By Black Sheep Whistleblower
There. I said it.
I believe there is corruption inside the Castlegar RCMP detachment, and I believe the conduct surrounding my case deserves serious, independent scrutiny.
More specifically, I have serious allegations and questions concerning Staff Sgt. Monty Taylor and James McFaddin, whom I understand has served in a chaplaincy role connected with the RCMP. I’m hoping Mcfaddin has since been fired from the RCMP and I’m hoping he’s been fired at the church on Trail he recently had become pastor which I made sure they knew who they were dealing with as soon as someone told me he had been selected as the pastor there … I’ve been exposing James McFaddin on this blog after watershed met when I heard a recording of Michael Martinz (who was the fiance of James former sister in law conpsired a murder plot against me and say that James McFaddin wanted me dead so yeah that happened and since then I’ve come undone on this sick POS who should be in an insane asylum not working foe the RCMP or pastoring a church. See the thing is we are not the only family who has been hurt by McFaddin in this community. Since I’ve been posting on him 4 families have come with stories of how McFaddin has impacted them negatively but I won’t be disclosing their stories but rather will be protecting them and fighting for them by continuing to expose James McFaddin as a fraud effectively disguised as a man of God which btw is the worst sin one can possibly do!!
Those are serious statements. So let me make something equally clear: this article sets out my allegations, conclusions and interpretation of events based on what I have personally experienced and the evidence I say I possess. Where something has not been proven in court or established by an independent investigation, I will say so.
Because this story doesn’t need exaggeration.
The documented chronology is disturbing enough.
It Was Touch and Go for a While
For a while, I genuinely wondered whether the Castlegar RCMP were going to succeed in turning the entire story around on me.
Instead of the central question being:
Who was threatening David Drover and his family, and why?
the narrative increasingly seemed to become:
Is David mentally ill? Is he imagining this? Is he making things up?
That distinction matters enormously.
I had been reporting harassment and threats long before our home was attacked.
Then came the Duty to Warn in November 2025.
Think about that.
Police don’t issue someone a Duty to Warn because absolutely nothing is happening.
I say information had emerged concerning an alleged plot against my life. I reported what I knew. Recordings and other information were provided to police. Multiple RCMP jurisdictions became involved.
Then, on January 22, 2026, our home was firebombed.
My daughter and I were inside.
That isn’t an internet argument.
That isn’t a Facebook post.
That isn’t paranoia.
Our house was actually attacked with incendiary devices.
And afterward, the RCMP themselves publicly described what happened as a targeted attack.
So at some point a very uncomfortable question has to be asked:
If I was supposedly imagining the danger, why did the danger eventually arrive at my front door?
The Mental-Health Narrative Failed
I believe attempts were made to discredit me rather than properly confront what I was reporting.
And in my opinion, that approach failed spectacularly.
Because you can call somebody crazy.
You can call somebody obsessive.
You can say somebody posts too much.
You can dislike their language.
You can dislike their blog.
You can dislike them personally.
None of those things answer the evidence.
And none of them explain a firebombing.
The January 22 attack fundamentally changed the equation because there was now a physical crime scene.
There was fire damage.
There were witnesses.
There was an investigation.
There was a targeted attack.
That reality cannot simply be wished away because the victim is inconvenient.
And Now I Have an Even Bigger Question
I believe there is evidence raising the possibility that the firebombing itself may have involved an effort to frame me or manipulate the circumstances surrounding the attack.
Let me emphasize the word possibility.
I am not presenting that theory as a judicial finding.
I am saying I believe evidence exists that deserves to be independently investigated.
And if that evidence ultimately establishes that somebody deliberately constructed circumstances intended to make it appear that I was responsible for, involved with, or fabricating the attack on my own home, then this story becomes considerably more serious.
Because then we’re no longer talking merely about whether police made mistakes.
We’re talking about who knew what, when they knew it, what was investigated, what wasn’t investigated, and whether anyone attempted to manipulate an investigation involving a family whose home had just been attacked.
Yeah. That happened too.
Or, at minimum, there is enough evidence that I believe somebody independent of the Castlegar detachment needs to determine whether it happened.
Why I Use the Word Corruption
People hear “police corruption” and immediately imagine envelopes stuffed with cash.
That’s far too narrow.
Corruption can also involve abuse of authority, conflicts of interest, deliberate concealment, protection of insiders, manipulation of investigations, retaliation against complainants or institutional efforts to discredit someone whose allegations threaten the organization.
I am alleging that aspects of what happened in my case deserve investigation through precisely that lens.
And I am particularly concerned about relationships and conflicts involving people connected to my history in Castlegar.
That includes James McFaddin.
My history with McFaddin predates the firebombing by years.
That history matters.
So does his relationship with law enforcement.
So does the fact that I have publicly criticized him.
And so does the question of whether those relationships created actual or perceived conflicts once I became the complainant and victim in serious RCMP files.
These aren’t questions the Castlegar RCMP should simply be allowed to answer about themselves.
The Problem With Police Investigating Police
This is ultimately bigger than Monty Taylor.
It is bigger than James McFaddin.
It is bigger than me.
When serious allegations involve people connected to a police detachment, public confidence depends upon independence.
The institution cannot simply say:
We investigated ourselves and everything is fine.
That doesn’t resolve the appearance of a conflict.
It amplifies it.
That is why I have pursued outside accountability mechanisms and why I intend to continue documenting the chronology, correspondence, recordings and decisions surrounding my case.
I don’t expect readers to believe something merely because I write it.
Quite the opposite.
Look at the evidence.
Look at the dates.
Look at what I reported before the firebombing.
Look at the Duty to Warn.
Look at what happened afterward.
Look at how the investigation was handled.
Look at who knew whom.
Look at the correspondence.
Look at the recordings.
And then make up your own mind.
Take Me to Court
I’ve heard variations of the same warning for years:
You shouldn’t write that.
Someone might sue you.
The police could come after you.
Fine.
If someone believes I have falsely accused them, Canada has courts.
But a courtroom works both ways.
There is disclosure.
There are documents.
There are witnesses.
There are recordings.
There are examinations under oath.
There are questions about chronology.
And there are questions about who knew what and when.
I am prepared to stand behind the factual evidence I publish and to distinguish that evidence from my opinions and allegations.
What I will not do is remain silent simply because the institutions or individuals I am criticizing have more power than I do.
This Is About Accountability
Police officers have enormous authority.
With that authority comes an equally enormous responsibility.
When someone reports credible threats, those reports must be properly investigated.
When police warn somebody that their life may be in danger, what happens afterward matters.
When that person’s home is subsequently firebombed, every previous decision deserves examination.
And when the victim then raises allegations concerning conflicts, investigative failures, retaliation or institutional protection, those allegations should be examined independently.
That is what I am asking for.
Not special treatment.
Not revenge.
Accountability.
If an independent investigation ultimately concludes that every officer acted properly, put the evidence on the table and demonstrate it.
But if officers abused their authority, ignored evidence, protected associates, manipulated narratives or attempted to discredit a complainant rather than investigate what he was reporting, then those responsible should be held accountable.
Badge or no badge.
Rank or no rank.
Chaplain or no chaplain.
Nobody should be above scrutiny.
The Black Sheep Isn’t Going Away
For years I’ve been told, directly and indirectly, that I should shut up.
I didn’t.
Then our home was firebombed.
I’m still here.
And now I intend to document this story more carefully than ever.
Names.
Dates.
Documents.
Recordings.
Police files.
Letters.
Contradictions.
One piece at a time.
Readers can examine the evidence and decide for themselves whether what happened represents incompetence, institutional self-protection, corruption — or something else entirely.
But one thing should no longer be controversial:
There are serious questions about what happened before and after the firebombing of our home, and those questions deserve answers from somewhere other than the very institution whose conduct is being questioned.
That is where this story goes next.
Black Sheep Whistleblower
Follow the evidence. Ask the uncomfortable questions. And never confuse institutional authority with truth.
Leave a Reply