I will provide some clarity below in red. I will not be answering all of your questions.

May I also respectfully request that you not cc all parties that you have been? By all means, keep everything for your records, but they do not need to see our entire back and forth for each message. Send one message in the end.

Also, I am transferring to another unit and my last day in this role is September 3, 2026. As such, you conflict concerns worked themselves out. A new investigator will be assigned.

I will ensure that all documents you have sent me will be accessible by the new investigator.

-Joe

Subject: Re: RCMP Public Complaint vs Halifax RCMP members

 Hi Joe,

Thank you for your reply of this morning.

I never said it was your responsibility to answer every question or any question. But it is absolutely my right to ask them. And to that, we will speak to your statement of "I am someone with integrity and have been nothing but professional to you."

At no stage did I ever state you weren't being professional, or not "trying" to help. A victim asking questions about a potential conflict of interest is a basic part of the process. It is an industry-standard safeguard meant to protect the integrity of the RCMP, CRCC and CSIS in general, while being especially important during a National Security Review, and is something the RCMP and CRCC should have assessed and addressed themselves. This is especially important as you are being handed CSIS case number Attachment5566.

In regard to the sexual assault, you were provided with the names, locations, times, quotes, videos, audio recordings and records. These were also included in the detailed written and video submissions to CRCC, which have been forwarded to you. It occurred at Mount Hope, under the care of Kristen Holm, on August 3, 2022. This should have allowed you to not only reconcile the report with the file you identified as being open within "SAIT", but also tell a Canadian citizen which police service these issues should be reported to. If you feel this is not the case, then I would recommend making that note clear within your own record, while the only thing I can do as the victim is ask basic questions, which I did. I was simply asking you to clarify as I saw an open file and wanted to confirm the police of jurisdiction and ensure there was not another accusation of another sexual assault besides the one that was previously reported. I also want to confirm that SAIT (sexual assault investigative team) is an integrated unit with Halifax Regional Police and Halifax RCMP. This would be why Sgt. Wallace (HRP) was involved and assigned to Sgt. Mews (RCMP).

On your offer to assign the complaint to another investigator, I am not in a position to determine what you did or did not do in 2023-1031. You are a complaint investigator who, as you stated above, has "integrity", and so should be able to formally answer that question, either internally, to me or the CRCC, without hesitation. 2023-1031 was open for over 2 years. Cory Bushell himself stated, “It is beyond the mandated response time to complete a Public Complaint investigation and to provide a Final Report,” clearly confirming that it was outside the RCMP-mandated timeframe for response, while the resulting report also contained numerous inaccuracies. You have also still not answered whether you are, in fact, the Joseph Fraser identified in that report.

Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen, and the Joseph Fraser identified in the RCMP record never contacted the victim while the victim was waiting to be contacted and had a CSIS case number available to provide. National-security and election-interference issues were repeatedly reported in the CRCC case, in which the RCMP's own record identifies a Corporal Joseph Fraser as having been involved. You yourself, when reviewing the submitted evidence in the current complaint, assigned provisions of "neglect of duty" concerning the very process used to investigate 2023-1031, a process in which the RCMP's own record identifies a Corporal Joseph Fraser as having been involved. My involvement was as the Public Complaint coordinator. The decision maker had a question about the investigative report. Instead of delegating it out, I involved myself to ensure a quick response to an already prolonged process.

I cannot make this determination for you, CSIS or CRCC. What I have done as a responsible victim and citizen is provide the referenced and chronological evidence, and ask. What I can state is that, in my opinion, a conflict-of-interest determination carries significant weight when it comes to the integrity of the RCMP, CRCC and CSIS, and the question is entirely appropriate. If you feel the question of conflict of interest is frivolous or vexatious, then I would recommend that you make that clear on your internal record for the CRCC and the public to review.

As you stated, you would like to meet to take a statement, and I look forward to meeting with you. If you do not consider yourself to have a conflict of interest, then in your next response I ask that you provide the date you would like to meet so that we can arrange it. There is no need to meet in person whatsoever. You provided me with all written statements involving all subject matters. This is why I requested this in such fashion. It keeps the investigation organized, especially when so many subject members are named.

As for the questions, you can choose to answer whichever you feel you should as the investigator. As it stands, the questions remain unanswered, and I do not know whether you consider them frivolous, vexatious, otherwise objectionable, or simply outside your scope as Public Complaint Investigator. Again, I will list the questions at the bottom of this email. You do not have to answer them. But if you do, then if you deem a question frivolous, vexatious or otherwise objectionable, you can state that, or simply skip it and only answer the questions you believe you should answer as a Public Complaint Investigator. If you do not, then I will understand your last response as a blanket answer, and it may be seen by involved parties as such and may reflect poorly on the process.

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. No.
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? No.
4. Do you believe your prior involvement could reasonably be perceived as creating a conflict of interest in making those decisions? I believe you are perceiving a conflict of interest. That is clear. I do not believe there is a conflict.
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? Investigators do not many any decisions at all in Public Complaints. They gather information. They do not provide opinions.
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? Explained above.
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? No. Integrated unit. However their professional standards units are separate.
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? Unknown.

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? Pleasant Street in Dartmouth is Halifax Regional Police- 902-490-5020
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? I cannot comment on what was told to you by HRP as I have no insight to it.
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? Where did this occur?
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? No.
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. Yes. Neglect of Duty.
3. Please confirm that Cst. Geoff Matthews has been removed from the public complaint, as consented to at the opening of this letter. Yes, he will be removed based on your request.
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?

A copy of this letter has been posted to X and Facebook while a HTML version of this email can be found publicly at:

https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-08-17_Response_to_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_Conflict_of_Interest_and_National_Security_Questions.html (https://tinyurl.com/2bjv6p4e)

Thank you.

Scott Jewers

902-220-9106