Here’s a clean opening section you can drop in before the timeline. The SPD report itself records that your application rationale stated you were “formally served a Duty to Warn” and that the alleged threat involved a planned hit at your gym, while also recording that Langley/Castlegar RCMP later disputed that it was an official Duty to Warn.
Who Is Cpl. Amanda Martel?
Before getting into the Body Armour Permit timeline, readers need to understand who Cpl. Amanda Martel was and why her role became significant in this story.
At the time, Cpl. Martel was a member of the Langley RCMP Serious Crimes Unit and became involved in an investigation concerning information that had been reported to police regarding an alleged murder plot targeting both myself and Jessica Simpson (also known publicly as Jessica Yaniv).
According to information that was later relayed to me by a private investigator, allegations had been made that I was one of several individuals identified as potential targets in a planned act of violence. The private investigator advised that the information he had received suggested I was allegedly to be targeted at or near my gym in Castlegar during a period between late November and late December 2025. The same information allegedly identified Jessica Simpson/Yaniv as another intended target.
Importantly, this was not a complaint that I initiated.
I did not contact the police to report a murder plot.
I did not hire a private investigator.
I did not seek out this information.
Rather, the information was reportedly brought to the attention of the Langley RCMP by a private investigator who believed the allegations were serious enough that law enforcement should be notified.
The private investigator subsequently contacted me and advised that information concerning an alleged threat to my safety had been reported to police. According to my understanding, this information ultimately resulted in police communications that I believed constituted a Duty to Warn on November 19, 2025.
Whether that communication was formally classified as a Duty to Warn later became a point of dispute.
What is not disputed, however, is that the Security Programs Division investigative report later confirmed that RCMP members acknowledged a constable had spoken with me regarding allegations that someone intended to harm me. The report also confirms that the matter was sufficiently serious that it became the subject of discussions between the Security Programs Division, Langley RCMP, and Castlegar RCMP during the review of my Body Armour application.
As readers will see, Cpl. Martel’s subsequent communications with both the Province and myself would become central to a series of events that culminated in the initial proposed refusal of my Body Armour application on the basis that there was “no imminent, credible threat” to my safety.
Ten days after that position was communicated to the Province, my home was firebombed.
That sequence of events is what makes the timeline that follows so difficult to ignore.
My understanding is that the information came through a private investigator whose client had allegedly received information from Michael Martinz concerning a plot to have me murdered outside my gym in Castlegar. That alleged conversation was said to involve Michael Martinz and his then-fiancée, Svetlana Dalla Lana, while they were travelling together in Costa Rica. Again Svetlana Dalla Lana is the former sister in law of he Mayor of Castlegar Maria McFaddin and her husband Jmase McFaddin works for the RCMP as a Chaplain and according to reports James applied ot become a member of the RCMP in early 2025 but failed because he could not pass the eye exam.
That is the context in which Langley RCMP became involved. That is the context in which Cpl. Martel later became relevant to my Body Armour Permit. And that is the context in which the RCMP’s later position — that there was “no imminent, credible threat” to my safety — becomes so difficult to reconcile with what happened next.
Because less than two weeks after that position was communicated, my home was firebombed.
What Is a Duty to Warn?
For those who have never been served A Duty to Warn here is a primer noting it is mostly served to gang members for obvious reasons but this matter does not involved a gang as no gang would be this retarded to be involved in this matter and firebomb a home in the middle of the day with my disabled daughter and I at home.
A Duty to Warn is not casual police gossip. It is not a rumour. It is not a courtesy call.
In plain English, a Duty to Warn occurs when police receive information suggesting that a person may face a serious threat to their safety, and police determine that the person should be warned so they can take steps to protect themselves. To my knowledge, after inquiring with the RCMP, there has NEVER been a Duty to Warn issued in Castlegar before or certainly there has never been one issued in Castlegar in the last 5 years for certain.
That is why the wording matters.
If police tell a citizen they have received a Duty to Warn, that citizen will reasonably treat the situation as serious. They may change their routines. They may avoid certain places. They may seek protection. They may apply for lawful body armour.
That is exactly what I did.
The entire Body Armour situation flowed from what I understood had happened on November 19, 2025: that I had been warned by police about a serious threat to my life. I was actually advised to apply for the body armor permit by Jessica Yaniv who was the second victim of this botched murder plot which took her just a few days to get a permit whereas it took me two months which is not normal and Jessica had not even received a Duty To Warn and has a criminal record which is a no no for getting body armour sooo yeah that happened also.
The problem is that, after the fact, the RCMP position shifted. The Security Programs Division report later recorded that Langley RCMP said I was “not issued an official Duty to Warn,” while Castlegar RCMP reportedly said a constable had spoken with me about an allegation that someone was going to harm me, but that it was “not an official Duty to Warn.”
That distinction became the bureaucratic knife-edge on which my Body Armour application initially turned.
And then, on January 22, 2026, our house was firebombedin the middle of the day while my diasbled daughter and I were home and the RCMP have NO SUSPECTS!! And have not even followed up with us on the investigation nor have they taken witness statements with the investigator of my and my daughters witness accounts of the perpetrators whom we both saw at close range.. feet away only
A Simple Question
How does a person go from being told there is allegedly a serious threat against them in November 2025 to being told there is “no imminent, credible threat” in January 2026—only to have their home firebombed ten days later?
That question sits at the center of one of the most troubling episodes I have experienced in my dealings with the RCMP, the British Columbia Security Programs Division, and the aftermath of the January 22, 2026 firebombing of my home in Castlegar.
The facts, dates, and documents speak for themselves.
Timeline of Events
November 19, 2025
According to my understanding at the time, I was advised of what was described to me as a Duty to Warn involving a serious threat to my safety.
The matter was sufficiently concerning that it ultimately became part of my application for a Body Armour Permit under British Columbia’s Body Armour Control Act.
At the time, I believed the warning was genuine, significant, and based upon information known to police.
December 1, 2025
Based on that understanding, I applied for a Body Armour Permit.
The rationale was straightforward:
I believed I had received a Duty to Warn.
I believed police considered the threat serious.
I believed there was an ongoing investigation involving threats directed at me.
January 8, 2026
The Proposed Refusal
On January 8, 2026, I received correspondence from the Security Programs Division advising that my application would not be granted because there was allegedly insufficient evidence of an imminent threat.
The proposed refusal was based, in part, upon information provided by the RCMP.
That was surprising given what I believed I had been told only weeks earlier.
January 12, 2026
“No Imminent, Credible Threat”
The most significant document in this story arrived four days later.
On January 12, 2026, Cpl. Amanda Martel wrote:
“In reference to Mr. Drover’s request under the Body Armour Control Act, at this time the Langley RCMP has determined, there is no imminent, credible threat to Mr. Drover’s safety. The Langley RCMP is continuing this investigation, and should any new information arise, the RCMP will notify the appropriate people and take the necessary action.”
Read that again carefully.
“There is no imminent, credible threat to Mr. Drover’s safety.”
At that moment:
A threat investigation was ongoing.
The Body Armour application was under review.
The RCMP position communicated to the Province was that there was no imminent threat.
That statement became central to the adjudication process.
This is a true copy of this email so you will believe this actually exists because up to know you gotta be thing “no way this did not go down this way” oh yes but it did see below:
January 19, 2026
Three Days Before the Firebombing
Three days before my home was attacked, I contacted Cpl. Martel regarding ongoing harassment and escalating conduct that I believed was relevant to the broader situation.
Her response was brief:
“I am not investigating a harassment complaint, nor is email an appropriate avenue to make a report. If you would like to make a police report please contact your local police of jurisdiction.”
At the time, I was attempting to understand whether the harassment campaign I had been documenting had any relationship to the ongoing threat investigation.
No such connection was acknowledged.
January 22, 2026
The Firebombing
Then came January 22.
My home in Castlegar was attacked.
Initially, the public narrative was that this was simply an arson investigation. The first RCMP media release described the incident as a suspicious fire and made no mention that police believed the attack was targeted. Readers can review the original RCMP release for themselves:
According to my account, two individuals threw Molotov cocktails at my residence while my daughter and I were inside the home.
One incendiary device was reportedly directed at the front entrance while another was directed toward a bedroom window. Had the fire not been quickly discovered and extinguished, the consequences could have been catastrophic.
Within minutes of the attack, while the situation was still unfolding, I emailed both Cpl. Amanda Martel and Staff Sgt. Monty Taylor.
My email stated:
“Our house was just firebombed”
I further advised:
“I put it out but it’s still burning a little two assailants white with black hoodies”
Cpl. Martel’s entire response was one sentence:
“Report this to Castlegar RCMP.”
That response arrived approximately ten days after Langley RCMP had advised the Security Programs Division that:
“There is no imminent, credible threat to Mr. Drover’s safety.”
The significance of that statement cannot be overstated.
On January 12, 2026, the RCMP position communicated to the Province was that there was no imminent threat to my safety.
On January 22, 2026, my home was allegedly attacked with Molotov cocktails while my daughter and I were inside.
Then, only days later, the public narrative shifted dramatically.
On February 7, 2026, the RCMP publicly acknowledged something that had not been disclosed in the initial media release. According to the RCMP:
“Police believe this was a targeted attack and there is no risk to the public.”
That statement fundamentally changed the context of the investigation.
This was no longer being described as merely an arson investigation. Police were now publicly stating that they believed the attack was targeted.
The obvious question becomes:
If police believed the attack was targeted, targeted at whom?
And how does a finding that there was “no imminent, credible threat” on January 12 reconcile with a targeted firebombing only ten days later?
Those questions remain unanswered.
January 23, 2026
The Province Reverses Course
The next day something remarkable happened.
The Security Programs Division (ie the Body Amour Approval people) approved a 90-day exemption.
The approval letter stated:
“I am satisfied there is an imminent risk to your safety.”
Those words are important.
The Province had moved from a proposed refusal to a finding that there was now an “imminent risk” to my safety.
The obvious question becomes:
What changed?
Was it the firebombing?
Was new information provided?
Or did the attack itself expose flaws in the original threat assessment?
Those questions remain unanswered.
The Anonymous RCMP Assessments That Nearly Killed the Body Armour Application
What makes this story particularly troubling is that the Security Programs Division’s investigative report reveals that unnamed RCMP members from two separate detachments (Langley where the Murder plot was reported by the PI and Castlegar who served me the RCMP Duty To Warn that the RCMP denied and the officers who gave statements remained anonymous) were consulted during the adjudication process.
Those conversations became the foundation upon which the Province initially proposed refusing my Body Armour application.
The report records that my application was based on what I understood to be a Duty to Warn issued on November 19, 2025, after police allegedly received information concerning a threat to my life. The report further records that I advised the Province that a private investigator had informed me that my name appeared on a list of individuals targeted in an alleged murder-for-hire plot and that the intended location was outside my gym in Castlegar.
Rather than identify the officers involved, the report simply references conversations with unnamed RCMP members.
According to the report:
Langley RCMP
The investigator recorded that:
“On December 2, 2025, the investigator spoke with a Langley RCMP constable who explained the following: DROVER was not issued an official Duty to Warn.”
The report then states:
“In an email received December 4, 2025, a corporal with Langley RCMP explained the following: The Langley RCMP has determined there is no imminent, credible threat to DROVER’s safety.”
That corporal was later identified through subsequent correspondence as Cpl. Amanda Martel.
Castlegar RCMP
The report also records a conversation with a Castlegar RCMP sergeant.
According to the investigator:
“A constable had spoken with DROVER regarding an allegation that someone was going to harm DROVER, but it was not an official Duty to Warn. The sergeant assessed the risk as low.”
That statement is remarkable for what it acknowledges.
The RCMP did not tell the Province that nothing happened.
The RCMP did not tell the Province there was no threat allegation.
The RCMP did not tell the Province nobody had contacted me.
Instead, the report expressly confirms that a constable had spoken with me regarding information that someone intended to harm me. The dispute was not whether that conversation occurred. The dispute was whether it technically constituted an “official Duty to Warn.”
That distinction ultimately became the basis for the recommendation that my application be refused.
The Recommendation
After receiving information from Langley RCMP and Castlegar RCMP, the investigator concluded:
“Langley RCMP has determined there is no credible imminent threat.”
The report then recommended that the Deputy Registrar consider refusing my application because I had not demonstrated “an imminent risk” to my safety.
On January 8, 2026, the Deputy Registrar formally advised me that my application might be denied because of a “lack of satisfactory documented evidence of an imminent risk to your safety.”
Then Came January 22
Fourteen days later, my home was firebombed.
Ten days after Cpl. Martel advised the Province there was “no imminent, credible threat” to my safety.
Three days after Cpl. Martel advised me that she was not investigating harassment complaints and that I should contact local police if I wished to make a report.
And one day before my deadline to respond to the proposed refusal of my Body Armour application.
The question readers must answer for themselves is not whether anyone acted in bad faith.
The question is whether the threat assessment that was communicated to the Province on December 4 and relied upon on January 8 accurately reflected the level of risk that actually existed.
Because when the Province reviewed the file, it was being told there was no imminent threat.
Yet within days of that position being maintained, my home became the target of what the RCMP would later publicly describe as a “targeted attack.”
That contradiction sits at the center of this story.
January 25–27, 2026
The Narrative Shift
In the days following the firebombing, social media commentary exploded.
Among the most notable examples was a post by Danny Keith Martin, which I forwarded to police.
According to my email to investigators, the post stated:
“Local Castlegar con artist sets fire to his own house for another insurance settlement #fixedit”
Here is that comment that Danny Keith Martin aka Hungrytrucker on X made on January 25 2026 on the actualy news release of the firebombing: (note this was tame Danny Martin posted way way worse in the days to weeks to months after the firebombing – see the blog attached below that captures a few more of them)
At a time when police had publicly confirmed a criminal investigation into the attack, the narrative being advanced online was that I had somehow orchestrated the attack myself.
When I forwarded this information to investigators, Cpl. Martel responded:
“Please allow the Castlegar RCMP to conduct their investigation.”
By early February another curious development emerged.
Cpl. Martel wrote:
“I am not involved in the Castlegar RCMP investigation. Please do not include me in your emails pertaining to this matter.”
This was noteworthy because she had been the lead investigator associated with the earlier threat investigation that had directly impacted the Body Armour adjudication process.
The Contradiction
The issue is not whether anyone intentionally misled anyone.
The issue is that the documentary record appears to contain two very different messages.
On January 12:
“There is no imminent, credible threat to Mr. Drover’s safety.”
On January 23: (11 days later)
“I am satisfied there is an imminent risk to your safety.”
Those statements are separated by only eleven days. Does this make sense to anyone reading this because it does not to me and my family!!!
And between them sits the January 22 firebombing.
Questions That Remain
The purpose of this article is not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing.
Rather, it is to examine the documentary record and ask questions that naturally arise from the RCMP’s own communications, the Security Programs Division investigative report, and the events that followed.
1. What Exactly Happened on November 19, 2025?
The Security Programs Division report records that I advised the Province that I had been “formally served a Duty to Warn” by the Castlegar RCMP on November 19, 2025 and that police had received information indicating a threat to my life.
However, the same report later records that Langley RCMP advised:
“DROVER was not issued an official Duty to Warn.”
The report further records that Castlegar RCMP advised:
“A constable had spoken with DROVER regarding an allegation that someone was going to harm DROVER, but it was not an official Duty to Warn.”
If that conversation occurred, and if police were communicating information about an alleged threat to my safety, what exactly was it?
If it was not an official Duty to Warn, what was it?
And why was the distinction not made clear at the time?
2. Why Was a Threat Acknowledged but Simultaneously Minimized?
The SPD report confirms that RCMP members advised the Province that a constable had spoken to me regarding information that someone intended to harm me.
At the same time, the report records that a Langley RCMP corporal advised:
“The Langley RCMP has determined there is no imminent, credible threat to DROVER’s safety.”
How can both statements be true at the same time?
What investigative steps were taken to conclude there was no imminent threat?
What evidence was accepted?
What evidence was rejected?
And who ultimately made that determination?
3. Why Did the Province Initially Move Toward Refusing the Application?
The entire basis of the proposed refusal was the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of an imminent threat. The Deputy Registrar specifically advised:
“I might consider that your exemption from the requirement to have a body armour permit not be granted due to a lack of satisfactory documented evidence of an imminent risk to your safety.”
That conclusion appears to have flowed directly from the information provided by anonymous RCMP members to the investigator.
Were all relevant facts communicated to the Security Programs Division?
Were all investigative files reviewed?
Were all witness statements considered?
Were all reports from the private investigator considered?
4. Why Did the RCMP Assessment Change So Dramatically?
On January 12, 2026, Cpl. Amanda Martel advised the Province:
“The Langley RCMP has determined, there is no imminent, credible threat to Mr. Drover’s safety.”
Ten days later my home was firebombed.
One day later, the Security Programs Division approved a 90-day exemption after concluding there was now an imminent risk to my safety.
What changed?
Did new evidence emerge?
Or did the January 22 attack itself expose flaws in the original assessment?
5. Did the Firebombing Validate the Original Safety Concerns?
The RCMP initially characterized the incident publicly as an arson investigation.
Yet on February 7, 2026, the RCMP publicly stated:
“Police believe this was a targeted attack and there is no risk to the public.”
If police believed the firebombing was targeted, targeted at whom?
And how does a targeted attack on January 22 reconcile with an RCMP position on January 12 that there was “no imminent, credible threat”?
6. Was the Body Armour Adjudication Based on Complete Information?
Perhaps the most important question of all is whether the Security Programs Division was provided with a complete and accurate picture of the situation.
The investigative report reveals that anonymous RCMP members from two detachments played a significant role in shaping the Province’s understanding of the risk assessment.
Yet less than three weeks after the Province was advised there was no imminent threat, my home was attacked.
If the purpose of a threat assessment is to evaluate risk before violence occurs, then the outcome raises legitimate questions about whether the original assessment accurately reflected the circumstances that existed at the time.
Those questions are not accusations.
They are questions arising directly from the documentary record itself.
Final Thoughts
At its core, this story is not about a Body Armour Permit.
The permit was merely the vehicle through which a series of contradictions came into public view.
The real issue is accountability.
When police communicate information about threats to a citizen’s safety, those communications matter.
When government agencies rely upon police assessments to make public safety decisions, those assessments matter.
And when a citizen’s ability to protect himself is influenced by those assessments, accuracy matters.
The documentary record currently reveals a timeline that is difficult to reconcile:
November 19, 2025 – I was advised of what I understood to be a Duty to Warn involving a threat to my safety.
December 4, 2025 – Security Programs Division receives information from anonymous RCMP members stating no official Duty to Warn was issued and that there is no imminent credible threat.
January 8, 2026 – The Province advises that my Body Armour application may be refused due to insufficient evidence of an imminent risk.
January 12, 2026 – Cpl. Amanda Martel communicates that Langley RCMP has determined there is “no imminent, credible threat” to my safety.
January 22, 2026 – My home is firebombed while my daughter and I are inside.
January 23, 2026 – The Province approves a 90-day exemption after concluding there is an imminent risk to my safety.
February 7, 2026 – The RCMP publicly state that the firebombing was a “targeted attack.”
Those are not allegations.
Those are dates.
Those are documents.
Those are RCMP emails.
Those are government records.
And taken together, they raise questions that, in my view, deserve answers.
Whether those answers ultimately vindicate the decisions that were made or reveal shortcomings in the process is not for me to determine.
My objective is far more modest.
I am simply placing the documentary record into the public domain so that readers can review it for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
If transparency promotes public confidence, then scrutiny should not be feared.
It should be welcomed.
Publication Note
This article is based upon correspondence, government records, body armour adjudication documents, RCMP communications, public statements, and the personal experiences of the author.
Except where otherwise indicated, all factual assertions are based upon documents in the author’s possession, many of which are quoted directly within this article.
Where questions are raised regarding the conduct, decisions, communications, or actions of public officials, those questions are presented as matters of public interest and are not intended to assert wrongdoing, misconduct, negligence, criminality, or improper motive unless expressly established by official findings or court proceedings.
Readers are encouraged to review the underlying source documents, correspondence, and public records referenced throughout this article and to draw their own conclusions.
Any individual or agency referenced in this article who believes factual clarification is required is invited to provide documentation, corrections, or additional context, and such information will be considered for publication as part of the ongoing public record.
Leave a Reply