WHEN THE COURTS THEMSELVES NEED PROTECTION — WHO INVESTIGATES?
It is not the Courts responsibility to assess criminal activity, but Law Enforcement agencies such as the RCMP, and especially to ensure the safety of Judges so the integrity of the Court can be relied on.
Judges are human and if protections are not in place or ignored, then they become wide open to intimidation, coercion and manipulation. Perpetrators then benefit at the expense of their victims, a disease that spreads throughout society at epidemic proportions.
That is what I fight against. That is what rape victims fight against…
When police officers are accused of providing false testimony, concealing evidence or abusing their authority within judicial proceedings, who is responsible for protecting the integrity of those proceedings?
And what happens when a self-represented litigant brings forward documentary evidence that calls into question the accuracy of findings in a publicly accessible court decision?
Should that person be expected to carry the entire burden of exposing what happened?
Or do the institutions entrusted with protecting the public have a responsibility to investigate?
Today, November 11, 2026, I sent RCMP Sgt. Christopher D’Arcy a letter (01 -D’Arcy Letter). that is a followup of many since the beginning of an Investigation in 2025 by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC), who look into questionable activity of RCMP. The CRCC first commissions the RCMP to conduct their own internal investigation, after which if the deemed unsatisfactory, other investigative authorities take over.
I included seven supporting attachments in this letter to Sgt. D’Arcy. Among them is one that of extraordinary importance:
The certified transcript of my ten-day trial — approximately 2,625 pages, which I commissioned at a personal cost of approximately $16,000. The transcript is a requirement of my Appeal, but more importantly, it holds proof that the trial Judge, had misappropriated evidence, and that her characterizing of me as being abusive and obstructionist as false. In her written Decision that is publicly available on the Courts Website, Justice Chiasson rewrites an RCMP Report so it says something it does not, and when I attempted to bring the error to her attention, expecting that she would correct it in an erratum, instead, she refused. So essentially, her Decision on the courts public web site that is publicly available, misinforms. View my letter to Justice Chiasson and her letter response in Dropbox at files 07 and 08.
Consider the October 26, 2010 RCMP occurrence report that was misconstrued.
That report records efforts by an RCMP officer to contact my former partner and me, including voicemail messages, and nothing more. Yet paragraph 123 of the published Trial Decision, Ocean v. Bennett, 2026 NSSC 33, Justice Chiasson states that the officer was able to make contact with both of us. That is just one misappropriation of evidence.
The report does not document a completed conversation with me.
This distinction matters enormously, particularly when evaluating the history of complaints, police involvement, witness testimony and my credibility.
Paragraph 115 of the Decision records my testimony that I was unaware of the 2010 complaint. Paragraph 125 assigns no weight to the report.
But assigning no weight to a report does not answer why its contents were characterized differently in a published judicial decision.
Nor does it erase the consequences that a disputed factual characterization can have upon a person's reputation.
I have requested that the RCMP examine the original report, the sworn testimony, the certified transcript and the published decision together.
Let the documents speak. Let the discrepancies be examined.
THE POLICE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO OBTAIN THE COURT RECORDINGS
Here is another part of this story that deserves public attention.
On August 26, 2025, Cpl. Adam Best, then investigating my CRCC complaints, confirmed that he had submitted a formal request for court audio recordings.
On April 15, 2026, Sgt. Christopher D’Arcy's subsequent request was received by the Supreme Court. He had signed the application on April 7.
In September 2026, Sgt. D’Arcy confirmed to me in writing that the earlier request had not been actioned, that he had been required to restart the process in his own name, and that he had made repeated efforts to obtain the recordings.
He reported that the requested recordings had still not been received.
Think about that.
An RCMP investigator attempting to investigate complaints of controvercial police evidence before the courts that include false testimonies of an RCMP Officer, encountered prolonged difficulty obtaining the recordings of those very testimonies.
I have now supplied the complete corrected certified written transcript so the relevant evidence is available for examination.
But I want more than an investigation of isolated sentences spoken by one officer.
I want a thorough examination of the documentary history, including the disclosure of police records and the connections I have identified between witness accounts, police actions and the court proceedings.
AN RCMP OFFICER CONFIRMS THE EXTENT OF MY EFFORTS
On July 18, 2026, Sgt. D’Arcy provided me with a signed letter on official RCMP letterhead for use in my Court of Appeal proceedings.
That letter confirms the existence of ongoing public complaint investigations and acknowledges the considerable amount of documentation, correspondence and effort I have devoted to pursuing them.
It also identifies the involvement of previous RCMP investigators.
This is not simply my description of the work I have undertaken. It is documented by an RCMP officer assigned to investigate my complaints.
The original letter appears in the image included with this post, alongside the certified November 10, 2026 Court of Appeal Order.
MY REQUEST TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE PUBLIC
On September 1, 2026, I formally submitted a signed, formal court-stamped request for judicial permission to distribute court materials.
My request was not confined to audio recordings.
It expressly included certified transcripts, affidavits, documentary exhibits and other court records, and requested clarification about disclosure to investigators, the media and the public.
On October 27, 2026, the Supreme Court Family Division responded, … not by a Judge, but an Officer of the Court, with a letter refusing permission for me to broadcast, distribute, transcribe or copy the Court's audio recordings.
The response expressly addressed audio recordings but did not separately resolve the full scope of my requests concerning the certified written transcripts and other records.
I subsequently sought further directions from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
In my November 9, 2026 motion materials I made two substantive requests—extensions of time; and authorization to publish relevant court materials and including especially, the Court Transcripts.
The certified Order issued November 10 granted extensions, but dismissed the remaining relief requested. Just to be clear, there was no Order made for or against me publishing court materials. This portion of my motion request, was simply dismissed.
Keep in mind, that there was no publishing ban, and in fact, Police records show that Cathy Bennet said “no” to wanting a ban. There were no minor children involved who needs their identity protected. All participants at trial were over 40 years of age. I am the only one harmed by the lack of public transparency that the open court system leads me/us to believe exists. Achieving transparency however, as I learned through the school of hard-knocks, had proved to be an impossible obstacle. This should not be the case for someone trying to establish whether justice has been properly administered, and so the question as to “WHY?” needs to be answered.
EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTARY RECORD
I have assembled a separate Dropbox evidence folder containing my signed correspondence with Sgt. D’Arcy and supporting court documents and letters.
These include the September 1 court-stamped request, the October 27 response, the November 10 Court of Appeal Order, D’Arcy's April 15 audio request and relevant extracts from my October 21 motion materials.
PUBLIC DROPBOX EVIDENCE FOLDER:
My November 11, 2026 correspondence to Sgt. Christopher D’Arcy, together with the supporting court documents, is available in my Dropbox evidence folder (here).
The complete certified trial transcript has already been supplied to the RCMP, but not yet available in Dropbox, as I am reserving for a post update, that will also include pretrial transcripts that are at this moment, being transcribed.
My purpose is to allow readers to examine the documents supporting my account, rather than simply accept my interpretation.
MY REQUEST IS SIMPLE: INVESTIGATE THE EVIDENCE
I am 69 years old. The financial burden, the years of litigation and the continuing struggle have taken an enormous toll.
I am representing myself before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
I have fought for my rights and the rights of others through nonviolent direct action throughout my life.
I am asking for a thorough investigation , fairly and independently, using the original documentary evidence.
Judges are human. Police officers are human. Lawyers and witnesses are human.
And because they are human, the justice system requires safeguards against improper influence, intimidation, coercion, errors and abuse of authority.
Those safeguards must be meaningful.
A court of appeal can examine alleged judicial errors. But allegations of criminal wrongdoing and police misconduct require investigation through the appropriate law-enforcement and oversight processes.
One responsibility does not automatically replace the other.
When the evidence raises serious questions about what occurred inside our courts, the answer cannot simply be to look away.
Justice must not only be done. It must be protected from intimidation, coercion and manipulation — and it must be capable of withstanding examination of the original evidence.
Downloaded files to Dropbox for public viewing access: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/5utylyxbx4j7ltkvrn7zr/ACe06ync9U22xJE8x6RpxJQ?rlkey=v12lwfeofrenrz33q5yaagb3j&dl=0