Hi Mr. Fraser,
A copy of this letter has been published publicly to Facebook, X and Website:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-06-30_RCMP_CRCC_Joseph_Fraser_Response_To_2026-06-01_Questions_.html (https://tinyurl.com/4knrexdf)
Thank you for reaching out. I apologize for the delay in responding. To be candid, the negligent handling of this case and the retaliation I have experienced from both the RCMP and the CRCC for reporting this abuse have been deeply stressful, and that has affected my ability to respond as quickly as I would like. That said, given that you noted my complaint was lengthy and detailed, you should have had ample time to properly review it and to engage the named officers in order to reconcile any discrepancies between what I submitted and what the CRCC forwarded to you.
To be fair to you, I want to provide some context. I am a technical expert with over 20 years of experience. Information regarding this matter has been provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) under case #: Attachment5566. This review, and the broader pattern of events it documents, is also part of my thesis submission to the Royal Military College of Canada, examining behaviour, technology, populism, and AI. I have engaged several media outlets and investigative journalists, and can provide email correspondence and confirmations from a number of them, including W5 with CTV. I have also directly engaged provincial and federal politicians, each of whom has been added to this email thread, and I am currently in the process of organizing a meeting with the Director of CSIS, Daniel Rogers. A complete fact-checking platform documenting this matter has been publicly available since June 30, 2023, with the underlying core data available since July 11, 2022.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/
Now, I need to raise a serious issue with the information that was submitted to you. I don't believe you are the cause of this, but it will have a direct impact on the investigation, and I believe the CRCC caused it intentionally — in order to avoid addressing its own inaction and the serious mistakes made in handling this case from the outset
In my submission to the CRCC, you will see that complaints were actually lodged against fifteen different officers: Jessica Welke, Justin Hall, Chad Sanford, Krista Pye, Sherry Charant, Zachary Lechene, Sergeant Stevens, Corporal Atwell, Shelly Mews, Curt Wallace, Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen, Mike Duheme, Dennis Daley, and Brenda Lucki.
Here is the HTML version of my submission to the CRCC for your reference:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-03-16_CRCC%20Detailed%20submission%20regarding%20mutiple%20officers.html (https://tinyurl.com/yuafunmy)
However, in your response to me, you listed only the following: Cst. Matthews, Sgt. Attewell, Insp. Bushell, Ret. Sgt. Allen, Sgt. Stevens, Sgt. Mews, Cpl. Hall, Cpl. Sanford, and Cpl. Welke.
You will note that Cst. Matthews does not appear anywhere in my complaint. At the same time, your list omits Krista Pye, Sherry Charant, and Zachary Lechene entirely, while also omitting their senior commanders, Mike Duheme, Dennis Daley, and Brenda Lucki.
If you review the complaint, you will find detailed video and audio records documenting that Krista Pye, Sherry Charant, and Zachary Lechene were all directly advised of the sexual assault allegation, and that their conduct clearly demonstrates retaliation and a failure to report it. All three officers worked under and reported to Jessica Welke. By contrast, the CRCC retained Chad Sanford and Justin Hall, for whom no recordings exist. Krista Pye and Sherry Charant were explicitly told to speak with Jessica Welke regarding the reported sexual assault. Zachary Lechene was contacted on two separate occasions about these issues and, when asked for a case number, stated plainly, "I don't know." This is captured on video, and you are welcome to confirm it directly.
The CRCC selected which officers to forward to you from this list, yet omitted the very officers for whom there is direct video and audio evidence of covering up a sexual assault, retaliating against the complainant, and failing to generate any record of the abuse. I believe this was intentional, in order to create confusion and miscommunication between yourself, the CRCC, and me, and to obscure the fact that the CRCC did not take this matter seriously.
Addressing this properly will require detailed records to clear up these discrepancies. You had already referenced the length of my submission in your email, and in your text message you stated, "No problem at all, I just ask that you respond to each email in the way that I have requested," which again seems to reference the length of my responses. This confirms that the CRCC has passed its own bias, born of its negligence, on to you. Any detailed submission I provide risks being seen as me failing to follow your requested format, rather than what it actually is: me clearly and concisely addressing serious abuse and misrepresentation within this process.
With the CRCC, they were advised of the sexual assault, the audio recordings documenting threats made by RCMP Sheet Harbour, threats against children, calls referencing rape, the killing of a dog, an extortion attempt for $50,000, break-ins that were reported but never investigated, sexual assault, fabricated records, multiple legal companies reporting hacking, GPS data being modified and set to 9330 Highway #7, Stillwater, NS (consistent with the planting of evidence), abuse of a disabled woman, and David Pugliese, the only journalist named in TWNN, being called before Parliament and labelled a Russian spy. This is only a short list drawn from a seven-year investigation.
Rather than properly addressing this, once I pushed back, the CRCC recognized it had a serious problem on its hands. Instead of addressing it within the existing case, their manager, Paul, opened an entirely separate case (2023-1031, branched to R2024-005807) so they would not have to acknowledge what had occurred in the original file. This branching appears designed to obscure the detailed submissions documenting the sexual assault and abuse. This is the reason my submissions became so lengthy: the additional officers would never have become involved had the CRCC, and the assigned investigator, Sergeant Stevens, properly addressed the case from the outset. By branching the case, the CRCC was able to conceal the details both internally and from the RCMP, and to shift blame onto me as the victim. Statements were made such as "Carol wouldn't do that," which directly implies that I am lying, despite the extensive evidence I have provided. Within the original case, Sergeant Stevens is on audio recording stating that these matters needed to go to the police, and then attempting to tell me I must have taken it to the wrong police, without ever clarifying who the correct police would have been.
I can provide you with the transcripts and audio recordings. All correspondence with the CRCC since 2023 has also been made publicly available here: https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/All%20CRCC%20Follow%20ups.html
Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen then relied on the CRCC's significant mistakes. Rather than contacting me, they dismissed everything Sergeant Stevens had documented, including the audio recordings and direct statements regarding the sexual assault, despite directly acknowledging that Stevens represented a conflict of interest. This occurred even though the CRCC had specifically contacted the Public Complaint Directorate to have Sergeant Trevor Allen reach out to me. The CRCC is aware that this contact never happened, which is consistent with my reports of abuse and mishandling on the part of both organizations. Instead, Bushell and Allen opened the case, coached Jessica Welke, did not take any official statement on record, never contacted me as the complainant, never asked her about the sexual assault allegation, and never generated any written record to hold her accountable, ultimately producing an entirely fraudulent response. This will then be blamed on the CRCC, while the CRCC will in turn blame me. As long as the CRCC convinces you that they are simply the victims of receiving detailed evidence from a technical expert, everything I say gets dismissed. All they need to do is make it appear that I am being intentionally difficult, and the most effective way to accomplish that is to omit the key evidence that ties directly back to Jessica Welke. That is why they removed all of the officers who reported to her, despite there being direct evidence of them protecting her, failing to report the sexual assault, and in fact retaliating against me.
Even with Corporal Atwell, he directly acknowledged the sexual assault report and effectively stated that Jessica simply would not do something like that. Yet I see no mention of the sexual assault cover-up in your listing for Sergeant Atwell:
Full URL: https://youtu.be/cC08LLQjN2o
Scott: "Seemingly this is all interesting information I was giving you, right? I assumed that's what you were going to do."
Corporal Atwell: "Sorry, no. I thought I was clear — the reason I was there that day was because of the Facebook complaints made about Jessica."
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."
Scott: "So she didn't just do it because she was a police officer?"
As you can see, these are key omissions by the CRCC that demonstrate the compounding issues created by their fraudulent record. The CRCC needed to remove this context, knowing that addressing it properly would require detailed submissions. They understood that this would likely lead you, Joseph Fraser, to default to viewing me as simply being difficult, because, as Corporal Atwell states in that very same recording, the assumption is that the CRCC would never do something like this. This is circular logic that only protects abusers and a record of abuse, while ensuring I am never afforded a proper review.
Scott Jewers: But what I'm, what I'm stating-
Atwell: I, I wouldn't have access to those...
Scott Jewers: what I'm stating to you, Mr. Atwood, is nobody is investigating this. Okay. That's what I mean. I reported it, and when I reported to Civilian Review Board, the woman didn't record it, and I tried to bring it up with the- But, yeah, I'm just- I brought it up with the corporal multiple times, and I have recordings, and he didn't record it either.
[00:04:10] Atwell: Okay. The, the civil- I can guarantee 'cause the, the Civilian Review Board is, is, is pretty hard on us, the RCMP.
[00:04:17] Scott Jewers: No, I'm telling, I-
[00:04:18] Atwell: I can guarantee that you, they would've created a- They- ... they created a, a reports and, and, and they, they, they do every time someone calls.
[00:04:25] Scott Jewers: But, but I'm telling you they didn't.
I want to be direct about where this leaves things. I have laid out, with documentation, how the CRCC's own record-keeping failures, omissions, and internal mishandling were passed onto you Joseph Fraser, as though they were simply the product of an uncooperative complainant. I have a CSIS case number, a public platform with seven years of documented evidence, video and audio recordings, and a clear, consistent record of cooperation at every stage of this process. I can demonstrate, well beyond a reasonable doubt, that both the RCMP and the CRCC mishandled this case.
This investigation carries real stakes regardless of outcome. Given the volume of documented evidence and the existing CSIS case, the RCMP is exposed to significant litigation, including the possibility of a class action. If any record produced in this investigation is later found to be fabricated or falsified, that is a criminal matter, and it would also call into question every other case you have personally handled — including, where applicable, providing grounds for appeal to individuals previously convicted in those cases, some of whom may have been violent offenders. I am stating this plainly because it follows directly from the conduct already documented, not as a threat against you personally.
Now, some basic questions:
- Did you remove the officers from the complaint, or did the CRCC? I'd ask that you please explain this in detail.
- Did you choose the provisions listed against each officer in your emails to me, or did the CRCC?
- Did the CRCC advise you of the CSIS case number?
- As a Canadian citizen, and you as an RCMP officer, I have reported sexual assault, the planting of GPS evidence, threats against children, fabricated records, and direct threats, supported by audio recordings and detailed technical records. These issues remain unresolved and uninvestigated, and I understand that falls outside the scope of what you are investigating. Can you please advise me as to which police service I should be reporting this abuse to, and provide me with their contact number.
- To add the officers clearly and intentionally omitted by the CRCC, who do you recommend I contact to have them added to this investigation?
Once you respond to these questions, it will inform how I respond to you going forward.
Thank you.
Scott Jewers
902-220-9106