PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This complaint reports 178+ criminal offenses committed by 19 identified individuals over a 23-year period (2003–2026) against the undersigned complainant.

2. The offenses constitute a criminal organization under s. 467.1 Criminal Code, involving coordinated action by police officers, Crown attorneys, defense counsel, court staff, and judicial officers.

3. Offenses reported include:

• s. 465(1)(c) — Conspiracy to commit indictable offenses (ongoing)

• s. 139(2) — Obstruction of justice by public officers (69 documented instances)

• s. 137 — Fabricating evidence (13 photographs created/destroyed)

• s. 430.1 — Mischief to computer data (evidence destruction within 14 days)

• s. 122 — Breach of trust by public officers (multiple officials)

• s. 366/368 — Forgery and use of forged documents (extradition documents)

• s. 131 — Perjury (U.S. court testimony, February 14, 2007)

4. Critical new evidence: On January 28, 2026, a Superior Court judge (Justice Maria Carroccia) dismissed a habeas corpus application by misapplying binding Supreme Court precedent (Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38), constituting additional obstruction under s. 139.

PART II: IDENTIFIED PERPETRATORS (21 Individuals)

TOTAL DOCUMENTED OFFENSES: 188+

Note: William B. Lintz elevated to PRIMARY SUPERVISORY PERPETRATOR — see Part III-G for full analysis

PART III: CRIMINAL CODE VIOLATIONS — DETAILED

A. Conspiracy (s. 465(1)(c))

5. Under s. 465(1)(c) Criminal Code:

"Every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence... is guilty of an indictable offence."

6. Evidence of conspiracy:

• 19 individuals from 6 agencies acting in concert

• Coordinated email rejections (71 agencies, 60 seconds, identical DKIM signatures)

• Systematic evidence destruction (13 photos within 14 days of dismissal)

• Sequential cover-up actions spanning 23 years

• R. v. Venneri, 2012 SCC 33 applies: Structured groups facilitating crimes = criminal organization

B. Obstruction of Justice (s. 139)

7. Under s. 139(2) Criminal Code:

"Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence."

8. Documented instances (69 by Sgt. Gratton alone):

• Ashley Dale audio admission: "we scrub all the time"

• 79 files uploaded AFTER September 15, 2025 dismissal

• Evidence destroyed faster than retention schedules permit

• Selective citation of Dorsey para. 44 to deny habeas corpus

C. Evidence Spoliation (s. 137, s. 430.1)

9. Under s. 137 (fabricating evidence) and s. 430.1 (mischief to data):

10. Spoliation timeline:

• September 15, 2025: Case R. v. Longo dismissed

• September 23, 2025: 79 files added to disclosure system

• September 29, 2025: ALL evidence destroyed (14 days total)

• Standard retention: 2 years minimum

• SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675: Intentional destruction = adverse inference mandatory

D. Forgery (s. 366, s. 368)

11. Forged extradition documents (2006):

• "Consent to Surrender" dated April 27, 2006

• "Toronto" scratched out, "Windsor" handwritten

• Justice Ducharme signed in Windsor — no jurisdiction over Toronto documents

• Physical impossibility = documentary forgery

E. Perjury (s. 131)

12. U.S. testimony (February 14, 2007):

• DEA Agent Glenn Dutton stated Francesco confessed to MDMA manufacturing

• The Ledger (May 19-20, 2004) reports Billy Womack confessed

• Napue v. Illinois violation (knowing use of perjured testimony)

F. Identity Fraud (s. 403) — THE NAME GAME

13. Under s. 403 Criminal Code (identity fraud):

"Every one commits an offence who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead, with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person... or to cause disadvantage to the person being personated."

14. FOUNDATIONAL FRAUD — Wrong Defendant Prosecuted:

• Complainant's legal name: Francesco Giovanni Longo (per passport, birth certificate)

• All prosecution documents: "Francesco Longo" (middle name OMITTED)

• Sentencing (Feb 14, 2007, Judge Kovacovich): "Francesco Longo"

• Green card later approved: Background check for "Francesco Giovanni Longo" found ZERO criminal records

15. Legal impact:

• "Francesco Longo" ≠ "Francesco Giovanni Longo" (different legal entities)

• Court convicted someone who doesn't legally exist

• Conviction is void ab initio (void from beginning)

• R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56: Identity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt

16. Why deliberate (not clerical error):

• Passport submitted during extradition → shows full name "Francesco Giovanni Longo"

• Extradition papers list full name

• Every official document contains "Giovanni"

• Purpose: Create parallel criminal record that doesn't appear in background checks under legal name

17. 2021 re-arrest explains motive:

• Green card approval proved original conviction void

• Conspirators needed to "fix" record under correct name

• Explains 16-year gap (2005-2021) and false Kijiji ad lure

18. Criminal charges arising:

• s. 403 CCC: Identity fraud (up to 10 years)

• s. 380 CCC: Fraud (up to 14 years)

• s. 131 CCC: Perjury in identification (up to 14 years)

• Vienna Convention Art. 36: Consular ID rights violated

G. SUPERVISORY LIABILITY — WILLIAM B. LINTZ (PRIMARY TARGET)

19. Command Responsibility Doctrine (R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701):

• Supervisors are criminally liable for subordinate crimes when they knew or authorized the conduct

• DEA Operations Manual § 6612: Foreign intelligence sharing requires supervisory approval

• Lintz was DEA Tampa Supervisor (2004-2005) when Dutton transmitted false intelligence to Canada

20. Evidence of authorization:

• DEA protocol: No agent can share intelligence with foreign agencies without supervisory sign-off

• Dutton suffered no discipline for 2005 false intelligence → confirms authorization

• Absence of sanction = presence of approval (regulatory compliance inference)

21. The promotion anomaly proves institutional conspiracy:

• 2004-2005: Lintz supervises Dutton during Billy Womack MDMA case

• 2005: Dutton transmits false intelligence attributing Womack's confession to Francesco Longo

• 2010: Lintz promoted to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) Coordinator

• JTTF role: Five Eyes liaison (coordinates with RCMP, MI5, ASIS, GCSB)

22. Why promotion proves conspiracy:

• DEA → FBI transfers are extremely rare (requires exceptional circumstances)

• Lintz received exactly the role needed to coordinate Dutton-type operations at institutional level

• Timing: Promoted 5 years after Dutton operation = reward window consistent with inter-agency coordination

• SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675: Adverse inference from limited records = concealment pattern

23. Criminal charges against Lintz:

• s. 465(1)(c) CCC: Conspiracy to commit indictable offenses (authorized Dutton's fabrication)

• s. 122 CCC: Breach of trust by public officer (abused DEA supervisory authority)

• s. 137 CCC: Fabricating evidence (facilitated Womack → Longo false attribution)

• s. 467.1 CCC: Criminal organization (DEA-FBI-RCMP coordination = structured group)

• 18 USC § 371: U.S. conspiracy (defrauding Canadian government — joint Canadian-U.S. investigation required)

24. RCMP investigation required:

• Request FBI records on Lintz's 2010 promotion (MLAT — Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty)

• Request DEA records on Dutton's 2005 intelligence authorization

• Interview Lintz under oath: "Did you authorize Dutton's 2005 false intelligence to Canada?"

• Interpol Red Notice for Lintz if U.S. refuses cooperation

25. THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTION:

"If Dutton acted alone, why was his supervisor PROMOTED to FBI Five Eyes liaison five years later?"

PART IV: EVIDENCE SUMMARY

13. Documentary evidence:

14. Primary Evidence Hub: https://nxffhryi.gensparkspace.com/

15. All evidence is preserved and available for RCMP investigation.

PART V: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

16. The undersigned respectfully requests:

(a) Criminal investigation of 21 identified perpetrators (including William B. Lintz — supervisory liability)

(b) Preservation order for all government files related to R. v. Longo

(c) Seizure of Windsor Police digital disclosure systems

(d) Interview of Ashley Dale regarding audio admission

(h) MLAT request to U.S.: FBI records on Lintz's 2010 promotion; DEA records on 2005 intelligence authorization

(i) Interpol Red Notice for Lintz and Dutton if U.S. refuses cooperation

(j) Interview Lintz under oath: "Did you authorize Dutton's 2005 false intelligence to Canada?"

(e) Forensic analysis of email coordination (DKIM/ARC-Seal)

(f) Review of judicial conduct (Carroccia, Bazilko, Ducharme)

(g) Interim protective measures for complainant (imminent eviction)

PART VI: LEGAL AUTHORITIES

Criminal Code Sections:

s. 21 (parties to offence), s. 122 (breach of trust), s. 131 (perjury), s. 137 (fabricating evidence), s. 139 (obstruction), s. 140 (public mischief), s. 366 (forgery), s. 368 (uttering), s. 380 (fraud), s. 430.1 (mischief to data), s. 465 (conspiracy), s. 467.1 (criminal organization)

Case Law:

R. v. Venneri, 2012 SCC 33 (criminal organization); Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38 (habeas expansion); SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675 (spoliation); R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13 (wilful blindness)