EPISODE #15: MY TESTIMONY IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO DENNIS KING ET. AL.

January 28, 2025

Subject: Concerns About Jeffrey Warren Reynolds and the Integrity of Whistle-blowing in the PEI vs. CMT lawsuit

Dear Cpl. Garrett,

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me about the Jeffrey Warren Reynolds matter and its implications for the ongoing PEI vs. CMT lawsuit.

I have finally gotten around to locating some of the messages sent to me directly by Jeffrey Warren Reynolds, or his messages filed by Maines that mention me, or posted elsewhere that mention me, and have prepared a written commentary of sorts to supplement the testimony which I already provided to you recently at the West Prince RCMP station.

I’ve broken it up into chunks with headings to hopefully make the narrative come together a little more easily, both to highlight the seriousness of the matters as I see them (from findings and my personal involvement investigating egaming), as well as to show the very direct role that I played in the genesis of what you are now investigating regarding the matter of whether what Paul Maines relied on in his case against King et. al., from Mr. Reynolds was legitimate, or possibly fabricated in some elaborate scam.

I honestly don’t know what to believe at this point, and now wonder if I was being “baited” by Jeffrey to become involved; however, his reaching out to me, or mentioning to others the need for me to become part of what he was involved in (i.e., “something big” that would “help Paul Maines”) certainly seemed legitimate to me at the time.

I never was made privy to the exact nature of that “something big,” that he alluded to in his communications, but I assumed it was “egaming,” especially mentioning Maines, but also when he posted a FB “story” that had one word (I’ve attached it), a name, “Keith Laslop”. Not many in the public would know the significance of that posting, but Maines and I certainly did!

Keith Laslop was involved with Chris LeClair way back in the “off-the-books” efforts to get into online gaming being secretly advanced by then-Minister Wes Sheridan in 2010-12, the same period of time Brad Mix’s (and others) emails were deleted.

Now, in retrospect, looking at the messages JWR sent to Paul Maines that were filed by Maines in court mentioning both Chris LeClair and Keith LasLop in the current (alleged) fraud (Laslop doesn’t live in PEI) both being part of the secret group allegedly meeting at a cottage in Rustico to discuss a Gamsys online proposal (following the “legalization” of online gaming for provincial government that had just happened federally), was entirely consistent with someone who had “inside information” and possibly not happy with what that entailed (i.e., corruption), and was publicly positioning himself to do something with that information to “upset the apple cart”, so to speak, which is what I thought he then did when Paul Maines filed his suit with scads of messsages from JWR all looking legit, with authentic-looking profiles of many well-known people within government on those messages.

WAS JWR A WHISTLE-BLOWEROR NOT?

I’ve been following this case closely since its inception, and I’m deeply concerned about the broader ramifications that could ensue from the current situation, particularly as it pertains to accountability, transparency, and the legal and ethical framework within which whistle-blowing must operate if it is to be of any use in making public what is wrongfully being kept secret by our elected officials and hired government bureaucrats to serve unlawful and corrupt activities.

Such unsavoury activities rely on keeping information that is required by law to be (1) retained in accordance with the Public Archives and Records Act (i.e., NOT DELETED, but processed and presented to the Public Archives Office for processing by the Departmental Records Manager Liaison Officer) so those government records can then be (2) made available to the public in accordance with the legal rights of citizens to obtain copies of those records; specifically, under provisions – and through procedures – found in provisions in the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and Regulations detailing those provisions and the steps in the processing requirements outlined in the Acts, Regulations and Treasury Board Directives regarding record management within departments.

At the core of this lawsuit by Maines relying so heavily on Jeffey Warren Reynolds (JWR) as a “whistle-blower, lies a profoundly troubling issue, that being the alleged destruction of government documents, including allegations by Jeffrey Warren Reynolds that Defendants named by Maines were part of a plan led by Premier Dennis King to circumvent the very creation of public documents, through the use of private emails. i.e.,documents for which no record will be saved or retrievable in any FOI request.

This is therefore by no means your typical civil proceeding seeking personal damages happening the PEI Supreme Court, it alleges a well-coordinated “off-the-books” strategy involving many individuals, and strikes at the very heart of whether there are grounds for citizens to have public trust in the integrity of government.

By its very nature, this alleged corruption was designed carefully to be disguised, and may never have become known – if proven to be true – if not for someone who happened to have been (for whatever reason) “allowed in the room” becoming privy to the inside secrets, then decided to become a whistle-blower, such as I assumed to be the case with JWR when Paul Maines first filed his lawsuit.

For whistle-blowers to even want to come forward, they must be credible people and brave, and because its generally not at all “easy,” to be a whistle-blower with nothing to be gained personally, and possibly much to lose, usually their motives can be taken as genuine on assumption, and their testimonies trusted as being unimpeachable.

Jeffrey Warren Reynolds’ actions, as discussed, now cast a long shadow over this case and threaten to undermine confidence in the very tradition of “whistle-blowing” within parliamentary democracies such as we have here in PEI, something that has provided an important “check” against corruption within government throughout the years.

That being said, I have to assume that Jeffrey was being honest in his role as a whistle-blower until that is proven not to be true. I honestly feel that I SHOULD be able to trust, since he gave me every reason to trust his integrity in both his public and private disclosures in my past involvement with him, with me even vetting many of his comments at the time I received them, and finding them consistent with what I would classify as “insider information” characterized as “uncommon knowledge,” i.e., information that could not have come from an outside observer.

Jeffrey sent Facebook Messenger messages to me, and publicly posted comments on my own Facebook Feed posts on issues of PEI government secrecy, and offered supportive comments on my own allegations of corruption against the King government, all of which demonstrated to me a sincere, public commitment to “holding the government to account,” which is far from something common in PEI’s tight-knit political landscape, so when someone makes those intention ‘public,’ it’s hard not to trust them.

For example, on January 31, 2021, Jeffrey wrote to me via Facebook Messenger, expressing his frustrations and disappointment in the King government’s failure to deliver on promises of transparency. He said:

“It eats at me every day! He promised me they would have a made-in-PEI accountability act. But when I see first action is to let a former premier have a say and still have a say on how government is run, it’s too much to handle… Just expected better, but I guess they found his price…”

The following exchange between Jeffrey and Maines filed by Maines in the Supreme Court highlights Jeffrey’s focus on accountability in government, and his belief in the potential importance of my role in those efforts:

JWR:
“16 months of work on this. I need Kevin to help pull this masterpiece off, which would flip the script big time.”

Maines:
“Nice. I’m here to watch it all.”

JWR:
“That is when what I’ve been working on for 16 months—and hopefully get Kevin’s help with—will come to fruition. With your case hitting the floor at a different end, it will finally have Dennis skating a bit. Thing is, the back room is a dangerous group, but they’re full of egos and few think ahead and want to state they’re right on a throne. Ultimately, it’s emails that will flip the script.”

Maines:
“Let’s hope.”

JWR:
“Too much invested, and it’s foolproof. It will push them back on their heels. I don’t lose and won’t lose. The problem people make is hip reactions. But to properly accomplish something, you need to look at all variables. I purposely know there are a few out there that say they are with you and have identified people who try to play for themselves.
You are my friend and a great thinker, and long term I admire that…”

This conversation demonstrates Jeffrey’s apparent strong belief that accountability could be achieved through a coordinated effort, with my assistance playing a key role in his plans.

It also reflects his frustration with the lack of transparency and accountability within the King government, as I was also experiencing, seeing so little action being taken on promises, or specific promises made being out-right broken.

I mentioned the following particular example of evidence of JWR having legitimate “insider information” involving Jordan Brown when you interviewed me, if you recall, making the point that if in fact former Liberal Premier Wade McLauchlan helped King pick his new Cabinet Ministers when he first became Premier, then it would likely indeed be the case that former Attorney General under Premier McLauchlan, Jordan Brown would be THE person McLauchlan would tell this too. This was exactly what Jeffrey was saying Brown shared with him, which he then shared with Maines, as evidenced by the attachments in Maines’ filings re: JWR’s conversations on messenger with screenshots from Jordan Brown.

That he ALSO shared this info with me directly at the time raised the bar on the integrity of that information in my mind for sure. If it was a “fabrication” that would result in a massive and illegal fraud…why share it with me at that time?

On October 23, 2020, Jeffrey also forwarded to me a copy of a heated exchange on Facebook Messenger he apparently had with the current Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General, Bloyce Thompson, from back in February 2020.

I had published a number of articles on the Brendel Farms land-purchase controversy, and had actually broken the story initially from information I came across researching Buddhist land purchases. I had also submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for further documentation also made public in articles on my Website, on Facebook, and I also published an editorial in Island newspapers.

Jeffrey was following my reporting on this issue, and then seemed to become personally involved himself, which he informed me about in FB Messenger messages, as well as comments on my FB posts. In particular, his direct involvement with then-Minister responsible for Land and Agriculture, Hon. Bloyce Thompson.

Consider the following exchange, where Jeffrey pressed Minister Thompson on government transparency and accountability, particularly regarding the use of non-government emails for official government business. The conversation revealed Thompson’s initial resistance to Jeffrey’s concerns and an attempt to undermine both Jeffrey and ME by suggesting our efforts were getting innocent people “in trouble”:

Thompson: ? I meant your EA accusations never happened in my time. I sure you have all the facts but this government isn’t hiding anything so I appreciate your passion to make it happen

Reynolds: Why send from a non gov email?

One of many examples

It’s light house keeping maybe a refresher!

Nobody is saying hiding I’m saying procedure wasn’t followed

All government business needs to be used with gov emails or assembly email

I am well aware that they were trained when using group wise

Anyway I will advocate for accountability act

Thompson: Why are you pick on an Marsha she’s a hard working mother and excellent EA who is not highl upaid either. This is disgusting that this is you plan.

happy islander day Jeffery

Reynolds: Nobody is saying she is not hard working or excellent! So your saying wanting an accountable government is disgusting that says it all

U too

Thompson: Who’s next me my EA?

Reynolds: Nobody is picking on anyone just providing example to strengthen the system. You look up pei accountability act. Look it up!

Thompson: After further look you have a valid point…although it worries me that this and kevin Arsenault’s are getting innocent people in trouble some bureaucrats are innocent just made a mistake and almost lost their job. I care about my staff that are getting caught ghiz era mess. Cheers

Reynolds: Minister your language towards me a private citizen is frankly was “disgusting” in this thread. You have implied by using terms “picking on” as well that I have no respect for females in the work place! To add all I did was privately bring an example of a solid piece of legislation. You know nothing about me or my background. So I have un followed you on Twitter, Facebook etc and will cease having any conversations going forward. I will ensure you this your attempt to defame my character will be dealt with in an appropriate matter!” [My bold emphasis].

Additionally, FOIPP records confirm that Jeffrey was a tireless advocate for transparency. These records highlight a spirited debate between Jeffrey and Minister Thompson over accountability, a platform that ironically helped Thompson win his riding over sitting Premier McLauchlan. Yet, Thompson’s resistance to transparency in private conversations casts doubt on his true commitment to those principles.

During my run for leadership of the PC Party, I built my campaign around accountability and holding the Liberal government to account for its role in missing and destroyed government records.

Blogger and farmer running for PC leadership in P.E.I., pledges end to ‘corruption’ | PNI Atlantic News

Through this effort, I forged a relationship with Dennis King, who ultimately won the leadership. Dennis later invited me to join his senior policy team during the election campaign against Wade McLauchlan and the Liberal Party. My primary role was to help coach Dennis on speaking publicly on the party’s new accountability and transparency policies to which he committed implementing if elected Premier. This approach proved to be very successful, as Dennis King became Premier in May, 2019.

However, the promises he made to me about being a major part of the PC Party post-victory turned out to be dishonest. Not only did the party fail to uphold its commitment to investigate the deleted emails of the Liberal government as promised, but they also actively rallied against me to obstruct my investigations, and buried a Farmland Bank Report they had commissioned me to research and write as a policy consultant for $50,000.

I certainly won’t get into details here regarding the “about-face” and change in relationship that happened toward me, as well as the policies King once (before the election) passionately and publicly professed, but suffice it to say that I wasn’t all that shocked or surprised, knowing as I did at the time the particular powers and interests influencing and controlling PEI politicians for what seems like decades, at least with respect to Land and Agricultural policy.

There are powerful interests who don’t want things to change, and although politicians keep promising, they also keep breaking those promises, and the things the powerful don’t want changed, well, they don’t get changed.

The other big interest of these same behind-the-scenes “influencers” is to keep what they are doing (and what the government is doing for them) as secret as possible, especially regarding sensitive files and issues such as egaming, PNP, the Brendel Farms Inc. controversy, the Buddhists in Eastern PEI, etc., all of which are issues in which I have been engaging in investigative research and journalism for years.

Instead of supporting accountability, the APSO staff administering FOI requests for the King and former McLauchlan governments used delay tactics to frustrate my efforts to access critical documents and stalled any momentum toward fulfilling the transparency promises made during the campaign.

In numerous instances, they outright lied to me in response to direct questions about the existence of documents, and proceeded to process requests producing a “Final Response” letter for me as the law requires saying that unfortunately “no records had been found,” in their search, when they knew from the outset that there were no records!

Former Information Commissioner Karen Rose called this out in her “Brad Mix” Order, which was a “combined order” of similar FOIs from me and Paul Maines, with wording that showed she was both baffled with the Public Body’s behaviour, and obviously not very pleased:

[47] “I find that the EGTC did not fulfill their duty to be open, accurate and complete when responding to the Applicants, by failing to explain why very few responsive records were found. I further find that the EGTC deliberately withheld this important information from the Applicants, which is a violation of their section 8 duty. I would have expected the gap in the named employee’s emails to be one of the first facts to be communicated to the Applicants, following the EGTC’s realization that their search could not be properly completed. Instead, the EGTC provided the few records they had to the Applicants, and remained silent about the possibility that there could have been more, but they had not been retained.

[48] I am at a loss to explain the motivation of the EGTC in withholding such key information from the Applicants. I have overseen many access reviews since November, 2002, and have observed that public bodies are forthright in their dealings with applicants, even when the information the public body must provide is embarrassing, or does not place the public body or a given employee in the best light. In such circumstances, public bodies prioritize their duty to respond openly, accurately and completely. Why the EGTC chose to keep the fact of missing emails from the Applicants remains a mystery, even after multiple submissions to the Commissioner by the EGTC in these reviews.”

[Paras 47 & 48 of Order FI-20-007 @ https://docs.assembly.pe.ca/download/dms?objectId=11f9cf30-eae4-4d7f-ad54-a832f22cd9f5&fileName=Order%20No.%20FI-20-007.pdf].

MOTION 86 and the SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT RECORDS

Following the release of Karen Rose’s Order in early June, 2020, the Opposition made it an issue in the Legislative Assembly. The Green Party introduced “Motion 86” to establish a Special Legislative Committee to look into the issue of deleted government records, specifically mentioning the issue of the now-confirmed deletion of Brad Mix’s government records.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, Hon. Peter Bevan-Baker, passionately promised to “finally get to the bottom of the deleted Brad Mix records,” even saying he was prepared to use the “powers of subpoena” to get the right people to appear before the Committee.

Although the PC government refused to support Motion 86, the combined Green and Liberal votes passed the Motion, and a Special Committee was indeed struck. In more than a dozen meetings happening over the summer of 2020 and into the early Fall (with a promise to have completed the arduous investigation to have a report ready for the Fall sitting of the Legislature built into Motion 86), that’s exactly what happened.

Hon. Bevan-Baker lamented the outcome when the final report was filed in the House in November of 2020, speaking at length about all the hard work and tireless effort of the Committee members, but how they had unfortunately “come up short,” thereby effectively closing the matter of Brad Mix’s deleted egaming records once and for all, saying that it would likely be the case that we’ll never know who deleted Brad Mix’s emails.

JOHN BRENNAN’S TESTIMONY CONFIRMING THAT BRAD MIX DELETED (OR WAS OTHERWISE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELETING) HIS OWN EMAIL RECORDS COVERING THE 2-YEAR PERIOD WHEN THE EGAMING NEGOTIATIONS WERE HAPPENING WITH CAPITAL MARKETS TECHNOLOGY INC.

All that happened with the filing of the report in November notwithstanding the fact that the head of the Information Technology and Shared Services (ITSS) in the PEI governemnt at the time, John Brennan, who appeared before the Committee with his colleague Ed Malone on October 20, 2020, both giving invaluable information to the Committee Members revealing exactly who was responsible for the deliberate deletion of Brad Mix’s emails: BRAD MIX!

Brennan had testified that it was indeed the case that Brad Mix (or someone who he gave his password to enabling that person to gain access to his email account) who had deleted his own emails.

Brad Mix testified before the Committee saying that “he didn’t do it” just a few weeks later, and Peter-Bevan Baker did a CBC interview on the steps of the Coles Bldg. after Mix’s appearance to report that he believed Mix, saying: “He [Brad Mix] says he didn’t do it, and I take him at his word.”

However, Brennan’s testimony to the Committee had indeed stated Mix was unequivocally responsible for the deletion of his own emails, because they had been deleted deliberately, which followed logically from the following facts outlined by Brennan to the Committee:

1. They were deleted with intention (due to the technical steps involved in making it happen making ‘accidents’ impossible);

2. “Password access” was required to effect deletion;

3. Only ITSS and Brad Mix (and anyone with whom Mix had shared his password) had password access to the account; and finally, that

4. ITSS did not delete the records.

The CBC got it right, starting off their quite extensive coverage of Brennan’s appearance before the Committee in a “back-and-forth” Q &A between the host and political reporter covering the story, a part of which was as follows:

Louise Martin (CBC host of Compass):

MLAs meeting to find out what happened to missing government emails were told today, there are only two possibilities. They were also told at least some of the emails at the center of this latest controversy might still exist within government archives, Kerry Campbell joins us now with the very latest. So Carrie, remind us, which emails these are and what happened to them.

Kerry Campbell (CBC political reporter):

“Well, we use these belong to Brad, mix and senior of bureaucrat at Innovation PEI, and the two people who asked for these emails through Freedom of Information, believe that at least some of them are related to e-gaming and PEI’s failed attempt to become a regulator for online gambling.

So today, an all-party committee created to look into this was told by one of the, provinces, top I.T experts that there are only two possibilities for what happened here. (1) emails were deliberately deleted or (2) they were archived somewhere off the government network, for example, onto a thumb drive, and then never seen again.

And they were told that either of these actions could only have been taken by the person whose email account this is//// by Brad Mitch, or by someone Brad Mix provided with proxy access to his email account. Now, other possibilities were ruled out, that these were lost as part of a phone upgrade. Or that the data was corrupted. MLA were also told that when emails are deleted it’s a very deliberate process. Have a listen your way.”

There’s more in the report you can watch here: https://youtu.be/D4DyNSLm8Pw

THE COMMITTEE’S FINAL REPORT

COVERING-UP OF BRENNAN’S TESTIMONY

Again, all of what was revealed by Brennan to the Committee, but was never acted upon, effectively denying it ever happened by making no record of it in the final report, and then forgotten and not mentioned again, once Bevan-Baker filed the report in the House with not a single MLA willing to challenge the publicly-documented cover-up to tell the Assembly what actually happened, i.e., what “conclusion” the Committee was told by Brennan to come to by the sheer logic of the evidence before them!The word “ delete” is almost completely absent from the Report, despite it being a “Special Committee” looking into DELETED records.

The Report also falsely states that the Information Commissioner found insufficient evidence to make a finding that someone deleted the emails “intentionally”:

“The applicants also raised the possibility that someone had intentionally deleted the missing emails to avoid public access. The Commissioner concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make such a finding, but found that the EGTC failed to comply with rules relating to the destruction of records, in violation of the Archives and Records Act” [Page 12-13].

The statement is not accurate: the Commissioner did indeed find that records had been deliberately deleted, in violation of the Archives and Records Act; she just couldn’t prove that the specific “intention” behind or underneath that deliberate act of deletion was the only one she could consider, e.g., the one spelled out in section 75 (1)(e) of the FOIPP Act:

The records were found to have been deleted deliberately, but the Commissioner couldn’t discover 2 things: (1) who deleted the emails, and (2) whether they were deliberately deleted with the SPECIFIC intent “… to evade a request for access to the records, pursuant to clause 75(1)(e) of the FOIPP Act,”.(her words).

John Brennan explained to the Committee how it had to have been done through one password belonging to Brad Mix, requiring both a “log-on,” and then several deliberate “steps,” thereby making it absolutely and necessarily “intentional”.

What did the Report say about Brad Mix’s appearance at the Committee?

“Mr. Mix provided detailed information of the circumstances surrounding his discovery of a missing block of his emails covering the time frame of June 2010 to April 2012.”

What did the Report say about Brennan’s testimony?

That can be deduced from Peter Bevan-Baker’s speech presenting the final report to the legislative assembly (See: “https://youtu.be/FgmRQA9iY_U) where Bevan-Baker laments how the Committee “came up short” in not being able to learn who destroyed Brad Mix’s email records,” adding praise of course for the tireless and diligent efforts of the Committee members who left no stone upturned!

It was entirely a “let’s move on” move, and that’s what they did, with Mix going back to his desk at work the next day like usual.

MY RETURN TO ‘PRIVATELY’ INVESTIGATING

THE DELETED RECORD SCANDAL

As a result of this abrupt ‘cold-shoulder’ and adversarial attitude toward me by King and those under his charge who I had been working with, and also as a result of what transpired at the Special Committee on Records, I was forced to return to doing my work independently, relying heavily on FOIPP (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy) requests to obtain government records.

Although members of the committee ignored Brennan’s invaluable testimony, they appeared very interested at the time of his appearance in what he was saying, and poked him ‘details’ about how they could get access to email records Brennan had shared were “copied into a separate stand-alone” database for the Auditor General’s investigation into egaming in 2015.

Brennan testified that there were “periods of time” where there are ‘no records’ in many of those accounts, mostly during the infamous 2-year period from 2010-2012, when all the discussions were secretly happening regarding the MOU with Capital Market Technologies for a financial serices transaction “hub” that was signed in July, 2012.

Although the step-by-step information given by Brennan on how the members could “FOIPP” the records in that special stand-along database of duplicate email accounts was never followed-up on by the Committee, it opened up an entirely new avenue for my investigation, which I immediately began to pursue.

The FOIPP process is inherently challenging, particularly due to systemic delays and restrictive practices being routinely employed by APSO staff. For example, FOIPP Coordinators employ a built-in delay tactic that limits each applicant to filing only three FOIPP requests at a time. Once those requests are processed, additional requests can be submitted. For context, it takes at least three months before a new request is even initiated.

To overcome these limitations, I began collaborating with others who shared my interest in uncovering the truth. By coordinating with other individuals, I was able to cast a wider net for information and circumvent the restrictive limits placed on individual FOIPP applications. As I mentioned in the interview I did with you, I did the same thing with members of the government such as Steven Myers when they were opposition members, sharing all our FOI findings with each other, having the same goal in mind with our work. This approach allowed me to make incremental progress with my ongoing egaming investigation under the King government, but it should not have been necessary.

Interestingly, JWR took a seemingly-parallel path in work to bring greater accountability with;’ the PEI government; albeit, one that was “ behind the scenes,” and unbeknownst to me at the time.

During the PC leadership race Jeffrey had publicly endorsed Dennis King in the Charlottetown Guardian and was actively involved in signing up PC Party members to challenge the Liberal government, with the specific goal of exposing the destruction of records and putting measures in place to ensure the government was both transparent and accountable in the future.

SUMMARY CONSIDERATIONS

As someone who has worked tirelessly to promote transparency and integrity in PEI for many years, I find this deeply troubling to consider, i.e., that a dishonest whistle-blower not only damaged his own credibility, but in doing that also undermines the very foundation of the policies and values we were seemingly working so hard, albeit, on parallel and independent paths, to advance.

Public confidence in whistle-blowing and government accountability hangs in the balance now, for me, as I eagerly await the outcome of this RCMP investigation.

If Reynolds ’ actions are found to have been in bad faith, the consequences will ripple far beyond the PEI vs. CMT lawsuit. It will erode trust in independent journalism, discourage future whistle-blowers, and embolden those who wish to sidestep accountability to engage in corruption and self-serving lawlessness with abandon in the future.

I therefore urge you to continue your investigation into this matter with the utmost diligence and sense of urgency. The people of PEI deserve answers, and soon.

“Delay” has unfortunately been the friend of those who would seek to avert justice in far too many past cases involving allegations and investigations into government corruption,

As someone who has worked to promote accountability and transparency within the PEI government – both as a blogger and as a senior policy contributor to the PC Party – I am committed to ensuring these principles are made central to our province’s governance. I will continue to follow this case closely, as well as to share my findings with the public.

I hope justice will prevail, not only in this lawsuit but in reinforcing the values of openness and accountability for all Islanders.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out if there are further developments, or if there is anything I can do to assist in bringing the truth to light so justice can be ensured.

I have attached a number of messages I received from Jeffrey Warren Reynolds. Please let me know if you have any difficulty opening them.

Sincerely,

Kevin Arsenault, Phd
Blogger and Advocate for Accountability and Transparency
Bloomfield, PEIa