By Black Sheep
October 2, 2026
Being “Made” what does that mean?!
In intelligence slang, being “made” means being recognized or exposed as an operative—having your cover blown. In Mafia terminology, a “made man” means something different: a formally initiated member.
Here, I’m using “made” in the intelligence sense. Did Michael Martinz of Kelowna, known as “Gangster Mike” and “Miggy,” reveal a genuine intelligence connection himself—or simply make an unsubstantiated claim?
I have also heard rumours suggesting he worked with police gang units in Kelowna. I have not verified those rumours. Nor do I have verified information that he has gone underground or left Kelowna. Those possibilities cannot be presented as facts.
What the photograph actually shows is narrower: asked whether he was a “cop”, the contact labelled “Miggy” replied “Nope,” followed by “Cia.”
Was that a serious claim, a boast, a joke—or something else? Three letters invite questions. They do not establish employment, an undercover role or a blown identity.
You make the call—but keep the distinction between a claim and proof.
Image: Illustrative reconstruction of the exchange with the contact labelled “Miggy.” Source photograph labelled January 4, 2026. This is not the original photograph.
That is the exchange visible in the photograph supplied for this article. I identify the contact as Michael Martinz, based on my account of the communications. The photograph alone does not establish who controlled the account.
In context, I interpret the answer as a claimed CIA affiliation. It is not an explicit statement of employment, and it certainly is not independent confirmation that Martinz worked for the agency.
But it is a claim worth examining—particularly given the allegations previously reported to police concerning my safety.
What I have already published
This is a continuation of my earlier Black Sheep reporting:
- September 1: Michael Martinz and the CIA—follow the foreign connection, or follow the lie. I examined the claimed affiliation and the need to distinguish a genuine relationship from fabrication or exaggeration.
- September 1: I have asked for the Michael Martinz–CIA evidence to be treated as a national-security matter. I described my complaint concerning the handling of the alleged murder plot and the CIA-related communications.
- September 11: Is It Impossible for Michael Martinz to Be a White-Collar Criminal and Work for the CIA in Canada? Hmm…. I challenged the assumption that an intelligence affiliation would automatically exclude misconduct. That argument does not establish either criminal conduct or CIA employment by Martinz.
Those articles document my allegations and questions. Repeating them does not turn them into independent corroboration.
Why January 4 matters
The photograph carries a label reading January 4, 2026, 8:36 p.m. I understand that it was taken during the exchange. The visible label does not independently authenticate when the messages were sent.
That places the photograph approximately 46 days after November 19, 2025, when, according to my account, Castlegar RCMP warned me of an imminent threat to my life.
I have described that contact as a Duty to Warn. Other accounts of police communications dispute whether it was formally such a warning and how the threat was assessed. The original records need to resolve that discrepancy.
My earlier August 11 article describes information I received from private investigator Jolene Johnson concerning an alleged plan to have me killed outside Anytime Fitness in Castlegar. I understood that information to implicate Martinz. My August 14 timeline also discusses those allegations.
The allegations were investigated under Langley RCMP Serious Crimes file 2025-39393. As I have previously reported, police found insufficient evidence to recommend charges concerning the alleged conspiracy.
The January 4 photograph therefore belongs in an already serious chronology. It does not prove the alleged plot. Nor does its timing establish that a foreign agency was involved.
“Gangster Mike”—now “CIA”?
I have previously referred to the name “Gangster Mike” in connection with Martinz. The photograph shows “Miggy,” not “Gangster Mike,” and displays no phone number.
My reaction to the gangster branding? What the hell—does anyone expect a self-applied nickname to function as a credential?
Neither “gangster” nor “CIA” tells us what someone actually does. A nickname is not proof of organized crime. Three letters in a chat are not proof of intelligence employment.
If the CIA reference was serious, what relationship was being claimed? Employee? Contractor? Source? Former association? If it was a joke or an exaggeration, what was its context?
Those possibilities require evidence.
Would working for the CIA in Canada automatically mean jail?
No. My earlier wording needs that precision. Claiming—or genuinely having—a foreign intelligence affiliation does not, by itself, establish a Canadian criminal offence.
The legal question is what conduct occurred, whether it was authorized, and whether the elements of a particular offence can be proved.
Canada’s Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act addresses, among other things:
- Section 20: intimidation, threats or violence used to induce someone to act, with the required foreign-entity or terrorist-group connection.
- Section 20.2: an indictable offence committed with the required foreign-entity connection; the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
- Section 20.3: qualifying covert or deceptive conduct connected to a foreign entity, with the required harmful purpose or recklessness; the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
These are conditional legal provisions, not findings against Martinz. Even proof of an intelligence affiliation would not automatically establish that an alleged offence was committed for that agency. A life-imprisonment maximum is also not an automatic sentence.
The answer requires records
I want the original communications preserved and authenticated, the account attribution checked, and the full conversation examined.
I also want clarity about what police knew, how they assessed the alleged threat, and whether they verified or disproved the claimed affiliation.
For publication, the accompanying image is an anonymized illustrative reconstruction of the visible exchange. It retains “Miggy” and the relevant wording while withholding the other participant’s identity. It is not the original photograph and must not be presented as forensic evidence.
I am not claiming this photograph proves Michael Martinz worked for the CIA, plotted my murder, or acted on behalf of a foreign government.
I am saying that an apparent intelligence claim, attributed to a person named in allegations concerning my safety, deserves an evidence-based answer.
“Miggy” typed “Cia.” What did he mean?
Editorial note: Allegations concerning Martinz remain unproven. The original photograph does not independently establish authorship, employment, agency involvement or criminal liability.
Leave a Reply