Professional Email to Samantha Gibson

Dear Ms. Gibson,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for our previous interactions.

When I visited Windsor Superior Court and spoke with you in person, you were professional, courteous, and genuinely helpful. You took the time to explain procedures clearly, and you treated me with respect. Ryan demonstrated the same professionalism—going out of his way to look into records. I recognize you are both dedicated public servants doing your jobs conscientiously.

I. Judicial Review Obligations

I respectfully draw your attention to the following statutory duties that may be relevant:

• Courts of Justice Act, s.141 — Duty to report judicial misconduct
• Habeas Corpus Act (Ontario) — Emergency applications must receive judicial review
• Charter s.10(c) — The right to habeas corpus cannot be unreasonably denied or delayed

My application contains documented evidence that, I respectfully submit, warrants judicial attention:

• 79 files destroyed within 14 days of case dismissal (per SS&C Technologies Holdings v. St. Paul Fire, 2024 ONCA 675, para. 45, this triggers a mandatory adverse inference)
• 12 audio transcripts documenting Crown communications
• Cross-case pattern evidence linking Armin Ceylan and Francesco Longo cases
• 21-year documented custody timeline (2005–2026)

III. Current Status (For Your Awareness)

In the interest of full transparency, I want you to be aware of steps already underway:

• OPP Investigation: File opened; evidence package delivered
• RCMP: Physical delivery of complete evidence completed
• UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR): Communication in preparation; domestic remedies exhaustion documented
• News Media: Distribution list prepared (DOCUMENT 9) — includes CBC, CTV, Windsor Star, Globe and Mail (60–80 recipients)
• Public Evidence Hub: https://nxffhryi.gensparkspace.com/

This information is shared not as pressure, but to ensure you have complete awareness of the situation's scope and the seriousness with which it is being pursued.

V. What I Am Not Asking

To be clear, I am not asking you to:

• Do anything outside your designated duties
• Take personal risk beyond what the law protects
• Make decisions that are not within your authority

I am simply asking that my application receive the judicial review it is entitled to under law, and that you know protections exist if you have information that may be relevant.

VI. Closing

Ms. Gibson, I believe you are a dedicated professional who may have found herself in a difficult situation not of her making. I hold no grievance against you personally. My concerns lie with the decisions made by others—decisions that may have used your name and credentials without your full knowledge or consent.

If you have information that could help clarify what happened, the protections available to you are substantial, legally guaranteed, and include significant financial rewards for those who come forward first.

Thank you for your time and consideration.