2026-08-13_Response_To_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_And_Subject_Officer_Statements.docx
2026-08-13_Response_To_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_And_Subject_Officer_Statements.docx

Hi Joe,

An HTML copy of this letter can be found just below and has been posted to Facebook and X:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-08-13_Response_To_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_And_Subject_Officer_Statements.html (https://tinyurl.com/ymr625hb)

A detailed review of your involvement in this matter is now live at www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com and will be updated as this correspondence continues:

  1. Intro
  2. Possible Conflict of Interest CRCC case 2023-1031.
  3. Reviewing Your Answers of July 6, 2026, and Updated Questions Based on the Detailed Submissions of July 31, 2026 and the Conflict of Interest Findings
  4. Questions requiring a response
  5. Closing

Thank you for your response indicating your progress in the investigation.

First, I would like to directly answer your request regarding Cst. Geoff Matthews. You have my full written consent to remove Cst. Geoff Matthews from the public complaint, and I ask that you explicitly explain to him that I did not request a complaint against him.

Secondly, I would like to advise you of the following. After my email response to CRCC on July 29, 2026, addressing their bullying, mischaracterizations and gaslighting, CRCC escalated my complaint about their handling of the case to the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree. On July 30, 2026 I received an email from RCMPcorrespondence_correspondanceGRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca advising that the Minister of Public Safety had forwarded the request to the RCMP. The letter, signed by Dan Morrow, Assistant Commissioner and Commanding Officer with Nova Scotia RCMP, is attached to this email and also available here:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/CRCC/Reply%20Letter.pdf (https://tinyurl.com/y5f96xv5)

A complaint about the handling of this case was escalated to the Minister, forwarded to the RCMP, and answered by the Commanding Officer of Nova Scotia RCMP — H Division. That is the same division the complaint concerns, and the same chain of command Insp. Bushell and Ret. Sgt. Allen sat in. Which confirms that to escalate this case appropriately, I would have had to contact that same Commanding Officer — Dennis Daley at the time. That is precisely the escalation CRCC rejected, under s. 45.53(2)(b) of the RCMP Act, on the basis that too many recipients were on an email thread. However, I digress on this point for now.

It should be noted that the Minister of Public Safety is also the Minister who oversees CSIS, and so is directly responsible for CSIS case Attachment5566. In terms of CSIS, you were advised that meetings were in the process of being organized with their director, Daniel Rogers. This is also being extended to include NSIRA.

Possible Conflict of Interest — CRCC case 2023-1031

Something else has come to light. In Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen's alleged "thorough investigation," conducted between June 1 and June 4, 2025, they state:

"Corporal Joseph Fraser, Public Complaints Coordinator, of the Halifax Regional RCMP Detachment exchanged emails with Corporal Welke regarding this public complaint."

"Corporal Welke stated that when she spoke with you, you expressed concerns about corruption between the provincial government and the Irving oil company. You stated that you were wrongly fired from Irving because you were going to expose the believed corruption. She stated that she did not recall you reporting an assault to her. She stated that she never discussed your sexual orientation with you."

https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/July9th2025_Response_to_RCMP_June-6_Letter_and_CRCC_Investigation_Request.html (https://tinyurl.com/bde4y9hb)

It is reasonable to understand that reference as being to you. It indicates you were already involved in this complaint before being assigned to the current one. You were either directed by Trevor Allen and/or Cory Bushell, reported to them, or obtained information from Cpl. Jessica Welke yourself based on your own "interpretation" of the submitted evidence. That exchange is where Welke's account came from. No written statement was ever taken from her. Yet there is no indication that you questioned the record they relied upon, or their handling of the complaint — and so you may be liable for any failures in the investigation of 2023-1031.

Cpl. Jessica Welke claimed that I alleged there was corruption between the provincial government and the Irving oil company. I presented chronologically ordered and extensively referenced information documenting what I contend was serious abuse and evidence of serious events. My submissions can be reviewed to confirm that distinction. Welke introduced that framing herself, as it fit the narrative she was advancing, so as to bias the record and any reader.

She also reportedly told you that I was fired from Irving because I was going to expose corruption. That is also false. My work term ended. Irving subsequently offered me "whatever I wanted," and I had references from both a Director and a Manager on file. That is verifiable and completely different, and shows that Irving's own records will back not only my skills but my credibility. Again, Jessica Welke changed this to fit the narrative she was advancing, so as to bias the record and any reader.

These were not minor wording differences. They materially changed what I had actually said and the circumstances of my employment, in a way that supported the narrative being advanced about me. Given that these statements were apparently communicated directly to you, it raises the question of why you did not verify them against the underlying record before participating in the investigation.

The same response also states: "She stated that she did not recall you reporting an assault to her." That means you, Joseph Fraser, were aware that I alleged a sexual assault had been reported to Cpl. Welke. Yet despite being aware of that allegation, neither you, Cory Bushell nor Trevor Allen contacted the victim and complainant to obtain a statement or clarify what had actually been reported. I literally stood up and showed Jessica Welke where the man touched me, and told her how much it bothered me.

The last line matters most. "She stated that she never discussed your sexual orientation with you" is Welke answering an allegation that was never made. I have never alleged sexual-orientation bias against her — not in hundreds of pages of submissions, not in three published versions of TWNN, not in over 900 cross-referenced data points, not in more than 77 video exhibits. Yet the Final Report went on to carry "Allegation #2: Bias — Sexual Orientation." That allegation entered the record through this email exchange, was answered by Welke through you, and was then certified by Insp. Cory Bushell.

You have confirmed that you chose the provisions yourself. Sgt. Stevens, Ret. Sgt. Allen and Insp. Bushell each carry "Public Complaint Process" and nothing else — process, not the substance they failed to investigate, such as the sexual assault, the national security issues (CSIS case Attachment5566), election interference, rape calls or threats, as the short list. That process is the 2023-1031 investigation, and you were part of it. You supplied Cpl. Welke's account to it. You have now written the allegation against the three men who conducted it, and written it as a process failure — the same process you would have been a very active part of.

You are now being asked to investigate some of the same people and events in which you were previously involved, in a serious way that would reasonably reflect directly on your own conduct in that case.

This also raises questions about your personal relationships with Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen. Are you friends? Have you spent time outside of work together? Do these officers have any influence over your position? When Trevor Allen retired, did you receive a promotion to his position? And what is your personal relationship with Sgt. Jeff Stevens?

At its core, this raises a straightforward ethical question: do you consider yourself to have a conflict of interest in investigating this complaint — and if so, have you reported it to the CRCC?

Reviewing Your Answers of July 6, 2026, and Updated Questions Based on the Detailed Submissions of July 31, 2026 and the Conflict of Interest Findings

On June 30, 2026 I advised you very clearly of CSIS case Attachment5566, and that this process was all part of a national security review and part of a thesis submission to the Royal Military College of Canada. I made it clear that your likely move was to use the length of submissions against me, and that CRCC would bias and prejudice your decision in that regard. I then asked you five basic questions:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-06-30_RCMP_CRCC_Joseph_Fraser_Response_To_2026-06-01_Questions_.html (https://tinyurl.com/4knrexdf)

I would now like to address your answers to these questions and give you an opportunity to "clarify" your responses. First, here is a link to your answers:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-07-06_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_Response_To_Five_Questions_From_2026-06-30.html (https://tinyurl.com/5h8nzpt7)

I would also like to highlight for the record that on July 31, 2026, as you yourself requested, you were provided with detailed complaints against each officer and the issues I had faced as a result. Here is a link to the HTML version of that letter:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-07-31_Subject_Officer_Statements_Submitted_To_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser.html (https://tinyurl.com/35fmeyrj)

First, Question 1 bleeds into Question 5, so we'll address those together later. For illustration purposes, we'll start with Question 3.

Question 3 "Did the CRCC advise you of the CSIS case number?"

You responded: "I was provided your intake and your 1000 page support docs."

Your response did not address the question at all. Instead, it deferred to length — consistent with my statements about you using length, after the CRCC had clearly prejudiced and biased the record of submission — when the question itself was clear and concise.

As stated, you were also involved in the alleged “thorough investigation” conducted by Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen. In that case, you, Cory Bushell, and Trevor Allen failed to investigate the sexual assault, national-security issues, election interference, and other abuse listed, and never once contacted the victim, while I was waiting for that contact and had CSIS case Attachment5566 available to provide to you. That would have shown you that CSIS had opened case Attachment5566 in relation to just a portion of the evidence I was raising, while the RCMP is required to investigate those kinds of issues on the public side.

You can see that, in all of my correspondence with you, I have included the email address Attachment5566@smtp.gc.ca, so that CSIS can track all of these submissions. This means that my subsequent submissions, including those concerning your current conduct, have continued to be sent to the CSIS case address.

You will hear that these issues were raised repeatedly with Sgt. Jeff Stevens. He was told about 9330 Highway #7, Stillwater, NS, where I found my phone’s GPS set, and that this information had been reported repeatedly to Jessica Welke — more than 10 times. Sgt. Stevens stated that it was clearly included in his report, while he himself advised that I would need to take these issues to the RCMP. That means it is completely reasonable to conclude that you, Cory Bushell, and Trevor Allen had direct access to that information not only from the complainant, but also from the official Public Complaint Investigator. Yet this information was omitted from the resulting investigation, and you did not include www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com, the custom fact-checking website detailing the underlying evidence. The audio recordings and transcripts involving the original assigned investigator for 2023-1031, Sgt. Jeff Stevens, have been made public, so this can be easily verified.

Your response here therefore raises an additional concern. Your failure to answer a direct question about Attachment5566 appears consistent with the treatment of information directly relevant to the serious issues raised in 2023-1031. It also shows that you, Cory Bushell, and Trevor Allen should have addressed those concerns. Instead, these issues were not investigated, the victim was never contacted, statements were made that I contend are demonstrably false, and the resulting correspondence nevertheless characterized what occurred as a “thorough investigation.”

Can you please now:

  1. Confirm whether you see Attachment5566 in the materials provided to you.
  2. Confirm that you understand Attachment5566 is a CSIS case number.
  3. Confirm that you understand the CSIS case existed as of February 22, 2025, before the investigation conducted by Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen, and yourself.
  4. Confirm whether you understand the context of the national-security concerns being raised, and advise whether you require any clarification from me.
  5. Confirm whether these concerns should be reported to the RCMP.
  6. If so, provide the contact information for the appropriate person or unit within the RCMP to whom I should report them.

Question 2. "Did you choose the provisions listed against each officer in your emails to me, or did the CRCC?"

Here is a link to the provisions, from your email of June 1, 2026, that you chose for each officer:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-06-01_Provisions_And_email_From_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser.html
(https://tinyurl.com/33t39ham)

You responded: “I chose the allegations as each subject officer requires a specific allegation assigned to them. What I chose, was the most fitting on our list of allegations.”

Clearly, different officers were involved in covering up the reported sexual abuse, national-security concerns, and election interference — and that is only the short list. These matters were repeatedly reported to RCMP members, yet they did not act on them or generate case numbers concerning the reported conduct.

The provisions assigned to Corporal Attewell are particularly difficult to reconcile with the underlying evidence. Four officers carry the provision “failing to investigate sexual assault.” Sgt. Attewell was also told about the sexual assault on August 22, 2024, and September 13, 2024. He laughed, said he would check whether a case existed, and did not. Yet he is the only officer among those identified as having been told about the sexual assault who does not carry that provision.

The following exchange with Sgt. Attewell directly demonstrates the issue:

Scott: "Seemingly this is all interesting information I was giving you, right? I assumed that's what you were going to do."

Attewell: "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."

Attewell: "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?"

Full URL: https://youtu.be/cC08LLQjN2o

Despite that exchange, his allegation was reduced to “Improper Attitude — by laughing at you,” which removes both the sexual-assault disclosure and his response to it from the substance of the allegation. Your choice of provisions therefore materially diminished the conduct being alleged, even though the audio recordings showing what occurred were provided directly to you and the CRCC, along with transcripts.

Now knowing that you were involved in the initial investigation with Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen, any provisions dropped from the current investigation may also benefit your own position, as well as the positions of Bushell and Allen, in relation to CRCC case 2023-1031. Including the detailed provisions would necessarily require examination of whether you, Cory Bushell, and Trevor Allen failed to conduct a thorough investigation in the first place or, just as concerning, relied on the records of Sgt. Attewell without independently addressing the underlying conduct. Omitting them also prevents the current investigation from fully examining what I allege is a broader pattern of dismissive conduct by RCMP members concerning these issues.

That concern becomes even more significant when you consider that you initially refused to add Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand, and Cst. Zachary LeShane, all of whom, according to my submissions, were also told about the sexual assault, failed to record it, and subsequently retaliated. All of this is also directly captured in audio recordings in which they were told about the sexual assault and Jessica Welke. Their exclusion would therefore remove additional instances of the very pattern at issue and would further indicate that you, Cory Bushell, and Trevor Allen could not have completed the “thorough investigation” that was claimed.

That creates a significant conflict-of-interest concern: you are now in a position to determine the scope of an investigation whose findings may reflect directly on your own prior conduct and that of Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen. A complete examination of those allegations would also address my evidence that at least eight RCMP officers were directly aware of a reported sexual assault and did not open a case or otherwise respond, while one laughed when told about it.

The same concern about how the scope of the investigation was defined also arises in relation to Curt Wallace.

You advised me that Curt Wallace is an HRP member and therefore cannot be investigated through this RCMP/CRCC complaint process. Curt Wallace identified himself to me as being from the “Special Victims Section,” and called me three times on April 10, 2025, within RCMP case 2025-21595, a file supervised by RCMP Sgt. Shelly Mews.

The result is that an HRP officer who contacted me within an RCMP-numbered file supervised by an RCMP sergeant is now considered outside the scope of this RCMP/CRCC complaint investigation because of his HRP membership.

Sgt. Shelly Mews knew that the conduct of RCMP members was itself in question, including allegations concerning her own conduct. Why, then, was an HRP member assigned to contact me within RCMP case 2025-21595 rather than an RCMP member? Was any consideration given to the fact that using an HRP member could later place his conduct outside the scope of the CRCC process?

There is an additional concern. Curt Wallace did not provide me with contact information that would allow me to reach him back. This left me having to contact Sgt. Shelly Mews, who then did not contact me back for more than 400 days, despite my attempts to follow up. I also have evidence concerning the deletion of voicemails left for Sgt. Mews.

Detailed submissions made to Joseph Fraser on July 31, 2026:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-07-31_Subject_Officer_Statements_Submitted_To_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser.html
(https://tinyurl.com/35fmeyrj)

  1. Can you confirm whether the current list of provisions still stands for all officers?
  2. Have you modified, added, or removed any provisions since my detailed submission of July 31, 2026? If so, please provide the current complete list of provisions for each officer.
  3. Do you believe your prior involvement in the investigation conducted by Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen influenced your decisions regarding which provisions were added, retained, modified, or removed in the current investigation?
  4. Do you believe your prior involvement could reasonably be perceived as creating a conflict of interest in making those decisions?
  5. Given your prior involvement in the investigation conducted by Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen, will you refer decisions concerning the scope and provisions of the current investigation to an investigator who had no involvement in 2023-1031?
  6. Why was Curt Wallace, an HRP member, assigned to contact me within RCMP case 2025-21595, rather than an RCMP member, when the conduct of RCMP members — including Sgt. Shelly Mews — was itself at issue?
  7. Was any consideration given to the fact that assigning an HRP member could later place his conduct outside the scope of an RCMP/CRCC complaint investigation?
  8. Can you explain why Curt Wallace provided no contact information that allowed me to reach him directly, leaving me dependent on Sgt. Shelly Mews for further communication, when Sgt. Mews subsequently failed to contact me back for more than 400 days despite my attempts to follow up, along with direct evidence that she was deleting voicemails?

Question 4. “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.”

You stated: "Where did the sexual assault take place? The police of jurisdiction will depend on this. Once I receive this information, I will be able to point you in the right direction."

First, you completely dodged several different issues reported, then jumped straight to the sexual assault. Consistent with your sparse provisions, and with not directly answering Question 3 regarding the CSIS case number. Indicating a possible pattern of behaviour where you are picking and choosing ways to avoid the questions to keep 2023-1031 and 2026-1781 consistent.

This is especially concerning given that you were involved in the investigation conducted by Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen, who also overlooked these same issues and statements. You are now placing the burden back on the victim to provide further details that have already been provided repeatedly to RCMP officers and were directly available to Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen and yourself. They were also directly included in video submissions to the CRCC which you would be in possession of.

Your response could reasonably be seen as deflecting from your own obligations in relation to the investigation of file 2023-1031, rather than addressing information that was already available to you.

When it comes to sexual assault, these issues can be reported to any police force and a case number should be generated. Or at the very least, a case number along with the same set of questions that you yourself deemed appropriate. Quite clearly this did not occur with any of the listed members. And Shelly Mews of the Special Victims Unit did not make the same statement you did, showing clear inconsistency in how the RCMP is handling this.

At this stage it has been reported to the RCMP and HRP, while HRP indicated they are a conflict of interest in regard to the core matters — their false arrest on August 2, 2022, to protect their chief Dan Kinsella from a complaint, directly led to the incident. HRP themselves stated they cannot investigate their own officers, leaving only the RCMP to investigate.

NSHA fabricated false records, revoked my right to access counsel, and mocked and humiliated me while forcing me to talk or stating I would just be admitted. They falsely claimed I was found protesting outside HRP. This never occurred and shows up nowhere in the HRP record. Their own staff, Nancy Murphy, later admitted their records were clearly incomplete. I can show that their own records show my belongings were given to a sketched out homeless man on drugs and sent to the hospital before me — which NSHA then seems to have tried to claim was me. They realized they had made huge mistakes where a person was also asking for a lawyer repeatedly and so knew they were getting sued for their mistakes, so they admitted me to try to cover up their mistakes. Their own records show it clearly. CPSNS was provided the page number five times and then claimed there was no evidence of it. It is on the very first page of admittance:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Add_2024_03/2022-08-03%20Combined%20information%20about%20Privacy%20Breach%20(Book%20bag%20wallet%20Health%20Card%20PHI).png (https://tinyurl.com/bdh67fuc)

I was kept awake over 24 hours, repeatedly denied a lawyer, and mocked and humiliated, while their own records show how calm I was the entire time, and that I repeatedly asked not to speak about this and was told that if I didn't I would just be admitted. I forced to under the threat of severe physical and psychological violence. The record is horrifying.

I would be sent to Mount Hope the morning of August 3, 2022. I would doze off and wake up to a man standing over me who immediately touched me just above my genitals. I jumped back in the bed with my hands up in shock. He immediately stated "It's okay, I'm a doctor," then asked me how much weed I smoked and made a smoking action. During this period, the person my belongings had been given to came to me unprompted and advised that police went through my belongings. He woke up hugging them, stated "You can't speak around police like that," and asked if I wanted to play rock, paper, scissors for one of the twenties. I said no. You will see Mount Hope listed my health card, which is PHI, and is a privacy breach as per NSHA's own standards — it must be reported in SIMS and an investigation conducted, NSHA knows this and did not conduct an investigation as they are mandated to do:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/2023-05-25_Karen%20Hornberger%20Lying%20about%20PHI%20Infographic.png (https://tinyurl.com/3a6hvfcv)

I advised Kristen Holm that I was denied a lawyer, that I was never protesting, of TWNN – ALPHA (400 + data points), that i wa snot the protagonist, that HRP themselves stated they were a conflict of interest, and that one of the staff, Shante A. Blackmore, stood up and straddled a door while laughing at me with an officer for simply answering her questions. She was told of the privacy breach involving my belongings (and same staff member's involvement who mocked, humiliated me and denied me a lawyer. Shante A Blackmore), my health card (PHI), and my financial and identification information. I told her about the sexual assault and how concerning it was, to which Kristen Holm stated "They know they aren't supposed to touch you" — and so it just didn't happen. I would then later see her talking to that same man, the doctor.

That evening, August 3, 2022, I directly reported the abuse to the main email thread. I clearly stated my belongings were given to a homeless man high on drugs, that I had to sleep in a bed with shit on the blankets, that I only spoke about McNeil and Postmedia — which they forced me to speak about — that they denied me a lawyer and then when I said I could contact one stated there was no phone, and that I woke up to a man standing over me. But I didn't go into more detail about the sexual assault because I was afraid of further retaliation and abuse by NSHA and Kristen Kerri Lynn Holm which you will see was justified. I did report it immediately to my friends and family.

A copy of the email sent to over 100 addresses on August 3, 2022 can be found here:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/NM/august%203rd%202022%20email%20showing%20i%20mentioned%20topics.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/3t3zdfky)

I then have audio recordings of August 5, 2022 showing how Kristen Holm specifically changed and modified her record to remove Stephen McNeil and Postmedia and substitute Stephen Harper and Bell Media. That shows definitively that she changed the record, which meant I could never get due process, and it matches exactly what I said I only spoke about on August 3, 2022. This allowed Kristen Holm to cover up the clear conflict of interest with HRP and Stephen McNeil, as Stephen McNeil's brother Robin McNeil was Acting Chief during the problem period in 2019 — and facilitated part of the apology after the Wortley report, which led to the need to transfer Jim Perrin to Irving Shipbuilding. Perrin was the HRP Superintendent and Commander of the Criminal Investigation Unit, and was directly running the investigation at Irving Shipbuilding in 2020 which led to a serious email August 5, 2020 and Stephen McNeil suddenly resigning the next day. It was a clear, massive conflict of interest, and she needed to cover up that she knew about it in any way and to make me look inconsistent. Its horrifying. Here is her record, link to audio recording and transcript for confirmation:

https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_07/2022-08-05_Kristen_Holm_Written_Notes_Contradicted_By_Her_Own_Recorded_Words.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/mrb3epjd)

But even more concerning, Kristen Holm severely abused my physically and mentally disabled mother, used her and humiliated her — just as she did me, to cover up for the abuse she and NSHA clearly engaged in. She called my sick mother and completely lied to her abut what occurred. My mother deferred to my aunt, who completely defended me and basically begged Kristen Holm to be reasonable. Here are the notes of Kristen Holm showing this:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2022-08-05_Showing%20doctors%20report%20that%20mom%20had%2017cm%20tumor%20causing%20serious%20sisues%20at%20the%20time.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/pcpeducu)

You will see the dated entry from my mother's scan, to her doctor, Dr. MacDonald, who is also my family doctor. It shows "She had a CT scan done in August 2022." I was transferred to Mount Hope on August 3, 2022, while Kristen Holm admitted me on August 5, 2022 — showing you I could not have known about the result. However, as her caretaker, I advised Kristen Holm of the serious issues I was facing with her, especially recently, including shocking comments and actions, and that something else was going on with her. I advised Kristen Holm very clearly that she shouldn't be left alone, and told her about past abuse, how I deal with it, and how other family members abandoned her because of it. That letter directly proves my mother had a 17 cm tumour leaking pus into her body and causing her to be delirious. Within a month she would be rolling in her own excrement on the floor. She would die on January 29, 2023. The NSHA staff would also have issues with her, noting in their own record that they saw signs of dementia late 2022 all of which can be provided. They took me aside and asked me how long I had been dealing with this alone. I replied "too long," and I cried for almost ten minutes.

Kristen Holm knew I was her caretaker and was dealing with her retaliation and abuse. But to protect herself, Kristen Holm recorded that I only sometimes cooked and cleaned, and did not include her severe disabilities.
https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2022-08-03_Claims%20i%20only%20cooked%20and%20cleaned%20for%20my%20mother.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/et63w667)

NSHA in general stated I lived with my parents, which is false. I co-owned a home and provided significant care. My doctor, Dr. MacDonald, who is also my mother's doctor, was shocked when he read it, ran his hands through his hair and said: "She didn't use anything your mother said, did she???" She also changed his statements in her record when she replied to CPSNS. It is beyond horrifying.

In the record of Kristen Holm, there is no mention of the sexual assault, the privacy breach, the abuse, the denial of a lawyer, or any of it. In the audio recording of August 5, 2022 you hear me ask her why she is doing this, and that I told her I would get a lawyer and speak to the professional systems. She knew she was getting sued, and so had to alter the record and so removed the names to make me look inconsistent or on a “tangent” — and did so specifically to lie to everyone, including the RCMP. Kristen Holm knew she would have to testify not only against HRP but against those other NSHA staff — but not if she changed the record to make me look pressured and tangential. She knew that by making those changes, a lawyer or RCMP would have little recourse, because it would be her word against mine. And any idea that she changed the record would be “paranoid”. Its evil. But shows, beyond any doubt she is not a credible witness.

By November 2022, HRP would hold a historic, never before performed vote of confidence in their Chief of Police: 84% of members voted, and 96.6% voted no confidence. In that time frame you will see I reported to the main email thread that the EMIC contracts — associated with my phone's GPS location being set to 9330 Highway #7, Stillwater, NS — were being deleted from the government websites. RCMP was reading these emails, i have their correspondence showing it:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2023_08_30/2022-08-2_Proof%20EMIC%20contracted%20existed%20August%2029th%202022%20and%20Sepotember%2015th%20but%20as%20of%20October%2026th%202022%20they%20cant%20be%20found.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/24y5d68m)

Those contracts also match the same date Dan Kinsella was sworn in as Chief of Police. Yes, it's shocking.
https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2019-07-05_EMIC%20Dan%20Kinsella%20Land%20Registration%20Dates.png (https://tinyurl.com/26tvzcu8)

You can see why CSIS would take this case, and this is only a very small portion of the connections — it doesn't cover the hacking of legal companies, electronics companies' phone systems being hacked, massive property view spikes, threats, or the extortion attempt involving $50,000. This is only the short list.

On January 29, 2023 my mother passed away. Premier Tim Houston showed up at the hospital. A family friend, while at Tim Hortons, reported that someone came up to them talking about CSIS, or being from CSIS, and then just walked out. My neighbours reported lights in my house, reasonably a break and enter. Around he same time, my aunt would receive rape calls where we would eventually find a vehicle parked outside of her house. RCMP, including Jessica Welke, did nothing about any of this.

By March 13, 2023, after walking to CSIS nd dropping off detaile evidence and then HRP filing complaint against Dan Kinsella and speaking to Dean Simmons, all of which had no issues with me and will verify. An NSHA director would have me arrested. NSHA again refused me a lawyer, and refused to allow me to audio record. I asked not to speak about it; they said if I didn't I would just be locked up. I was forced under duress and threat of severe physical and psychological violence to speak about it, when I had just filed a complaint at HRP. I admitted my bias, told them about the privacy breach, the sexual assault, and that there were audio recordings showing Kristen Holm fabricated records. I told them I had all the evidence chronologically ordered and referenced, that I was a technical expert, and listed my solid background. Hana Marie Wiemer told me "Obviously you're making this all up."

The officer in the room, who had seen just some of the evidence on my phone, had asked me why I was so sure they would just lock me up. I said, basically, "Because they know they are facing multi-million dollar litigation — she would have to file a complaint against her director," which she wouldn't do because it would affect her job. The officer was so shocked at her behaviour that, upon learning she had admitted me, he pointed his finger at Hana Marie Wiemer and said "I need to speak to you outside." Even Hana Marie Wiemer noted how calm I was the entire interaction, and never recorded a single alleged threat — because there were none, and she admitted as much.

A coy of her notes and rough transcription: https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2023-03-13_Rough%20Transcription%20of%20Hana%20Weimers%20notes%20as%20well%20as%20triage.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/38x6nmey)

She knew she would have to testify against her own director and other NSHA staff. Her assumption was that the RCMP and HRP just would never do that — just as Corporal Attewell said, "Well I'm pretty confident in our members' abilities to investigate things" — because police just wouldn't do that.

By August 1, 2023 I would file a complaint with CPSNS regarding Nancy Murphy of NSHA.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/July31st2023_CPSNS_Original_Complaint_About_Nancy_Murphy.html (https://tinyurl.com/2fbvcerr)

Later in August 2023 I was contacted by a bailiff stating they had papers for me. On August 31, 2023 I was served by a bailiff on behalf of NSHA. The papers are dated August 22, 2023, and they provided three copies — the white, pink and yellow — which on its own is strange. This occurred just after filing a CPSNS complaint against Nancy Murphy, who would go on to admit in the CPSNS complaint that her record was incomplete and be reprimanded for it on record. NSHA claimed I was being trespassed from their properties, that I was physically at their properties, and that security read me the forms. This did not happen. It is a complete fabrication.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2024_12/2023-08-22-%20False%20attestation%20by%20NSHA%203%20copies%20i%20was%20never%20any%20where%20near%20NSHA%20nor%20did%20i%20say%20i%20would%20be.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/5cz6n6bn)

I live 150+ km away. I was never at any NSHA property and never said I would be there — I was sitting in my house in Ecum Secum. NSHA also had someone witness the trespass paper, falsely claiming the documents were read to me and that it was witnessed by that person, while it looks like the same person completed the form including signing for the witness. I can provide you with every single NSHA record, which shows I never acted erratically, made threats or caused any issues while at NSHA. Ever. period.

This is a complete fabrication with the direct intention of NSHA to lie to CPSNS and law enforcement — and who would believe me? NSHA fabricated many records and documents. NSHA knew they were facing a credible witness to very serious abuse and facing serious litigation and needed to silence them. It isn't a single mistake, it's a culture of abuse, retaliation, fabrication and cover-up by NSHA. And all of this was available to Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen.

By September 6, 2023, Dan Kinsella would announce his retirement. On September 14, 2023, Tim Houston would appoint Twila Grosse as the first African Nova Scotian member of the Executive Council. On September 19, 2023, Dennis Daley would announce that the RCMP would issue an apology regarding street checks (Which couldn’t happen while Dan Kinsella was till there because of the conflicts). All of these events linked back to the Wortley Report, issues involving Dan Kinsella, and concerns raised by the Black community going back to 2019, and more specifically the data overlaps of November 19, 2019 in TWNN.

Meanwhile, on September 7, 2023, the Government of Canada would announce an inquiry into foreign interference in Canada (The only journalist named in TWNN, David Pugliese would then subsequently be accused of being a Foreign Agent in a Parliamentary Inquiry). All of these issues had been detailed in TWNN.

In my complaint made to CPSNS on September 20, 2023 regarding Kristen Kerri Lynn Holm I clearly wrote:

"...She was told I woke up to a "Dr" standing over me who immediately touches my stomach, very close to my genitals. I was shocked! (Reasonably a sexual assault)..."

CPSNS failed to investigate, or to ask any questions, or to provide any resources. They didn't record the audio recording showing the records do not match at all, the page numbers of the privacy breach involving PHI (which were provided five times, while i also called them about it) and instead claimed it never happened when it is right there in writing on the first page from Mount Hope. In their report they never listed any statements from my aunt which Kristen Holm herself recorded and which showed clear reasonable doubt. Nothing. These aren't mistakes. This is systematic cover-up of severe abuse including a reported sexual assault.

CPSNS then sent my information to Cox & Palmer, the employer of Stephen McNeil — the named abuser, whose name Kristen Holm specifically changed in her own records to avoid the conflict of interest issues. While Cox & Palmer themselves stated they are a conflict of interest regarding JD Irving because of existing shipbuilding contracts:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Add_2024_03/2024-01-15%20-%20CPSNS%20(College)%20violated%20section%2046%20of%20medical%20act%20sending%20my%20informaiton%20to%20Cox%20and%20Palmer.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/5bjn2uwj)

CPSNS, upon being told about the abuse and the inaccuracies, refused to allow a review, claimed I had until end of day to make the request, and instead just closed it at 12:16 PM stating I didn't request a review. And they never provided me a single recourse to deal with the reported sexual assault — because if they did, they would have to admit the serious mistakes they made. CPSNS knew they engaged in serious abuse, made many false statements and claims which can be verified against their own records, while they basically covered up a reported sexual assault, which they are mandated to investigate. Meaning there could be other victims, caused by the direct neglect of CPSNS — and if they address this and others come forward, they would absolutely face criminal liability and be sued. Its financially better for them to not address the abuse. Its horrifying.

The sexual assault and abuse were reported to Carole of CRCC on or about March 27, 2023, along with the national security concerns and the retaliation of the RCMP, including Jessica Welke. Carole heard IPTA and then figured she could use that against me instead of the abuse being listed — basically that I was less than human, and that she could claim anything I said was just made up or didn't make sense, and point to IPTA. Which is exactly why my abusers used it in the first place: to discredit me right out of the gate.

But you will see every single record, HRP, NSHA, RCMP all shows how cool, calm and collected i was.

You can see I have remained consistent about the national security issues, along with the sexual assault, which shows up clearly in writing on September 6, 2023 in CRCC's own transmission to the RCMP. You can hear it being reported to Corporal Attewell, Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand and Cst. Zachary LeShane.

You will also see that immediately after an RCMP case number was provided on February 26, 2025, all contact with RCMP Sheet Harbour and Musquodoboit Harbour stopped — just as I said would happen. The only contact with Sheet Harbour after that occurred on July 22, 2026, when I attended to clarify the names of the officers for the CRCC record. My goal was never to include additional officers or interfere with their lives; quite the opposite. I was concerned about the conduct of their superiors in involving them and jeopardizing their careers and integrity.

I have not lied once, and everything I have stated is backed by written records, audio recordings and direct evidence. The same is not true for those NSHA staff members, HRP, RCMP or CRCC.

This is what systemic fraud looks like.

Question 1: “Did you remove the officers from the complaint, or did the CRCC? I'd ask that you please explain this in detail.”  Question 5: To add the officers clearly and intentionally omitted by the CRCC, who do you recommend I contact to have them added to this investigation? 

Question 1: "Did you remove the officers from the complaint, or did the CRCC? I'd ask that you please explain this in detail."

Question 5: "To add the officers clearly and intentionally omitted by the CRCC, who do you recommend I contact to have them added to this investigation?"

Your response to Question 1 was: "CRCC provided me with the complaints and subject members that they are accepting. Nothing further to explain there. They are the reviewing body and based on your intakes, they make the determination."

Your response to Question 5 was: "You would have to contact the CRCC directly through the e-mail that you have. You would quote your current intake number that was provided."

You then redirected me to CRCC to add the officers — which, according to CRCC, was inaccurate, and CRCC then indicated they would contact the RCMP to educate you and the RCMP on this process. And reprimanded me for asking questions. You can see the names of the officers were were extremely close, and that CRCC was advised of serious issues with those officers, that CRCC had their faces, video / audio, and the dates they were at my residence while there are only a few officers at Sheet Harbour detachment with 3 already being named. It would have been extremely simple for CRCC to clarify. Based on your responses, it shows you are also indirectly questioning why CRCC would do what they did.

CRCC could have easily clarified those names. But if CRCC did, they would have to admit to knowing exactly what their own actions caused, and would have to reprimand and answer for the issues intentionally caused by their employees. You see, they created serious issues with the first complaint, 2023-1031 which you were also involved in, and to deal with it and hide their negligence they created further files — 2024-3291, then R2024-005807, and most recently 2026-1781 — so they could blame the victim rather than themselves.

I had engaged CRCC on May 10, 2025 and May 25, 2025, answered all their questions, and also provided CRCC with a CSIS case number. That material showed Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen had completely fabricated an investigation, before they had even issued their response. All of that evidence was publicly available, chronologically ordered, referenced and detailed by a technical expert with over 18 years of experience, a solid background in technology, and directors and managers as references on file with Irving Shipbuilding. Meanwhile Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen or Yourself never even contacted the victim, who was sitting there with a CSIS case number.

I then requested that the CRCC review department review 2023-1031. Paul and CRCC knew they were in a lot of trouble: they had messed up 2023-1031, and now Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen had clearly fabricated a “thorough investigation”, while the CSIS case number destroyed any excuse they had. When CRCC saw the CSIS case number and detailed records of thier own miscoconduct they knew they had a serious issue on their hands, because they didn't take it seriously — and here is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service basically telling CRCC they messed up big time. How could CSIS accept it but not the RCMP or CRCC? It's a clear and basic contradiction.

So instead of responding on R2024-005807, Paul of CRCC didn't respond for 261 days, and only replied within about three days of the apparent expiry of their service standard for 2023-1031. Basically, he waited to see the outcome and tried to manage the cases together — if not, they would have two cases that said completely different things, and that reflected really badly on CRCC. So instead of help, Paul attacked and gaslit me, trying to make excuses for why he didn't respond to a sexual assault, national security and election interference case for 261 days. He needed to blame the victim, because if not, CRCC is looking at serious internal issues and possibly a serious lawsuit.

Which is why they also made up this ridiculous argument about spam justifying inaction by the commissioners — so they could try to use it to justify their own inaction and to make Paul into a victim. However, they have now inadvertently provided an excuse to the commissioners and to every single RCMP officer in this country: CRCC themselves have stated that if an email includes too many recipients, you are allowed to ignore sexual assault, national security and election interference. And that determination is sitting right in the commissioners' mailboxes which they can use at any time, in any case not just mine. It is horrifying, and CRCC knows how truly bad that is. The media will destroy them with a simple question: how many recipients makes those allegations and that evidence frivolous?

So when those new officers were added by March 16, 2026, it showed definitively that CRCC themselves caused a serious issue, including their manager Paul. And CRCC knew I had absolutely seen them, kept detailed records, and shown what he was doing. If CRCC added those officers, it showed they were aware of the pattern of behaviour at the RCMP Sheet Harbour detachment, and that there should have been cases reported with Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen — which all links back to Jessica Welke, whom 2023-1031 completely focused on. CRCC Review themselves said as much on April 8, 2026:

"Scope of Review — Sexual Assault, Election Interference, and National Security. Please note that these issues and questions are not part of the current review file, as they are being addressed separately under the pending complaint file R2024-005807"

https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-04-08_Update_From_CRCC_Review_On_2023-1031.html (https://tinyurl.com/585szu47)

Yet all CRCC transmissions to the RCMP, and the calls with Sgt. Jeff Stevens under 2023-1031, directly discuss these issues. CRCC could not reconcile the cases. This reflected poorly on Carole, David and Paul of CRCC, and now on CRCC Review.

So instead, CRCC forwarded the case to the RCMP without clarifying, so they could claim they didn't know about this — ultimately allowing them to claim plausible deniability.

CRCC knew that would cause me, or any victim, to respond how they did. It would be upsetting to anyone, on top of the 261 days of silence it was now over 3 years since this was reported. And so, CRCC then planned to use those responses against the victim to further their internal narrative, where they are somehow the victim in all of this. That is why CRCC retaliated how they did. You see, Joe, it would never have mattered what I did or didn't write. CRCC needed to redirect away from their own misconduct, and so attacked who appeared to be the weakest party — me.

That's why you are wondering why CRCC would act like that and then blame you. They planned it, and set you up to fail and to blame you, just as they did me. While they relied on systemic bias and their social equity, because like Corporal Attewell said about CRCC on September 13, 2024 (https://youtu.be/cC08LLQjN2o):

"I can guarantee the Civilian Review Board is pretty hard on us. I can guarantee they would have created a report — they do every time someone calls."

And if there wasn't this incredible evidence of it, I'm sure, Joe, you would have believed whatever RCC told you. The RCMP and CRCC just wouldn't do this, and so I must just be lying. It's a lot easier to just blame the victim.

But now CRCC have been caught, so they panicked and sent the complaint to the Minister of Public Safety — which shows you CRCC could have done that before, but CRCC needed to bait me, hoping I would do or say something they could use against me. Its horrifying.

It's actually not even that complicated, really. It's basic systemic fraud.

Questions requiring a response

Question 3 — CSIS Case Attachment5566 and National-Security Concerns

  1. Do you see CSIS case reference Attachment5566, and do you confirm that you understand it is a CSIS case number?
  2. Do you understand that CSIS case Attachment5566 existed as of February 22, 2025, before the investigation conducted by Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen, and yourself
  3. Do you understand the context of the national-security concerns being expressed, or do you require clarification? If you require clarification, please say specifically what you need.
  4. Should the national-security and election-interference issues be reported to the RCMP? If so, please provide the name and contact information of the appropriate person or unit within the RCMP to whom I should report them.
  5. Can you explain why the national-security concerns associated with Attachment5566 were not addressed in the investigation involving you, Cory Bushell, and Trevor Allen, despite those same concerns having been repeatedly raised with the RCMP and being directly relevant to 2023-1031?

Question 2 — Provisions, Prior Involvement, and Scope of Investigation

  1. Can you confirm whether the current list of provisions still stands for all subject officers following my detailed submissions of July 31, 2026?
  2. Have you modified, added, or removed any provisions since my detailed submission of July 31, 2026? If so, please provide the current complete list of provisions for each officer.
  3. Do you believe your prior involvement in the investigation conducted by Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen influenced your decisions regarding which provisions were added, retained, modified, or removed in the current investigation?
  4. Do you believe your prior involvement could reasonably be perceived as creating a conflict of interest in making those decisions?
  5. Given your prior involvement in the investigation conducted by Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen, will you refer decisions concerning the scope and provisions of the current investigation to an investigator who had no involvement in 2023-1031?
  6. Why was Curt Wallace, an HRP member, assigned to contact me within RCMP case 2025-21595, rather than an RCMP member, when the conduct of RCMP members — including Sgt. Shelly Mews — was itself at issue?
  7. Was any consideration given to the fact that assigning an HRP member could later place his conduct outside the scope of an RCMP/CRCC complaint investigation?
  8. Can you explain why Curt Wallace provided no contact information that allowed me to reach him directly, leaving me dependent on Sgt. Shelly Mews for further communication, when Sgt. Mews subsequently failed to contact me back for more than 400 days despite my attempts to follow up, along with direct evidence that she was deleting voicemails?

Question 4 — Police Jurisdiction and Reporting

  1. You asked where the sexual assault took place. It took place at Mount Hope on August 3, 2022, while I was an involuntary patient under the care of the Nova Scotia Health Authority. Which police service has jurisdiction, and what is its contact number?
  2. HRP has stated that it is in a conflict of interest in relation to these matters. If HRP is the police service of jurisdiction, how am I supposed to report the sexual assault in circumstances where HRP itself has stated that it cannot investigate its own officers?
  3. Can you provide the applicable RCMP policy regarding how RCMP members are required to handle reports of sexual assault?
  4. My original question also listed the planting of GPS evidence, threats against children, fabricated records, and direct threats. Your answer addressed none of them. Which police service should each of those matters be reported to?
  5. When a person reports a sexual assault to an RCMP member, is that member required to generate a case number or open a file? If so, under what policy? Can you confirm whether any of the members listed in this complaint generated a case number or opened a file after being told about the sexual assault?

Additional Questions Raised by the Record

  1. Given your involvement with 2023-1031, do you consider yourself a Conflict of Interest?
  2. Please confirm in writing that Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand, and Cst. Zachary LeShane have now been added as subject members, and provide the provisions currently assigned to each.
  3. Please confirm that Cst. Geoff Matthews has been removed from the public complaint, as consented to at the opening of this letter.
  4. Given that CSIS opened case Attachment5566 in relation to the concerns being raised, can you explain how those concerns could warrant a CSIS case while the corresponding national-security issues were not investigated by the RCMP in the investigations discussed above?
  5. CRCC has relied on the number of recipients to characterize certain correspondence as “spam.” How many recipients does RCMP consider sufficient for allegations and evidence concerning sexual assault, national security, and election interference to be treated as frivolous or disregarded?

Closing:

Joe, this isn't really a negative for you. I'd say it's an opportunity — to be handed this kind of detailed evidence concerning the abuse and misconduct of not only multiple RCMP officers, but two Commissioners and the CRCC, while you are also sitting there with an active CSIS case number.

You have a choice to make. You can hold every one of them accountable, right up to the Minister of Public Safety where appropriate. The media, the public, Parliament, and these institutions are already on this email thread. They already know your name. They can see what has been placed in front of you, and they will be able to see whether you tried to do the right thing with it.

You do have a serious issue, however: your apparent conflict of interest arising from your involvement with Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen regarding file 2023-1031. It could reasonably appear that you are conflicted in the current investigation, particularly when decisions you are now making about its scope and allegations may reflect directly on the adequacy of an investigation in which you yourself were involved.

The way you initially answered these questions, and the way important context appears to have been removed or diminished, is consistent with that concern. It also raises legitimate questions about your working relationships with Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen, and Jeff Stevens, and whether those relationships affected the decisions that were made.

That could have completely destroyed what may have been an opportunity for the RCMP to demonstrate that it is capable of recognizing its own failures and correcting them. If you do not address the apparent conflict now, you could make the situation exponentially worse. But the opposite is also true: you have an opportunity to show that someone inside this system is actually willing to look at the evidence, confront what happened, and hold people accountable regardless of who they are.

I am giving you a real choice in your life. And it has all been organized, chronologically documented, referenced, and placed directly in front of you by a technical expert with more than 18 years of experience, in the middle of a national-security review. This material is also part of a thesis submission to the Royal Military College of Canada.

You see, my interest in this — and in you — is actually quite simple: behavioural modelling and prediction.

Given this kind of evidence and this kind of opportunity, what will you, Joseph Fraser, choose to do when it is handed to you?

What does a person do when the evidence placed in front of him may implicate fellow officers, superiors, Commissioners, the institution responsible for reviewing the RCMP, and potentially even his own previous conduct? Does he protect the existing narrative? Does he avoid the difficult questions? Or does he stop, look at what is actually in front of him, and do something about it?

That decision is important to my thesis. The material continues to be provided through the CSIS case correspondence, and it is important for the public, the media, Parliament, and the institutions already copied here to be able to watch that decision unfold in real time.

You have also stated that we would meet in person so that you could take a formal statement from me. Once you have provided answers to the questions above, I would gladly meet with you and provide that statement on the record. I expect that the interview and statement will be audio recorded, with both of us receiving a complete copy of that recording. That protects both of us and ensures there can be no later disagreement about what was asked, what was said, or what information was provided.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. I haven't lied to you, misled you, or tried to trick you. I have given you full transparency and honesty. I have provided the records, the audio, the transcripts, the chronology, and the evidence. I have also agreed to testify in front of Parliament, undergo an independent psychological assessment, and take a lie detector test all in front of all of Canada.

It is the people and institutions identified throughout this record who I contend have lied to you, blamed you, misled you, and attempted to use you to protect themselves.

Now you get to decide what you do with that.

Good luck, Mr. Fraser.