Hi Joe,
Thank you for your reply of August 24, 2026. Here is a copy:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-08-24_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_Reply_Confirms_2023-1031_Involvement_Denies_Conflict_Announces_Transfer_September_3_2026.html (https://tinyurl.com/39epmbdz)
You have now confirmed your involvement in 2023-1031 — a question I had asked three times — and I appreciate the direct answer.
To keep this response organized and make the outstanding issues easy to identify and address, I have divided it into the following sections:
- Conflict of Interest, Transfer and Change in Investigative Process
- National Security, Foreign Interference and Election Interference
- Sexual Assault, Provisions and Failure to Investigate
- Request to Add Subject Members — Joseph Fraser, Dennis Daley, Michael Duheme and the 2025 Decision Maker
- Conclusion
On copying other parties, I will not be sending one message at the end. I am sure you noticed that I only added the additional recipients on August 13, 2026, after you yourself failed to disclose your involvement in 2023-1031 and I detailed the resulting conflict of interest. Those parties were added for my protection and to support a fair investigation. Had Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen, this "Decision Maker," or yourself actually conducted the thorough investigation alleged under 2023-1031, or had you disclosed your involvement yourself, there would be no need. I will directly argue that your current response of August 24, 2026 further justifies their inclusion.
Conflict of Interest, Transfer and Change in Investigative Process
On your transfer, you wrote:
"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."
It does not work itself out. You chose the provisions, contacted the subject officers and took investigative steps before leaving the file. Those decisions remain part of 2026-1781 and will now have to be assessed by an investigator who did not make them. Your transfer therefore does not erase the conflict-of-interest concern regarding decisions already made.
There is also a significant change in the investigative process you originally described.
On June 1, 2026, you stated:
"Over the next few days, I will be sending you a series of emails in an effort to stay organized."
In that same email, you explained that you would send a separate email for each subject member:
"I will send an email like that for each subject member. This will keep both you and I organized and the investigation will go much smoother. After I received those responses, I would like to meet with you in person at a location of your preference. In this meeting, I will be in plain clothes (not in uniform)."
The written statements were therefore originally described as one stage of the investigation, with an in-person meeting expressly intended to occur after you received them.
I then provided the statements you requested. When the conflict-of-interest issue was raised and, on August 17, 2026, I referred back to your proposed meeting and asked you to provide a date, your position had changed:
"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."
Those are materially different descriptions of the investigative process. On June 1, the written statements were intended to organize the investigation before an in-person meeting. Later, those same written statements became the reason there was "no need to meet in person whatsoever."
What changed?
That question is particularly important because you did not identify a single substantive issue requiring clarification or ask me any meaningful follow-up questions about the evidence. You have acknowledged receiving more than 1,000 pages of supporting material, yet you have no questions? I find that extremely difficult to reconcile.
A complainant placed a CSIS case number directly before you, yet you did not ask a single question about it. If the information was complete enough that no meeting or clarification was required, then the omissions in the provisions become harder to explain. If the information was not complete, then your failure to ask any substantive follow-up questions becomes harder to explain.
Your stated investigative approach and your actual conduct do not reconcile.
Your transfer now creates an additional problem. If a new investigator later reaches a different conclusion, the RCMP could simply characterize that as a difference in investigative opinion. That would leave unexplained why you made the original decisions, why you declined to modify them after the discrepancies were specifically identified, and whether those decisions were affected by the conflict of interest I had already raised.
You also stated that a Decision Maker in 2023-1031 asked you a question, and so you involved yourself. Is that the same Decision Maker on 2026-1781? If so, that would raise an additional conflict-of-interest concern, as the same Decision Maker would be assessing conduct involving individuals who had prior involvement in 2023-1031. Did Cpl. Jeff Stevens report to the same Decision Maker under 2023-1031? Did the Decision Maker have any role in your transfer, and was A/Commr. Dan Morrow — who wrote to me on July 30, 2026 and specifically and personally acknowledged your investigation — advised of the conflict of interest, your transfer, or both?
Here is a copy of the letter from Dan Morrow:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/CRCC/Reply%20Letter.pdf (https://tinyurl.com/y5f96xv5)
At 12:28 p.m. on August 13, 2026, I sent the email identifying your potential conflict of interest. At 12:31 p.m., A/Commr. Dan Morrow's RCMP email account generated an automatic response to that message. The record therefore establishes that the conflict-of-interest correspondence reached the H Division Commanding Officer's RCMP mailbox before your August 24 transfer announcement.
Delivery confirmation from Dan Morrow beside the email regarding the conflict of interest involving Joseph Fraser:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_08/2026-08-13-Dan-Morrow-H-Division-Receipt-of-Joseph-Fraser-Conflict-Email-Before-Transfer-Announcement.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/mr2rde6d)
An HTML copy of the August 13, 2026 letter outlining the conflict of interest:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-08-13_Response_To_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_And_Subject_Officer_Statements.html (https://tinyurl.com/ymr625hb)
On August 14, 2026, I then emailed Dan Morrow directly, including Catherine Gordon, Jana Caines, Michael Duheme, Joseph Fraser and NSIRA, asking about his July 30, 2026 letter, the sexual assault and what case had been opened.
Morrow's August 13 automatic response further stated that he was away from the office and returning Monday, August 24, 2026 — the same date on which you advised me that you were transferring to another unit.
Your August 24 reply was also the only response in this exchange that took more than 24 hours. It arrived approximately one week later, on the same date Morrow's automatic response identified as his return to the office, and it was the response in which you announced that you were transferring to another unit and that September 3, 2026 would be your last day in this role. By that point, you had also reversed your stated position concerning the in-person meeting that you had originally said would follow the written subject-member statements.
You are not the first officer connected to these matters to undergo a significant personnel change while the complaints were active. Cpl. Jessica Welke became OIC of the Sheet Harbour detachment on September 26, 2022, approximately six weeks after attending on August 17, 2022. Jeff Stevens, the originally assigned investigator on 2023-1031, identified himself as "Corporal Stevens" on September 27, 2023 and as "Sergeant Stevens" on December 12, 2023. On December 13, 2023, he further disclosed that he had transferred from Musquodoboit Harbour to Sackville — meaning both his change in rank and his transfer occurred while 2023-1031 was ongoing. Sgt. Trevor Allen, the reassigned investigator who later closed the file without ever contacting me, appears in your own June 1, 2026 correspondence as "Ret. Sgt. Allen." You have now advised that you are transferring from your current role effective September 3, 2026.
I am not asserting that any of these personnel changes were caused by my complaints. I am identifying a documented chronology and asking the questions I can properly put to you: when was your transfer first proposed, approved or communicated to you; who made or approved that decision; is the transfer a promotion; and were those involved aware of 2026-1781 or the conflict-of-interest concern before that decision was made?
Was the conflict discussed internally during the approximately one week before your August 24 response? Did you report it to the Decision Maker? Was H Division command advised of it? Did the Decision Maker or A/Commr. Dan Morrow have any role in your transfer? And what changed between your June 1 statement that an in-person meeting would follow the written statements and your later position that there was "no need to meet in person whatsoever"?
I am not asserting that the timing alone establishes the reason for your transfer. I am asking whether H Division command was advised of the conflict concern before the transfer decision, whether that concern played any role in it, and whether it had any connection to the change in the investigative process you had previously set out.
National Security, Foreign Interference and Election Interference
On the CSIS case number and the national-security component of this complaint, you have substantively addressed none of it. On April 8, 2026, regarding 2023-1031, the CRCC wrote:
"With respect to your second question regarding '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."
R2024-005807 was subsequently merged into 2026-1781. Those issues, and the material submitted in support of them, therefore form part of the complaint you are now investigating.
On July 6, 2026, I asked whether the CRCC had provided you with the CSIS case number, and you responded by referring to the length of the submission.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-07-06_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_Response_To_Five_Questions_From_2026-06-30.html (https://tinyurl.com/5h8nzpt7)
You did not answer the question then and have not answered it since. You have not asked a single substantive question about the national-security concerns, and your provision list does not address them.
Provisions: https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-06-01_Provisions_And_email_From_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser.html (https://tinyurl.com/33t39ham)
There is also a jurisdictional issue. The CRCC's Annual Report 2024-2025 states:
"The Commission shall refuse to deal with a complaint concerning an activity that is closely related to national security and shall refer such a complaint to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA)."
https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/commission/corporate-reports/annual-reports/annual-report-2024-2025 (https://tinyurl.com/bdz5ws7y)
Where subsection 45.53(4.1) applies, the referral is mandatory. Subsection 45.67(2.1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act provides:
"The Commission shall discontinue an investigation of a complaint if subsection 45.53(4.1) applies and shall refer the complaint to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency."
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r-10/page-10.html (https://tinyurl.com/yb7x3r2r)
Once referred, section 19 of the NSIRA Act requires NSIRA to investigate unless the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. That screening occurs after referral and is separate from the CRCC's obligation under subsection 45.53(4.1), which turns on whether the activity is closely related to national security.
https://nsira-ossnr.gc.ca/en/about-nsira/frequently-asked-questions/ (https://tinyurl.com/yw4jyznb)
I have received no notice that any national-security component of this complaint was referred to NSIRA. That is significant because the RCMP Act expressly requires the Commission, after making such a referral, to notify the Commissioner and then notify the complainant. I therefore ask you to confirm whether any referral was actually made and, if so, when it was made, under what file number, who made the referral, and why I was never provided the statutory notice.
On December 12, 2023, during 2023-1031, Cpl. Jeff Stevens was told directly about 9330 Highway #7, Stillwater, NS. He repeated the issue back:
"So you're saying that you brought up the GPS location thing that you just mentioned to Sheet Harbor RCMP and they never looked into it."
He then stated:
"I'm gonna write this up and I'm gonna submit it. You know, to the powers that be."
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2023-12-12_Transcript_Call_To_RCMP_Seargent_Stevens_CRCC.html (https://tinyurl.com/4pmrav5t)
Cpl. Stevens' submission subsequently formed part of the 2023-1031 record. Who received that submission, and was the GPS and related national-security information before you, Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen and the Decision Maker?
This was not limited to Stevens. On September 13, 2024, I reminded Cpl. Attewell, Commander of RCMP Musquodoboit Harbour, that I had previously reported alleged police stalking, the related newspaper article, and my phone's GPS being set to another household. He did not dispute that those matters had been raised with him.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2024-09-13_Call_To_Musq_Harbour_RCMP_Atwell_10-33-57.html (https://tinyurl.com/2e87wy65)
That is another contemporaneous record of the GPS issue being placed before RCMP command well before 2026-1781.
On the RCMP's responsibility for national-security disclosures, section 6(1) of the Security Offences Act provides that RCMP members who are peace officers have primary responsibility for peace-officer duties in relation to the offences identified by section 2 of that Act. The RCMP itself further states that, under legislation, Ministerial Direction and Operational Manual section 12, it is mandated to investigate threats to the security of Canada, breaches of security, and criminal or federal offences that may have a national-security dimension. This is therefore not a matter that can simply be characterized as solely the responsibility of CSIS.
You have been advised of a serious national-security concern by a technical expert with more than 18 years of experience, then working in Production Engineering at Canada's national shipbuilder, with a director and manager there on file as references: alleged unauthorized use of a computer in which GPS evidence was planted, during matters involving DND, the national shipbuilder, the former Commander of the Criminal Investigation Unit, and federal and provincial government actors. It was submitted with a detailed chronology and supporting evidence.
That material formed part of the submissions you confirmed receiving — "your intake and your 1000 page support docs" — while the GPS issue had already been expressly raised within 2023-1031, a process in which you have now confirmed your involvement. Yet neither you, Cory Bushell nor Trevor Allen addressed the GPS evidence, the related national-security concerns, or Cpl. Stevens' recorded commitment to document and submit that information in the alleged "thorough investigation" conducted under 2023-1031.
You have now been expressly placed on notice that these reports were made and that I allege they were never appropriately acted upon. You were involved in 2023-1031 and are now directly aware of the same concerns within 2026-1781. Whatever explanation exists for what occurred within either process, there can now be no question that these issues have been placed directly before you as the Public Complaint Investigator.
Mr. Fraser, NSIRA, CSIS and the Minister of Public Safety are all copied on this thread. The national-security concerns, the questions concerning your involvement, and your responses are therefore being placed directly before the relevant oversight and national-security authorities. The CRCC is required to refer complaints meeting the statutory national-security threshold to NSIRA, while the CRCC has itself stated that you and the RCMP are responsible for conducting the current investigation.
I am therefore asking you to state clearly whether the national-security component forms part of 2026-1781. If it does, explain how it is being addressed. If it does not, identify where it was transferred, referred or otherwise disposed of, by whom, when, and under what file number. In particular, confirm whether it was ever referred to NSIRA or routed within the RCMP under its national-security mandate.
Given your September 3, 2026 transfer, I strongly recommend that you ensure your actions, decisions, findings and reasons concerning these issues are clearly documented and preserved in 2026-1781 for the incoming investigator and the appropriate national-security authorities.
Sexual Assault, Provisions and Failure to Investigate
You assigned four officers — Cpl. Welke, Cpl. Sanford, Cpl. Hall and Sgt. Mews — the allegation "failing to investigate sexual assault." You stated:
"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."
Sgt. Attewell provides a clear example of why your decision not to modify the provisions is concerning.
Attewell was directly told about the sexual assault, yet his only allegation is "Improper Attitude, by laughing at you," which removes the context of what he was responding to and, more importantly, his handling of the underlying reports. During the same recorded interaction, I reminded him that I had also told him about alleged police stalking, a newspaper article concerning those events, threats involving children, and that I had gone into detail about my phone's GPS being set to another household. These GPS and related matters form part of the broader national-security and election-interference concerns repeatedly provided to the RCMP.
At 00:03:05, I stated:
Scott: "I'd also told you I was stalked by the police. There was a newspaper article about it, um, right? And, like, I mean, I went into detail about my GPS being set to this other household."
Attewell did not dispute that those matters had been raised with him.
The same call also establishes his direct knowledge of the reported sexual assault:
Scott: "...Seemingly, like, this is all interesting information I was giving you, right? Like, I assumed that's what you were going to do..."
Cpl. Attewell: "Sorry, no, sorry. I thought I was clear. The reason that I was there that day was because of the Facebook, uh, complaints made about Jessica. That was, that was the reason."
Scott: "Right. Which was brought on because of the serious issues which was also reported in the complaint, right? So when you read that, you read there was a sexual assault, but you're like, 'I'm okay with that, but I'm not okay with this guy being upset about this police officer.' That, to me, is strange, right? Because anybody would know the sexual assault is exponentially worse than anything I said."
Cpl. Attewell: "Well, I'm pretty confident in our members' abilities to investigate things, but I'll, I'll have a look just to see if there is anything..."
https://youtu.be/gDysMWEeueM
More importantly, later in the same call Attewell himself explained what is supposed to happen when a sexual assault is reported to the RCMP:
Cpl. Attewell: "If you call and report that, uh, you believe a sexual assault, uh, has occurred, um, that gets documented on the file, and we have to investigate that... Jessica can't just close off a file 'cause she doesn't think it's, uh, worthwhile or whatever."
He further stated that such files are reviewed through quality assurance to ensure they are investigated properly.
I then asked him directly whether he would determine whether a case existed and, if none existed, allow me to open one:
Scott: "So you're gonna look to see if there's a case, and if there's not a case... you're gonna allow me to open one and file a serious complaint, right?"
Cpl. Attewell: "Certainly. Certainly."
He then stated he would look into it and call me back, and that if he could not reach me that day he would try again Monday.
The full September 13, 2024 recorded call and transcript is available here:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2024-09-13_Call_To_Musq_Harbour_RCMP_Atwell_10-33-57.html (https://tinyurl.com/2e87wy65)
The significance is therefore considerably broader than whether Attewell laughed. He was the commander of the Musquodoboit Harbour detachment, was directly told that I was attempting to report a sexual assault and obtain a case number, was reminded of the GPS and alleged police-stalking issues, expressly stated that a reported sexual assault must be documented and investigated, agreed to determine whether a case existed, and agreed that if it did not, I could open one.
Yet his only allegation in your investigation remains "Improper Attitude, by laughing at you."
If Attewell maintains that he subsequently attempted to contact me, I ask that the relevant call records be produced so his account can be independently verified, just as I am providing records and recordings to substantiate mine. On that same point, you were expressly advised that this information and the supporting records existed. Yet, as the Public Complaint Investigator, you never requested those records or attempted to independently verify Attewell's account.
Let me be clear regarding the chronology. This evidence was not provided after you selected the provisions. On March 16, 2026, the CRCC received my detailed officer submission, which contained an entire Attewell section, this same recording, his failure to follow up, and separate sections concerning Sgt. Mews and Curt Wallace:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-03-16_CRCC_Detailed_Submission_Regarding_Mutiple_Officers.html (https://tinyurl.com/482kpjyp)
On July 6, 2026 you stated that you were provided my intake and "1000 page support docs." Then, on August 13, 2026, in the further submission you personally requested, I again identified the Attewell provision discrepancy, reproduced the transcript, and explained why "Improper Attitude — by laughing at you" removed the sexual-assault disclosure and his response from the allegation. On August 24, 2026, you nevertheless confirmed that no provisions had been modified.
If you add such an allegation now, you will have to explain why it was omitted initially and why it remained omitted after the issue was expressly identified. That directly relates to the conflict-of-interest questions and to what records you, Cory Bushell, Trevor Allen and the Decision Maker relied upon when investigating 2023-1031.
If you transfer out before resolving this issue and a new investigator later reaches a different conclusion, the RCMP could simply characterize the difference as a change in investigative opinion. That would allow the underlying discrepancy — why you excluded the allegation despite having been provided the evidence and then declined to modify it after the issue was specifically identified — to remain unexplained.
You also stated that more than 1,000 pages of supporting documentation were provided to you. Two documents in that record dealt directly with the issues now being discussed.
The March 27, 2026 CPSNS/NSHA formal complaint is 141 pages and 42,810 words and details the sexual assault, PHI/privacy breach, and discrepancies between audio recordings and written records:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-03-27_CPSNS_Formal_Complaint_and_Request_for_Independent_Investigation.html (https://tinyurl.com/4264t37m)
The April 7, 2026 HRP Professional Standards complaint is 151 pages and 52,924 words and details the HRP conflict-of-interest issue and surrounding police conduct:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-04-07_Detailed_Complaint_HRP_Professional_Standards.html (https://tinyurl.com/mwwjfb7x)
These matters were therefore not simply buried within 1,000 pages. You had both detailed submissions and repeated condensed explanations, including directly within the questions I posed to you. If anything remained unclear, you could have asked me to clarify it by email or called me directly. You did neither.
Despite that, you advised that Halifax Regional Police has jurisdiction over the sexual assault.
I asked how I am supposed to report it to a police service that has itself stated it is in a conflict of interest concerning these matters and cannot investigate its own officers. You replied that you have no insight into what HRP told me.
But this is not merely my account. HRP occurrence report GO# HP 2022-94187, authored by Cst. Nicholas Fairbairn on August 2, 2022 at 17:05, records: "Sgt DOOKS explained the process of filing a complaint through Professional standards to JEWERS. He was told that we as police do not investigate other officers and it is referred to them."
HRP falsely arrested me after I reported serious abuse involving its Chief of Police, creating the circumstances that ultimately led to the sexual abuse. Within three months, on November 2, 2022, HRP members held a historic vote of no confidence against that Chief, with 96.6% voting no confidence.
I also provided records concerning HRP obtaining my belongings that night and providing them to another individual, while NSHA subsequently produced records involving that person and my identity. NSHA records identify the resulting disclosure of my personal health information as a privacy breach and must be reported:
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)
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/2023-05-25_Karen%20Hornberger%20Lying%20about%20PHI%20Infographic.png (https://tinyurl.com/3a6hvfcv)
.png){kind=link}
All of this was available before you directed the jurisdictional issue back to HRP.
You also volunteered that SAIT has an open file, but have not provided the unit's full name or file number.
You explained Curt Wallace's involvement by stating that SAIT is an integrated unit. Wallace is an HRP member, while Sgt. Shelly Mews is an RCMP member and the file remained under Mews. Wallace nevertheless called from an unknown number and provided no direct contact information, leaving me dependent upon Mews.
I then went more than 530 days without the requested contact. I also documented the voicemail issue:
https://youtu.be/GurTUG-7eoU
Sgt. Mews also failed to respond to text messages, including this May 15, 2025 message:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_07/2025-05-15_Text_To_RCMP_SVU_Formal_Advisory_Shelly_Mews_Curt_Wallace_Duheme_Daley_To_Self_Report_Case_2025-21595.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/bdfmrtmn)
Wallace's April 10, 2025 voicemails likewise provided no direct contact information:
https://youtu.be/ENnW9Z-K1rw
This created a communication loop: Wallace provided no way to contact him directly, while the RCMP member I was required to contact was not responding.
Then, on June 1, 2026, you took the position that Wallace cannot be investigated through this RCMP/CRCC complaint because he is an HRP member:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-06-01_Provisions_And_email_From_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser.html (https://tinyurl.com/33t39ham)
The March 16 submission had already documented this Wallace/Mews communication problem, and on August 13, 2026 I specifically asked you why Wallace had been assigned within RCMP case 2025-21595, whether his HRP status could later remove his conduct from the CRCC process, and why he provided no direct contact information.
That gap remains unresolved.
If SAIT's integrated structure explains why an HRP officer could operate within a file under an RCMP member, what responsibilities remained with Sgt. Mews and what responsibilities were assigned to Wallace? Why was I given no means to contact Wallace directly? And who investigates the resulting conduct when Wallace is subsequently excluded from the RCMP/CRCC complaint because he is an HRP member?
You cannot rely on SAIT being integrated to explain Wallace's assignment and then rely on the separation between HRP and RCMP to remove his conduct from review without reconciling how the arrangement actually operated.
That is particularly important because Sgt. Mews is a subject member and you assigned her "failing to investigate sexual assault." The relationship between Mews, Wallace, the SAIT file and the communication failure is therefore directly relevant to the allegation you selected.
I also asked you for the RCMP policy governing reports and disclosures of sexual assault. You did not provide it. The RCMP maintains a National Office of Sexual Offence Investigative Standards, national Operational Manual policy and a Sexual Assault Investigations Best Practice Guide. If you selected "failing to investigate sexual assault," please identify the standard you applied.
Finally, you have repeatedly raised jurisdiction while simultaneously advising that SAIT already has an open file. I therefore ask you to state plainly whether it is your position that the sexual assault was reported to the wrong police service. If so, identify the factual and policy basis for that conclusion.
Request to Add Subject Members — Joseph Fraser, Dennis Daley, Michael Duheme and the 2025 Decision Maker
I am formally requesting that four subject members be added to 2026-1781.
The authority to add and remove subject members has already been exercised by you in this file. On July 20, 2026, the CRCC wrote that additional information, "including addition and deletion of subject members, is to be handled by the RCMP." You have exercised that authority twice. On June 1, 2026, you added Cst. Geoff Matthews on your own initiative, stating you had done so to show "a fulsome, and fair investigation." On July 30, 2026, you added Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand and Cst. Zachary LeShane at my request — ten days after the CRCC had written that those three "will not be re-added." You have also confirmed that Cst. Matthews will be removed at my request.
Applying the same standard, I request the addition of the following.
Cpl. Joseph Fraser. Insp. Cory Bushell, Ret. Sgt. Trevor Allen and Sgt. Jeff Stevens are subject members for their conduct on 2023-1031. You have now confirmed that you were involved in that same file, that you inserted yourself rather than delegating, and the June 4, 2025 Final Report records that you exchanged emails with Cpl. Welke regarding this public complaint. That exchange was the source of her account, which reached Insp. Bushell and Ret. Sgt. Allen. A fulsome and fair investigation of 2023-1031 cannot reasonably exclude the coordinator whose involvement produced that account. You have expressly stated that you do not consider yourself to be in a conflict of interest. Applying that position consistently, there should therefore be no impediment to you exercising the same authority you have already exercised to add yourself as a subject member. If you decline to do so, please state the reason in writing and explain how that refusal is consistent with your position that no conflict of interest exists.
The 2025 Decision Maker on 2023-1031. You have stated that a Decision Maker had a question about the investigative report and that you personally involved yourself in response rather than delegating that question. That individual was therefore not simply an administrative recipient of the file; they were actively reviewing the investigation and seeking additional information before the outcome of 2023-1031 was finalized. By that stage, the complaint record included serious allegations concerning both sexual assault and national security, including the GPS evidence and related concerns that Cpl. Jeff Stevens had expressly stated he would document and submit "to the powers that be." The Decision Maker was reviewing a process in which those issues had been raised, yet the resulting report was issued beyond the mandated response time, contained material inaccuracies, did not meaningfully address those serious issues, and was produced without the complainant ever being contacted by the investigators who ultimately closed the file.
Their role is therefore directly relevant to determining what information was actually placed before the decision-making level, what was considered, what was omitted, and why a file containing allegations of sexual assault and national-security concerns could be characterized as having received a thorough investigation despite the complainant never being contacted. This is particularly important now that you have confirmed that the Decision Maker's question caused you to become personally involved in 2023-1031 and communicate with Cpl. Welke, whose account was then incorporated into the investigative record.
You stated on June 1, 2026 that you added Cst. Geoff Matthews because you wanted to ensure "a fulsome, and fair investigation." Applying that same standard consistently, a fulsome and fair investigation of the handling of 2023-1031 cannot reasonably examine the conduct of Insp. Cory Bushell, Ret. Sgt. Trevor Allen, Sgt. Jeff Stevens and now your own involvement while excluding the individual who reviewed the investigative report at the decision-making level and whose question directly resulted in your further involvement. Please identify that individual by name, rank and role, add them as a subject member to 2026-1781, and ensure that their handling of the sexual-assault and national-security information contained within 2023-1031 forms part of the investigation.
Commissioner Michael Duheme. Cpl. Jeff Stevens recorded my requested resignation of Commissioner Michael Duheme on December 12, 2023 and stated that he would document the information and submit it "to the powers that be." I subsequently continued requesting that the underlying allegations be escalated to Commissioner Duheme. On May 15, 2025, I provided RCMP Special Victims Unit with written notice expressly naming Shelly Mews, Curt Wallace, Dennis Daley and Michael Duheme, identifying RCMP case 2025-21595 and CSIS reference Attachment5566, and advising that those individuals should self-report. Commissioner Duheme was therefore expressly connected, in writing, to both the sexual-assault investigation and the national-security concerns well before the current complaint.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_07/2025-05-15_Text_To_RCMP_SVU_Formal_Advisory_Shelly_Mews_Curt_Wallace_Duheme_Daley_To_Self_Report_Case_2025-21595.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/bdfmrtmn)
Commissioner Duheme was then specifically named as one of the fifteen officers in my March 16, 2026 detailed CRCC submission, where the allegations concerning his conduct and responsibility were formally placed before the complaint process. He was not merely copied on correspondence or incidentally mentioned. His addition was expressly sought as part of the complaint, alongside officers who are now subject members in 2026-1781. Yet Commissioner Duheme does not appear in your provision list.
His position is also directly relevant to the national-security component addressed above. The complaint includes allegations concerning foreign interference, election interference, a CSIS case reference, alleged failures to act on national-security information, and the handling of those matters within the RCMP. Commissioner Duheme is the Commissioner of the RCMP, and the allegations concerning him were raised within that context. Applying your stated standard of ensuring "a fulsome, and fair investigation," there is no reasonable basis to investigate subordinate officers for their handling of these matters while excluding the Commissioner whose alleged conduct and responsibility were specifically identified in the detailed complaint.
Upon his addition, I can and will provide the additional details and impact information you requested for the other subject members.
I am therefore requesting that Commissioner Michael Duheme be added as a subject member to 2026-1781. If you decline, please state the specific reason in writing and identify whether that decision reflects an independent RCMP assessment of the allegations concerning him or simply adopts the CRCC's previous section 45.53(2)(b) determination.
Commissioner Dennis Daley. Cpl. Jeff Stevens recorded my requested resignation of Commissioner Daley on December 12, 2023 and stated that he would document the information and submit it “to the powers that be.” On March 6, 2024, I subsequently requested that the Crown Prosecutor seek charges concerning Commissioner Daley and continued requesting that the underlying allegations be escalated to both Daley and Commissioner Michael Duheme.
On May 15, 2025, I also provided RCMP Special Victims Unit with written notice expressly naming Shelly Mews, Curt Wallace, Dennis Daley and Michael Duheme, identifying RCMP case 2025-21595 and CSIS reference Attachment5566, and advising that those individuals should self-report. This directly connected Commissioner Daley, in writing, to both the sexual-assault investigation and the national-security concerns well before the current complaint.
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_07/2025-05-15_Text_To_RCMP_SVU_Formal_Advisory_Shelly_Mews_Curt_Wallace_Duheme_Daley_To_Self_Report_Case_2025-21595.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/bdfmrtmn)
The chronology also places Commissioner Daley directly within the same period as subject matter at the core of these complaints. Dan Kinsella announced his retirement on September 6, 2023 and left office on September 15. On September 7, 2023, the Government of Canada announced the public inquiry into foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections — issues directly raised within the underlying chronology. On September 14, 2023, Premier Tim Houston announced a significant cabinet change, appointing Twila Grosse as the first female African Nova Scotian member of Nova Scotia’s Executive Council. Four days after Kinsella left office, on September 19, 2023, Commissioner Dennis Daley announced that the RCMP would issue an apology concerning street checks. These events place senior RCMP and HRP leadership within the same narrow period involving foreign interference, the Wortley Report, street checks, systemic racism and the institutional issues already forming part of the underlying chronology. This chronology is therefore relevant context for the allegations concerning Commissioner Daley and shows that his connection to these matters did not arise simply because he was later copied on complaint correspondence.
Commissioner Daley was then specifically named as one of the fifteen officers in my March 16, 2026 detailed CRCC submission. On March 23, 2026, an email concerning CRCC reference R2024-005807 generated an automatic response directly from Dennis Daley’s RCMP account. Daley’s own response stated that he remained in the office until March 31, 2026, that C/Supt. Dan Morrow had been acting Commanding Officer since March 9, and directed matters to Morrow or Jana Caines. Importantly, Daley also stated: “If this is a work related email that requires my response or personal note I remain on RCMP email.”
https://www.thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/Media/Resources/Added_2026_03/2026-03-23_Delivery%20confirmation%20from%20Dennis%20Daley%20states%20he%20is%20retiring.jpg (https://tinyurl.com/yvpjdkfk)
Commissioner Daley was therefore not merely copied incidentally or named somewhere within a large distribution list. He was specifically identified in the complaint materials, expressly connected to the sexual-assault and national-security concerns, and correspondence concerning the CRCC file reached his RCMP account while he was still serving as Assistant Commissioner and Commanding Officer of RCMP Nova Scotia. Neither he nor those allegations appear in your provision list.
Applying your stated standard of ensuring “a fulsome, and fair investigation,” I am requesting that Commissioner Daley be added as a subject member to 2026-1781. If you decline, please state the specific reason in writing.
Upon confirmation of the addition of the requested subject members, I can and will provide the additional details and impact information you requested for the other subject members.
If you decline any of these additions, please state the reason in writing for each individual. If you rely upon the CRCC's designation under section 45.53(2)(b), please state expressly whether the RCMP independently adopts that determination and its rationale. If the number of recipients to whom the evidence was sent forms any part of that rationale, identify the number of recipients at which the RCMP considers the distribution of allegations and evidence concerning sexual assault, national security and election interference to render those allegations frivolous or capable of being disregarded, and identify the policy or statutory basis for that conclusion.
If you are unable to action this request before September 3, 2026, please confirm that this request, the supporting basis for each proposed subject member, and your position on each addition have been recorded in 2026-1781 for the incoming investigator.
Conclusion
Joe,
You stated that your goal was “a fulsome, and fair investigation.” I complied with the process you established. I provided the separate subject-member statements you requested, detailed supporting records, recordings and links, as well as a custom tool designed specifically so that the evidence could be independently fact-checked. You subsequently stated that I had provided “all written statements involving all subject matters” and that there was “no need to meet in person whatsoever,” after you yourself stated that we would meet. I have been kind, and I have offered full cooperation, agreed to testify, agreed to undergo a polygraph, and agreed to answer every question put to me.
I provided you with everything necessary to ask questions, verify the evidence and conduct the investigation you described as “fulsome” and “fair.”
Yet when I raised a legitimate conflict-of-interest concern, your response was:
“I am someone with integrity and have been nothing but professional to you.”
And now you are being transferred, so you basically get to hide from the questions and consequences while I face the consequences for you — just as I have faced the consequences of every other officer who has failed me.
More importantly, why is your integrity treated as something to be presumed, while mine has repeatedly been attacked through false statements, distorted records and characterizations that are contradicted by the evidence I have provided? Why not demand a real investigation so that all of this can be properly tested?
Joseph, I am one of the best. Jessica Welke lied to you. I do not have a brother. I contacted her directly on March 14, 2023, and told her about the abuse again. I was never fired from Irving. Irving literally offered me whatever I wanted, and their employees stated that I was one of the smartest people they had ever met. I had two references on file: a director’s and a manager’s.
Everything she did was designed to make you question my integrity. And you know that if I get a proper investigation, you personally will have to answer for those inconsistencies.
That is why you simply have inherent “integrity” and I do not. Not because of facts, evidence, due process or Charter rights, but because you would all have to face what is really looking back at you in the mirror every morning. And so I, my family, my community and all of Canada have to face it for you while you get ‘transferred,’ can’t answer basic questions, deny my fundamental Charter rights, and deny me a proper investigation.
That is not integrity, strength or dignity, and it most certainly does not make you “big men” or heroes. It makes you the very reason the public still does not trust police after 150 years.
Joseph, I’m not asking you to jump through hoops or perform magic. I’m asking you to simply do better.
Please, don’t keep going down that path. Do better.
This letter has been posted to X and Facebook. An HTML version of this letter can be found at:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-08-26_Response_to_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_Transfer_NSIRA_Referral_National_Security_and_Sexual_Assault_Provisions.html (https://tinyurl.com/946nrubj)
Thank you,
Scott Jewers
902-220-9106