September 11, 2026
The Black Sheep
Whenever I raise the possibility that Michael Martinz may have been involved in criminal activity while also claiming—or appearing—to have connections to the CIA, people seem to treat the two ideas as mutually exclusive.
As if working for an intelligence agency automatically makes someone honest.
As if a security clearance is a certificate of good character.
As if intelligence officers cannot lie, manipulate systems, falsify credentials, steal money or use secrecy to cover their tracks.
Well, take a look at the extraordinary case of former senior CIA officer David Rush.
According to The New York Times, Rush and federal prosecutors have reached a plea agreement in principle following an investigation that reportedly uncovered 303 gold bars worth approximately US$40 million, more than US$2 million in cash and 35 luxury watches at his Virginia home.
Rush allegedly obtained gold and cash from the CIA by representing them as legitimate “work-related expenses.” Prosecutors have also accused him of lying about parts of his education, qualifications and military background.
This was reportedly not some junior employee operating on the fringes of the agency. Rush held a senior position and managed a genuine classified CIA program involving money used for intelligence operations.
In other words, the classified nature of his legitimate work may have helped conceal his alleged illegitimate activity.
Let that sink in.
An individual could apparently occupy a trusted position inside one of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world while allegedly fabricating credentials and accumulating a private mountain of government gold.
Yet when I question whether someone could be involved in white-collar crime while simultaneously having an intelligence connection, I am expected to believe that the combination is simply impossible.
It clearly is not impossible.
What This Case Proves—and What It Does Not
Let me be precise.
The David Rush case does not prove that Michael Martinz worked for the CIA. It does not prove that Martinz committed a crime, and it does not establish any connection between these two men.
What it does prove is that “he could not be involved in criminal activity because he works for an intelligence agency” is not a serious argument.
Employment by—or association with—an intelligence organization does not eliminate the possibility of criminal conduct. In some circumstances, secrecy, compartmentalization and institutional credibility may actually make misconduct harder to detect.
That is why credible allegations should be investigated using evidence, records, financial transactions, communications and witness testimony—not dismissed because they sound uncomfortable or unconventional.
The Questions I Have Been Asking
I have alleged that Michael Martinz approached me in September 2025, presented himself as wanting to help expose wrongdoing by his former fiancée, and encouraged me to contact other people on his behalf.
I have also raised concerns about later communications and an alleged conspiracy discussed in recordings connected to the period preceding the January 22, 2026 firebombing of my family’s home.
Those remain allegations requiring proper investigation.
My concern has never been that the public should blindly accept my conclusion. My concern is that Canadian authorities may have dismissed or compartmentalized potentially important information without adequately testing it.
Was Martinz telling the truth about his background and connections?
What business and financial activities was he involved in?
What communications took place between him and the people surrounding this dispute?
Did he communicate with anyone at Selkirk College?
Did he have any relationship—formal, informal, direct or indirect—with an intelligence or law-enforcement organization?
Were the relevant recordings, electronic communications and financial records properly examined?
Those are legitimate investigative questions. Asking them is not the same as claiming that the answers have already been proven.
Secrecy Is Not Innocence
The Rush case exposes a larger problem: secrecy can protect national security, but it can also protect individuals from scrutiny.
When an organization operates behind classified walls, outsiders may be unable to distinguish a legitimate covert activity from fraud, corruption or personal misconduct. Even other people inside the organization may see only one carefully controlled part of the picture.
That does not mean every secretive person is a spy or every intelligence officer is corrupt. It means institutional affiliation should never be treated as immunity from investigation.
David Rush reportedly possessed tens of millions of dollars in government gold while working within the CIA’s classified world. Now prosecutors and his lawyers are negotiating a plea arrangement that could avoid a public trial and leave parts of the story hidden.
That alone should make people reconsider what they dismiss as “impossible.”
So, Could Both Things Be True?
Could someone be involved in sophisticated white-collar misconduct and also perform work for—or claim some relationship with—an intelligence agency?
Obviously, yes.
The existence of one does not disprove the other. The David Rush case demonstrates that they can coexist inside the same individual and remain concealed for years.
Does that establish my suspicions concerning Michael Martinz?
No.
But it destroys the lazy argument that such a scenario could never happen.
I am not asking anyone to convict Michael Martinz through a blog post. I am asking the responsible Canadian authorities to investigate the evidence properly, preserve the relevant records and determine what is true.
Because “that sounds impossible” is not an investigation.
And history keeps reminding us that the supposedly impossible sometimes turns out to be sitting inside a suburban house—in the form of 303 gold bars.
Hmm…
Source: CIA Officer in Gold-Bars Case Nears Plea Deal — The New York Times, September 11, 2026
Editor’s note: Allegations concerning Michael Martinz are the author’s allegations and have not been proven in court. David Rush is entitled to the presumption of innocence on allegations that have not resulted in a conviction. A tentative plea agreement is not itself a final guilty plea or judicial finding.
© 2026 The Black Sheep. All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply