The BC Civil Liberties Association and media have successfully gotten the contents of a sealed warrant released, with a number of people’s names and testimony blacked out throughout its length. Sure enough, the warrant was in relation to Cpl. Jim Brown, and a series of misconduct investigations, as well as multiple criminal investigations to which he is linked (which, to date, have not affirmed any of the previous suspicions of his involvement with Pickton). Investigations relating to the photos that were leaked to the media, and to rumours about Brown, many of which have yet to be definitively falsified (although numerous rumours have been, as well as the credibility of the people responsible for them), are collectively referred to as Project E-Norther. The document is 71 pages long, and I read all of it last night. For the sake of transparency, I am named in it — I am referred to as JENSEN (my current legal name) — and so is the name of my blog, on which I’ve written about Brown and three of the people whose names are blacked out (and mentioned Doig, who is also named, along with the website he runs). You can read it on BCCLA’s website here. BCCLA is returning to court on October 16th in order to get the entire warrant released, uncensored.
What’s Been Redacted?
The home address and various IP addresses used by the man whose home was searched are blacked out (and reasonably so). The identities of ten people in total are either redacted or kept strictly confidential (i.e., one is referred to as “Informant A”, and another is referred to as “Female Model“, as her name is unknown to RCMP). Three of those people whose names are redacted are mentioned in my previous blog posts. I chose to use a random alias to refer to one of those three. One of them made a point of appearing in interviews on national news that were aired for multiple consecutive days in a row, and also participated in live news radio broadcast interviews. The third claims responsibility for creating the most violent photos that were aired on the news, but appears to have been uncooperative with the investigative proceedings. All eight people whose names are redacted claim that the release of their names in relation to this case would be detrimental to their public reputations, family relationships, and/or their ability to maintain gainful employment — certainly Brown himself is feeling all of these repercussions since his photos (and those of his doppelgang) were aired on national news on July 5th.
Update: Grant Wakefield is named as Informant A, in the appendix attached to the second vetting of the sealed search warrant on his home. You can skip the first 71 pages and read it with your own eyes here.
Much of what Informant A has disclosed to RCMP during the course of an earlier misconduct investigation is redacted (specifically in relation to a rumour even I eventually heard, about using a police-issued vehicle for a rendezvous). It is clear that Informant A was disclosing about a third party, who appears to be the fourth person whose name is redacted. In a rather astounding twist, that person denies ever meeting Cpl. Brown and has no idea why her name was dragged into this installation of the local rumour mill. Of note, there also appears that Informant A provided information about someone else, who was either pretending to be an RCMP officer or who actually is an RCMP officer; however, in either case, Informant A is critical of how this information was handled. In reading that (one of the few things that isn’t redacted in relation to what Informant A disclosed to RCMP), I am reminded of email correspondence I received from someone pretending to be a former RCMP officer — more on that later in this post (Update: it can be safely assumed that it was Grant Wakefield emailing me, too). Information concerning the third party (whose name is redacted), about whom Informant A disclosed to RCMP, is also partially redacted (presumably to protect her identity, given that what was disclosed about her has been established as entirely fabricated).
It would also appear that “Female Model”, who appeared in the most violent nationally aired photos, immediately hired a lawyer, who then confirmed for RCMP that she is, in fact, still among the living and unharmed. Again, due to the nature of the photos in which she appears, RCMP did not have the option of pretending to know that nothing bad happened to her, while taking everyone else’s word for it (and thus, had opened an investigation into the photos). Two of the remaining people whose names are redacted are a photographer who claimed responsibility for Brown’s photos and a model who participated in that photo shoot with Brown. Another redacted name is that of a man who was using his cell phone to harass and stalk me — Cpl. Jim Brown provided that name to me, along with detailed information from files in RCMP databases on that man. And the final redacted name appears to be someone who is employed by FetLife, who assisted RCMP in obtaining activity records for the two fake profiles Brown was stalked with.
There is some ambiguity concerning the identity of two individuals whose names are redacted, who were contacted after I provided my statement, but whose statements confirmed professional misconduct on Brown’s part. They may be either one of the people I have written about on my blog and her husband; or they may be two additional persons, one of whom which I mentioned by her first name while giving my statement. Finally, there is also an entire New Westminster police file outlined and a report on the outcomes of an unspecified investigation, which are completely redacted. It is this blogger’s opinion that these two redacted sections are directly related, and may represent investigations into claims relating to the Re-Sergeance Alliance blog (the man who wished to remain anonymous, who claimed that his home was raided, also claimed to have helped publish the blog). Update: this section of the warrant deals with completely fabricated stories of Brown criminally harassing Wakefield and attempting to intimidate him, as well as defamatory letters Wakefield wrote to the RCMP about Brown.
I remain of the opinion, even after all of this, that the photos which are described by RCMP as violent sexual photographs do not represent BDSM and are in no way erotic, because they are quite simply pseudo-snuff. I don’t know a single person whose head is genuinely screwed on straight, who would look at an isolated exhibit of the half dozen pictures that were aired in the media, and get turned on by doing so. Every single person who claims otherwise is tarnishing the appearance of the community for which they victim-envy LGBTQs and subsequently claim (inappropriately) to be oppressed, citing occasional workplace discrimination (or the unsubstantiated perception/anticipation thereof) and being generally not well-respected in public discourse, as evidence of that oppression. This is the attitude that closes our community off from liberal-minded people who are safe and would lend credibility to reducing stigma against BDSM. And this attitude has the particularly damning effect of sealing sexual predators in (like I believe Brown and his doppelgang to be) behind closed doors with us. The attitude of the general public towards perverts like me and the kink “communities” on FetLife is all our goddamned fault. We all contribute to it, especially when we think no one is watching.
I also remain of the opinion that it is particularly ironic for people to whine incessantly about Brown’s privacy being violated when he so clearly has no respect for the privacy of others (as seen in some of the misconduct for which my blog initiated an investigation). It is especially ironic (to the point of being quite pathetic, really) when the very person doing that whining on the nightly news has so seriously violated the privacy of others that it has resulted in job loss for at least one such individual — not to mention when that same person has so seriously disrespected the wishes of this blogger to just be left alone, that I had to file a police report just to stop the ongoing harassment, which ultimately continued through hatemail and other condescension from other parties after the fact — many of those very same people also started whining about the threat to Brown’s privacy and that of his doppelgang. How ironic it is now, that the woman who initiated so much mass hatred towards me wants her name redacted, because she claims that if she were identified, it could threaten her public reputation and her ability to continue to conduct business in her community. Woe is she.
There is not a single mention of the Re-Sergeance Alliance blog, although the possibility does not escape me that this is very likely the contents of the redacted NWPD file. There are also no mentions whatsoever of organized crime, despite allegations surfacing repeatedly, of Cpl. Jim Brown and RCMP in general being linked to organized crime through the Pickton farm (although allegations that link Brown to Pickton have yet to be definitively falsified — Update: Brown himself airs details of his involvement in the Pickton investigation in order to clear his own name as part of the initiation of a libel lawsuit. A quote containing the relevant details is contained in this blog post). Again, this may or may not have been mentioned in the redacted NWPD file information. This may not even become fully affirmed, one way or another, after the October 16th hearing, as it seems that certain parts of the sealed warrant were redacted, not to protect individual people from perceived harm, but to protect the integrity of multiple investigations under Project E-Norther.
Also conspicuously missing is any concession on the part of Brown’s doppelgang, his photographer responsible for those photos, or the unknown model’s lawyer, that the leaked photos of the doppelgang are in any way insensitive to women in general or specifically reminiscent of the last living moments of Pickton’s victims. Instead, the doppelgang insisted that these criticisms are a “red herring”. I think it’s perfectly apparent to RCMP that this man doesn’t know what this term means — at least it’s blatantly obvious to me, as they quoted him instead of paraphrasing. He also insists that even though a half dozen photos were aired on national news, anyone who had seen the entire set (assuming any reasonable person among the general public would be so motivated as to look for the entire set after seeing a few frames of his “art”) would be able to clearly determine that he is not Cpl. Brown. The implication here is that anyone should have been able to tell from those half dozen photos in which he looks like Brown’s identical fucking twin, that it’s not Brown, even though he later states that he believes his photos were chosen specifically for his resemblance to Brown. He also asserted a claim that can be appropriately summarized as “intent is magical”. No, Sir, it is fucking not.
Finally, despite being asked for it at the time, no mention has been made of my FetLife profile. Given the nature of my former friendship with Brown, and other details I provided during my statement (that are missing from the vetted document), this seems like a relevant detail, the absence of which strikes me as particularly odd. At least two other people’s online handles on FetLife are named, in addition to the two fake profiles that were apparently created by the man whose computers were seized (his name is Grant Wakefield, and no connection between him and Brown has been found as of yet), with which he appears to have conducted himself explicitly for the purpose of mining information and photographs from Cpl. Jim Brown (and possibly his doppelgang as well, though FetLife records provided to RCMP upon request were incomplete). Of significance, Brown described seeking references for the person associated with one of the two FetLife handles Wakefield is alleged to have used to contact Brown, and Brown was told they are a known community member. I told all of you this would surface in my first blog post on Cpl. Jim Brown:
“And secondly, I guarantee you that it was someone among you who emailed all those photos to the CBC.” (Update: That was Grant Wakefield, too, but the identity of the person or people who vouched for his fake profiles has yet to be determined.)
I also found it conspicuous that there is no mention anywhere of the second man (and his partner) whose information was handed over to RCMP in what the community referred to as a “mass outing”. That man was later publicly accused of sexually assaulting two women, and this accusation has led to a libel lawsuit against his accuser. I’ve been ruminating over why in the world his information was passed on to RCMP at all, until I took a second look at the description of measures taken by RCMP to obtain activity logs from FetLife for two user accounts. It seems fairly apparent to me now that his information was handed to RCMP in an attempt to deflect attention from Brown and obstruct the proceedings of the investigation into what would be confirmed defamatory libel against Brown. No repercussions towards the accuser in this case have been detailed in the vetted warrant (presumably because, if she stands to face any, that would be a separate warrant).
What’s Incorrect, Inaccurate, or Inconsistent?
I can only speak directly on my own behalf about what is incorrect, inaccurate, or inconsistent, but at least one other person whose name is not redacted has provided details elsewhere, of errors and inaccuracies in the reporting of their statements in the vetted document. They and anyone else who is openly named are welcome to add their comments to this blog post if they feel it would be of any benefit to anyone, and/or for the sake of transparency. However, there is one glaring inconsistency, as Brown stated while being investigated over the fabricated rumour of his rendezvous with a woman he had never even met, that he never used his work email to contact kink community members. Yet later in the document, one or both of the ambiguously redacted individuals (either I’ve written about one of them, or I gave the first name of one of them during my statement, specifically in relation to emails) states that they were contacted by Brown through various media, including his work email account. Someone’s lying, and my money’s on Brown’s conveniently bad memory.
It should be fairly apparent to anyone reading the relevant section of my first blog entry on this matter, that I did not state that I felt threatened or intimidated by him, of being incarcerated for non-criminal behaviours. However, Superintendent Wilcott stated so in his report about my blog. Here is the relevant quote from that post:
“For a guy whose job it was to bust down the back doors of grow-ops and investigate bank robberies, he sure had to be especially arrogant to think he was immune from being outed in the same community of people. But I guess the person who got someone else fired from their unrelated job in the actual event described above, who also threatened to have me involuntarily incarcerated because I didn’t like her choice in music or ableism, will provide all sorts of comfort to him. Moving on.”
The document also states that I had seen Brown’s photos on ALT.com, which is true, but makes no mention of when I explicitly stated also seeing them go up one at a time on FetLife. And for the record, to the best of my recollection at the time, there was no option available on FetLife to restrict access to the contents of one’s profile, until some time within the past 8 months. The document states that I had not seen the knife photos, which is inaccurate, in that I had not seen them prior to the evening on which I watched the national news story in which they were aired. I clearly stated in my blog entry that I saw the photos, and have in fact taken and posted a screenshot on this blog of one of them from one national news website’s video archive. That prompted doppelgang to phone me out of the blue to demand I take it down, disclosing in the process that the photos are of him, when I had no knowledge of this previously.
Why Did This Happen to Wakefield?
The search warrant was for Wakefield’s home, as a result of a number of things (some of which are true and some of which are partially fictitious or blatantly falsifiable) he is deemed responsible for publishing all on Erotic Vancouver, Twitter (and an off-shoot website called PoliTwitter, for which you can still find defamatory cached Tweets), and in email to the editor of Erotic Vancouver, under the pseudonym “Daniel Fawkes”. Of course, a major aspect of the issue in the public eye is that when an average citizen is written about in a libelous manner, their only course of legal action is civil court; yet this is clearly not what happened in this case, where four RCMP members were being written about in what is considered a defamatory manner (with emphasis on Brown). Thus, there is a double-standard in operation at the heart of this matter, to the exclusive benefit of RCMP, at the expense of tax payers (i.e., average citizens). I’m really not entirely sure why the appropriate response is then to vet the contents of the sealed warrant to the public (however helpful to those of us who have been involved and seek answers as to how our statements were handled, among other concerns such as repercussions to those who wasted valuable RCMP time in an effort to deflect investigators and obstruct justice).
Wakefield is alleged to be responsible for defamatory libel for publishing accusations against Brown ranging from extortion and re-directing tax dollars to his personal legal defense (which was accompanied by the allegation that his lawyer is intimidating and silencing media, informants, and victims), to pedophilia and rape. The accusations also pointed towards a relationship between Brown and David Pickton (which has not been substantiated), and of a systematic cover-up of Brown’s criminal misconduct (which is entirely fabricated). Some of the defamatory statements that were published also implicate three other RCMP officers in assisting the alleged cover-up. The photos that were leaked to the media, of both Brown and his doppelgang, are not the reason Wakefield is facing charges of defamatory libel (this was even repeatedly insisted upon by RCMP throughout Project E-Norther, since before this blogger knew there was any defamation of Brown taking place). The defamatory libel charge arises from accusations against Brown of multiple heinous criminal activities, spanning over the past decade. Quite simply, one does not simply openly and definitively accuse someone of being involved with a serial murder case, doing so repeatedly and over multiple websites, and not incur wrath upon oneself in the process. Whether or not it was appropriate for the RCMP to seize Wakefield’s computers is another dispute entirely, which may only be appropriately answered when more of the warrant is vetted.
Finally, I feel it necessary to add that my suspicions about private correspondence I received from the night before the Re-Sergeance Alliance blog went live, as well as from a few days following the warrant being acted upon, continue to gravitate towards the possibility that Wakefield is responsible for that correspondence (Update: there is so little room for doubt about that conclusion at this point, it should be considered a vacuum). The RCMP are aware that I received these emails, and of the gist of the sentiments contained within, and did not enquire any further into them at the time. However, they did express that the likely author of that correspondence is well known about. The author claimed to be responsible for helping publish the Re-Sergeance Alliance blog, also claimed to be the man on whom the sealed warrant for defamatory libel was issued, and name-dropped the currently redacted alias by which Brown’s doppelgang accesses FetLife (a detail I didn’t even share with my own psychiatrist, suggesting that he is also assuming responsibility for leaking the photos of both men, knowing it was two different men). And given the nature of that correspondence, I have decided not to publish or circulate it anywhere. After comparing the email correspondence Doig received from “Daniel Fawkes” and reported to RCMP, it seems plainly apparent that it is indeed the same person.