Monday, August 17, 2026

$17.5 MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST AMHERST CHRYSLER 1999 LTD., JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT (JESSICA ALLEN), MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN (MIKE ALLEN), JOHN RICHARD AND SARA BEERS SPENCER

I am pursuing a civil lawsuit seeking approximately CAD $17.5 million in damages against Amherst Chrysler 1999 Ltd. and the individual defendants named above.

My lawsuit arises from what I allege were false, inaccurate, missing, and improperly handled records connected with my 2018 Jeep Wrangler transaction and the identification-verification process associated with the financing.

These are allegations made in civil litigation. The defendants are entitled to dispute them, and liability and damages will ultimately be determined through evidence and the court process.

DEFENDANTS BEING SUED

The defendants I identify in this civil lawsuit are:

Amherst Chrysler 1999 Ltd.
Jessica Theresa Amirault, also known as Jessica Allen
Michael Rodney Allen, also known as Mike Allen
John Richard
Sara Beers Spencer

IMPORTANT WITNESSES — NOT DEFENDANTS

Wendy Allen-Helpard is not being sued. She is identified as an important witness.

Scott Lockhart is not being sued. He is identified as an important witness.

Their roles are different from those of the defendants, and I am not seeking damages against either Wendy Allen-Helpard or Scott Lockhart.

WHY I AM SUING

At the centre of my lawsuit is the Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form prepared in connection with my purchase and financing of a 2018 Jeep Wrangler.

I allege that the identification information recorded on that document was inaccurate.

My position is that information associated with my Nova Scotia Identification Card was described on the form as though it came from a Nova Scotia driver’s licence.

I maintain that my actual Nova Scotia driver’s licence was not issued until September 4, 2018, after the vehicle transaction.

That difference is extremely important to my case.

I further maintain that copies of my identification were transmitted to Amherst Chrysler electronically in connection with the transaction.

This leads to one of the central questions in my lawsuit:

WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL EMAILS AND WHERE ARE THE COPIES OF THE IDENTIFICATION THAT THE DEALERSHIP RECEIVED?

This involved the financing and delivery of an approximately $50,000 Jeep.

My position is straightforward: identification would have been required as part of a significant financed vehicle transaction. If Amherst Chrysler received copies of my identification, the complete record should establish exactly what identification was received and relied upon.

I therefore seek disclosure of the original emails, attachments, customer records, financing records, identification copies, internal dealership communications, electronic records, and any archived or backup material that may still exist.

AMHERST CHRYSLER 1999 LTD.

I am suing Amherst Chrysler 1999 Ltd. because the disputed vehicle transaction occurred through the dealership and because the records, employees, financing procedures, identification procedures, and communications at issue arose from dealership operations.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the dealership's responsibility for:

receiving and verifying customer identification;
preparing and maintaining financing documentation;
maintaining the customer transaction file;
retaining copies of identification;
preserving emails and attachments;
communicating information to Scotiabank;
communicating information to investigators;
preserving relevant evidence after a dispute arose; and
supervising employees involved in the transaction.

A central issue is whether the dealership can account for the original identification records and communications surrounding a financed vehicle transaction of approximately $50,000.

JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT / JESSICA ALLEN

Jessica Theresa Amirault, also known as Jessica Allen, was involved in the transaction as a Business Manager.

I allege that she was directly involved with the disputed Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form.

I maintain that identification documentation had been provided electronically in connection with the transaction.

The lawsuit therefore raises important questions concerning:

What identification did Jessica Allen actually receive?

What documents were attached to the emails?

What identification did she review?

What information did she enter or certify on the Scotiabank form?

Why does the disputed form describe the identification in the manner it does?

Where are the original identification copies?

Where are the relevant emails and attachments?

Were those communications retained, archived, deleted, or otherwise lost?

I seek documentary disclosure and examination under oath to determine the answers.

MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN / MIKE ALLEN

Michael Rodney Allen, also known as Mike Allen, is identified in connection with his senior management or ownership role at the dealership.

I seek evidence concerning what management knew about the original transaction and what happened after questions arose concerning the customer's identification and financing records.

His role is relevant to issues including dealership procedures, employee supervision, record retention, internal investigation, preservation of evidence, and the dealership's later communications concerning the transaction.

The lawsuit seeks to determine his actual knowledge and responsibility based on evidence rather than assumption.

JOHN RICHARD

John Richard is identified in connection with his position as General Manager.

His management role makes a number of issues potentially relevant, including:

dealership record-retention practices;
employee responsibilities;
access to customer files;
email preservation;
identification procedures;
financing procedures;
management knowledge of the dispute; and
efforts made to locate or preserve the original records.

I seek disclosure concerning what John Richard knew, when he knew it, and what actions were taken once the transaction became the subject of a serious dispute.

SARA BEERS SPENCER

I identify Sara Beers Spencer because of her finance-related involvement with the transaction.

Her evidence may be relevant to:

financing documentation;
customer records;
identification documentation;
refund matters;
internal communications;
the dealership's customer file; and
the handling and preservation of transaction records.

I seek disclosure concerning what documents she created, received, reviewed, maintained, or had access to and what she knows about the transaction.

WENDY ALLEN-HELPARD — IMPORTANT WITNESS, NOT A DEFENDANT

Wendy Allen-Helpard is not being sued.

I identify her as an important witness because of her role as Controller and because I maintain that she may have knowledge concerning the dealership's electronic records, emails, identification copies, accounting records, and document-retention practices.

Her evidence is particularly important to determining what happened to the records I say were provided to the dealership.

The questions I want answered include:

Did the dealership receive copies of my identification by email?

Where were those copies stored?

Were the attachments placed in the customer or financing file?

Where are those copies today?

Where are the corresponding emails?

Were emails or attachments deleted?

If records were deleted or became unavailable, when did that occur?

Who had custody or control of those records?

Were backup copies available?

Were relevant records preserved once legal or police proceedings became foreseeable?

I maintain that Wendy Allen-Helpard may possess important evidence concerning these issues. I want that evidence obtained through proper disclosure and testimony.

SCOTT LOCKHART — IMPORTANT WITNESS, NOT A DEFENDANT

Scott Lockhart is not being sued.

He is an important witness because he was a salesperson connected with Amherst Chrysler during the relevant transaction.

His evidence may assist in establishing:

how the original transaction occurred;
how identification documents were provided;
whether documents were transmitted electronically;
how quickly the financing was approved; 5 Minutes
who was involved in processing the purchase; and
whether he was ever contacted by police or investigators concerning a transaction in which he had direct involvement.

I am not seeking damages against Scott Lockhart.

I want his evidence preserved and heard because it may help establish what actually happened in 2018.

THE CENTRAL QUESTION: WHERE ARE THE EMAILS AND IDENTIFICATION COPIES?

This is one of the most important evidentiary issues in my lawsuit.

The dealership financed and delivered an approximately $50,000 Jeep.

My position is that identification was supplied to the dealership.

If that is correct, there should be a documentary trail showing what was received and how it was used.

I want the evidence to answer:

What identification was actually received?

Who received it?

On what date was it received?

To which email address was it sent?

Who opened the email?

Who examined the attachments?

Were the identification documents printed?

Were electronic copies retained?

Were they placed in the financing or customer file?

What identification was used to complete the Scotiabank verification form?

Were those documents available when Scotiabank later investigated the transaction?

Were they available when police became involved?

Why are the original copies not among the records presently available to me?

Why are relevant emails and attachments missing?

Those are factual questions that should be answered through the original evidence.

WHY THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS MATTER

The original identification documents and emails can potentially establish exactly what information Amherst Chrysler possessed when the financing was processed.

That evidence can then be compared with the information recorded on the disputed Scotiabank form.

I therefore seek complete production of relevant material, including:

the original Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form;
copies of every identification document received;
emails transmitting identification;
attachments to those emails;
dealership email-server records where available;
archived and backup records where available;
financing and credit documentation;
customer-management-system records;
internal notes;
cancellation documentation;
refund records;
internal employee communications;
communications with Scotiabank;
communications with police or investigators;
records relating to the repossession and disposition of the Jeep; and
any other contemporaneous documents connected with the transaction.

THE CONSEQUENCES I ALLEGE

I allege that disputed information arising from this transaction later became part of a much larger sequence of events that caused severe consequences.

Those alleged consequences include:

a police investigation;
a false-pretence prosecution;
an arrest warrant;
prolonged legal proceedings;
passport-related consequences;
substantial legal and administrative expenses;
damage to my reputation;
career and income losses;
lost opportunities;
serious disruption to my family; and
other financial and personal damages.

I dispute the underlying allegations made against me and maintain that the original dealership records are essential to establishing what actually occurred.

THE $17.5 MILLION CIVIL CLAIM

I am seeking approximately CAD $17.5 million in damages in civil litigation for losses and consequences I allege were caused or contributed to by the conduct at issue.

The damages claimed include alleged financial losses, career consequences, reputational harm, legal expenses, family impacts, lost opportunities, and other compensable damages that I intend to establish through evidence.

The $17.5 million figure is an amount being claimed in litigation. It is not a judgment already awarded by a court.

The defendants have the right to answer and contest the allegations.

The court will ultimately determine what occurred, whether any defendant is legally liable, and what damages, if any, should be awarded.

WHAT I WANT

I want the complete documentary record.

I want the original emails.

I want the original identification copies.

I want the financing records.

I want the relevant witnesses questioned under oath.

I want to know exactly what identification Amherst Chrysler received, who received it, what was recorded, what was preserved, what disappeared, and why important records are now missing.

Most importantly, I want responsibility determined from the evidence.

That is what this $17.5 million civil lawsuit against Amherst Chrysler 1999 Ltd. and the named defendants is about.

WE ARE A ALBERTA FAMILLY

ONE DISPUTED FORM. 1,165 DAYS WITHOUT MY PASSPORT-AMHERST CHRYSLER (1999) LIMITED — JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT — MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN — JOHN RICHARD — SCOTIABANK — JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT

PRESS RELEASE

ONE DISPUTED FORM. 1,165 DAYS WITHOUT MY PASSPORT.

AMHERST CHRYSLER (1999) LIMITED — JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT — MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN — JOHN RICHARD — SCOTIABANK — JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT

For nearly eight years, beginning with a vehicle transaction in August 2018, I have been dealing with a chain of legal, financial, personal, and family consequences that, in my view, arose from disputed information connected with a Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form and the subsequent handling of the transaction.

The dealership involved was:

AMHERST CHRYSLER (1999) LIMITED

118 Robert Angus Drive
Amherst, Nova Scotia B4H 4R7

Individuals connected with the dealership and transaction who are relevant to my concerns include:

JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT / JESSICA ALLEN

MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN
JOHN RICHARD
SCOTT LOCKHART

The banking parties central to my allegations include:

SCOTIABANK

JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT

The Crown prosecutor in the criminal proceeding is:

PAUL DRYSDALE

The presiding Provincial Court judge involved in my requests for remote participation has been:

JUDGE ROSALIND MICHIE

I am publishing this statement because, after years of proceedings, I maintain that basic questions about the accusation against me remain unanswered.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCE?

I am facing a charge of false pretence under s. 362(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Yet I continue to ask fundamental questions:

WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION?

WHO DOES THE CROWN ALLEGE I MADE IT TO?

WHEN WAS IT ALLEGEDLY MADE?

WHAT WORDS, STATEMENT, OR DOCUMENT CONSTITUTED THE ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCE?

WHAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT WAS ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED BECAUSE OF THAT PARTICULAR REPRESENTATION?

WHO PROVIDED THAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT?

WHAT ACTUAL LOSS RESULTED FROM THAT SPECIFIC REPRESENTATION?

After years of proceedings, I maintain that I still do not have a clear and coherent explanation identifying precisely what I supposedly represented, to whom, when, and what I supposedly obtained because of it.

Those questions go to the heart of the accusation.

THE DISPUTED SCOTIABANK IDENTIFICATION FORM

My position is that I sent two valid identification documents by email in or around August 24–25, 2018:

an Ontario driver’s licence, and
a Nova Scotia identification card.

I maintain that I could not have presented a Nova Scotia driver’s licence on August 25, 2018, because, according to my records, my Nova Scotia driver’s licence was not issued until:

SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 — NINE DAYS LATER

I dispute the accuracy of the Scotiabank Customer Identification Verification Form and contend that information from different identification documents appears to have been combined.

According to records in my possession, the disputed certification was associated with:

JESSICA ALLEN / JESSICA THERESA AMIRAULT

I dispute that the certification accurately represented the identification documents I actually provided.

THE CENTRAL DOCUMENTARY QUESTION

How could documentation connected with August 25, 2018 describe a Nova Scotia driver’s licence when, according to my records, that licence was not issued until September 4, 2018?

That question should have a documentary answer.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINAL EMAILS?

The original emails are critical because they could establish exactly what identification documents I transmitted to the dealership.

I maintain that important 2018 email communications involving Jessica Allen and this transaction are missing from the records produced to me.

According to my understanding of the disclosure and information available to me, those communications were deleted or are otherwise unavailable, while later communications remained available.

That raises another fundamental question:

WHERE ARE THE EMAILS FROM THE CRITICAL 2018 TRANSACTION PERIOD?

Those emails could potentially establish:

exactly which identification documents were sent,
when they were sent,
who received them,
what information Amherst Chrysler possessed,
and whether the subsequent Scotiabank identification certification accurately reflected the documents actually provided.

I believe the preservation, deletion, availability, and production of those communications must be examined through disclosure and lawful court procedures.

SCOTT LOCKHART: APPROVED IN APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES

Another important witness, in my view, is:

SCOTT LOCKHART

Scott Lockhart was involved in the vehicle transaction as a salesperson.

According to my recollection of my discussions with him, Scott told me that the financing approval came through in approximately five minutes.

That is important because, from my perspective, it is consistent with a transaction that was processed quickly through the dealership and lender.

I further maintain that Scott told me that he was never contacted by police about the transaction.

If that is correct, I believe it raises another important investigative question.

Scott was directly involved in the original sale, yet according to what he told me, he was not interviewed by police.

I also understand from my discussions with Scott that he recalled receiving copies of my identification by email.

In my view, a salesperson directly involved in the original transaction and who remembers the rapid approval process could potentially provide relevant evidence regarding:

how the financing application was processed,
what identification was provided,
how quickly Scotiabank approved the financing,
and what occurred during the original transaction.

MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN AND JOHN RICHARD

The dealership’s management is also relevant to the documentary record.

Individuals connected with the dealership include:

MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN

and

JOHN RICHARD

I believe dealership management and the corporate records of Amherst Chrysler (1999) Limited may possess or have possessed information concerning:

the transaction records,
employee files,
internal emails,
financing documentation,
customer identification records,
dealership policies,
refund documentation,
repossession and resale information,
and the preservation or deletion of communications from 2018.

I intend to seek appropriate disclosure and production of relevant records through lawful court procedures.

MY POSITION: A CIVIL FINANCIAL DISPUTE WAS PUSHED INTO THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM

My position is that the underlying matter was fundamentally a vehicle financing and contractual dispute.

It involved:

a financed vehicle,
contractual obligations,
identification documentation,
repossession,
resale,
and the calculation of any alleged financial loss.

I specifically dispute the manner in which:

JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT, IN CONNECTION WITH SCOTIABANK

characterized and advanced this matter.

I allege that representations connected with Jean-Sébastien Perreault / Scotiabank contributed to transforming what I regard as a civil financial dispute into a criminal allegation of false pretence.

That is my allegation. It remains disputed and must ultimately be determined through documentary evidence and lawful court proceedings.

A MATTER ORIGINATING NEARLY EIGHT YEARS AGO

The underlying vehicle transaction occurred in August 2018.

As of August 2026, the events at the centre of this dispute therefore reach back nearly eight years.

The criminal charge itself was laid on:

AUGUST 10, 2021

As of August 17, 2026, approximately five years have elapsed since the charge was laid.

The underlying events date back nearly eight years, while the criminal proceeding itself has remained unresolved for approximately five years.

MORE THAN THREE 18-MONTH PERIODS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE CHARGE

The presumptive ceiling generally associated with a Provincial Court criminal trial is 18 months, subject to the legal calculation of defence delay, exceptional circumstances, and other applicable principles.

From August 10, 2021 to August 17, 2026, the gross elapsed time is approximately:

60 MONTHS

Three 18-month periods equal:

54 MONTHS

The gross elapsed time therefore exceeds three complete 18-month periods.

I recognize that the formal constitutional delay calculation is not simply a calendar calculation and that a court must determine which periods are legally included or excluded.

Nevertheless, approximately five years since the charge was laid raises, in my view, an extremely serious delay and access-to-justice issue.

520 DAYS TO RECEIVE MY FIRST SUBSTANTIAL DISCLOSURE

I maintain that it took approximately:

520 DAYS

from my request for disclosure before I received my first substantial disclosure package on:

NOVEMBER 20, 2024

For a person facing a criminal prosecution, disclosure is essential to understanding and answering the case.

I maintain that this delay seriously impaired my ability to:

understand the allegation against me,
identify the alleged false representation,
examine the original records,
compare identification documents,
identify missing evidence,
prepare applications,
and properly defend myself.

WHAT I DESCRIBE AS PROCEDURAL STONEWALLING

Since obtaining disclosure, I believe I have repeatedly encountered procedural obstacles and what I characterize as stonewalling while attempting to obtain answers, additional disclosure, clarification, and meaningful access to a hearing.

I estimate that I have transmitted approximately:

1,250 FAX COMMUNICATIONS/PAGES

to the Crown, the court, and other authorities while attempting to resolve disclosure issues, obtain procedural answers, clarify the allegations against me, and advance my defence.

Despite that extraordinary effort, I maintain that fundamental questions remain unanswered.

PAUL DRYSDALE: MY ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN ANSWERS FROM THE CROWN

A particularly serious concern for me has been my inability to obtain meaningful direct communication from:

CROWN PROSECUTOR PAUL DRYSDALE

I maintain that, despite repeated attempts:

Paul Drysdale has not answered my telephone calls;
he has not responded to my emails;
and I have not been able to obtain direct answers from him concerning the fundamental questions I continue to raise about this prosecution.

From my perspective, this has made it extraordinarily difficult to resolve basic questions concerning:

disclosure,
the alleged false pretence,
identification evidence,
the alleged loss,
missing records,
and the path toward finally having this matter determined.

After years of proceedings, I continue to ask:

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE FALSE PRETENCE?

WHO WAS IT ALLEGEDLY MADE TO?

WHEN WAS IT ALLEGEDLY MADE?

WHAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT WAS OBTAINED BECAUSE OF IT?

WHAT ACTUAL LOSS RESULTED FROM IT?

JUDGE ROSALIND MICHIE AND VIDEOCONFERENCE ACCESS

I have repeatedly sought to participate by videoconference because I remain outside Canada and contend that the ongoing passport situation prevents me from returning normally.

My requests for remote participation before:

JUDGE ROSALIND MICHIE

have not resulted in the videoconference hearing I have sought.

I maintain that I have not received reasons that adequately explain to me why meaningful videoconference participation cannot be provided in these circumstances.

For me, this creates a serious access-to-justice problem:

HOW CAN A PERSON BE EXPECTED TO DEFEND A CRIMINAL CASE IN CANADA WHILE HE REMAINS UNABLE TO RETURN NORMALLY TO CANADA?

I am not asking for special treatment.

I am asking for a practical and fair way to participate, challenge the evidence, obtain disclosure, answer the allegation, and finally have the case determined.

MY FAMILY HAS BEEN STRANDED OUTSIDE CANADA FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS

Since the passport decision affecting me began on:

JUNE 9, 2023

I maintain that my family and I have effectively been stranded in a foreign country for more than three years.

This has affected:

our ability to return to our normal life in Canada,
family stability,
education,
finances,
professional opportunities,
freedom of movement,
family relationships,
and emotional well-being.

As of August 17, 2026, I calculate that I have been without the use of my Canadian passport for:

1,165 DAYS

For my family, this is not an abstract legal dispute.

It affects where we can live, where we can travel, and how we have been forced to organize our lives.

KEY DATES

August 24–25, 2018 — Identification documents sent by email.

August 25, 2018 — Date associated with the disputed identification verification documentation.

September 4, 2018 — Nova Scotia driver’s licence issued, nine days after the disputed transaction date.

September 19, 2018 — FCA cancellation confirmed.

October 31, 2019 — Scotiabank report made.

August 10, 2021 — False pretence charge laid.

June 9, 2023 — Passport refusal/cancellation affecting my ability to travel began.

November 20, 2024 — First substantial disclosure received, approximately 520 days after my disclosure request.

August 10, 2025 — Four years since the charge was laid.

August 10, 2026 — Five years since the charge was laid.

August 17, 2026 — Approximately 60 months since the charge, nearly eight years since the underlying transaction, and 1,165 days without the use of my Canadian passport.

$17.5 MILLION ALBERTA CIVIL CLAIM

I am also pursuing civil remedies in Alberta arising from the damages I allege resulted from these events.

My civil litigation seeks approximately:

$17.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES

My claims involve defendants connected with the events described above, including parties such as:

SCOTIABANK

JEAN-SÉBASTIEN PERREAULT
AMHERST CHRYSLER (1999) LIMITED
MICHAEL RODNEY ALLEN
JOHN RICHARD

and other defendants identified in the applicable court proceedings.

The $17.5 million is an amount claimed in litigation.

It is not presently a judgment and not money already paid.

Liability and the amount of any damages remain matters for the courts to determine.

I intend to pursue disclosure and examination of:

the original identification records,
dealership communications,
Scotiabank records,
police materials,
financial records,
missing email communications,
dealership employee evidence,
disclosure records,
and other evidence necessary to establish what actually happened.

AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, MY QUESTIONS REMAIN BASIC

WHAT WAS THE FALSE PRETENCE?

WHAT EXACT WORDS OR DOCUMENT ARE ALLEGED TO BE FALSE?

WHO WAS THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO?

WHEN WAS IT MADE?

WHAT PROPERTY OR CREDIT WAS OBTAINED BECAUSE OF IT?

WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL LOSS?

WHY DOES THE FORM REFER TO IDENTIFICATION THAT MY RECORDS SHOW WAS ISSUED NINE DAYS LATER?

WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL 2018 EMAILS?

WHY, ACCORDING TO SCOTT LOCKHART'S ACCOUNT TO ME, WAS THE FINANCING APPROVED IN APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES?

WHY, ACCORDING TO WHAT SCOTT LOCKHART TOLD ME, WAS HE NEVER CONTACTED BY POLICE DESPITE BEING INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL SALE?

WHY DID DISCLOSURE TAKE APPROXIMATELY 520 DAYS?

WHY HAVE MY REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CROWN NOT PRODUCED CLEAR ANSWERS TO THESE BASIC QUESTIONS?

WHY HAS A CASE BASED ON 2018 EVENTS REMAINED UNRESOLVED IN 2026?

WHY HAS MY FAMILY REMAINED STRANDED OUTSIDE CANADA FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS?

ONE DISPUTED FORM.

MISSING EMAIL EVIDENCE.

A FINANCING APPROVAL REPORTED TO ME AS TAKING ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.

A SALESPERSON WHO TOLD ME POLICE NEVER CONTACTED HIM.

520 DAYS TO RECEIVE DISCLOSURE.

APPROXIMATELY 1,250 FAX COMMUNICATIONS/PAGES.

NEARLY EIGHT YEARS SINCE THE UNDERLYING EVENTS.

APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS SINCE THE CHARGE.

GROSS ELAPSED TIME EXCEEDING THREE 18-MONTH PERIODS.

1,165 DAYS WITHOUT MY PASSPORT.

$17.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES CLAIMED IN ALBERTA.

I am not asking the public simply to accept my conclusions.

LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS.

LOOK AT THE DATES.

COMPARE THE IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.

ASK WHERE THE EMAILS WENT.

ASK THE ORIGINAL WITNESSES WHAT THEY REMEMBER.

ASK WHAT THE ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCE ACTUALLY WAS.

ASK HOW A CIVIL FINANCIAL DISPUTE DEVELOPED INTO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.

The allegations in this statement are my allegations and characterization of disputed events. The legal responsibility of any individual or organization remains to be determined through evidence and lawful court proceedings.

I will continue to pursue disclosure, accountability, my Charter rights, access to justice, and the truth through lawful legal proceedings.

ROBERT Z.