Steve Karmazenuk: From the Mouths of My Cannons

Category: The DPJ Took My Babies Away

  • I Have No Answer to Your General Except from the Mouths of My Cannons

    The title of this blog post comes from Louis de Buade, Compte de Frontenac et de Palluau, governor of the Quebec region of the New France colony in the late 1600’s; He famously made that statement during one of the many incessant France VS Great Britain proxy-wars of French Quebec history, when told by a messenger from Sir William Phips, Commander of British Naval Forces surrounding the besieged city, that Phips was demanding Frontenac’s surrender, and the messenger requested his answer.

    You don’t need the full historical context of the 1690 Siege of Quebec by British Colonial forces trying to seize territory from French Colonial forces; all you need to know is the overconfident British general was humiliated, and that quote by le Compte de Frontenac et de Palluau became a statement of defiance quite literally embedded into both “Quebecois” and Canadian culture and history.

    But, what’s all this about? Why this quote? Why now? What’s going on?

    Sit back and let me tell you.

    This afternoon a bailiff dropped the following cease and desist letter, which was NOT in my Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms- guaranteed Official Language of Choice, namely English, but instead was in Quebec “French;” a bastardized patois of French, Algonquin, Mohawk, Mi’kmaq, Scot’s Gaelic and English, called Joual.

    SIDEBAR
    Quebec “French” is the LAUGHINGSTOCK of the Francophonie, the regroupment of French-speaking countries and Canadian provincial territories. MOST ESPECIALLY in France: Joual is the language of the low class, the criminals, prostitutes and paupers sent over by France to colonize land they had no hope of holding onto without the help of the very First Nations people they eventually fucked over.

    Never mind that “French” Quebec only exists today because of the mercy of Carleton, the First Baron of Dorchester and British Governor of Quebec after the conquest and obliteration of New France. Baron Dorchester convinced the British Crown to let the settlers of “New France” keep their language and culture. Perhaps one of the most egregious cases of averted genocide in history.

    The Quebec identity is built around it being a fragile bastion of French: French Quebec likes to claim their culture is under attack, under threat from outside forces of THE ENGLISH MENACE, not to mention Muslims, BIPoC, Sikhs, Hindus and literally anyone who is not a White French Quebecer. The thing is, if your culture cannot exist without the erasure of other cultures, then your culture is one of bigotry and intolerance.

    SIDEBAR ENDS. WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED WEBLOG POST
    Right now, I am here to focus on another ongoing attempts by the DPJ under directrix Marianne Sylvain to violate my rights under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to report on that malfeasance.

    Translated from that French sublanguage of Joual, is the text of the vile, rights-abusing harassment letter that I mentioned I received today, and below that, is first my personal reaction to that letter, and then my on reply, from the mouth of MY Cannons: the words I wield as weapons.

    Montreal, November 13th 2025

    UNDER ALL RESERVATIONS
    BY BAILIFF

    Mister Steven Karmazenuk,

    By virtue of the Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (L.R.Q. c. P-34.1,) all information collected in the case are under application of the law confidential.

    It was brought to our attention that you have published on a weblog information concerning the procedures at Youth Protection and the names of certain caseworkers. Despite your intention of protecting the identity of your children, as your name is published, it is easy to deduce the identity of your children.

    “9.2 The children and their parents have the right that the information concerning them and permitting their identification, when they are grouped in the cadre of the application of the present law are to be treated in a confidential matter, and can only be divulged in conforming to the law and its dispositions
    2022, c. 11, a. 11.

    “9.3 In the cadre of the present law, no one can publish or transmit information that could permit the identification of a child, children or their parents unless the Tribunal orders or authorized conditions determined that said publication or diffusion are necessary to apply the present law or a ruling edict in virtue of the above. In noncompliance, the Tribunal can, in particular cases, forbid or restrain, according to conditions fixed by the Tribunal, the publication or transmission of information relative to a tribunal audience

    “134. No one can: (g) knowingly or deliberately provide confidential information contrary to the dispositions of the present law, or the dispositions of the Civil Code relating to the confidentiality to adoption dossiers.

    “135. Anyone in violation of the first paragraph of Article 3 or omit, refuse or neglect to protect a child in their care or commits acts that compromise the security or development of a child is committing an infraction and can be fined between $625 and $5000.”

    Equally, the posts contain the names of caseworkers, contravening clauses of the Charter of Rights and Liberty and the Civil Code. Civil and criminal recourse could be applied.

    As such, you are formally notified that you are to remove all publication on your weblog, or to remove any names appearing within, including your own.

    BE ADVISED that failure to comply with this request the Direction of Youth Protection has judicial recourse against you.

    PLEASE ACT ACCORDINGLY

    Contentious cases for the CIUSS Centre-Sud-de-L’Ile-de-Montreal

    (signed)

    Me Marie-Aimee Beaulac, lawer.

    This letter is nothing but a sad and pathetic attempt to intimidate me with legal jargon; it doesn’t hold a fucking DROP of water. Based on my previous VERY long post about Section 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the post with the big red text block disclaimer about how my Canadian Charter rights supersede any attempt by the Direction de Protection de Jeunesse to silence me, as I am expressing myself via journalistic reporting on the malfeasance and malignant anti-male culture at the Direction de Protection de la Jeunesse.

    I don’t have to remove SHIT, because I’m neither violating section 134 or 135, and any imagined liability I might have is nullified by language that puts the onus on the custodial parent.

    And the fines they’re threatening to impose are CARTOONISHLY LOWER than what it would cost them to litigate this – in small claims court, because nothing under $15 000 will be accepted in civil court, which would make it even more expensive to prosecute. A conservative estimate is that the cost per Quebec government-owned lawyer working on such a case upwards of $10 000 to $12 000 to collect on a $5000 dollar fine; and that’s a conservative estimate of the minimum amount it would cost these fools to come at me.

    As to threatening me with yet another malicious prosecution in criminal court? I’d rather go to jail than let the Radfem fascists of the DPJ silence me.

    I’ve already stated, repeatedly, that I will die on this hill; this is about my right to FREE EXPRESSION according to the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms; I am an author and a free speech absolutist: I AM WILLING TO GO TO JAIL IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS INTO A CHARTER CASE.

    As promised, I reply below, from the mouth of my cannons:

    Montreal, CANADA, November 19th, 2025 CE

    UNDER ALL RESERVATIONS, EXCEPT DURING OFF-SEASON AND HOLIDAY PERIODS (TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY APPLY. OFFER VOID IN WISCONSIN AND ILLINOIS)

    DELIVERED BY PUBLIC WEBLOG POST

    Me Marie-Anne Beaulac, (lawyer) et al,

    I wholeheartedly and without concession reject your attempt to intimidate me into silence with unsubstantiated claims, accusations and threats of legal action. Regarding any alleged violation of my children’s rights to privacy with regards to specific information in my file, there has never been, nor will there ever be any such violation on my weblog:

    1 – AT ABSOLUTELY NO TIME in any of the posts on this weblog do I violate my children’s right to privacy. The claim that their names are easily deduced because my “unique” name appears on the weblog is ridiculous: WHO WOULD EVEN WANT TO GO TO ALL THAT TROUBLE? There are already published books in private hands with my children’s names in the dedication; are you going to order me to take these books back from their legal owners and change the dedication? Good luck.

    Section 134 DOES NOT APPLY:
    I absolutely NEVER divulge on this weblog, or any other public forum where I am legally allowed to discuss my grievance with the DPJ, ANY specific private information that would be in any way, shape or form discoverable to anyone without pre-existing personal, familiar knowledge of my children, or or access to my children’s files. I DON’T EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR FILES, DESPITE MY RIGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM; WHICH IS PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

    Section 135 DOES NOT APPLY:
    I am not the custodial parent, upon whom the sole burden of keeping the children’s privacy is explicitly spelled out by its wording.

    Especially since you’d be coming for my rights under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which absolutely overrides any Quebec law to the contrary, I’d like to know: do you really wanna make this into a Charter case?

    On my weblog I am free to and so I do talk about how much I miss my children, how much I love them; I discuss how I hope I can reestablish ties with my daughter, and how I hope that I can earn back my sons’ respect, trust, and love, regardless of whether I once more have the privilege to become a part of their lives.

    At no time do I go into any details about the ongoing case, other than to demonstrate acts of deliberate malfeasance and violations of my rights under Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Direction de Protection de Jeunesse in general, and Marianne Sylvain and Helene Savard in particular.

    I NEVER REVEAL MY CHILDREN’S NAMES, Despite the inalienable fact that their names are already part of the public record through birth registration, baptismal certificates, and legal and school records; it is neither my fault nor my responsibility that the government of Quebec has failed in their duty to protect from public access any and all personal revelatory information about Quebec’s minors; anyone with a moderate level of computer and internet savvy would be able to discover the names of any children in Quebec, whether or not they even know someone had children, but did not know the identities of those children. Identity theft has also always been a thing. Would you prohibit all parents from even discussing the fact that they have children? How dare you demand that of me! Am I supposed to publicly deny being a father?

    WOULD YOU HAVE ME DENY MY CHILDREN?

    Subsequently, highlighting that MY NAME appears in both the domain name and name of MY WEBLOG is completely irrelevant: I am an author; I publish under my own name. I am re-releasing my novel, They Came in Peace, in 2026. I cannot be compelled do so under a nom de plume, nor not name the children whom I love in the book’s dedication, nor would there be any legal justification to block the book’s publication because of the Dedication Page.

    And after nearly three decades of owning the karmazenuk.com domain name and using the weblog to talk about my writing, if irregularly, throughout that time, and also using the domain for all email communication via the email handle “steve@karmazenuk.com,” FOR THE PURPOSES OF PERSONAL BRANDING as well as personal email communication, demanding that I change it or take it would not only be unreasonable, it would put an unfair burden on me, as I continue to legitimately pursue the republication of my novel, They Came in Peace, and my ongoing investigation into the violation of and fight for my rights under Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    And implying that my distinct name makes their “discovery” all the more likely borders on absolute racism; is my name not assez quebecois for you?

    The fact is that I am a father of three children, and the names of those children are already in the public domain; I sold numerous copies of They Came in Peace with that dedication when the book was originally in circulation, from 2020 to 2024; well before and after the DPJ opened a file and elected to weaponize access to my children against me.

    2 – On my weblog, I only discuss matters related to the ongoing violations of my rights as a Quebec Citizen under Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees, “Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of their human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference, and to fair and reasonable treatment by the agencies of the State and members of the personnel.” and I could unequivocally demonstrate that deliberate malfeasance toward me, IF I WAS ALLOWED ACCESS TO MY FILE AND CASE NOTES, AS IS MY RIGHT UNDER YOUR AFOREMENTIONED SECTION OF THE LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE ET BLABLABLA. And I quote:

    “9.2 The children and their parents have the right that the information concerning them and permitting their identification, when they are grouped in the cadre of the application of the present law are to be treated in a confidential matter, and can only be divulged in conforming to the law and its dispositions
    2022, c. 11, a. 11.    “

    Well, guess what, sunshine? AT NO TIME DO I VIOLATE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF MY CHILDREN ON THIS WEBLOG OR IN ANY OF ITS POSTS. I AM IN NO WAY IN NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE LAW AND ITS DISPOSITIONS.

    I am reporting, as I have previously and repeatedly stated, on the deliberate malfeasance that is taking place under the direction Helene Savard and her lackey Marianne Sylvain, who are currently primarily responsible for my deliberate and malignant mistreatment despite the rights and freedoms afforded to me under Section 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    I will remind you that under Section 2 (b) even slander is considered protected speech: (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (A.G.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827).

    And under Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I should not have been treated in the biased and unethical manner as Madame Savard directed, at all: Nothing I said to any DPJ caseworker was given any credence, and they took what I told them in confidence deliberately out of context to defame my character, and have taken actions and made statements designed to alienate me from my children. Likewise, I should have never been subjected to the emotional blackmail they used against me.

    Likewise, the filings made by the DPJ to Family Court contain DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOODS that should at the very least resort in Bar hearings about legal misconduct, including fabricating demonstrable lies about how my psychiatric health issues affect me.

    The DPJ has DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME ON THE BASIS OF MY GENDER AND BOTH MY PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ILLNESS, which once again contravenes my rights under both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    As such, BE FORMALLY ADVISED of what I have already told a sitting judge in Family court: I will not be silenced, and if you want me to take down my blog, you’d best slap me in irons, as I am willing to go to jail and fight for and protect my Quebec and Canadian Charter rights.

    BE LIKEWISE FORMALLY ADVISED that boilerplate legal mumbo-jumbo that holds absolutely no water in the given circumstance will not intimidate me, nor will the threat of fines or even jail time; I am no longer going to allow the DPJ or any of its co-conspirators continue to defame me with impunity, or to attempt to intimidate me into silence. I am going to take control of the narrative about who I am; about what kind of person I am; about what I have survived.

    YOU HAD BEST ACT ACCORDINGLY:

    I have a legitimate case against you right now to take to the Bar Association, for:

    -Acting with dishonesty and a lack of integrity by abusing the law to harass, intimidate, and mislead me about my rights under the Law.

    -Threatening litigation to intimidate me when there is no legitimate legal claim.

    Relevant sections, since you don’t seem up to date on the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers (Barreau du Quebec) include:

    3.02 – A lawyer must not misuse the legal system to intimidate, pressure or coerce.

    3.03 – A lawyer must not pursue or threaten legal proceedings without a reasonable basis.

    I AM STANDING FIRM IN MY RESOLVE AND WILL NOT COOPERATE WITH YOU REGARDING THIS MATTER.

    (signed with a big, fat middle finger)

    Doctor of Writing Lord Steven Karmazenuk, author, journalist, free speech absolutist

    Stay tuned, dear readers and followers! Because whatever happens next, THIS IS WHERE YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT IT.

  • The DPJ Took My Babies Away Part Three: Lies, Outrage, and the Outrageous Liars Behind Them

    PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER:

    I am exercising my right to free expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, otherwise known as Section 2(b) of the Charter, in order to report with journalistic intent to expose the discrimination, deliberate mistreatment of, and repeated indignities visited upon me by the Direction de Protection de la Jeunesse du Quebec.

    My Freedom of Expression in this case, in particular detailing both the indignities I have suffered and naming the public officials responsible for this injustice are recognized as protected speech according to the following provisions under Canadian Charter Law:

    The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 at page 976; Ford v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 at pages 765-766)

    The Supreme Court has adopted the following three-part test for analyzing section 2(b): 1) Does the activity in question have expressive content, thereby bringing it within section 2(b) protection?; 2) Does the method or location of this expression remove that protection?; and 3) If the expression is protected by section 2(b), does the government action in question infringe that protection, either in purpose or effect? (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2 (“Canadian Broadcasting Corp.”); Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra.)

    Expression protected by section 2(b) has been defined as “any activity or communication that conveys or attempts to convey meaning” (Thomson Newspapers Co., supra; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra). The courts have applied the principle of content neutrality in defining the scope of section 2(b), such that the content of expression, no matter how offensive, unpopular or disturbing, cannot deprive it of section 2(b) protection (Keegstra, supra). Being content-neutral, the Charter also protects the expression of both truths and falsehoods (Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610 at paragraph 60; R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 at paragraph 36; R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439 at paragraph 25)

    It is not necessary that an expression be received and subjectively understood for it to be protected expression under section 2(b) (Weisfeld (F.C.A.), supra; R. v. A.N. Koskolos Realty Ltd., (1995), 141 N.S.R. (2d) 309 (N.S.Prov.Ct.)).

    The Supreme Court has stated that the method or location of the conveyance of a message will be excluded from 2(b) protection if this method or location conflicts with the values underlying the provision, namely: self-fulfillment, democratic discourse and truth finding (Canadian Broadcasting Corp., supra at paragraph 37; Montreal (City), supra at paragraph 72). In practice, however, this test is usually just applied to an analysis of the location of expression; the method of expression is generally considered to be within section 2(b) protection unless it takes the form of violence or threats of violence.

    In other respects, the form or medium used to convey a message is generally considered part and parcel of the message and included within section 2(b) protection (Weisfeld (F.C.A.), supra).

    In Canadian Broadcasting Corp, supra, the court added that analysis of the second factor should focus on the essential expressive activity as opposed to the “excesses” that would be incidental to this activity. In that particular case, the essential expressive activity, a journalist’s ability to gather news at a courthouse to inform the public about court proceedings, was held to engage section 2(b), despite the incidental excesses of this expression (“…crowds, pushing and shoving, and pursuing possible subjects in order to interview, film or photograph them…”) (paragraphs 43, 45).

    Where the purpose of a government action is to restrict the content of expression, to control access to a certain message, or to limit the ability of a person who attempts to convey a message to express themselves, that purpose will infringe section 2(b) (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Keegstra, supra).



    I was hoping to wait until I had the Judge’s decision before having to post about the bullshittery that the Direction de Protection de la Jeunesse du Quebec subjects me to.

    But now, well, I found out that there is quite literally no fucking end to their deliberate sabotage. As I am composing this as an autobiographical and journalistic expose on malfeasance at the DPJ, I am released from the requirement to withhold the names of the people whom I am accusing of said same malfeasance.

    Subsequently the only names and absolute right to privacy that I am required to protect are those of my children, who for the sake of their protection and privacy were designated prior in this weblog by the pseudonyms “Obi-Wan,” “Leia,” and “Luke.”

    Should I be required to adopt further measures to protect my children’s identities, I will do so.

    Luckily, the information I will be discussing here is tangential to my alienation from my children, and focused more on my rights as a “client” of the DPJ, though their regional mother organization, the CIUSS DU CENTRE-SUD-DE-L’ILE-DE-MONTREAL, out of their Sherbrooke Street East St. office.

    Now, do you all remember back when I filed my request with Youth Protection to see my file? Well it turns out that the director of Youth Protection services for my region, Madame Helene Savard, well, her or her lackey Mariane Sylvain, elected to give me THE WRONG ADDRESS TO WHICH TO SEND MY REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO MY FILE, before waiting exactly twenty-ONE business days (One business day more than they’re legally allowed) to mail me a denial claiming that me having access to my own case file with the DPJ would somehow violate the rights of privacy of my children.

    Savard knew that I intended to escalate to the Commission d’Acces a l’Information du Quebec the instant they were in noncompliance of my request, and she hoped that I would subsequently be tied up with the CAI bureaucratic machinery for another year.

    But the Commission d’Acces a l’Information du Quebec, through General Secretary Nadine Jobin informed me that I had not sent the request for access properly to the DPJ to begin with, which meant they were unable to process it and subsequently closing the file. I phoned their general number here in Montreal to get clarification about why my request had been rejected. They advised me that the address I had been given, on De Louvain street, was not recognized as a legitimate place to send my initial access for my file request. I was then advised to resubmit my request to see my dossier with the DPJ to the attention of one Dr Daniel Brendon Murphy, whose name had been heretofore unknown to me. They also advised me that, despite the fact that a managerial level social worker would not mistakenly send someone the incorrect address to file a request to access their DPJ file, there was no legal action that could be taken against them, in spite of the evident malfeasance and deliberate sabotage.

    IN THE INTERESTS OF READERS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED WEBLOG POST, PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU WISH TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO SEE YOUR OWN FILE WITH THE DPJ, YOU MUST SEND A WRITTEN AND HAND SIGNED FORMAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE NAME(S) AND BIRTHDATE(S) OF THE CHILD(REN) IN QUESTION. YOU MUST INCLUDE WITH THIS WRITTEN REQUEST A FULL-COLOR COPY OF YOUR PHOTO ID

    THIS INFORMATION MUST BE SENT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DR. MURPHY BY MAIL, PREFERABLY REGISTERED LETTER, TO:

    1500 RUE SHERBROOKE E.
    PAVILLION DESCHAMPS, PORTE F-113
    MONTREAL, QC, CANADA H2L 4M1.

    Once again, the purpose of providing you with this address is to allow you to file your access to your DPJ file requests properly.

    DO NOT send your request by email! DO NOT send your request by fax!

    The Commission a l’Access de l’Information du Quebec will ONLY accept requests for appeal a DPJ refusal that was originally sent to the above address.

    As I said, Madame Savard gave me an address on De Louvain Street in Montreal, which the CAI says is not valid, and therefore, I must start the process over again.

    But before I do that, I wish to state that Madame Savard’s actions, whether done through her lackey Madame Sylvain or not, constitute a direct violation of Section 47 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: “Every person has a right, in full equality, to fair and reasonable treatment by the agencies of the State and by the members of their personnel.“

    The address that Mme Savard sent me by email was for a DPJ office on De Louvain street, not the correct office on Sherbrooke street. And there is no way in hell someone of her position and authority would accidentally send the incorrect address to request access to their DPJ dossier to someone who was asking for it.

    Now, as to why I wanted access to my file? Well, for starters, at the very beginning of the DPJ’s interference with my family, detailed in a previous blog entry, I told them that my ex-wife had been emotionally and psychologically abusive to me, and she would turn the case workers against me. They ignored me; they believed my ex-wife, and not me.

    Why are you so shocked that I behave as a monster, when all you do is treat me so monstrously?
    -A quote usually accredited to a Roman slave on trial for murdering their master, or to demons during exorcisms. (Latin: Cur adeo stupes ut monstrum sim, cum nihil egeris quam me monstri facias?)

    They ignored/discriminated against my fragile emotional state, my physical disabilities (cyclical vomiting syndrome that I mentioned from the beginning, arthrosciatica and a bum knee as my treacherous body continued to do me dirty) either disbelieving me wholeheartedly, or using the issues to put so much pressure on me that they actually triggered episodes of panic, and/or cyclical vomiting syndrome so often that eventually I broke, snapped, and was arrested for rage-texting the social worker who pressured me into a nervous breakdown.

    This past summer, they advised me that they were going to petition the court to close the DPJ file and grant sole and exclusive parental rights to my ex-wife, which would mean I would most definitely never see my children before they were adults.

    So, I told them that I was done; I would no longer cooperate with them in any way, shape or form. That if I had to I would seek my daughter out to tell her my truth, my side of this godforsaken story. In response they put a BOLO out on me with the very cops that have it in for me.

    In parting over the news that they were deleting my rights to be a father, I also told them:

    Go take a long walk off a short pier, go play in traffic, go wave a red flag in front of a Brahman bull, eat a bag of dicks, fist-fuck a hornet’s nest, French-kiss an electric light socket, stick your head in a woodchipper, eat a Tide Pod while doing the Cinnamon Challenge, bungie jump into a sarlaac pit, cover yourself in moose piss and stand in the woods naked, eat shit and die, and – and I mean this most sincerely – go fuck yourself.

    Then one day later on this past summer, on a rare day that I was in a particularly good mood, feeling good about myself and life in general, when either Savard or Sylvain or for all I know some other third party angry Quebecoise phoned, and emotionally blackmailed me into cooperating with them.

    Now, my day was about to be ruined as she/they/them angrily accused me of threats, harassment, crude language, and then telling me that my daughter, Leia, was upset because I had quit cooperating with the DPJ (WHY did I quit cooperating? Because of what I said above, as well as the way they kept vilifying me, to the point they even lied in a family court deposition about my mental state, by cherry-picking what my psychiatrist in his psych evaluation wrote to paint me as a monster.)

    So despite their “Don’t you want to see Leia again?” deliberate emotional blackmail admonishment, I had concerns. Namely, the very question I asked that they refused to answer, which led to me requesting my file to begin with.

    I asked via the email quoted below that they answer a simple question, in writing (Bold and Italic done for the purposes of this article:)

    “Madam,

    While I intend to discuss whether to allow you to have access to my psychiatric records with my psychiatric physician, I must ask:

    You have already demonstrated – in Family Court, before a sitting Judge – your willingness to lie or lie by omission about what is in the dossier. In fact, when I accused you of it, your audible gasp only confirmed what I’d read in the court transcript.

    How am I to know – indeed, why would I even believe – that you will not once again selectively edit out anything that goes against your years-long narrative that I am an uncooperative villain acting in bad faith?

    What guarantees can you afford me that you will truly look at this information without bias, when there is so much bias in the DPJ files against me, already?

    I expect a prompt reply detailing exactly how and why I should trust you with this information. And do not attempt obfuscation; the fact that you’re still dishonest enough to not admit the things your organization did to undermine me still gives me little to no trust in you.

    Likewise, I resent the emotional blackmail you are attempting by using Leia as a carrot in this situation.

    If you were crawling any deeper in the mud you’d have to be taxonomized as an earthworm.

    Good day to you.

    They refused to do answer the question via email, knowing the scope of the Power of the Written Word, in Quebec. They offered in reply to meet with me so that they could answer in person.

    When I refused and insisted I wanted an answer to my question in writing, they decided to “answer” by quoting me the stock answer to the question Why does the DPJ want access to my psychiatric records, without even bothering to hide the fact that it was a copy-paste from a fucking brochure.

    So, that’s when I asked Savard for the address to send my request to see my DPJ dossier.

    And that’s when she sent me the false address.

    And that’s when the Power of the Written Word finally bit her in the ass.

    And here we are.