Category: Military/Police

Posted on

Diagolon Rat Squad: The Soosaar Gun Grab

In the Spring of 2022, Global News reported 2 stories about arrests in Nova Scotia. The first was about 2 well known activists getting charged for harassment. The second concerned a man having his home raided over prohibited weapons and/or devices potentially being located there.

On the surface, there appeared to be nothing to connect the stories. However, the timing of this was interesting, to say the least.

Continuous Relationship With Law Enforcement?

Nearly everyone has seen this clip. At the POEC hearings, MacKenzie testified that “one example” of him reporting extremist activity was the group Liberate Your Neighbourhood, or LYNX. It has led many to speculate that there have been other instances of him cooperating with authorities.

MacKenzie is quite open about calling the RCMP on the LYNX group. As a result, many have wondered if this is the full story.

Just days after MacKenzie and Guptill were released, police raided a home in Mineville, Nova Scotia. The owner, then 55 years old, appeared to be a collector of weapons and gear from the 2 World Wars. But he was still charged.

If this wasn’t MacKenzie’s doing, then it’s one heck of a coincidence, much like the Preik arrest. In this case though, it’s not just his own freedom at stake, but Guptill’s as well.

Timeline Of Events In Preik/Soosaar Cases

January 10th, 2022: RCMP becomes aware of a video of MacKenzie (and another man), in possession of firearms, and would later accuse them of using them carelessly.

January 13th, 2022: According to the ITO (page 5) MacKenzie admitted to police that he was intoxicated when this happened.

January 22, 2022: RCMP applies for a search warrant for MacKenzie’s Pictou home for:

  1. Smith & Wesson M&P 9 firearm
  2. Glock 17 firearm
  3. High capacity magazine
  4. Gun holster
  5. Firearms registration paperwork
  6. MacKenzie’s cell phone (unknown brand)

January 25th, 2022: This is the first day that (if authorized) the search warrant would allow the police into MacKenzie’s home.

January 26th, 2022: RCMP raid MacKenzie’s home in Pictou, N.S., and file firearms charges. From the way the press release is worded, it sounds like he was released almost right away.

January 27th, 2022: Preik is arrested in Chilliwack, B.C.

January 28th, 2022: Preik is released without bail, while facing 6 charges.

February 3rd, 2022: Global News publishes the arrest of Preik. It was noted that he faced (a) five counts of careless use or storage of a firearm, and (b) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The article only specifies that an investigation had been ongoing since September 14th, 2021.

***This was covered in the previous piece, concerning the group “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”. However, it wasn’t the only thing going on. In fact, the Canadian media seems to go out of its way to not connect the dots.

March 20th, 2022: MacKenzie/Guptill (and others) are protesting outside the home of Robert Strang, the Medical Officer of Health for Nova Scotia. Police would claim that this far exceeded a simple demonstration.

March 23rd, 2022: News of the arrests MacKenzie/Guptill is reported. They’re charged with:

  • 430(1)(c) mischief
  • 264(2)(c)(i) harassment
  • 372(3) making harassing communications
  • 423.1(1)(b) intimidation

March 25th, 2022: MacKenzie/Guptill are *supposed* to have a hearing which would force the Crown to show cause of why they should be kept in custody. While initially opposed to any release, prosecutors changed their minds and agreed to let them go.

March 31st, 2022: Marty Soosaar is arrested on the following charges:

  • 86(2) contravention of storage regulations
  • 91(2) possession of restricted or prohibited firearm (over capacity magazines)
  • 91(2) possession of restricted or prohibited firearm (Morningstar Weapon)
  • 92(2) possession of restricted or prohibited weapon or device (over capacity magazines)
  • 92(2) possession of restricted or prohibited weapon or device (Morningstar Weapon)

April 1st, 2022: Soosaar was released pending the outcome of the case. Worth noting, that these are much the same charges that Landon Preik faced earlier after having his home raided, despite not having made any sort of videos.

April 27th, 2022: This is the first Court appearance listed in the “Replacement Information” for MacKenzie and Guptill. The original is not available to the public. There would be many more hearings over the next 2 years.

July 29th, 2022: Soosaar’s case is referred to Restorative Justice. Although he would have to make a few more appearances, the Crown was already agreeing to alternative measures.

February 2nd, 2023: Crown withdraws charges against Soosaar. However, his property is still to be forfeited to the Government.

June 5th, 2024: Court enters a stay of proceedings against MacKenzie and Guptil. It’s ruled that it took too long to get to Trial. Even factoring in Defence delays, it the Prosecution was still responsible for over 18 months, which fell outside the time limits for summary charges.

Within 2 months of this case being thrown out, MacKenzie, Guptill, Harrison and Vriend would embark on their nationwide “Terror Tour”. The timing was certainly convenient.

Why Does Any Of This Matter Now?

Critics might dismiss this as ancient news. After all, even if this theory is true, it’s been over 3 1/2 years since it happened.

In early 2022, “Diagolon” abruptly shifted from a more generic freedom-related podcast community to an overtly hyper-nationalistic one. And the focus has shifted from online to in-person meetings. There have been theories about why this is.

MacKenzie’s latest venture is Second Sons Canada, or SSC. This is Diagolon’s reinvention and rebranding. Given the rise (and apparently growth) of SSC, it’s worth asking what its real purpose is. After all, given the anti-white hate over the years, who’s to say that there won’t be efforts to monitor such activities? Even if the group itself is legitimate, member data can always be leaked.

And that leads to the final point: SSC requires a criminal background checks for applicants. Considering MacKenzie claims the RCMP framed him — in order to justify invoking the Emergencies Act — it’s a little suspicious that he would turn over his membership list to them. After all, who does he think conducts record checks in Canada?

An admitted police informant…. giving member data to the police. What could possibly go wrong in all of this? Good way to end up on a watch list.

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/8703110/ns-police-offences-health-official/
(2) https://globalnews.ca/news/8728890/ns-wwi-wwii-weapons-charges/
(3) Nova Scotia Record of Proceedings — MacKenzie
(4) Nova Scotia Record of Proceedings — Soosaar

Posted on

MacDonald Gets 10 Years For Production Of Atomwaffen Videos

An Ontario man, Patrick Gordon MacDonald, received a 10 year jail sentence for a series of terrorism offences. Specifically, he was convicted for creating 3 videos encouraging people to join the group Atomwaffen. While he posted other content online, it’s these videos which caused the most trouble.

One might think that there’s little else to do in the way of solving crime in Canada. Police spent a lot of time and money going after him.

It’s true that the creation of the videos predates Atomwaffen’s designation by Ottawa as a terrorist organization. However, it didn’t seem to matter much. The videos MacDonald made were called:

  1. Grey Zone
  2. Fission
  3. Feuernacht

The ruling doesn’t go into great detail about the contents of the videos, but these remarks are made.

[35] The videos had two purposes: a) to recruit new members; and b) to propagate AWD terrorist ideology by encouraging viewers to start the revolution and purge the weak. The Fission video invites viewers to join AWD in their efforts to “vanquish the modern world”; the narrator continues stating “we call forward all who are willing to descend, like a howling wolf, on the frail fold and rend limb from limb those without the stomach to fight”, “from the ashes of the kike system, our new order shall emerge” and concludes by saying “join us or perish with the rest”, which is a statement that expressly incites fear in members of the public.

[36] In the Feuernacht video, the narrator exhorts viewers to “burn it all, purge the weak, join the division”. The Grey Zone video concludes by telling viewers to “get the program”, “create your own cell”, and “start the revolution”. It describes the terror that will be unleashed on “fat, treacherous bureaucrats” and “Jewish snakes”, “we will storm your mansions, creating caskets from your dining tables and tombstones of your bedposts”. All three videos end with the same email address: awdrecruiting@tutonota.com.

Apparently, there was nothing in any of them to indicate it was trolling or satire.

“Grey Zone” was filmed at an abandoned cement plant in Belleville, Ontario. The police spent some time comparing the graffiti and marks on the cement wall. They also pulled MacDonald’s phone records (including location data), to confirm he was in Belleville. (Paragraph 38)

“Fission” was filmed at a former school in St. Ferdinand, Québec in July 2019. The police pulled MacDonald’s bank records to show that he had made purchases in the area. Oddly, phone records show that his cell wasn’t in the area, and the Judge simply concluded it might have been loaned out at that time. (Paragraph 38 f/g)

The Judge doesn’t say where Feuernacht was created, but ruled that it was shot by the same camera which created the other 2 videos.

On some level, it’s quite something the effort that was spent to find out where, when and by whom these videos were made. That said, it’s telling that there are many other serious crimes that go on in Ontario that receive little to no investigation.

Side note: another honeypot has decided to call out Atomwaffen. It’s amusing when they turn against each other.

MacDonald’s Counsel Does Lackluster Job

To be blunt, it’s not really clear what the strategy was supposed to be. There were several things that implicated MacDonald, and there seemed to be no effort to attempt any mitigation.

[17] The Defence did not attack any of Dr. Perry’s evidence about the history of AWD, the formation of AWD, or dispute her opinion evidence that AWD’s core ideological views were based on neo-Nazi accelerationism or that it encouraged its members to engage in acts of violence against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others with the intent to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state.

[20] I accept Dr. Perry’s expert evidence about the history and the ideological beliefs of the AWD group, including her opinion that AWD was a terrorist group within the definition of section 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code in the 2018-2019 time period, because AWD encouraged its members to commit violent acts against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state. I also accept Dr. Perry’s opinion evidence that one of AWD’s purposes was the facilitation of carrying out a terrorist activity and as such, it was a terrorist entity in 2018-2019. Her opinion was not contested on this point.

[27] The Accused posted the recruitment videos and violent Nazi images online under the online pseudonym “Dark Foreigner” for AWD on several media platforms using the hashtag “atomwaffen division”. The login information and password for these accounts were found above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. The fact that the Accused hid the login information and passwords for these accounts above the ceiling tiles indicates his knowledge that AWD was a terrorist group. The post by “Dark Foreigner” on Tumblr on April 16, 2018, included an image showing the trefoil symbol, a person wearing a balaclava skull mask, a military camouflage jacket, an assault jacket, and carrying a weapon with the words “Nazi” and “Atomwaffen” inscribed at the bottom.

[29] Finally, the pamphlet of “the AWD program” written in Russian was also found hidden above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s room in the basement. While the recruitment pamphlets of AWD were written in Russian, the fact that the Accused hid the pamphlets above the ceiling tiles indicates that he knew about the ideology of AWD and tried to conceal the pamphlet to avoid detection of the fact that he was a participant in the activities of AWD and that it was a terrorist group.

[30] The metadata contained in the Grey Zone video, namely in the JPEG files, confirms that these images were filmed using the Accused’s Fuji camera and lenses that had the identical serial number as the Fuji camera and lenses that were found in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. This is strong evidence that the Accused was involved in taking images with his Fuji camera and lenses that were included and found in the Grey Zone video. It is also strong evidence that the Accused was aware of AWD’s ideology and that it was a terrorist group.

[34] The Defence did not argue that contributing to or participating in the production of the recruitment videos would not amount to participating or contributing to a terrorist activity. The issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused is the person that participated in the production of the recruitment videos and posted the violent Nazi images online.

While the decision convicting MacDonald is long, here are a few highlights. The Defence apparently never tried to argue that creating these videos didn’t amount to terrorism. Instead, his lawyers tried arguing that it wasn’t him.

However, a few things really hamstrung MacDonald: (a) metadata from his camera; (b) cellphone activity; (c) AWD pamphlet and login information for his social media accounts hidden in the ceiling; and (d) clothing that appeared to match those seen in the videos.

[3] The Defence raises two arguments against the conviction:

a. Firstly, the Crown’s evidence does not identify the Accused as the person who participated in or contributed to the production of the three recruitment videos and posted AWD propaganda images online beyond a reasonable doubt; and

b. Secondly, the Defence submits that the expert evidence of Dr. Perry, to the effect that AWD was a terrorist group in the 2018-2019 period that promoted the use of violence in Defence of the white race, was not sufficiently reliable to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the Judge however, the Defence never really challenged the testimony from Barbara Perry about Atomwaffen’s core ideological beliefs.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

2019: MacDonald creates 3 promotional videos for Atomwaffen. It’s noteworthy that all of this happened prior to the group being designated as a terrorist organization in 2021.

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is officially classified as a terrorist group.

November 18th to December 3rd, 2024: MacDonald formally goes on Trial.

April 2nd, 2025: Justice Smith convicts MacDonald on 3 counts of participation in activity of terrorist group. He remains out on bail.

August 7th, 2025: Justice Smith agreed to let Matthew Kriner give opinion evidence during the sentencing hearing of MacDonald.

September 8th, 2025: MacDonald is sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Is An Appeal Likely To Succeed?

10 years is a long time for a first arrest. MacDonald had no prior record, so that should count for a lot. He also remained on bail for 2 years without incident.

On the other hand, Judges are given a large amount of deference when handing down sentences, and Appellate Courts may be reluctant to interfere. This last ruling is not yet available on CanLII, but should be interesting to read.

But if he does appeal, perhaps he should get a better lawyer.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4582/2025onsc4582.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2025/08_09_25.html
(5) https://x.com/JeremyMacKenzi/status/1965106679634112626/
(6) https://jeremymackenzie.substack.com/p/talk-shit-get-ten-years

Posted on

“Atomwaffen Applicant” To Be Sentenced For Participation In Terrorist Group

Last month, Seth Bertrand was found guilty of participation in activity of a terrorist group. The organization is the Atomwaffen Division, or AWD, also known as the National Socialist Order, or NSO. He is expected to be sentenced in October, and faces up to 10 years in prison.

It’s a fair question to ask whether this was explicitly set up by the authorities (as Grant Bristow did with Heritage Front), or if it has simply been heavily infiltrated. In either situation, Bertrand is in serious trouble.

He has effectively screwed up his life over graffiti, a broken window, and some slashed tires. Moreover, he ran his mouth to undercover police, explicitly stating that he wanted to join a “domestic terrorist organization”.

During that time, Bertrand apparently also reached out to: (a) Injekt Division; (b) National Partisans; and (c) The Minutemen. Similarly, one has to ask if any of these are ‘legitimate’ organizations, or merely fronts created by the police.

The way Bertrand describes things, he was angry and frustrated in early 2021 from various lockdown measures and the apparent helplessness in his life. This likely is true.

In, 2023, he pleaded guilty to inciting hate, and to 3 counts of mischief. However, he fought the terrorism charge, which was by far the most serious.

Diagolon Engages In “Fed-Jacketing” Against Atomwaffen

As an aside, law enforcement operations aren’t safe from being critcised by each other. Even Alex Vriend (a.k.a. “The Ferryman’s Toll”) commented recently that Atomwaffen was obviously a trap. The irony seems lost.

This site previously covered the gun grab of Gary Schill here and here. Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael testified that police regularly infiltrated the in-person meets, and that the Telegrams chats were monitored.

Consider that Jeremy MacKenzie testified in 2022 that he was willing to have a “continuous relationship with law enforcement”. He also detailed some of his previous cooperation. By Vriend’s own logic, anyone currently promoting Diagolon is either a retard or a fed.

Identities Of Witnesses, Undercover Officers Shielded From Public

These rulings also come with an Order attached under s.486.5 and s.486.31 of the Criminal Code. They prohibit any information that could identify the witnesses from being disclosed. Furthermore, the identities of “Undercover Officer Alex” and “Undercover Officer Eric” are also to be shielded.

Perhaps “Undercover Officer Jeremy” would have been too obvious.

One has to wonder what other cases these 2 have testified in, and if there are any more coming up. A likely explanation is that the operation is ongoing. It’s hard to “confront one’s accusers” in Court when Defendants don’t even know who they are.

Questions From Bertrand’s AWD/NSO Application

Why do you want to join NSO? What stands out to you, from other groups?

your professionalism and your propaganda quality everything about the NSO just stands out to me.

Why should we bother to recruit you?

I have wanted to be apart of something big ever since I was redpilled the NSO/AWD has been the biggest when i was running my division i strived to be as good as you guys plus i have already proven myself worthy of another divisions trust a stunt of mine made it in local news.

Question: Anything else?

If I do get accepted I promise all my loyalty to you i want nothing more then to be apart of a group that’s actually doing things to help save/protect the white race “if he wish not to fight in a world where struggle is the way of life then he does not have the right to exist”-adolf hitler.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is designated as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.

February 15th and 20th, 2021: Bertrand wrote graffiti on private property.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand emails the National Socialist Order, requesting to join. The NSO is another name which AtomWaffen is known by.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand throws a brake rotor through the front window of the WETrans Centre.

February 26th, 2021: Bertrand uploads a voice post which said, “look on the bright side, if I do end up going to jail, um, I can recruit people from inside the prison”.

March 6th, 2021: Bertrand sends an email to Folkish Aryan Resistance, asking to join. He adds that he’s good with vehicles and weapons.

March 2021: On 2 separate occasions, Bertrand punctured the tires of a vehicle parked outside. He was caught on surveillance camera doing so.

May 20th, 2021: Bertrand left a note outside the home of a gay couple, which included swastikas, and the words, “The AtomWaffen knows who you are!” and “hail Hitler”.

January 30th, 2022: Bertrand meets with “Undercover Officer Eric”, whom he believes to be the leader of a group looking to employ him. He admitted to the above graffiti and vandalism. For some reason, Bertrand took it upon himself to explain what AtomWaffen in, describing it as a “domestic terrorist organization”. He would later claim that he was entrapped and manipulated.

May 5th, 2022: Bertrand is arrested, and he explains to the police that there were people out to get whites. He described Atomwaffen Division as “a paramilitary terrorist organization”, which he “wanted to jump on that”. He later tried to justify the application since they weren’t listed as a terrorist organization. Or at least, that’s what he believed.

August, 2023: Bertrand pleads guilty to mischief and inciting hate, receiving a 5 month conditional sentence.

September 3rd, 2024: More hearings take place, and they continue into the Fall and Winter.

December 30th, 2024: Justice Carroccia dismissed an attempt to have Bertrand’s statements to police blocked from consideration at Trial. His rights weren’t violated in obtaining them. He claimed that he didn’t really understand he was under arrest, and had merely been detained for his participation in the national convoy.

February 27th, 2022: Justice Carroccia dismisses a Motion brought by the Defence to throw out the case for lack of evidence. She believed it was strong enough to send to Trial

April 9th, 2025: Bertrand stands Trial. Part of the Crown’s case came from Garth Davies, and Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University.

[23] The Crown also relies on the evidence of Dr. Garth Davies who was qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence on the identification of, and explanation of, specific ideologically motivated violent extremist (IMVE) groups including Atomwaffen Division, National Socialist Order, National Partisan Movement, Injekt Division, and Folkish Resistance Movement.

August 6th, 2025: Bertrand is convicted of participating in terrorist activity.

He’ll be sentenced in a matter of weeks, but it’s hard to predict the exact outcome. Patrick Gordon MacDonald recently received 10 years in prison for his convictions for making 3 videos promoting recruitment for Atomwaffen. Considering Bertrand already has a criminal record, jail time for him seems likely, although not inevitable.

In the big picture, one has to ask how many of these people really are terrorists, and how many are useful idiots that are easy to set up.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1303/2025onsc1303.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4591/2025onsc4591.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://www.sfu.ca/iccrc/members/memberprofiles/garth-davies.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(6) https://x.com/ferryman4747/status/1953636876642136402
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-terrorism-seth-bertrand-far-right-1.7420091
(8) https://www.ctvnews.ca/windsor/article/it-was-kind-of-like-a-job-interview-accused-windsorite-admits-to-communications-with-terrorist-organization/

Posted on

Diagolon Brings Lawsuit In Small Claims Court Over Tour Expenses

Last Summer, Diagolon held their “Road Rage Terror Tour” in various cities across Canada. Plenty of photos were taken, and licence plates recorded. But it seems that the fallout hasn’t ended, and it’s from an unexpected source.

A scheduled stop in Hamilton was cancelled as a result of backlash from the public. This came after expenses were racked up in anticipation of holding the event. That’s when relations really soured, and all over a fairly small amount of money.

What do the saviours of the White race do? Their leader files a lawsuit in Ottawa.

According to the Claim, MacKenzie gave money to McEvoy, who was actually making reservations. Everything was in her name.

When the event ultimately got cancelled, MacKenzie demanded a refund from the organization. He was refused, on the basis that McEvoy was the one who made the payment (via etransfer), and that it would have to be returned to her. This was to comply with anti-money laundering laws.

McEvoy kept the money, so MacKenzie decided to sue her.

McEvoy then countersued, on the basis that the funds MacKenzie had paid her don’t even come close to what she paid out of pocket on other items. Considering that she spent time volunteering for the group, this is a strange way to show appreciation.

Nothing was resolved at the Settlement Conference, so the next step is Trial, assuming MacKenzie pays the fee for it. He backed out of going to Trial against Ezra Levant.

Timeline Of Events

April 7th to June 6th, 2024: McEvoy incurs expenses in anticipation of the “Road Rage Terror Tour” stopping by and having an event.

May 2nd, 2024: MacKenzie transfers $1,188 to McEvoy.

July 4th, 2024: MacKenzie transfers another $366.

July 31st, 2024: The Caledonia venue issues a refund (to McEvoy) of the deposit.

August 1st, 2024: MacKenzie is informed that refunds will have to be issued to McEvoy herself, as she’s the one who they received money from.

August 8th, 2024: MacKenzie files a $1,554 lawsuit in Ottawa Small Claims Court.

August 28th, 2024: McEvoy files a defence against the claim.

September 17th, 2024: McEvoy files a counterclaim for $2,187.23.

January 13th, 2025: Settlement conference is held, and neither claim is resolved.

And that’s where things stand now. If a Trial is ever held, an update will be posted.

Lawsuit Doesn’t Really Help “The Brand”

It’s no wonder that as a movement, Diagolon struggles to gain traction. Aside from being an obvious honeypot, it’s really a bad look to be suing volunteers over small change. This is even more so the case then they spend money out of pocket.

While blaming biased media for declining interest is possible, this will likely hurt more. Nothing turns off potential supporters like seeing others taken advantage of.

It probably doesn’t help that the group had been (allegedly) misrepresenting themselves when attempting to book venues. That led to more cancellations later on.

Did it have to come to this? Surely, CSIS has an expense account that they can reimburse MacKenzie from, so that he’s not preoccupied over the small details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Caledonia Plaintiffs Claim
(2) Caledonia Defence
(3) Caledonia Defendants Claim – Counterclaim
(4) Caledonia Settlement Conference

Posted on

The Truth About #HateGate: Was It All Just Paid Promotion?

Finally, we may be getting to the truth about HateGate, or at least closer to it. The report’s co-author, Elisa Hategan (currently Elisa Ferryman-Cohen) is now claiming that it was a paid publication.

Of course, it’s her new story, so take it with a grain of salt.

For people who may not know, #HateGate is the conspiracy theory that the Emergencies Act was invoked in February 2022, as a result of some major intelligence failure. Allegedly, police and politicians panicked because of content that CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network had published. These centered on the idea that Diagolon, headed by Jeremy MacKenzie, was a real militia. Then, without any real research, police acted, crushing civil rights.

Here’s the 85 page report (also on Wayback Machine)
Since the webpage and the site are down right now, here’s the Wayback Machine.

Sounds like quite the story, doesn’t it? Smaller media outlets ran with it.

Problem is: no one did any real research on the story before publishing. No one took a good look into Hategan or Caryma Sa’d or their recent bahviour. Further, no one bothered to read the 1,082 page FOIPOP package, or to request a copy from the RCMP.

Hategan Finally Admits She Had No Real Sources

I co-authored Hategate with the information given to me at the time, which came from 2 principal sources – the FOI papers, and Caryma herself. The FOI showed that at the time, Diagolon did not meet classification as a “group”, and had not committed violence.

Because Caryma had access to legal files that were not public (and there was a publication ban re the Coutts cases), I believed her when she defended JM and sought to distance him from the Coutts guys. I believed she was privy to exonerating legal information that cahn and other critics did not have.

I did not consider the conflict of interest she had in defending him, or that he might be paying her (though no money ever flowed to me). I only learned about the money when she told me that JM paid about $2K for the Cision/Newswire press release. Which makes me suspect he may have paid her for the article itself – though of course such payments would be hidden by solicitor-client privilege and will require a court order / disclosure to access.

Caryma and JM wrote the chapters about him. I edited them for grammar etc but no content was removed, even though some of it didn’t sit well with me. Even the phrase “Old stock Canadian” irked me.

Every time I asked her, “But are you REALLY SURE they’re ok” she reassured me that they were great guys. That she really liked them, they were so funny, she loved their memes, etc.

And because of how implicitly I trusted her and her promises about the future, I ignored my own misgivings about the situation. Being lovebombed that whole time didn’t help my objectivity either. Neither did the RCMP/CSIS’s overreliance on a single, flawed source (whose funding depends on identifying as much extremism as possible, which is a conflict of interest in its own right).

I still stand by the points I made about state overreach, and feedback loops, and echo chambers. Those general cautionary points are what give Hategate its value, and why it appealed to so many.

But not the parts that involve Diagolon – specifically, the segments I didn’t write that were dictated by JM and reproduced by Caryma with little change. With everything I know now, I believe that Diagolon’s appeal to extremists is fueled by members who are overtly racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, white supremacists – and who aren’t shy to spread hate or lies to achieve their objectives.

I believe that several members have crossed the line from comedy & irreverence into open hatemongering, which makes their message and activities a potential danger worth monitoring.

Hategan makes the same mistake yet again: She conflates the RCMP reading about Diagolon with them acting on such information. The 1,082 release package says NOTHING that would indicate that the publications from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network went anywhere.

Yes, members of the police have shared media stories — some of which came from CAHN — with each other. But Hategan and Sa’d don’t include proof that anything transpired from it. Nor do they do follow up research, or interview anyone “named” in the FOIPOP release. They publish as if it’s fact.

No Proof Whatsoever Police Relied On CAHN For Research

Yes, emails show that some of the work was shared among police brass. There’s no problem with stating that conclusion. However, there’s nothing there that would indicate that anything came of it. In fact, several emails tend to express doubt about CAHN’s reliability. The entire package is attached below.

A significant number of Canadians still believe that HateGate is a real thing. And why? Because Jeremy MacKenzie “said” it was?

Consider this: if there really was some “smoking gun” in the FOIPOP release that showed police acting on some media tip about Diagolon, wouldn’t it be paraded about front and centre?

Smoking Gun That “Alternative” Media Missed

From page 48 of the HateGate Affair: Bernie Farber (CAHN) and Grant Bristow (CSIS agent) were in fact good friends. Since Heritage Front turned out to be a CSIS operation, with Bristow helping found it, all kinds of questions should have been raised about it.

Given Hategan’s background as an OPP informant who helped bring down Heritage Front, wasn’t that also a sign that something might be off? Or Vriend “trolling” CAHN with fake militia photos?

Instead, we get gaslighting, and cries of “fed-jacketing”.

Paid Propaganda Disguised As Journalism?

Think about it. If someone were to do a FOIPOP request on “Canuck Law”, and send it to the RCMP or CSIS, it would likely get a few hits. It’s entirely possible (actually, quite likely) that content from here has been shared by law enforcement.

Does that mean that they have acted on it? Not at all.

This principle applies to any semi-controversial site, blog, podcast, YouTube channel, or social media account. Odds are, that some trace of it will come out in a document dump. But that doesn’t mean that the authorities are getting their marching orders from content they get on Google.

And that’s the distinction too few people understand.

Ironically, the “alternative” media does the exact same thing they accuse police and politicians of doing: not bothering to verify their information before acting. Don’t confuse the choppy editing of the above video with presenting proof.

Text Of HateGate Affair
(1) Hate Gate Report 85 Pages

HATEGATE FOIPOP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0.1) Previously Published Documents
(0.2) A-2022-06987 Release Section Of 2nd Package
(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

RECENT HATEGAN TWEETS:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1949228318655696912
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1949171013008207951

OLDER HATEGAN TWEETS:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1348702631653474306
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/844242243989004292
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1701729593147732412
(4) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1703824776999940260
(5) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1099915146732978176
(6) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(7) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1709587192715124829
(8) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192
(9) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1762255316429803597/
(10) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1798395395887997146
(11) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1797682910516195560
(12) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1734060656960090558
(13) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1783193060005818703

Posted on

The Gleason Directive: Is It Time To Start Filing Malpractice Lawsuits?

This is a follow-up to the military vaccine passport case of some 330 soldiers. See parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for background on the litigation.

In the last article, Catherine Christensen was scolded by Justice Locke at the Federal Court of Appeal. She pulled the “improper and high handed” stunt of filing a Notice of Discontinuance on behalf of about 50 clients, without their knowledge or consent. Supposedly, this was over unpaid fees. This was instead of the accepted method of filing a Motion to withdraw. One Appellant, Mark Lolacher, filed a Motion on his own behalf for reinstatement, and was successful.

Rather than simply take the loss, Christensen attempted to file a Notice of Appeal to the same Court. There was also a half hearted attempt to file a Motion to withdraw.

Since the Notice of Appeal was never actually filed, it’s impossible for the average citizen to pull it, or the Motion materials. Nonetheless, we can still deduce a lot from the notes, and the ruling.

Instead of simply complaining, let’s explore a practical solution at the end.

True, the overall Appeal is still ongoing. That being said, it’s beyond obvious at this point the case will never get to Trial. Heck, the first Notice of Appeal doesn’t even challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time.

Christensen Has Been A Trainwreck Since Day One

(1) Associate Justice Coughlan: Struck the case originally because the pleadings fell far, FAR below what was necessary to make out a case. Even worse, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction because s.29 of the National Defence Act mandated a grievance scheme for everyone to follow.

(2) Justice Manson: Refused an extension of time for a Rule 51 Appeal. The 10 day time limit to file was missed, with no explanation of why. The Motion to extend time also failed to explain, or even hint at, what such an Appeal would look like anyway. The rulings states that, “The interests of justice do not justify the Court allowing poorly prosecuted litigation to proceed forward when there is no likelihood of success.”

(3) Justice Rennie: Had to unnecessarily respond to a Motion to determine the contents of the Appeal Book. Christensen tried to improperly include content that the previous Judge (Manson) had not see. This is generally not allowed, and the parties should have been able to agree on their own.

(4) Justice Locke: Chewed out Christensen for unilaterally filing a Notice of Discontinuance with respect to dozens of her (ex?)-clients, rather than following protocol. Normally, counsel is supposed to file a Motion to Withdraw. Worse, she even opposed a subsequent Motion from Mark Lolacher to be reinstated.

(5) Justice Gleason: Refused attempts to both, (a) file a Notice of Appeal within the same Court, and (b) file a Motion to Withdraw that doesn’t name appropriate parties. The materials weren’t served to everyone anyway, which is another violation of procedure.

Christensen knew in advance that this lawsuit would be (or was at least very likely to be) thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction. The Neri ruling of December, 2021 explained the requirement to follow the grievance scheme, and to not simply sue.

Christensen also knew in advance that failure to abide by the Statute of Limitations would likely see the Rule 51 Appeal being time barred. September, 2024, another of her cases, Tondreau, was tossed for commencing an Application well after the deadline.

Justice Gleason Rules NONE Of The Material Can Be Filed

The amended appeal book may be filed and will replace the appeal book originally filed. The appellants’ memorandum of fact and law and proofs of service, submitted May 30, 2025 may also be filed.

The Registry has also sought direction pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (the Rules) regarding a Notice of Appeal submitted on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Christensen, counsel of record for the appellants, which names the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent. This document has not been filed. The Notice of Appeal purports to appeal to this Court the Order of the Court issued by Justice Locke on May 7, 2025. In the Notice of Appeal, the appellants also seek an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for 51 of the appellants. The Notice of Appeal was signed by another solicitor, Bath-Shéba van den Berg of the firm Ergonomy Law.

The Notice of Appeal may not be filed. It is wholly irregular because this Court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal from one of its orders. An appeal lies from an order of this Court, with leave, only to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Notice of Appeal is also irregular in that it substitutes someone else as solicitor of record, names one of the appellants, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent and counsel of record as an appellant without any order from the Court changing the style of cause or replacing counsel of record.

As was noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, the proper procedure when counsel wishes to get off the record is for the solicitor to bring a motion under Rule 125 of the Rules. Counsel other than the counsel of record may act on behalf of the counsel of record in such a motion. Indeed, Rule 82 of the Rules provides that a solicitor shall not depose an affidavit and present arguments to the Court in respect of their affidavit, except with leave. Thus, if Ms. Christensen wishes to bring a motion under Rule 125 and files an affidavit in support of the motion, she should either be represented by another solicitor, such as Bath-Shéba van den Berg, or seek leave of the Court under Rule 82 to file the affidavit and present the motion. Her motion record in support of any such motion must be served on all parties for whom she formerly acted, as provided in Rule 125(2). In addition, in accordance with Rule 369.2(1), such motion should be brought in writing or request an oral hearing in accordance with Rule 369.2(2).

As also noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, Mr. Lolacher, on his own volition, may take steps to no longer be represented in this appeal by Ms. Christensen. He may either file a notice under Rule 124 to appoint a new solicitor (using Form 124A) if he hires new counsel or a notice to act in person (using Form 124C). These steps may also be taken by any of the appellants.

The Registry has also sought direction regarding several documents submitted subsequent to the Notice of Appeal, none of which have been filed.

The first of these is a motion record submitted on behalf of Ms. Christensen by Bath-Shéba van den Berg to remove Ms. Christensen as counsel of record on behalf of 51 of the appellants, to set aside and stay this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, and to “sever” the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, from the other appellants. It is unclear who the respondents and appellants are on this motion as the style of cause in the Notice of Motion lists only one appellant and respondent and then uses “et al.”. It appears from the affidavit of service that this motion record was served only on counsel from the Department of Justice (who appeared on behalf of the governmental respondents) and Mr. Lolacher, but not on the other 50 appellants for whom Ms. Christensen no longer acts. This motion record may not be filed as it is wholly irregular. To the extent it seeks to appeal this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, as noted, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from one of its orders. To the extent it seeks an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for Mr. Lolacher and 51 other respondents, the motion record has not been properly served. The stay application appears to be ancillary to the other relief sought.

The remaining documents in respect of which the Registry seeks direction were submitted in response to the foregoing motion or in reply to the responding motion records. None of them may be filed as there is nothing to respond or reply to given that the motion record discussed in the preceding paragraph cannot be filed.

So long as this appeal is outstanding, unless and until a motion is properly brought under Rule 125 and the Court removes Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for some of the appellants or until, one, some or all of them file notice(s) under Rule 124, Ms. Christensen continues to be the solicitor of record for all the above listed appellants unless she or they die, she is appointed to public office, incompatible with the solicitor’s profession, or is suspended or disbarred as a solicitor. To the extent that Mr. Lolacher wishes to make a complaint about Ms. Christensen, his remedy lies with the Law Society of Alberta and not with this Court. Indeed, all the foregoing should have been abundantly clear from the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025.

***Note: one exception is that the Court did permit an amended Appeal Book, for the overall proceeding, to be filed. Everything else was disallowed.

According to Justice Gleason, the Notice of Appeal cannot be filed because it lacks jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Appeal cannot hear an Appeal from one of its own decisions. The only path forward is the Supreme Court of Canada, and Leave (permission) is needed for that. It’s stunning that neither Christensen, nor her “counsel” know this.

The Notice of Appeal also names new counsel, and has new parties, and the Court has signed off on NONE of this.

Christensen has apparently tried to file a Motion to withdraw as counsel for some 50 or so clients. However, she needed to include everyone as named parties, and had to serve everyone. Again, shocking that these basics are not followed.

Justice Gleason was also critical of Mark Lolacher for continuing to complain about Christensen’s conduct. She says that the proper venue about misconduct is the Law Society of Alberta. While true, the LSA isn’t going to handle a complaint when the underlying litigation is still open.

A Practical Solution: Look Into Malpractice Lawsuits

While it may seem daunting, suing former counsel for professional malpractice is an option. It’s not necessary to establish any malice or dishonesty, which makes it easier. This site covered recent examples, here and here, including a Class Action. Here are a few ideas.

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE:

  • Establish duty of care exists between the parties
  • Establish that the duty of care has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of the duty of care resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:

  • Establish a fiduciary duty (obligation) exists between the parties
  • Establish that the fiduciary duty has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of fiduciary duty resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT:

  • Establish the existence of a valid contract
  • Establish that the contract has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of contract resulted in damages

As is pretty obvious, although these torts are framed differently, the requirements are much the same. The first element can be established by filing the retainer agreements, or other contracts. The second element can be proven with the assistance of the various rulings, showing unprofessional conduct. Lastly, Plaintiffs would have to give some evidence of damages, whether financial, or otherwise.

Neri and Tondreau happened prior to the mistakes here, meaning that Christensen should have been well aware of what was going on. Whether this is intentional, or just incompetence and negligence, Plaintiffs have been let down every step of the way.

Lawyers are required to have insurance to practice. However, that doesn’t mean that the money is there to pay out victims. Commonly, money is used to hire lawyers to fight against justice. Still, it can be overcome, if there is a strong enough case.

If there is a path to justice, it’s through Christensen’s insurance money.

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim (June 2023)
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim (July 2023)
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence (September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence (September 2023)
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim (July 2024)
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions (August 2024)
(7) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave (November 2024)

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time (January 2025)
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (February 2025)
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book (April 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record (March 2025)
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement (May 2025)
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement (May 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA
(3) Qualizza Order Justice Gleason Refusing Filing Of Materials (June, 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE:
(1) Qualizza SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(2) Qualizza SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) Qualizza SCC Certificate File Access
(4) Qualizza SCC Response From AG Opposing Application
(5) Qualizza SCC Responding Certificate

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress