Black Sheep
August 21, 2026
There is a question I think deserves a straight, evidence-based answer:
WHO IS ACE VENTURA?
I can tell you who it isn’t.
It isn’t me.
Danny Keith Martin has been calling me “Ace Ventura” since at least May 2025. Repeating something over and over doesn’t magically make it true.
But here’s where this gets genuinely interesting.
Two B.C. Supreme Court decisions contain significant evidence connecting Daryl/Darryl Grant MacAskill to the name “Ace Ventura.”
At the same time, I have personally heard an audio recording provided by Jolene Johnson in which, as I understand the recording, Cst. Stuart/Steuart of the Castlegar RCMP says police had spoken with the person known as Ace Ventura and that Ace Ventura was NOT Daryl Grant MacAskill.
Those propositions don’t sit comfortably together.
And instead of guessing, accusing some new person, or pretending the contradiction doesn’t exist, I think the evidence needs to be put side-by-side.
EXHIBIT ONE: THE 2022 B.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION
Start with Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill, 2022 BCSC 202.
Justice Riley identified the defendant as Daryl MacAskill and found that MacAskill controlled or was responsible for the Dr. Stoxxman and Gangsterism Out blogs.
Then comes paragraph 14.
The Court records that MacAskill often used a particular email address and that the contact name associated with that email account was “Ace Ventura.”
The Court explained that when the address was entered, Ace Ventura appeared as the recipient’s contact name.
That’s evidence.
But standing alone, a display name on an email account isn’t necessarily conclusive proof of the flesh-and-blood human sitting behind a keyboard at every particular moment.
Except the judgment goes considerably further.
In paragraph 40, Justice Riley found:
“abundant evidence linking the defendant Mr. MacAskill to the Dr. Stoxxman email account”
The Court noted that an August 23, 2021 email from that account actually concluded by giving the author’s name as Daryl MacAskill.
So this wasn’t simply:
Email account says “Ace Ventura.”
The evidentiary chain found by the Court was substantially stronger:
Daryl MacAskill → Dr. Stoxxman account → Ace Ventura contact name → communications concerning MacAskill’s own litigation → an email identifying its author as Daryl MacAskill.
That’s significant.
EXHIBIT TWO: MACASKILL ACTUALLY ATTENDED AT LEAST ONE 2021 HEARING
There’s another important detail in that 2022 judgment.
On March 26, 2021, Justice Blok granted an interlocutory injunction.
Justice Riley subsequently recorded:
“after a hearing attended by Mr. MacAskill”
and:
“Mr. MacAskill was in court when Blok J. made the order…”
So MacAskill did participate in that March 26, 2021 hearing.
However, the judgment doesn’t establish clearly enough for me to claim that this was necessarily physical, face-to-face courtroom attendance, particularly given COVID-era court procedures.
That’s something the underlying court record could clarify.
But after that, something else becomes noticeable.
MacAskill repeatedly stops showing up.
JANUARY 13–14, 2022: NO MACASKILL
The 2022 judgment arose from hearings conducted January 13–14, 2022.
MacAskill didn’t attend.
Justice Riley found that he had been served, knew about the proceedings and nevertheless chose not to participate.
The hearing was to proceed by Microsoft Teams. Court Scheduling sent MacAskill the link. He instead took the position that the case was supposedly “shelved.”
The Court disagreed and proceeded without him.
That’s one non-appearance.
But fast-forward to the Sandher litigation.
The pattern becomes much more pronounced.
JANUARY 27, 2025: NO MACASKILL
In Sandher Fruit Packers Ltd. v. MacAskill, the Court records another hearing on January 27, 2025.
MacAskill didn’t appear.
FEBRUARY 7, 2025: NO MACASKILL AGAIN
The hearing continued on February 7, 2025.
Again, MacAskill didn’t appear.
Justice Gibb-Carsley specifically records that MacAskill had been properly served and was aware that the hearing was scheduled.
Those proceedings eventually resulted in a warrant being issued requiring MacAskill to appear before the Court concerning alleged contempt.
And then we arrive at November.
NOVEMBER 10, 2025: ANOTHER NO-SHOW — EVEN BY VIDEO
This one deserves particular attention.
The December 2025 judgment records that MacAskill was properly served for a hearing scheduled for November 10, 2025.
Plaintiffs’ counsel reminded him on November 3.
The Court had information suggesting that MacAskill had moved to Ontario.
Fine.
Justice Gibb-Carsley therefore offered him an opportunity to appear by video.
The judgment says:
“He refused.”
The court clerk paged MacAskill.
He didn’t appear.
The clerk also confirmed that nobody attempted to attend virtually.
The judge ultimately found that MacAskill “purposely chose not to attend.”
And this is where the Ace Ventura question becomes fascinating.
BECAUSE “ACE VENTURA” WAS STILL TALKING ABOUT THE COURT CASE
How did the judge know MacAskill knew about the November hearing?
Among the evidence was an October 16, 2025 email exchange.
Justice Gibb-Carsley describes the message as coming:
“from Mr. MacAskill from a Gmail account email he uses under the name Ace Ventura”
That’s considerably stronger than the 2022 judgment.
The Court isn’t merely saying that an account happened to display the name Ace Ventura.
The Court expressly says MacAskill used a Gmail account under the name Ace Ventura.
And paragraph 4 of the same judgment goes further still.
Justice Gibb-Carsley states directly:
“He goes by the aliases ‘Ace’ and ‘Ace Ventura’.”
“He” means the named defendant:
Daryl Grant MacAskill.
So if we’re following the public court record alone, the conclusion looks pretty straightforward.
The B.C. Supreme Court has repeatedly connected Daryl Grant MacAskill with Ace Ventura.
BUT THEN THERE’S THE CASTLEGAR RCMP RECORDING
And this is where I have a problem.
Because I have personally heard an audio recording that Jolene Johnson provided to me.
According to my understanding of that recording, Cst. Stuart of the Castlegar RCMP tells Jolene that the Castlegar RCMP had spoken with the person known as Ace Ventura and that Ace Ventura was NOT Daryl Grant MacAskill.
The information provided to me places the RCMP interaction with Daryl/Ace issue around July 2025, with Jolene’s recorded conversation with Cst. Stuart occurring later in approximately October 2025.
I want to be extremely precise here.
That is my account of what I heard on Jolene’s recording. It is not a finding made by either B.C. Supreme Court judge.
The recording itself should be preserved, authenticated and compared against the RCMP occurrence reports and Cst. Stuart’s contemporaneous notes.
My correspondence to the RCMP already sets out this discrepancy and specifically asks police to preserve the recording and identify what records exist concerning their communications with the person they believed was Ace Ventura.
But if I’ve understood that recording correctly, then we have a legitimate evidentiary contradiction worth investigating.
COURT: MACASKILL IS ACE VENTURA
The judicial record gives us this:
2022: An email account strongly linked to Daryl MacAskill displays the name Ace Ventura.
2022: The Court finds “abundant evidence” linking MacAskill to that account.
2025: Justice Gibb-Carsley expressly says Daryl Grant MacAskill “goes by the aliases ‘Ace’ and ‘Ace Ventura’.”
2025: The Court describes a Gmail account as one MacAskill “uses under the name Ace Ventura.”
That’s not internet gossip.
Those statements appear in published reasons for judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
BUT WHAT DID THE RCMP DETERMINE?
According to the recording I’ve heard:
Castlegar RCMP apparently spoke with someone they understood to be Ace Ventura.
And Cst. Stuart apparently told Jolene:
Ace Ventura was NOT Daryl Grant MacAskill.
If that’s an accurate account of what the officer said, then I want to know something extremely simple:
WHO DID THE RCMP SPEAK TO?
Not who somebody thought it was.
Not what an email display name said.
Not what somebody told somebody else.
Who was the actual human being?
What telephone number did police call?
Who supplied that number?
Was the conversation telephone, email, video or face-to-face?
Did police verify government identification?
Did they run the person’s name?
Was the individual actually Daryl Grant MacAskill?
Did police speak with Daryl separately?
What did Daryl tell them?
Did somebody claim to be Ace Ventura?
How did RCMP establish that person’s identity?
And what exactly caused Cst. Stuart to reportedly conclude that Ace Ventura wasn’t MacAskill?
There should be notes.
There should be an occurrence report.
There may be telephone numbers, emails, timestamps and other identifiers.
Check them.
AND THE NON-APPEARANCES MATTER — BUT NOT FOR THE REASON SOME MAY THINK
Here’s the chronology that jumps out at me:
| Date | What the published judgments record |
|---|---|
| March 26, 2021 | MacAskill attended the injunction hearing. |
| January 13–14, 2022 | MacAskill did not attend the hearing. |
| January 27, 2025 | MacAskill did not appear. |
| February 7, 2025 | MacAskill again did not appear. |
| November 10, 2025 | MacAskill did not appear and refused the opportunity to participate by video. |
The later judgment also records information suggesting MacAskill had moved to Ontario.
But let’s not turn circumstantial evidence into something it isn’t.
His repeated refusal to appear does not prove he wasn’t Ace Ventura.
In fact, the November judgment uses an Ace Ventura email attributed to MacAskill as evidence that MacAskill knew about the upcoming hearing.
That’s evidence pointing toward MacAskill being Ace, not away from it.
But the repeated absence does leave an obvious investigative question:
When was the last time somebody independently verified the actual human being operating these accounts?
AND THEN THERE’S DANNY KEITH MARTIN
This brings me back to Danny.
Since at least May 2025, Danny Keith Martin has repeatedly referred to me as Ace Ventura.
There is one enormous problem with that theory:
I AM NOT ACE VENTURA.
And repeating it doesn’t change that.
Meanwhile, we have published B.C. Supreme Court decisions explicitly associating Daryl Grant MacAskill with the Ace Ventura identity.
And according to the separate recording I’ve heard, we apparently have the Castlegar RCMP saying Ace wasn’t Daryl either.
So which is it?
That’s precisely why police shouldn’t simply accept anybody’s online identity at face value.
I AM NOT GOING TO INVENT AN ANSWER
Jolene has her own suspicions about who Ace might be.
I’ve considered other possibilities myself.
But suspicion isn’t evidence.
I’m not going to publicly identify some third person as Ace Ventura without evidence capable of supporting it.
The available evidence presently gives me a question, not permission to manufacture an answer.
And there’s an easy way to investigate that question.
PRESERVE THE RECORDING. PULL THE RCMP FILE. FOLLOW THE DIGITAL TRAIL.
I’ve asked the RCMP to preserve and examine the relevant evidence, including Jolene Johnson’s original recording, Cst. Stuart’s notes and occurrence reports, any communications Castlegar RCMP had with somebody identifying themselves as Ace Ventura, and the associated telephone numbers and email addresses.
Then compare those records against the accounts attributed to Daryl Grant MacAskill in the Canada Easy Investment Store and Sandher proceedings.
Maybe the answer is exactly what the B.C. Supreme Court record suggests:
Daryl Grant MacAskill was Ace Ventura.
Maybe more than one person had access to an account.
Maybe somebody subsequently adopted or used the same alias.
Maybe the RCMP had information the courts didn’t have.
Or maybe somebody simply got the identification wrong.
I don’t know.
But that’s the point.
There is evidence capable of being investigated.
ONE THING I DO KNOW
Danny Keith Martin can call me Ace Ventura another thousand times.
It still won’t make me Ace Ventura.
What interests me now is something much more consequential:
If the B.C. Supreme Court says Daryl Grant MacAskill used the alias “Ace Ventura,” but the Castlegar RCMP apparently told Jolene Johnson that the person police spoke with as Ace Ventura was NOT MacAskill — who exactly did the RCMP speak to, and how did they verify that person’s identity?
That’s not a conspiracy theory.
That’s an evidentiary question.
Pull the records.
Preserve the audio.
Identify the accounts.
Follow the evidence.
And then perhaps we’ll finally find out:
Leave a Reply