In case HN readers aren't aware of it, I would say most of the reported "tragedies" that you read about involving adults have prior LEO relationships, or in the case of fires, firemen. If you read a national newspaper for long enough, they keep popping up.
Usually it's to create cases that then need solving.
This case is odd because the person of interest appears to be a pro of some kind, and they normally have better things to do, and without press.
States derive part of their legitimacy from offering protection against harm. Anything that appears as a threat of harm, a state derives existential benefit from.
"State security" provides security to the existence of the state.
One result was it gave a pretense for the prime minister to issue the equivalent of an executive order banning 1500 types of rife which were previously legal and giving anyone that owns one a 2 year grace period to dispose of it. This was done without going through the legislative process.
9/11, at least depending on your definition of "false flag".
The Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively suppressed attempts to stop them. George W. Bush was close personal friends with one of the key architects of 9/11 and afterwards great measures were taken to cover up this person's involvement (the so-called "28 pages").
A lot of other people would cite the Gulf of Tonkin as an example too, but that's something I know less about so I'll leave it to someone else.
> A lot of other people would cite the Gulf of Tonkin as an example too, but that's something I know less about so I'll leave it to someone else.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was explained to the American public at the time as pair of attacks on two separate nights against the US Navy by the North Vietnamese. This was used as the casus belli for the Vietnam War; in response to the two attacks congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which authorized LBJ to start a war (without formally declaring a war...)
The first attack probably did happen, however in 2003 Robert McNamara (who had been the US Secretary of Defense at the time of the incident) admitted the second attack never happened. Straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
> This was used as the casus belli for the Vietnam War
No, it was used as the excuse for yet another escalation of the Vietnam War, which the US had been overtly been involved in since immediately after the French gave up in 1954, and had significantly escalated it's involvement in (again, overtly) throughout the Kennedy Administration.
As far as "intelligence ops gone awry," you can almost take any random "FBI busts up terror plot" story and on closer inspection it turns out they were goading the suspects into it and providing material support.
It's misleading to call that a false flag, as it was not an act intended to deceive the public. While the operation used methods of dubious legality and morality to gather information, the 2000 or so guns that were allowed to walk constituted only a small fraction of guns already being smuggled across the border.
The US government has an unofficial alliance with the Sinaloa cartel.
It's always been my guess that Fast & Furious was about supplying arms to them, or at least that makes more sense than "gathering information" as an objective.
> it was not an act intended to deceive the public.
According to the government, the government didn't intend to deceive the public. Of course if a government were willing to deceive the public, it's practically tautological that the government would be willing to deceive the public about their intent to deceive the public. In other words, liars say they aren't liars, because they're liars.
A lot of people think that's exactly what they did. From a legitimate law enforcement perspective the program was a sick joke, so speculation as to whether it had other motivations the American government is unwilling to discuss seems fair.
The GP said "false flag/intelligence operation" and the article itself is about details that suggest the Nova Scotia shooter was intelligence operative (but no false flag here).
So it's reasonable to say that what we're talking about is the broad world of intelligence agencies keeping their hands in everything, so what might seem like an action of a cartel or other gang (Hell's Angels in the case of the Nova Scotia shooter) may well have received aid from actual state agencies.
Operation Northwoods was a proposal by the DoD. They planned to use the CIA to carry out false flag/terrorist attacks on Americans and blame it on Cuba.
He withdrew a huge amount of money, in a manner that is only used by CIs and agents. From the article:
> A Mountie familiar with the techniques used by the force in undercover operations, but not with the details of the investigation into the shooting, says Wortman could not have collected his own money from Brink’s as a private citizen.
and
> “When you come into my branch and you want a ton of cash, then I say, you gotta give us a couple of days. We put in our Brink’s order, I order the money through Brink’s, then when the money arrives, you come back into the branch, I bring you into a back room and I count the money out for you,” the banking expert said. “Sending someone to Brink’s to get the money? I’ve never heard of that before. The reason is, if I’m the banker, and you’ve deposited your savings in my bank branch, I’m responsible for making sure the money goes to the right person. If you want this money, I’m going to verify your identity and document that. I can’t do that if I’m transferring the money to Brink’s.”
It's solid evidence that this guy is connected to the RCMP in some manner.
I didn’t read it that way at all. All this article is alleging is that the gunman was connected with the RCMP in some fashion. Not that the RCMP actually wanted him to go on a killing spree.
I’m thinking more along the lines of a confidential informant gone off the rails.
Saying (err typing) "sources" does not equate to actual real life sources - no matter what the topic (or who the publisher) is. This is basic media literacy.
That kind of transfers could be also used by the Hells Angels, which is a front for the Drug cartel.
It's also very likely that he withdraw his own money, using his cartel connections to get it in cash from Brink.
A government service (FBI eqivalent) using such a loose cannon as informant is likely, but paying him that much unlikely. And the rampage looks very personal, unlike other cases in the US.
I don't know much about the case. Did he plan to do it that specific day? Maybe he had general plans, but didn't know the month or year he would carry them out until the moment he snapped.
People who are suicidal can often behave in ways that appear paradoxical to others. This includes things like booking holidays, getting new jobs, buying tools and equipment for a DIY project, etc.
I learned more about Canadian banking system than I expected. The banking for CIs and agents was especially fascinating. Makes me wonder how the system works in US. I assume Canada copied US approach. Does anyone here have an insight into Brink equovalent in US?
> Does anyone here have an insight into Brink equovalent in US
Brinks is an armored car company. He drove into a lot used to load and unload armored cars making deliveries to banks and filling ATMs, and walked out with a literal duffel bag full of cash.
For security reasons, private citizens are not allowed to do that. Even bank employees can't do that. The whole point of armored cars is they bring the money to you.
Everything about this screams undercover operation.
1) The Canadian government has more holes in it than swiss cheese. The level of detail leaked to the public in this one article makes a mockery of the Canadian government's attempts to keep things confidential.
2) The gunman really wanted to be a cop and seems to have possibly obtained the ability to do cop-like things by providing information about criminal organizations in canada (Hells Angels)
3) The gunman appears to have been wired $400,000 by the Mounties in relation to this work.
4) At some point he lost his mind and killed a bunch of people for some reason, and the Mounties are saying that they had nothing to do with this guy, despite the evidence that he was paid $400,000 on surveillance camera by a source that can likely only be the Mounties.
For 1) while the narrative is compelling, it doesn't seem like that much was leaked. Just that he managed to withdraw a lot of money in an unusual fashion. The rest is conjecture. Compelling conjecture but still conjecture (I'm assuming that the way paying CIs works is not a secret, they just needed someone to quote to back it up)
I'm curious where all that cash ended up. Did they find it? The preceding article on this matter says
> It is not clear what happened to the money from the moment the killer took it out of the Brink’s location to the time he was shot by RCMP officers during an attempted arrest at a gas station in Enfield, N.S., on April 19. The lawyer for family members of the killer’s victims said Wednesday that the estate filing at probate court lists a large sum of cash, which he believes was recovered by the RCMP. “I assume the public trustee has it,” said Robert Pineo, who is suing the estate.
I think 1) is actually a win for the canadian populace. Any democratically elected government that is trying to hide any conduct from it’s constituents is grave affront to democracy, (no matter how loud the people involved scream “national security”.)
Sorry sorry, just sheer laziness :) I read the article in full first on mobile before I wrote my comment, and remembered the number as being $4xx,xxx, basically I could only remember the first significant figure!
The important thing to note in the article is this:
> "The RCMP Operations Manual, a copy of which was obtained by Maclean’s, authorizes the force to mislead all but the courts in order to conceal the identity of confidential informants and agent sources.
> “The identity of a source must be protected at all times except when the administration of justice requires otherwise, i.e. a member cannot mislead a court in any proceeding in order to protect a source.”
So RCMP isn't even telling the truth to the public quite possibly.
This seems pretty thin... Isn't Brinks a private security company? Isn't it possible that someone else apart from Canadian law-enforcement decided it would be a good way to transfer a large amount of cash?
Think of an armored car depot like an Amazon warehouse. You can't just pop in and pick up a bottle of hand soap, no matter how big of a customer you are.
Usually, the only non-employees who are allowed to enter are law enforcement.
Before Amazon had free return shipping, someone ordered something super heavy and wanted to return it. It would have cost a ton of money to ship it back.
Amazon repeatedly said he couldn’t drop it off himself.
So he printed off a Tracking Sheet for a fictitious “ABC Couriers”, put it on a clipboard and drove it over.
I think if anyone else sent him large amounts of money they would immediately be under arrest (at least brought in for questioning) and there would be a big story in the news.
The most obvious explanation seems to be that no-one sent him the money - it was his own savings.
From what I can tell, there is no actual evidence linking this to RCMP at the moment, except an anonymous source's opinion.
I'm with OP that this is very thin. Maybe they have more that they can't publish, so are confident to go out on a limb, but based on just this article I'm unconvinced.
They seem to just be the payment processor that works with Brink's as an end point [0]
> "Streamline cash management systems, improve security and loss prevention with the ability to work with any remote safe provider."
There's a lot of people saying that the involvement of these companies is suspicious, but it seems like securely withdrawing an enormous amount of cash is exactly the sort of service they provide.
I'll just say it again; there is nothing actually linking to RCMP at this point. If you are going to leap that it's not his money, why not claim he's in the pay of the Saudis or organised crime or anything else?
> They seem to just be the payment processor that works with Brink's as an end point
Are you an expert in this field?
I find it surprising how many armchair detectives on HN think their "they seem" theories should trump professional reporters who spoke with expert sources and had their work vetted to the point that it was published in one of our national publications..
Mind boggling in fact.
Also, apologies if you are indeed an expert in this field ;-)
I'm not sure I would say I am an expert, but I am a real detective, not an armchair one, and I have previously worked with RCMP.
This thread [0] from a former CSIS officer and illicit finance expert has some criticisms.
I notice as well that the authors aren't exactly coming out swinging in defense of their piece [1][2]
> "Do you know how it would be that he would withdraw the money from a Brinks facility? We did our best to understand that but may well have missed something."
This is basically the entire crux of their argument; that there's no way he would have withdrawn that amount of money from Brink's without being an RCMP agent, but they don't (IMO) substantiate that.
This Reddit user flatly contradicts it [3]
> "My family uses Brinks all the time to make large deposits and withdrawals for business purposes."
> "The Mountie source from that article is absolutely wrong from what I've seen, you CAN collect money from Brinks as a private citizen. Fuck, I've SEEN it. That's why I'm asking. Maybe the Mountie just isn't familiar with large cash transactions for business purposes but how do you think Casinos stock up on the right type of bills? Or Liquor Stores? Or Grocery stores?"
Anyway, I didn't (and can't) say it is false, just that the article had failed to convince me.
I used to be a programmer but left because I wanted, basically, to collect cool stories to tell my grandchildren. Don't regret it at all, plus having coding skills gives you superpowers in some situations (like xkcd 208 but actually).
I work on child sexual offences at the moment but I previously worked mainly on drug importations and had a case involving Canadians which is how I worked with RCMP.
Ah. The idea being that if you actually want to make a big withdrawal from your bank account in cash, you do it through Brinks, since your bank itself wouldn’t want to handle that much cash in one place?
Side note: in the first episode of Ozark, the main character withdraws millions from his bank account in cash just by giving them 48 hours notice. The FBI is there to ask him if he’s being coerced and the bank seems reluctant to let him walk out with it until he threatens to start a bank run.
If anyone stumbles across this thread in future...
RCMP have again directly denied the suggestions in this story that he worked for them and said the money was his own;
> "What I can confirm at this point is that it appears that the gunman liquidated personal investments from his own bank accounts and converted them to cash prior to the shootings"
Couldn't it have a non-Canadian operation? CIA, for example? It seems fishy, and it sounds like maybe a government is involved, by why must it be the Canadians?
This seems nearly as likely, although given that most intelligence ops in a country are operated by said country, I think CA still has to be #1 suspect with the US as a close #2
I guess the question that comes to mind is, what would be the motive? That is if you are implying this was an attack by a foreign government (and not that he was a foreign spy who just coincidentally went nuts).
I suppose if it was spies there could be a lot non obvious going on behind the scenes. At face value though i cant see who would benefit from this.
If one would like to read more about the insidious relationship between US CI's and LE, The Intercept has some great leaked material.
It really shows how far American TLA's will go to keep their powers, and it's sick.
One other aside I would like to add is when you have topics like this which have the potential of upsetting the powers that be, always look for posts that are low in points/grey. Those will be the most informative while the shill posts get high points. They don't like facts.
It may cause a "suspicious transaction report" to be submitted to FINTRAC but they receive a multitude of these reports from
FIs and financial services companies daily.
There is no guarantee that it would be acted on in a timely
manner. (most likely not)
Specifically that the RCMP also runs FINTRAC, and when they’re paying CIs and agents, they let their buddies in FINTRAC know ahead of time so that the transactions can be processed manually.
So many conspiracy theorists in this thread when by far the most obvious explanation is the dude just snapped. Maybe he was a CI. Maybe Brinks lets you withdraw money that way for certain businesses. Either way neither of those things lead to his rampage.
The story of this is that if he was in fact a CI, that the RCMP let him get away with crimes and violent behavior so he would keep giving them info.
But for people saying this is a false flag, come on...
I checked this post when it was first submitted and the only comments were arguing this article is proof of a false flag. Now they are near the bottom but I wonder if the several like-minded comments immediately after submission were coordinated or a coincidence?
This level of conjecture matches the tone of the article though, so it feels thematically appropriate.
I am disappointed in the use of the killers name. Most media here in Canada did not display his name nor picture during broadcast. If you celebritize their actions you incentivise the other unstable people.
It's a sad state of affairs that while the fact that the shooter was working for the RCMP is a good explanation for the fact that the large number of red flags around his illegal weapon ownership and spousal abuse was ignored, its no better of an explanation than the fact that the police generally are terrible and don't care.
Well that's super weird. A few things stick out to me:
That sounds like quite a lot of money. Much more than I would expect the RCMP to routinely hand out to anyone as a payment. And we don't know for sure it's actually from RCMP. If it was, I wonder if it was meant to be buy money for some kind of controlled buy of drugs or weapons. Was he even involved in large-scale drug trafficking? I guess they aren't saying exactly what their relationship, if any, was with him.
Some are claiming that this suggests that his mass shooting was a planned false-flag operation. But if it was, why give the guy a huge pile of cash in a way that would look suspicious later? If you wanted to organize a false-flag mass shooting, I would think it would be much easier to find some random nutter of questionable stability that you could wind up and talk into it. I wouldn't think giving him half a mil in cash would factor into the plan. If it was, better to have a cop pick it up from Brinks and give it to him in a parking lot somewhere or something like that.
The money seems to have disappeared too. If it was really his money, you would think some family member would be a lot more interested in recovering it.
> "The RCMP Operations Manual, a copy of which was obtained by Maclean’s, authorizes the force to mislead all but the courts in order to conceal the identity of confidential informants and agent sources.
> “The identity of a source must be protected at all times except when the administration of justice requires otherwise, i.e. a member cannot mislead a court in any proceeding in order to protect a source.”
So RCMP could simply not be telling the truth as they are authorized to lie?
99 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadUsually it's to create cases that then need solving.
This case is odd because the person of interest appears to be a pro of some kind, and they normally have better things to do, and without press.
Lots of lines being crossed the last few decades.
"State security" provides security to the existence of the state.
also explains why prisons are so cushy and recidivism so high
The Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively suppressed attempts to stop them. George W. Bush was close personal friends with one of the key architects of 9/11 and afterwards great measures were taken to cover up this person's involvement (the so-called "28 pages").
A lot of other people would cite the Gulf of Tonkin as an example too, but that's something I know less about so I'll leave it to someone else.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was explained to the American public at the time as pair of attacks on two separate nights against the US Navy by the North Vietnamese. This was used as the casus belli for the Vietnam War; in response to the two attacks congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which authorized LBJ to start a war (without formally declaring a war...)
The first attack probably did happen, however in 2003 Robert McNamara (who had been the US Secretary of Defense at the time of the incident) admitted the second attack never happened. Straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
No, it was used as the excuse for yet another escalation of the Vietnam War, which the US had been overtly been involved in since immediately after the French gave up in 1954, and had significantly escalated it's involvement in (again, overtly) throughout the Kennedy Administration.
An example where that may have gotten out of hand is the Boston Marathon bombing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21690520
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
It's always been my guess that Fast & Furious was about supplying arms to them, or at least that makes more sense than "gathering information" as an objective.
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1747720_re-fwd-re-fw-f...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/01/14/was-operat...
According to the government, the government didn't intend to deceive the public. Of course if a government were willing to deceive the public, it's practically tautological that the government would be willing to deceive the public about their intent to deceive the public. In other words, liars say they aren't liars, because they're liars.
A lot of people think that's exactly what they did. From a legitimate law enforcement perspective the program was a sick joke, so speculation as to whether it had other motivations the American government is unwilling to discuss seems fair.
So it's reasonable to say that what we're talking about is the broad world of intelligence agencies keeping their hands in everything, so what might seem like an action of a cartel or other gang (Hell's Angels in the case of the Nova Scotia shooter) may well have received aid from actual state agencies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
i guess secret service are guilty till proven innocent...
> A Mountie familiar with the techniques used by the force in undercover operations, but not with the details of the investigation into the shooting, says Wortman could not have collected his own money from Brink’s as a private citizen.
and
> “When you come into my branch and you want a ton of cash, then I say, you gotta give us a couple of days. We put in our Brink’s order, I order the money through Brink’s, then when the money arrives, you come back into the branch, I bring you into a back room and I count the money out for you,” the banking expert said. “Sending someone to Brink’s to get the money? I’ve never heard of that before. The reason is, if I’m the banker, and you’ve deposited your savings in my bank branch, I’m responsible for making sure the money goes to the right person. If you want this money, I’m going to verify your identity and document that. I can’t do that if I’m transferring the money to Brink’s.”
It's solid evidence that this guy is connected to the RCMP in some manner.
I’m thinking more along the lines of a confidential informant gone off the rails.
A government service (FBI eqivalent) using such a loose cannon as informant is likely, but paying him that much unlikely. And the rampage looks very personal, unlike other cases in the US.
Brinks is an armored car company. He drove into a lot used to load and unload armored cars making deliveries to banks and filling ATMs, and walked out with a literal duffel bag full of cash.
For security reasons, private citizens are not allowed to do that. Even bank employees can't do that. The whole point of armored cars is they bring the money to you.
Everything about this screams undercover operation.
1) The Canadian government has more holes in it than swiss cheese. The level of detail leaked to the public in this one article makes a mockery of the Canadian government's attempts to keep things confidential.
2) The gunman really wanted to be a cop and seems to have possibly obtained the ability to do cop-like things by providing information about criminal organizations in canada (Hells Angels)
3) The gunman appears to have been wired $400,000 by the Mounties in relation to this work.
4) At some point he lost his mind and killed a bunch of people for some reason, and the Mounties are saying that they had nothing to do with this guy, despite the evidence that he was paid $400,000 on surveillance camera by a source that can likely only be the Mounties.
> It is not clear what happened to the money from the moment the killer took it out of the Brink’s location to the time he was shot by RCMP officers during an attempted arrest at a gas station in Enfield, N.S., on April 19. The lawyer for family members of the killer’s victims said Wednesday that the estate filing at probate court lists a large sum of cash, which he believes was recovered by the RCMP. “I assume the public trustee has it,” said Robert Pineo, who is suing the estate.
The important thing to note in the article is this:
> "The RCMP Operations Manual, a copy of which was obtained by Maclean’s, authorizes the force to mislead all but the courts in order to conceal the identity of confidential informants and agent sources. > “The identity of a source must be protected at all times except when the administration of justice requires otherwise, i.e. a member cannot mislead a court in any proceeding in order to protect a source.”
So RCMP isn't even telling the truth to the public quite possibly.
Usually, the only non-employees who are allowed to enter are law enforcement.
Before Amazon had free return shipping, someone ordered something super heavy and wanted to return it. It would have cost a ton of money to ship it back.
Amazon repeatedly said he couldn’t drop it off himself.
So he printed off a Tracking Sheet for a fictitious “ABC Couriers”, put it on a clipboard and drove it over.
From what I can tell, there is no actual evidence linking this to RCMP at the moment, except an anonymous source's opinion.
I'm with OP that this is very thin. Maybe they have more that they can't publish, so are confident to go out on a limb, but based on just this article I'm unconvinced.
This isn't definitive proof, the article is clear on that. It will be nearly impossible to prove the claim until a court case of some sort though.
> "Streamline cash management systems, improve security and loss prevention with the ability to work with any remote safe provider."
There's a lot of people saying that the involvement of these companies is suspicious, but it seems like securely withdrawing an enormous amount of cash is exactly the sort of service they provide.
I'll just say it again; there is nothing actually linking to RCMP at this point. If you are going to leap that it's not his money, why not claim he's in the pay of the Saudis or organised crime or anything else?
[0] https://www.cibc.com/en/cibc-websites/intria/services.html
Are you an expert in this field?
I find it surprising how many armchair detectives on HN think their "they seem" theories should trump professional reporters who spoke with expert sources and had their work vetted to the point that it was published in one of our national publications..
Mind boggling in fact.
Also, apologies if you are indeed an expert in this field ;-)
It’s unlikely they’re also familiar with all the other services that Brinks/banks can provide you outside of paying agents/informants.
This thread [0] from a former CSIS officer and illicit finance expert has some criticisms.
I notice as well that the authors aren't exactly coming out swinging in defense of their piece [1][2]
> "Do you know how it would be that he would withdraw the money from a Brinks facility? We did our best to understand that but may well have missed something."
This is basically the entire crux of their argument; that there's no way he would have withdrawn that amount of money from Brink's without being an RCMP agent, but they don't (IMO) substantiate that.
This Reddit user flatly contradicts it [3]
> "My family uses Brinks all the time to make large deposits and withdrawals for business purposes."
> "The Mountie source from that article is absolutely wrong from what I've seen, you CAN collect money from Brinks as a private citizen. Fuck, I've SEEN it. That's why I'm asking. Maybe the Mountie just isn't familiar with large cash transactions for business purposes but how do you think Casinos stock up on the right type of bills? Or Liquor Stores? Or Grocery stores?"
Anyway, I didn't (and can't) say it is false, just that the article had failed to convince me.
[0] https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/127432159544467046...
[1] https://twitter.com/stphnmaher/status/1274150076760363009
[2] https://twitter.com/stphnmaher/status/1274378948743397376
[3] https://old.reddit.com/user/Sociojoe
> I'm not sure I would say I am an expert, but I am a real detective, not an armchair one, and I have previously worked with RCMP.
We can't have many of those on HN! Care to say more about your background? No need, of course. Just curious.
I work on child sexual offences at the moment but I previously worked mainly on drug importations and had a case involving Canadians which is how I worked with RCMP.
This kind of careless talk is going to trigger the Great Front Page Detectives-Who-Love-Erlang Bloom of 2020.
Why would he be withdrawing his savings through payment processing?
>why not claim he's in the pay of the Saudis or organised crime or anything else?
It doesn't explain why some of his crimes were overlooked, and any connection to either of those groups would likely have been revealed through this.
Side note: in the first episode of Ozark, the main character withdraws millions from his bank account in cash just by giving them 48 hours notice. The FBI is there to ask him if he’s being coerced and the bank seems reluctant to let him walk out with it until he threatens to start a bank run.
RCMP have again directly denied the suggestions in this story that he worked for them and said the money was his own;
> "What I can confirm at this point is that it appears that the gunman liquidated personal investments from his own bank accounts and converted them to cash prior to the shootings"
https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2020/06/21/pandemic-...
Canada is well managed from the top.
I suppose if it was spies there could be a lot non obvious going on behind the scenes. At face value though i cant see who would benefit from this.
> My family uses Brinks all the time to make large deposits and withdrawals for business purposes.
While technically true individuals cannot collect from money from Brinks, you can on behalf of a business (the shooter owned a few).
It really shows how far American TLA's will go to keep their powers, and it's sick.
One other aside I would like to add is when you have topics like this which have the potential of upsetting the powers that be, always look for posts that are low in points/grey. Those will be the most informative while the shill posts get high points. They don't like facts.
https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/reporting-declaration/info/...
If it wasn't that by itself suggests something illegal.
The story of this is that if he was in fact a CI, that the RCMP let him get away with crimes and violent behavior so he would keep giving them info.
But for people saying this is a false flag, come on...
This level of conjecture matches the tone of the article though, so it feels thematically appropriate.
That sounds like quite a lot of money. Much more than I would expect the RCMP to routinely hand out to anyone as a payment. And we don't know for sure it's actually from RCMP. If it was, I wonder if it was meant to be buy money for some kind of controlled buy of drugs or weapons. Was he even involved in large-scale drug trafficking? I guess they aren't saying exactly what their relationship, if any, was with him.
Some are claiming that this suggests that his mass shooting was a planned false-flag operation. But if it was, why give the guy a huge pile of cash in a way that would look suspicious later? If you wanted to organize a false-flag mass shooting, I would think it would be much easier to find some random nutter of questionable stability that you could wind up and talk into it. I wouldn't think giving him half a mil in cash would factor into the plan. If it was, better to have a cop pick it up from Brinks and give it to him in a parking lot somewhere or something like that.
The money seems to have disappeared too. If it was really his money, you would think some family member would be a lot more interested in recovering it.
> “The identity of a source must be protected at all times except when the administration of justice requires otherwise, i.e. a member cannot mislead a court in any proceeding in order to protect a source.”
So RCMP could simply not be telling the truth as they are authorized to lie?