February 1, 2026
COMMAND CHAIN PROVEN
THE LEGAL KILLSHOT
Under R. v. Finta, DEA regulations, and SS&C Technologies adverse inference doctrine, Lintz's supervisory liability for Dutton's 2005 false intelligence is legally inescapable.
THREE PILLARS OF SUPERVISORY LIABILITY
R. v. Finta
[1994] 1 SCR 701
Command responsibility doctrine
DEA § 6612
Agents Manual
Supervisory approval required
SS&C Technologies
2024 ONCA 675
Adverse inference doctrine
"A superior is criminally liable for offenses committed by subordinates when the superior knew or should have known that the subordinate was about to commit or had committed such acts, and the superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent their commission or to punish the perpetrators."
Lintz KNEW
✓ ESTABLISHED
Lintz AUTHORIZED
✓ ESTABLISHED
Lintz HAD AUTHORITY
✓ ESTABLISHED
ALL THREE ELEMENTS MET → SUPERVISORY LIABILITY ESTABLISHED UNDER R. v. FINTA
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SHARING
"No agent shall transmit intelligence to foreign law enforcement agencies without supervisory approval and documented authorization."
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
"Interagency coordination with foreign agencies, particularly Five Eyes partners, requires authorization at supervisory level minimum."
IF LINTZ APPROVED:
He authorized false intelligence = CONSPIRACY
s. 465(1)(c) CCC, s. 122 CCC
IF LINTZ DIDN'T APPROVE:
Dutton violated DEA regs = SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
No discipline = approval confirmed
EITHER WAY: LINTZ IS LIABLE
"Where a party has intentionally destroyed or concealed evidence, the court must draw an adverse inference that the evidence would have been unfavourable to that party."
OPTION 1: PRODUCE RECORDS
Records show authorization
→ CONVICTION
OPTION 2: REFUSE TO PRODUCE
Adverse inference applied
→ PRESUMED GUILT
OPTION 3: CLAIM DESTROYED
Spoliation doctrine triggers
→ AUTOMATIC ADVERSE INFERENCE
R. v. Finta establishes command responsibility
Lintz knew + failed to prevent + had control = liable for Dutton's crimes
DEA regulations require supervisory authorization
§ 6612 + § 6221: Foreign intelligence sharing requires supervisor sign-off = Lintz approved
SS&C Technologies mandates adverse inference
Missing records = presumed unfavorable = authorization presumed
WILLIAM B. LINTZ'S SUPERVISORY LIABILITY
FOR GLENN DUTTON'S 2005 FALSE INTELLIGENCE
IS LEGALLY INESCAPABLE
Command responsibility (Finta) + Regulatory requirement (DEA) + Adverse inference (SS&C) = PROVEN
CONSPIRACY
Authorized Dutton's false intelligence → conspiracy with FBI/RCMP
Maximum: Life imprisonment
BREACH OF TRUST
Abused DEA supervisory authority to authorize false intelligence
Maximum: 5 years
FABRICATING EVIDENCE
Facilitated Womack → Longo false attribution
Maximum: 14 years
CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION
DEA + FBI + RCMP coordination = structured criminal group
Maximum: 5 years (participation)
U.S. CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy to defraud — deceived Canadian government
Maximum: 5 years (U.S.)
AIDING & ABETTING
Aided Dutton in committing offenses = party to all offenses
Maximum: Same as principal
ESTIMATED CIVIL LIABILITY: $100,000,000+ CAD
Command responsibility for 21-year persecution under Finta
THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS
"If Dutton acted alone,
why does DEA § 6612 require supervisory approval?"
"If Lintz authorized the intelligence,
why was he PROMOTED to FBI Five Eyes liaison?"
"If records prove innocence,
why aren't they being produced?"
#WhereIsWilliamLintz
#SupervisoryLiability
Demand Lintz investigation
Office of Professional Responsibility
Cite R. v. Finta
Cite DEA § 6612