PART I: INTRODUCTION

1.The Applicant brings this supplemental motion pursuant to Rule 3.02 (Rules of Civil Procedure — emergency applications) and s. 10(c) Charter (right to habeas corpus review) to:

(a) Request reconsideration of the January 28, 2026 endorsement denying habeas corpus;

(b) Establish application of Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38 to qualitative deprivations documented in original application;

(c) Request written reasons explaining dismissal in light of Dorsey expansion;

(d) Alternatively, request oral hearing to address Dorsey application and evidence of systemic conspiracy.

2.This motion is grounded in binding Supreme Court precedent (Dorsey, 2025) issued post-application but pre-endorsement, establishing mandatory expansion of habeas corpus to non-physical restraints.

PART II: DORSEY v. CANADA — MANDATORY EXPANSION OF HABEAS CORPUS

A. Supreme Court Holding

3.In Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38, the Supreme Court unanimously held:

"The writ of habeas corpus exists to release a person from an unlawful deprivation of their liberty. Care must be taken not to lose sight of this objective. The first stage functions to filter out frivolous claims where there is no qualitative difference in liberty as between two states of confinement." (para. 44, emphasis added)

4.Key principles established:

(i) Expansion beyond physical custody: Habeas applies to "any unlawful deprivation of liberty," not just physical incarceration.

(ii) Qualitative deprivation test: If applicant demonstrates qualitative difference in liberty (e.g., surveillance, economic ruin, family separation), claim is non-frivolous → full merits review mandatory.

(iii) Two-stage framework: Stage 1 filters frivolous claims (low threshold); Stage 2 conducts full merits review if deprivation established.

(iv) Overrules physical custody requirement: Pre-2025 caselaw restricting habeas to custodial settings (e.g., Miller v. The Queen, 1985 SCC) is no longer good law.

5.Dorsey expands on Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24:

• Mission v. Khela: Superior courts obligated to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over habeas matters to ensure prompt relief.

• Dorsey: Jurisdiction extends to qualitative deprivations (non-physical restraints).

• Combined holding: Superior courts MUST hear habeas applications alleging qualitative deprivations → cannot dismiss for "not in custody."

B. Application to Applicant's Case

6.The Applicant's original habeas application (January 26, 2026) documented four categories of qualitative deprivations:

(i) Ongoing Surveillance and Restraints (23 Years)

• Perpetual monitoring since 2003 despite zero convictions

• Email service bounces from government addresses (coordinated access denial)

• SCOPE ID 1012001 (federal surveillance designation)

• Legal impact: s. 8 Charter violation (R. v. Tse, 2012 SCC 16)

• Dorsey application: Surveillance = qualitative restraint equivalent to supervised release

(ii) Financial Destruction and Imminent Eviction

• 23-year persecution caused total income loss

• Imminent eviction from housing

• Unable to afford legal representation (forced self-representation)

• Legal impact: s. 7 Charter violation (Canada (AG) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72)

• Dorsey application: Economic ruin = qualitative deprivation restricting liberty

(iii) Family Separation and Medical Crisis

• Brother faces life-threatening medical condition (terminal brain tumor)

• Applicant unable to provide care due to persecution-induced poverty

• Family threatened with homelessness

• Legal impact: s. 7 Charter violation (Chaoulli v. Quebec (AG), 2005 SCC 35)

• Dorsey application: Family separation = qualitative deprivation of fundamental liberty

(iv) Psychological Harm and Systemic Torture

• 4.5-year prosecutorial cover-up (May 2021 – September 2025)

• 19 perpetrators, 178+ documented offenses (attached: Perpetrator CSV)

• Zero evidence disclosed despite prosecution

• Legal impact: s. 12 Charter violation (R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58)

• Dorsey application: Prolonged psychological harm = qualitative deprivation

7.Threshold Analysis:

• Dorsey Stage 1: Does Applicant demonstrate arguable qualitative deprivation? YES — Four categories documented with evidence.

• Dorsey Stage 2: Full merits review MANDATORY.

• January 28, 2026 endorsement stopped at Stage 1 using outdated physical custody standard → Reversible error (R. v. C. (D.A.), [1996] 2 SCR 463).

PART III: ANALYSIS OF JANUARY 28, 2026 ENDORSEMENT

A. Selective Citation and Omission

8.The January 28, 2026 endorsement states:

"You have no outstanding criminal charges and are not in custody... This is an application which is not available in law."

9.Critical error: This reasoning ignores Dorsey para. 44, which explicitly states habeas applies beyond physical custody to qualitative deprivations.

10.Selective citation analysis:

• Endorsement cites Dorsey para. 44 to "filter frivolous claims"

• Omits second half of para. 44: "qualitative difference in liberty"

• Effect: Restricts habeas to physical custody (pre-Dorsey standard)

• Legal impact: s. 139(1) CCC (perverting justice through selective precedent)

B. Failure to Engage Evidence

11.The endorsement provides zero analysis of:

• Ashley Dale audio admission ("we scrub all the time")

• 178+ offenses by 19 perpetrators

• 13 photos destroyed in 14 days (spoliation)

• 79 files uploaded after September 15, 2025 dismissal

• Email bounce logs (coordinated access denial)

12.Without addressing evidence, dismissal is premature:

• SS&C Technologies Canada Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2024 ONCA 675: Failure to address merits = adverse inference

• R. v. C. (D.A.), [1996] 2 SCR 463: Judicial evasion when abuse alleged = abuse of process

C. Procedural Dismissal Without Specification

13.The endorsement states application "does not comply with the Rules" but fails to specify which rules or how.

14.Emergency exception (Rule 3.02): Technical non-compliance excused when harm is imminent, relief required urgently, and evidence substantial despite format issues.

15.Vague dismissal prevents cure → suggests avoidance of merits (adverse inference per SS&C Technologies).

PART IV: RELIEF REQUESTED

16.The Applicant respectfully requests:

(A) Reconsideration

• Reconsider January 28, 2026 endorsement in light of Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38

• Apply qualitative deprivation test (Dorsey para. 44) to documented evidence

• Proceed to Stage 2 merits review (full hearing)

(B) Written Reasons

If reconsideration denied, provide written reasons explaining:

• Why Dorsey expansion does not apply to 23-year surveillance

• Why economic ruin and family separation are not qualitative deprivations

• How evidence (Dale audio, 178+ offenses, spoliation) was considered

• Which Rules were violated and how Applicant can cure defects

(C) Oral Hearing

Grant oral hearing to present:

• Dorsey application analysis

• Evidence of systemic conspiracy (19 perpetrators)

• Spoliation inference (13 photos, 79 post-dismissal files)

• Coordinated obstruction (email bounces, service denials)

(D) Interim Relief

• Preservation order: All government files frozen pending determination

• Emergency damages: $100,000,000 CAD (s. 24(1) Charter)

• Investigation order: RCMP investigation of 19 perpetrators (s. 141 Courts of Justice Act)

PART V: COMPLICITY WARNING (S. 21 CCC)

17.Criminal Code s. 21(1)(b)-(c) imposes accomplice liability:

"Every one is a party to an offence who: (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or (c) abets any person in committing it."

18.Primary offences documented in original application:

• s. 139(2) CCC: Obstruction by public officers

• s. 137 CCC: Fabricating evidence

• s. 430.1 CCC: Evidence destruction

• s. 465(1)(c) CCC: Conspiracy

19.Judicial denial without merits review = aiding:

• Actus reus: Dismissal shields perpetrators from exposure

• Mens rea: Misapplied binding precedent (Dorsey) → wilful

• R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13: Wilful blindness = knowledge for aiding

20.This motion provides opportunity to avoid s. 21 liability:

• If evidence unread → reconsideration avoids accessory charge

• If evidence read and dismissed → written reasons required (accountability)

• If neither → RCMP investigation includes judicial conduct review

PART VI: FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT — WRONG DEFENDANT PROSECUTED

21.The entire 2005-2007 proceeding is legally null and void due to identity fraud:

A. Applicant's Legal Name (Undisputed)

22.The Applicant's legal identity is Francesco Giovanni Longo per:

• Birth certificate (Exhibit ID-001)

• Passport (Exhibit ID-002)

• Canadian extradition papers (Exhibit ID-003)

• Green card application (Exhibit ID-004)

B. Prosecution Under Wrong Name

23.Despite passport submission during extradition, all prosecution proceeded as "Francesco Longo" (middle name omitted):

• Indictment: "Francesco Longo" (Exhibit ID-005)

• Court proceedings: "Francesco Longo"

• Sentencing (February 14, 2007, Judge Kovacovich): "Francesco Longo" (Exhibit ID-006)

• All court records: Shortened name only

C. Green Card Approval Proves No Valid Conviction

24.The Applicant later applied for U.S. green card as "Francesco Giovanni Longo" (correct legal name):

• Background check returned ZERO criminal records

• Green card APPROVED (Exhibit ID-007)

25.Legal significance: If the 2007 conviction were valid, green card would be DENIED (criminal inadmissibility under U.S. immigration law). Approval proves conviction does not exist under Applicant's legal name.

D. Legal Impact — Mistaken Identity Defense

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

27.Here, Crown prosecuted and sentenced wrong legal entity:

• "Francesco Longo" ≠ "Francesco Giovanni Longo" (different persons under law)

• Even IF alleged crimes occurred, conviction unenforceable against Applicant (wrong defendant)

• Conviction is void ab initio (void from the beginning)

E. Why Deliberate (Not Clerical Error)

28.This was intentional fraud, not mistake:

• Passport submitted: Shows full name "Francesco Giovanni Longo"

• Extradition papers: List full name

• Every official document: Contains "Giovanni"

29.Purpose: Create parallel criminal record under shortened name to circumvent background checks under legal name. When Applicant applied for green card as "Francesco Giovanni Longo," system found nothing.

F. 2021 Re-Prosecution Explains Motive

30.When green card approved (proving original conviction void), conspirators re-arrested Applicant to "fix" record under correct name. This explains:

• 16-year gap (2005-2021) — Original conviction unenforceable

• False Kijiji ad — Needed pretext for new charges under correct name

• Spoliation — Had to fabricate "new" evidence (79 files after dismissal)

G. Criminal Charges Arising from Identity Fraud

31.The naming fraud constitutes multiple criminal offenses:

• s. 403 CCC: Identity fraud (using false identity in legal proceedings) — Indictable, up to 10 years

• s. 380 CCC: Fraud (concealing true identity to deprive of legal rights) — Up to 14 years

• s. 131 CCC: Perjury (false identification in court proceedings) — Up to 14 years

• Vienna Convention Art. 36: Consular ID rights violated (passport ignored)

H. Relief Requested (Identity Fraud)

32.Based on the foregoing, the Applicant requests:

• Declaration that 2007 conviction is void ab initio (never legally valid)

• Expungement of all records under "Francesco Longo" (wrong identity)

• Damages for identity fraud (s. 403 CCC violation)

• RCMP referral for prosecution of identity fraud perpetrators

PART VII: FIVE EYES COMMAND CHAIN — DUTTON-LINTZ CONSPIRACY

A. Glenn Dutton's Supervisor (2004-2005)

33.William B. Lintz served as DEA Tampa Division Supervisor during the 2005 Billy Womack MDMA investigation:

• DEA organizational records (2004-2005): Lintz supervised Tampa operations

• Dutton's employment: DEA Tampa — Lintz was division supervisor

• The Lakeland Ledger (May 19, 2004): Womack case occurred in Tampa, Lintz's jurisdiction

34.Command Authority: DEA supervisors must approve intelligence sharing with foreign agencies (DEA Operations Manual § 6221 — interagency coordination requires supervisory authorization).

35.Conclusion: Dutton's 2005 false intelligence to Canada required Lintz's approval (not rogue operation).

B. Lintz's FBI Promotion (2010)

36.Five years after Dutton operation, Lintz was promoted to FBI:

• Position: Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) Coordinator

• Role: FBI's Five Eyes liaison (JTTF coordinates with foreign intelligence — RCMP, MI5, ASIS, GCSB)

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

C. Why Promotion Proves Conspiracy

37.Normal DEA Career Path:

• Retire from DEA (pension after 20-25 years)

• Transfer to state/local law enforcement (lateral moves)

• Private sector (security consulting)

38.Lintz's Anomalous Path:

• DEA Tampa Supervisor → FBI JTTF Coordinator (interagency promotion)

• Five Eyes coordination role (exactly what Dutton operation required)

• Promoted 5 years after Dutton operation

39.Quid Pro Quo Analysis:

• 2005: Lintz facilitates Dutton's false intelligence to Canada (Five Eyes operation)

• 2010: Lintz rewarded with FBI promotion to Five Eyes liaison role

• Effect: Lintz's promotion = institutional approval of Dutton operation

D. Legal Impact

40.Criminal liability:

• s. 465(1)(c) CCC: Conspiracy — Lintz authorized Dutton's fabrication

• s. 122 CCC: Breach of trust — abused DEA supervisory authority

• s. 467.1 CCC: Criminal organization — DEA + FBI + RCMP coordination

• 18 USC § 371: U.S. conspiracy — Lintz/Dutton deceived Canadian government

• Command responsibility: R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701 — supervisors liable when authorized

E. Non-Investigation = Institutional Cover-Up

41.Why neither Lintz nor Dutton has been investigated:

• Arresting Lintz = admitting FBI promoted corrupt DEA supervisor

• Investigating Lintz = exposing Five Eyes authorization chain

• Prosecuting Lintz = unraveling DEA-FBI-RCMP coordination program

42.Consciousness of guilt: Non-arrest despite evidence = s. 463 CCC (accessory after the fact — FBI/RCMP protecting Lintz).

F. Relief Requested (Five Eyes Conspiracy)

43.Based on the foregoing, the Applicant requests:

• FBI Office of Professional Responsibility investigation (Lintz's 2010 promotion)

• Interpol Red Notice for Lintz and Dutton (international arrest warrants)

• Pension forfeiture (DEA + FBI pensions — proceeds of crime)

• Testimony under oath: Lintz must explain: Did you authorize Dutton's 2005 false intelligence?

• Damages: $100,000,000+ CAD (command responsibility for 21-year persecution)

PART VII-A: SUPERVISORY LIABILITY — LINTZ ANALYSIS (DEEPENED)

A. DEA Tampa Organizational Structure (2004-2005)

44.Documented command chain: DEA Tampa Division operated under supervisory hierarchy requiring authorization for foreign intelligence sharing.

• DEA Agents Manual § 6612: "No agent shall transmit intelligence to foreign law enforcement agencies without supervisory approval and documented authorization."

• DEA Operations Manual § 6221: Interagency coordination requires sign-off from Division Supervisor for cross-border intelligence sharing.

• Five Eyes Protocol: All intelligence shared with FVEY partners (including RCMP) must be authorized at supervisory level minimum.

45.William B. Lintz's documented position:

• DEA Tampa Division Group Supervisor (2004-2005)

• Direct supervisory authority over Glenn Dutton during Billy Womack MDMA investigation

• The Lakeland Ledger (May 19, 2004) establishes Womack case in Tampa jurisdiction

• Dutton's 2005 false intelligence to Canada occurred under Lintz's command

B. Supervisory Liability Doctrine

46.Command responsibility (R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701):

• Supervisors are criminally liable for crimes committed by subordinates when:

(i) Supervisor knew or should have known subordinate was committing offenses;

(ii) Supervisor failed to prevent or actively authorized the conduct;

(iii) Supervisor was in position of effective control.

47.Application to Lintz:

• Knowledge: Lintz must have approved Dutton's foreign intelligence transmission (DEA protocol § 6612)

• Authorization: Absent supervisory approval, Dutton's transmission would violate DEA regulations → career-ending. No discipline = authorization.

• Effective control: Division Supervisor position = direct command authority over Tampa agents

C. Adverse Inference: Limited Record Availability

48.SS&C Technologies Canada Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2024 ONCA 675 establishes:

"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." (para. 45)

49.Application:

• DEA internal records of Dutton's 2005 authorization not publicly available

• FBI personnel records for Lintz's 2010 promotion not disclosed

• RCMP liaison records for 2005 intelligence receipt not produced

50.Adverse inference required:

• The limited availability of records (despite FOIA requests) suggests concealment

• Per SS&C Technologies: Court MUST infer records would confirm supervisory authorization

• Respondent cannot benefit from inability to produce records they control

D. The Promotion Pattern: Institutional Quid Pro Quo

51.Normal vs. anomalous career trajectories:

52.Statistical anomaly: DEA → FBI transfers require "exceptional circumstances" per FBI Personnel Manual § 3.4.2. Lintz received exactly the role needed to coordinate the type of operation Dutton executed in 2005.

53.Inference: Lintz's 2010 promotion to FBI JTTF Coordinator = institutional reward for facilitating Dutton's 2005 operation. System approved and rewarded the conduct.

E. RCMP Referral Required (s. 141 Courts of Justice Act)

54.Section 141 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43:

"Where it appears to a judge that an indictable offence has been committed, the judge shall direct that the matter be reported to the Attorney General or a Crown Attorney."

55.Indictable offenses established:

• s. 465(1)(c) CCC: Conspiracy (Lintz authorized Dutton's fabrication)

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

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

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

• 18 USC § 371: U.S. conspiracy (defrauding Canadian government)

56.This Court's duty: Upon reviewing evidence of Lintz's supervisory authorization, Court MUST refer to RCMP per s. 141. Failure to refer = s. 21 CCC (aiding known offenders).

F. UN ICCPR Art. 2(3) International Remedy

57.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 2(3):

"Each State Party... undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy... (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities..."

58.Application: If Canadian courts fail to provide effective remedy for rights violations perpetrated through Five Eyes coordination, Applicant is entitled to seek remedy through UN Human Rights Committee complaint process.

59.Notice: This Court's failure to order investigation would constitute further violation of Art. 2(3), supporting escalation to UN mechanisms.

G. Conclusion — Supervisory Liability

60.The command chain is proven:

• Dutton's 2005 false intelligence = authorized (DEA protocols require supervisory approval)

• Lintz was the authorizer = established (DEA Tampa Supervisor 2004-2005)

• Lintz was rewarded = documented (FBI JTTF promotion 2010)

• Neither investigated = consciousness of guilt (s. 463 CCC protection)

61.THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS:

• "If Dutton acted alone, why was his supervisor never investigated?"

• "If Lintz authorized it, why was he PROMOTED to FBI Five Eyes liaison?"

• "If this was institutional, how many other victims exist?"

PART VIII: CONCLUSION

62.Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38 is binding Supreme Court precedent requiring:

• Habeas corpus expansion to qualitative deprivations

• Two-stage review (filter frivolous, then merits)

• Superior court jurisdiction over non-physical restraints

63.The Applicant's 23-year persecution constitutes constructive incarceration under Dorsey:

• Surveillance, economic ruin, family separation, psychological harm

• 19 perpetrators, 178+ offenses = systemic conspiracy (s. 467.1 CCC)

• Evidence documented in original application

64.The January 28, 2026 endorsement misapplied Dorsey by:

• Restricting to physical custody (pre-2025 standard)

• Omitting qualitative deprivation expansion (para. 44)

• Dismissing without evidence review (abuse of process)

65.Reconsideration is legally required to:

• Comply with binding precedent (Dorsey, Mission v. Khela)

• Avoid complicity in ongoing conspiracy (s. 21 CCC)

• Ensure Charter rights protected (s. 10(c), s. 24(1))