes Personal Health Information under NSHA policy.
This constitutes a privacy breach, including potential exposure of Personal Health Information, financial information, and identity documents.
Under NSHA policy, this type of breach must be reported in SIMS and investigated. This is confirmed directly by documentation signed by Karen Hornberger, then Provincial Director of Privacy:
“Personal Health Information — any identifying information about an individual if the information relates to registration information including health card number.”
“Privacy Breach — an incident where PHI entrusted to you or the organization is lost, stolen, or subject to unauthorized access, use, disclosure, copying, or modification. All breaches must be reported in the SIMS system or to Privacy for investigation. Breaches can be nonintentional or intentional.”
What Occurred
To my understanding, the individual at this stage was Shante A. Blackmore. If this is incorrect, I will apologize and amend my records accordingly; however, this is how the matter has been presented to me by NSHA and CPSNS.
At this stage, I had been held by Officer A for several hours. When I requested access to a lawyer, he stated, “Even if I could get one, they can’t come back and talk to you,” which amounted to a denial of access to legal counsel. Aside from this statement, he did not engage in any abusive, belittling, or otherwise inappropriate conduct toward me, and I felt safe in his presence.
While waiting in the waiting room, two officers, well call them Officer B and C were holding an individual, well call Person A. Person A was pacing and clearly in distress. I felt concern for him. As he walked past, he said shakily, “Man… if you have problems, this is the place to be.” He remained under the control of the two officers.
At that time, I was speaking with the officer assigned to me and asked, “How much do you think J.D. Irving would pay to stay out of jail? $100,000, $1,000,000, $10,000,000… $100,000,000?”
Following this, both officers holding Person A looked directly at me, and one of them appeared visibly agitated, with his face turning red.
At one point, a woman attended to take my blood. I told her this was inappropriate given the circumstances. She responded, “What’s the problem if you have nothing to hide?” I advised her that I had been denied access to a lawyer and that I had been falsely arrested. It appeared that she did not alter the medical record directly and instead left a note or equivalent for Shante A. Blackmore.
At this stage, I had been awake since approximately 6:00 a.m. that morning. HRP records indicate dispatch at 3:10 p.m., while notes associated with Shante A. Blackmore extend to at least 3:21 a.m. the following morning, awake about 21 hours at this stage. Mount Hope records indicate I arrived no earlier than approximately 4:30 a.m, i had been in handcuffs for 11 hours, as i sat there completely calm the entire time.
I was taken into a room to wait for Shsante A. Blackmore, and while I was there, the officer who had been escorting me came in and asked if he could speak with me. He told me the night had not gone the way he expected and that our conversation had been one of the best he had had, adding that he genuinely hoped I would one day be able to trust someone. I thanked him and told him he seemed like a good person as well, but I also explained that, in my view, the reality was that they were going to detain me because they knew mistakes had already been made.
Next, Shante A. Blackmore entered the room, reviewed her papers, and immediately stated, “You have not been denied a lawyer.” I responded that I had been denied a lawyer and questioned how she could make that determination, given that I had been in handcuffs for approximately 10 hours and had repeatedly stated that I just wanted to go home. Based on the sequence of events, I believe she may have been responding to a note added by the nurse who took my blood, to whom I had explained that the situation was inappropriate and that I had been denied access to a lawyer. The nurse indicated she still had to complete her review. Shante A. Blackmore then reiterated that I had to discuss the situation or I would just be admitted.
I asked about my privacy given the stated conflict of interest and that she making me discuss this and she responded that they “take that very seriously.” I explained the conflict of interest, clarified again that I was not protesting, and outlined basic facts showing the conflict between HRP and their own acknowledgment of it. I noted that some of this could be publicly verified, including the conflict itself and general events. I also told her about The Wolf and The Neural Network – ALPHA, the premise of a book and research paper that was submitted of evidence and can support what im saying while i told her I am a technical expert with considerable experience and listed my job history. She replied, “I’m not here to fact check you.”
During this time, a new HRP officer entered the room (for clarity, I will refer to him as Officer D). He stood awkwardly and, after some time, said, “Scott?” I responded yes, and he indicated he would be taking over. This was despite the previous officer—who I had spent hours speaking with and whom I had personally asked to remain with me—stating earlier in the night that he would stay with me until 6 a.m. I then overheard Officer D speak with the officer who had been with me for hours, telling him he could leave or go get something to eat, which he declined. Based on this, I believed the original officer may have had concerns about the situation.
After he left the room, I told Shante that I no longer wished to discuss the matter and that it was inappropriate to require me to do so given the police situation. She looked directly at me and said, “That’s kind of paranoid, isn’t it?” and then stated, “I think we’re going to have to admit you.” When I asked why, she said I was paranoid about police. I clarified that I was not, and that they themselves had stated there was a conflict of interest.
She then stated that it was late and that I had no place to go and no way to get there. I advised that this was false, explaining that I had money for a cab and people waiting for me. As reflected in the Mount Hope records, the contents of my wallet confirm that I had funds specifically for transportation and food, and there are witnesses who can attest that they were waiting for me and were concerned about my whereabouts.
She then opened the door, stood in the doorway, and straddled it while speaking to the two officers, stating that I was being admitted. She then said, “Guys, he thinks you can hear him out here,” followed by, “Here Scott, test it, test it,” repeating this behavior. The new officer who had just entered the room laughed, while the officer who had been with me for hours did not. I remained calm, looked at the wall, and stated, “This is really inappropriate right now.”
Only at that point did she say I could have a lawyer and told me to go to the desk to ask for a phone. I stated that I would prefer to wait until the officers had left. The new officer then approached to remove the handcuffs and asked, “Do you have any questions for me?” I responded, “This isn’t right.” He then repeated the question loudly and aggressively, shouting directly in my face. I said no. This interaction occurred immediately following Shante A. Blackmore’s prior conduct, which, in my view, enabled and escalated the situation.
I then went to the desk, where a security officer and, to my understanding, Nancy Murphy were present. I stated that I had been told by Shante that I could use a phone to contact a lawyer. Nancy Murphy responded, “Honey, there is no phone,” and advised that my belongings had already been taken to Mount Hope.
I was repeatedly denied access to a lawyer—first in practice, then only offered access when it would no longer be meaningful by Shante A. Blackmore, and then denied again by Nancy Murphy—while NSHA had already caused a significant privacy breach. This occurred after Shante A. Blackmore had specifically stated that they take privacy “very seriously.”
I did not know who my belongings had been transferred to or how they had been sent to Mount Hope. On the morning following my transfer, Person A—who had previously been held by Officers B and C and had overheard me discussing how much J.D. Irving might pay to stay out of jail—approached me unprompted and stated, “Man, you can’t talk like that around police.” He also told me that the police had gone through my bag, including my wallet and identification. He further stated that he had woken up hugging my bag and asked if I wanted to play rock-paper-scissors for one of the twenty-dollar bills. I did not agree.
This means my belongings were not only transferred without my knowledge but mishandled in a manner that created a foreseeable and documented privacy risk and before i seen the doctor, just as i had claimed.
There is evidence within HRP Professional Standards records indicating that Officers B and C—who had previously been assigned to Person A—may have subsequently been assigned to me for approximately ten minutes immediately prior to my admission by Shante A. Blackmore (see Image 3):
“While at the hospital, Jewers custody was transferred several times between officers from day shift to night shift. At the time of his release, Jewers was in the custody of Cst Stephen Pope and Cst Jairus Lamphier… Cst Lamphier does recall relieving the dayshift officer and he and his partner only had custody of Jewers for approximately 10 minutes before they were informed by hospital staff that they could leave as Jewers was being involuntarily ‘formed’ by the doctor.”
However, based on my direct observations, only one new officer entered the room (referred to here as Officer D). I did not observe or interact with any partner accompanying that officer, nor was there an additional officer present corresponding to that description. The only officers present were Officer D and the same officer who had been with me for several hours.
This discrepancy should allow the RCMP, HRP and NSHA to review their records to determine whether Officers B and C—who had been handling Person A—were subsequently reassigned to me during that approximately ten-minute window.
As both Person A and I were transferred to Mount Hope early that morning, I believe that only our records, or very few others, would exist for that specific transfer period.
Conclusion
The documentary record directly contradicts CPSNS’s position. My belongings were transferred prior to my arrival, handled incorrectly, and accessed without my knowledge. This is not an allegation — it is confirmed by the Mount Hope internal notes. This shows multiple NSHA employees did not record serious events, including Nancy Murphy. This was not just an issue with her records, but with NSHA as a whole.
This is particularly significant given that Douglas Grant himself states in the dismissal:
“Dr. Murphy acknowledges that her documentation of your Emergency Department encounter was incomplete.”
“I advise Dr. Murphy to ensure her medical charting complies with the College’s Professional Standards and Guidelines Regarding Charting, particularly in cases where her medical-legal decisions, such as the need for involuntary treatment, may be challenged.”
This confirms that CPSNS was aware the record was incomplete, yet still relied on that same record to dismiss the complaint.
This also raises the question of whether Shante A. Blackmore was aware of the transfer and whether the admission occurred in that context. In addition to Nancy Murphy acknowledging her notes are incomplete, the false characterization that I was protesting, the claim that I “lived with my parents,” and the transfer of my belongings before I had seen a doctor while being denied access to a lawyer, these actions collectively created significant legal implications.
Douglas Grant stated there is no evidence to suggest this occurred prior to my transfer. The Mount Hope internal note dated August 3, 2022 states explicitly that it did. That note was part of the materials he claims to have reviewed.
At a minimum, this represents a failure in handling personal property and confidential information. At worst, it constitutes a reportable privacy breach under NSHA policy that was not properly investigated or addressed — and a CPSNS dismissal that directly contradicts the documentary record it claims to have reviewed.
IMAGE 1
Tiny URL: https://tinyurl.com/bdh67fuc
.png){kind=link}