BLACK SHEEP WHISTLEBLOWER

September 1, 2026

C. S. Lewis made a famous argument in Mere Christianity about the extraordinary claims attributed to Jesus Christ. His point, greatly simplified, was that eventually you have to confront the claim itself: either it was true, or it wasn’t. What he’s saying here is either Jesus Christ was the son of God or was some insane person as there is no in between!! You cannot simply leave an extraordinary claim hanging forever because its implications are uncomfortable.

I now find myself confronting a strangely similar logical problem—obviously on an entirely different moral and historical scale—with Michael Martinz and his alleged representations concerning the CIA which I have in his own words in writing as fact. Same applies like CS Lewis implied either Michael Martinz works for the CIA in Kelowna Canada or he’s a freakn madman and like Svetlana Dalla Lana his former fiancé called him in a FB post he is for sure a very “dangerous man” … there’s no in between here he either is or isn’t so you look at this evidence and make you own mind up!!

EITHER MICHAEL MARTINZ REALLY HAD THE CIA RELATIONSHIP HE ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTED HIMSELF AS HAVING — OR HE DID NOT.

Which is it?

Because after examining the evidence and chronology surrounding what happened to me and my family, I don’t think either answer can simply be shrugged off.

If Martinz really was CIA-connected, that raises one extraordinary set of questions.

If he was lying about being CIA-connected while allegedly becoming entangled in a supposed murder plot against me, that raises another extraordinary set of questions.

And there is a third factual possibility: perhaps there was some limited, historical, contractual or peripheral intelligence relationship that Martinz exaggerated.

Whatever the answer:

ESTABLISH THE FACT.

After publishing my earlier investigation into Martinz, a source came forward with additional communications. I am protecting that person’s identity.

Those communications contain statements attributed to Martinz concerning the CIA.

That does not establish that Martinz actually worked for the CIA.

It certainly does not establish that the CIA ordered anything that subsequently happened to me.

But it means the claim itself deserves authentication.

My earlier investigation can be read here:

🔎 I GOOGLED MICHAEL MARTINZ – Here’s What the World Wide Web Says — and Why His Name Matters to Me! 

THE ALLEGED MURDER PLOT BEFORE CHRISTMAS 2025

Before Christmas 2025, information was reported to police concerning an alleged plot to have me killed.

Michael Martinz was identified to me in connection with that allegation.

The information provided to me concerned a supposed plan in which I would be targeted around Anytime Fitness in Castlegar, the gym I regularly attended.

I understood the allegation to involve my being shot and killed.

That’s about as serious as an allegation gets.

But I emphasize allegation because no court has convicted Martinz of conspiring to murder me.

I will not turn an allegation into a judicial finding simply because I believe the underlying evidence deserves investigation.

The information nevertheless reached police and was investigated through Langley Serious Crimes.

No murder-conspiracy charge against Martinz ultimately resulted.

That leaves me with a fundamental question:

WAS THERE ACTUALLY A MURDER PLOT?

Because there are two radically different possibilities.

One is that the alleged plot was genuine.

The other is that somebody fabricated or embellished the entire thing.

And if it was fabricated, that isn’t necessarily reassuring.

It creates an entirely different investigation.

Who fabricated it?

Why?

What were they attempting to accomplish?

Was somebody trying to frighten me?

Alter my behaviour?

Convince me somebody wanted me dead?

Cause me to involve police?

Destabilize my family?

Generate communications or behaviour that could later be used against me?

I don’t presently know.

Now introduce the alleged CIA representation.

That is where this becomes extraordinary.

SCENARIO ONE: WHAT IF MARTINZ REALLY WAS CIA-CONNECTED?

Suppose Canadian authorities authenticate the communications.

Suppose they independently establish that Martinz actually had some relationship with the CIA.

That fact, standing alone, proves no crime whatsoever.

Someone could have been an employee, contractor, source, former employee or otherwise connected to American intelligence while simultaneously engaging in completely private activities unrelated to that relationship.

This distinction needs to be burned into the record:

A CIA CONNECTION IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY A CIA OPERATION.

But if the relationship existed, the next question becomes unavoidable:

WHAT WAS MARTINZ DOING IN CANADA — AND WHO WAS HE DOING IT FOR?

If everything involving me was entirely personal, the CIA relationship could be irrelevant.

But if evidence established that prohibited conduct concerning me or my family was undertaken at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity, Canadian national-security law potentially enters the picture.

And Canada’s law is extraordinarily serious.

CANADA ACTUALLY HAS LEGISLATION FOR THIS

The relevant legislation isn’t simply the Criminal Code.

It is the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act — FISIA.

Section 20 addresses circumstances where someone, “at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with” a foreign entity or terrorist group, uses intimidation, threats or violence to induce or attempt to induce another person to do something.

The maximum penalty is:

LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/section-20.html

That doesn’t establish that section 20 applies here.

It establishes something much narrower and more important:

Parliament specifically legislated against certain foreign-linked intimidation, threats and violence.

THEN THERE IS SECTION 20.2

Section 20.2 goes even further.

It addresses committing an indictable federal offence “at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with, a foreign entity.”

Again:

MAXIMUM PENALTY — LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/section-20.2.html

Think carefully about what that means—and what it doesn’t mean.

It doesn’t prove Martinz committed anything.

It doesn’t prove he worked for the CIA.

It doesn’t prove the CIA ordered anything.

But hypothetically, if investigators first established an underlying indictable offence and then proved the necessary foreign-entity connection, Parliament has specifically legislated for that situation.

AND THEN THERE IS SECTION 20.3

This provision is particularly interesting when considering allegations involving deception or manipulation.

Section 20.3 addresses certain knowingly undertaken surreptitious or deceptive conduct at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity, where the legislation’s additional requirements concerning Canadian interests are satisfied.

Again:

POTENTIALLY LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/section-20.3.html

So the legally meaningful question isn’t simply:

“WAS MICHAEL MARTINZ A SPY?”

That’s catchy.

It isn’t precise enough.

The far more important question is:

WAS ANY PROHIBITED CONDUCT DIRECTED AT ME OR MY FAMILY UNDERTAKEN AT THE DIRECTION OF, FOR THE BENEFIT OF, OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH A FOREIGN ENTITY?

That is a question for evidence.

THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY “ESPIONAGE”

Traditional espionage generally brings to mind obtaining or communicating protected government or national-security information.

FISIA contains separate offences concerning safeguarded government information and special operational information.

Nothing presently available to me establishes that Martinz stole Canadian classified information or transmitted Canadian secrets.

So I am not going to manufacture an espionage charge where the evidence doesn’t establish one.

If the necessary facts were ultimately established, foreign interference may be the more relevant legal framework.

DID MARTINZ HAVE A CIA “GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD”?

This is the uncomfortable question.

If Martinz actually had a CIA connection, could he operate in Canada without consequences because Canada and the United States are allies?

I have found no general legal principle providing a CIA operative blanket immunity from Canadian criminal law simply because he works for American intelligence.

Canada remains sovereign Canadian territory.

Our criminal law still applies.

Our national-security legislation still applies.

And Parliament has expressly criminalized certain prohibited conduct connected with foreign entities.

So I am not alleging that Cpl. Amanda Martel, Inspector Loeppky, Langley Serious Crimes or anybody else deliberately protected Martinz because he was CIA.

I have no evidence establishing that.

But I have questions.

DID THE RCMP KNOW WHETHER MARTINZ ACTUALLY HAD AN INTELLIGENCE CONNECTION?

Did investigators know about the CIA representations attributed to him?

If they knew, did they attempt to verify them?

Was CSIS consulted?

Were American authorities contacted?

Was his claimed status confirmed?

Was it disproved?

Was foreign interference considered?

Or did investigators determine that Martinz was simply lying?

And ultimately:

WHAT DID LANGLEY SERIOUS CRIMES ACTUALLY DETERMINE ABOUT MICHAEL MARTINZ?

The absence of charges doesn’t answer that.

Police and prosecutors can decline charges for countless legitimate reasons: insufficient corroboration, authentication problems, witness credibility, inability to prove intent, conflicting evidence or simply evidence falling short of the criminal standard.

No charge does not prove guilt.

It also doesn’t necessarily establish that everything reported was fabricated.

I want to know what the evidence actually established.

AND THEN MY HOME WAS FIREBOMBED

This is the event that makes everything preceding it impossible for me simply to forget.

On January 22, 2026, only weeks after this alleged murder plot, my home was firebombed.

My daughter and I were inside.

That event happened.

What remains unresolved publicly is who was responsible and why.

So I have to ask:

WAS THE JANUARY 22 FIREBOMBING CONNECTED TO ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED BEFORE CHRISTMAS?

And my answer today is:

I DON’T KNOW.

That sentence matters.

I do not presently have evidence establishing that the CIA ordered, authorized or participated in the firebombing.

I do not presently have evidence establishing that Martinz participated in the firebombing.

An alleged CIA connection does not magically transform an unresolved attack into a CIA operation.

But suppose investigators eventually established three separate propositions:

First: Martinz actually had a CIA relationship.

Second: Martinz participated in an indictable offence directed against me.

Third: that conduct was undertaken at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity.

Only then would the foreign-intelligence hypothesis move from speculation toward something that could potentially engage Canada’s foreign-interference legislation.

Those links need evidence.

BUT WHAT IF THE MURDER PLOT ITSELF WAS FABRICATED?

This possibility deserves special attention.

Suppose there never was a genuine plan to murder me.

Suppose somebody manufactured the story that I was going to be killed around my gym before Christmas.

Now suppose, hypothetically, that somebody participating in that fabrication genuinely worked for a foreign intelligence service.

That would raise an entirely different set of questions.

Why fabricate a murder threat against a Canadian citizen?

What behaviour was the operation—if it were an operation—intended to produce?

Who authorized it?

Who benefited?

Was intimidation the objective?

Was manipulation the objective?

Was somebody trying to provoke a reaction?

Those questions would require investigators to establish both the alleged fabrication and its foreign connection.

Again:

CIA employment alone wouldn’t establish either proposition.

NOW CONSIDER THE OPPOSITE

And this may be even stranger.

WHAT IF MICHAEL MARTINZ WAS LYING ABOUT THE CIA?

Suppose Canadian authorities investigate.

Suppose American authorities are consulted.

Suppose the answer eventually comes back:

Michael Martinz never worked for the CIA.

Then what?

Does this story disappear?

Absolutely not.

It creates a completely different question:

WHY WOULD SOMEONE ALLEGEDLY CONNECTED TO A STORY ABOUT HAVING ME KILLED REPRESENT HIMSELF AS CIA IF THAT WAS FALSE?

Why invoke one of the world’s most recognizable intelligence organizations?

Credibility?

Prestige?

Intimidation?

Manipulation?

To convince somebody he had extraordinary resources?

To make people believe he possessed information ordinary people couldn’t obtain?

To make an unbelievable story seem believable?

Or was it simply bullshit?

I don’t know.

But “he wasn’t CIA” would not answer those questions.

It would tell investigators which road to follow next.

FOLLOW THE LIE.

Who did he tell?

When?

Exactly what did he claim?

Why?

What did he gain from people believing it?

Did anyone change their behaviour because they believed him?

Was the CIA representation connected in any way to the alleged murder-plot narrative?

Those questions become particularly important if the murder plot itself was fabricated.

Because then you potentially have somebody allegedly invoking a foreign intelligence agency while participating in an elaborate false narrative that another Canadian was about to be murdered.

If that is what happened, I want to know why.

THE THIRD POSSIBILITY

Reality doesn’t always fit neatly into two boxes.

Martinz could conceivably have had some legitimate historical, contractual, indirect or peripheral connection with American intelligence while exaggerating what it meant.

Maybe he performed some legitimate work years ago.

Maybe he knew somebody.

Maybe the words meant something entirely different in their full context.

That’s why the investigation cannot end with:

CIA: YES OR NO?

It needs to establish:

What agency?

What relationship?

What dates?

Employee, contractor, source or something else?

Current or former?

Official activity or private conduct?

And ultimately:

DID THAT RELATIONSHIP HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ME?

THEN THERE IS THE COLLEGE

This breadcrumb matters.

On October 21, 2025, Martinz told me something extraordinary about the college where my wife works.

For context, Maggie is the President of the college.

The exchange reads:

Michael: The college has actually just blocked dannys emails and doesnt care

Michael: I spoke to maddie at the college

Me: You spoke to Maggie?

Michael: Yes

Michael: Last week

Me: Are you fuckn serious

Michael: Yup

Me: And she didn’t tell [my wife’s name]

Michael: Cuz they dont care bro

Me: You swear to god you spoke to Maggie?

Michael: Yes

Me: And Maggie did not tell [my wife’s name] now that’s very fucking interesting.

Michael: Just keep all the shit down please and lets let cooler heads prevail here

Michael: Cuz they dont care

If this exchange is authentic and Martinz was truthful about contacting the President, there should potentially be evidence capable of testing his claim.

Who did he contact?

When?

What did he say?

What information was exchanged?

Why was he interested in my wife’s workplace?

What did the college know about him?

And what records remain?

I am not saying the CIA contacted the college.

I am saying Martinz told me he contacted the college.

Those are entirely different propositions.

THEN THERE IS MY DAUGHTER

Communications subsequently provided to me also raise questions concerning information about my daughter and her attendance at the college.

Why was that information being discussed?

Where did it originate?

Who disclosed it?

Why did Martinz need to know it?

After the alleged murder plot surfaced, my daughter became frightened and stopped attending the college.

She stayed home.

That is why she happened to be home with me in the middle of the day on January 22, 2026, when our house was firebombed.

She witnessed two individuals associated with the attack.

Chronology is not causation.

But chronology is precisely where investigators start.

THE HANDGUN BREADCRUMB

There is another piece I want preserved.

I had told Martinz that I had a handgun in my dresser.

I deliberately treated that information as a breadcrumb.

If that specific information resurfaced somewhere else, I would have an indication of where it originated.

Communications subsequently provided to me raise questions about Martinz allegedly wanting me to send a photograph of my handgun to Lucas Robinson.

I didn’t.

I didn’t personally know Robinson.

Yet Robinson appeared in my direct messages and communicated with me in a manner I regarded as threatening or provocative while encouraging me to approach the RCMP concerning his identity.

The important investigative question isn’t internet bravado.

It is:

WAS SOMEBODY ATTEMPTING TO MANUFACTURE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD RESULT IN POLICE ACTION AGAINST ME CONCERNING A FIREARM?

I don’t know.

There may be another explanation.

Authenticate the communications and establish what happened.

And if Martinz actually had a foreign-intelligence relationship, determine whether this conduct had anything whatsoever to do with it.

THE CHILD-PROTECTION QUESTION

The material supplied to me also raises questions about a potential child and family services complaint concerning my family.

Again:

Why?

What information did Martinz possess?

Where did it originate?

Was a report actually made?

Was somebody genuinely concerned about a child?

Or was somebody contemplating using another Canadian institution against me?

Those questions require evidence before conclusions.

But collectively they explain why establishing whether Martinz’s CIA representation was truthful matters.

CAN THE CIA JUST OPERATE UNABATED IN CANADA?

The short answer is no—not with some blanket exemption from Canadian law.

Canada and the United States are extraordinarily close intelligence partners.

That does not erase Canada’s sovereignty.

A foreign intelligence affiliation does not itself provide a general licence to commit Canadian criminal offences.

And Canada’s FISIA specifically addresses prohibited conduct connected with foreign entities.

So the question isn’t:

“Can the CIA operate in Canada?”

Intelligence cooperation between allied governments obviously occurs.

The question relevant to this investigation is much narrower:

COULD AN INDIVIDUAL ACTING FOR A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE COMMIT OTHERWISE CRIMINAL CONDUCT AGAINST A CANADIAN FAMILY WITH IMPUNITY?

I have found no general legal rule saying that they could.

That is why the “get out of jail free card” question deserves an evidentiary answer rather than a conspiracy theory.

CANADA HAS PROSECUTED SERIOUS INTELLIGENCE CASES

Canada has prosecuted extraordinarily serious intelligence offences before.

Canadian naval intelligence officer Jeffrey Delisle pleaded guilty after communicating safeguarded information to Russia and ultimately received a 20-year prison sentence.

Former senior RCMP intelligence official Cameron Ortis was convicted of offences involving unauthorized disclosure or attempted disclosure of special operational information, together with Criminal Code offences.

Those cases are factually very different from what I am examining here.

But they demonstrate something important:

Canada’s national-security legislation has teeth.

The unanswered question here is whether any national-security offence occurred at all.

SO WHICH IS IT?

After all of this, I come back to the C. S. Lewis analogy with which I began.

Strip away the noise.

Strip away the speculation.

Strip away my theories.

There remains an objectively answerable factual question:

WAS MICHAEL MARTINZ TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ALLEGED CIA CONNECTION?

IF HE WAS:

FOLLOW THE CONNECTION.

Establish precisely what the relationship was.

Determine whether anything he allegedly did concerning me or my family was connected to it.

IF HE WASN’T:

FOLLOW THE LIE.

Determine why somebody connected by allegation to a supposed murder plot against me was representing himself as CIA-connected.

IF THERE WAS SOME LIMITED OR HISTORICAL CONNECTION:

ESTABLISH EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.

Don’t exaggerate it.

Don’t minimize it.

Establish it.

IF THE MURDER PLOT WAS REAL:

FIND OUT WHO WAS BEHIND IT.

IF THE MURDER PLOT WAS FABRICATED:

FIND OUT WHO FABRICATED IT AND WHY.

IF JANUARY 22 WAS COMPLETELY UNRELATED:

ESTABLISH THAT FROM EVIDENCE TOO.

That is what investigation means.

Not picking the scariest explanation.

Not picking the safest explanation.

Not protecting my theory.

FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE EVEN IF IT DESTROYS MY THEORY.

🌹 WHY I AM GOING PUBLIC

I AM ALSO PUTTING THIS EVIDENCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR A VERY SIMPLE REASON:

IF I GO MISSING, IF I AM SERIOUSLY HARMED, OR IF SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS HAPPENS TO ME, DO NOT ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE.

FOLLOW THE BREADCRUMBS I HAVE DELIBERATELY LAID OUT.

Follow the dates.

Follow the messages.

Follow the names.

Follow the contacts.

Follow the institutional records.

Follow the evidence.

I have documented what I know, what I have been told and what remains to be proven.

I have distributed material so that evidence does not exist in only one place.

If something happens to me, start with the evidence—not speculation—and follow it wherever it leads.

🌹 PRESERVE THE RECORDS. FOLLOW THE BREADCRUMBS. ESTABLISH THE TRUTH.

THE BOTTOM LINE

There is no responsible shortcut here.

IF MARTINZ WAS CIA-CONNECTED — FOLLOW THE CONNECTION.

IF HE WASN’T — FOLLOW THE LIE.

IF SOMEBODY FABRICATED THE MURDER PLOT — FIND OUT WHY.

IF THE MURDER PLOT WAS GENUINE — FIND OUT WHO WAS BEHIND IT.

IF THE FIREBOMBING WAS CONNECTED — PROVE THE CONNECTION.

IF IT WASN’T — PROVE THAT TOO.

And above all:

ESTABLISH WHO WAS ACTING FOR WHOM.

🐑🔎🇨🇦

FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.

TEST THE CIA CLAIM.

FOLLOW THE FOREIGN CONNECTION IF IT EXISTS.

FOLLOW THE LIE IF IT DOESN’T.

AND LET THE DOCUMENTARY RECORD SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

---

EVIDENTIARY NOTE

This article examines documented events, communications provided to me, allegations and hypothetical legal consequences. It does not establish that Michael Martinz is or was employed by, contracted to, directed by or otherwise associated with the CIA. It does not establish that Martinz fabricated or participated in an alleged murder plot; that the CIA or United States government authorized activity concerning me or my family; that Martinz or the CIA participated in the January 22, 2026 firebombing; or that Canadian authorities protected Martinz because of an intelligence relationship.

Those propositions require independent evidence.

That is precisely why I am asking that the evidence be authenticated, the CIA representation tested, the institutional records preserved and the unanswered questions investigated rather than converted into assumptions.