Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) [Link]
Preclusion of Fiduciary Legal Support
A Short Form Excerpt of the Litigation Page Contents
March 23rd, 2025
A Systemic & Unmistakable Trend from Inception
Beginning with evidence of collusion in 2021, and continuing with a trend of a priori preclusion of support from November 2021 and following, these cumulative effects contribute to a discernible trend (R. v. Harding, 2010 ABCA 180 at paragraph 10; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391 at paragraphs 91; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101 at paragraph 76).
R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 at paragraph 69;
"Courts have found a miscarriage of justice based on perceived unfairness in a range of circumstances, including where the accused was forced to proceed without representation, despite their stated wishes and being faultless for their circumstance (R. v. Al-Enzi, 2014 ONCA 569, 121 O.R. (3d) 583; R. v. Pastuch, 2022 SKCA 109, 419 C.C.C. (3d) 447)."
Evidence of Lawyer Collusion in the 2021 Shareholder Oppression Matter
My Retained Lawyer Knowingly Violated a Shareholder Confidentiality Agreement in 2021
-
I retained legal counsel to act on my behalf in the 2021 CAGE shareholder dispute. Following a thorough review and critique of all materials to be filed, the same legal counsel filed the Petition and its supporting Affidavit at the BCSC Vancouver Public Registry without applying for a sealing order. These documents were then served on the CAGE on August 4th, 2021. My lawyer was aware that the same act would violate the Shareholder Confidentiality Agreement I was under at the time, as she compiled and critiqued the Affidavit. The CAGE wasted little time in claiming I had violated my Shareholder Agreement, and requested a sealing order remedy. I consented to the sealing order.
-
The CAGE filed a Notice of Shareholder Default one week after a consensual sealing order remedy was entered. The notice sought to force a share buy-back at $3.60 per share, as opposed to the $688.37 per share cited in the original M&A memorandum. Such an action would collapse the value of the shareholding.
-
My lawyer called this “an act of bad faith”, but ended our contract after filing redacted copies of the pleadings that were edited beyond the scope of the court redaction order, which erased any semblance of wrongdoing on the part of the CAGE. She then refused a request to file corrected copies in accord with the redaction order. I was left to fend for myself. I later filed corrected copies at the Registry counter. These combined and serious actions leave little room for doubt concerning a collusive arrangement in support of the CAGE.
The law firm knowingly jeopardized my file in violating the shareholder confidentiality clause, redacted the investigation requests in the Petition beyond the scope of the court redaction order, ended the retainer contract, and later refused to correct the additional redactions that changed the contextual background. Collusion is the only reasonable inference.
The Second Law Firm in 2021
Settlement Completion Omitted from Counsel's Service Record, With $987 Written Off
-
I hired a second law firm in the midst of new talks with the CAGE following the default notice. They agreed to take on the case, but allowed the file to remain derelict for one week, re-engaging just 24 hours prior to the settlement deadline. The firm advised me to sign at the eleventh hour, and I did. The settlement check received from Respondents’ counsel was unable to be cashed in the weeks that followed according to TD Bank, and counsel's service record omitted details of the closure of the settlement from its formal service record.
-
In the wake of periodic follow-ups, I eventually received a separate “statement of time written-off” from the law firm three weeks later along with the bank deposit, which did confirm closure of the settlement and the check (big affidavit, page 221), albeit with a file number that differed from the consent order. $987 was written-off in the supplemental service record, which was odd as the firm appeared to be disproportionately focused on up-front fees. I enjoy saving money as much as the next person, but it is helpful to understand the context given the circumstances. The law firm advised on its preference to keep the two service record documents separate.
Post-Settlement Disruption
A Lot of Bad Things Began Happening in November 2021 After the CAGE Settlement
-
A few weeks following the closure of the 2021 settlement and in an ongoing cadence, the I began experiencing online harassment by way of remote PC intrusions, as is contemplated in the Zersetzung, Guide, and Q/A pages. These had featured caricatures of the CAGE CEO stating “power that can’t be insulted”, with reference to the settlement. Alongside threatening narratives, these intrusions telegraphed proximate physical events such as on-heels stalking, home and vehicle break-ins, electronic harassment, and physical attempts to implicate me in public venues.
-
The scope of these events likewise involved “Diffuse & Disrupt” characteristics, a term originally coined by former CSIS Deputy Director of Operations Jack Hooper (The Globe and Mail, May 31, 2006). By means of this, my personal and professional engagements were disrupted to the point where life became functionally unlivable, including engagements with law firms and notaries.
-
The local policing agency of jurisdiction, Surrey RCMP, was privy to multiple reports of criminal mischief, but had declined to offer support. The threshold for police response is modest, as is detained at the Review page. Police are required to “investigate what might be crime” (495793 Ontario Ltd. (Central Auto Parts) v. Barclay, 2016 ONCA 656 at paragraph 51). RCMP negligence is detailed at the CRCC page. I ended up filing S-220956 as a de facto insurance policy as it was evident I was in physical danger.
-
Most aspects of the same disruptive activities continued following an expeditious retreat from BC in February 2022 in further consideration of the above. It later became evident that my body was connected to the internet (see neurotech crimes at UN Resolution A/HRC/57/61).
Event captures like this require AI-Assisted 4IR tools. Canada is testing biodigital convergence modalities on Citizens in partnership with big tech, with the support of individuals, corporations, and agencies in the public service. Including police stakeholders. Review the findings in Sheridan et al., 2020 with respect to the potential scope.
As above, per the fabricated HRP report that was provided to EHS. Event details at the HRP Page (Here).
A Priori Preclusion of Fiduciary Legal Support from November 2021 & Onward
Preemptive Behaviors May be the Result of an IA Program (Influence Activities)
I state this by way of its consistency with the other characteristics that became evident in late November 2021. Per the same Affidavit referenced below, I was in fact approached by persons identifying as members of the Canadian Armed Forces ("CAF") who described the events in the Guide page in a preemptive capacity. CAGE Counsel is a uniformed CAF legal advisor, which may or may not be relevant. Notwithstanding, there is very little reason to believe that someone with my background and living habits would engage in legal proceedings without representation, unless the circumstances had compelled it.
Denial of Services Included ProBono Programs
The Same Trend Applied to ProBono Programs & Private Firms Alike
Two examples below among many concerning an a priori denial of services that one would otherwise expect to be available. No information was given, and no feedback was provided. AFreshWord, shown below in a snippet, features prominently in the online criminal cohort. Timely pop-ups and messaging appear relevant to the event (see Cosmic Wifey above concerning the May 13th, 2023 event, and numerous other examples in the Guide page. Consistent preemptive service denials bear the hallmarks of an CAF or CSIS IA program.
Consistency Across Time & Venue
I Engaged Constructively in Fact-Finding
Obviously in some cases, a denial of legal services might have to do with the specialty of the solicitors in practice. Boutique and smaller firms might have challenges with respect to time and personnel bandwidth. However, when large full-service firms consistently deny services on an a priori basis, something is wrong. The court files are under sealing orders, and I had made no mention of personal details, or this website. Even so, the firms in BC that had preemptively rejected me in 2022 were not privy to any details about myself, or the subject matter involved.
