THE JOLENE JOHNSON EXPOSÉ: ONE YEAR OF ALLEGATIONS, HARASSMENT, DEATH THREATS, ALLEGED MURDER PLOTS, MISIDENTIFICATION AND THE FIREBOMBING OF MY FAMILY HOME
By Black Sheep | October 21, 2026
PART ONE — SEPTEMBER 21, 2025: THE DAY EVERYTHING CHANGED
This is a saying for a reason:
“Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.“
Before I introduce readers to private investigator Jolene Karen Johnson and explain why I believe her conduct deserves examination, I want to begin with a document dated September 21, 2025. Because that date matters.
WHO IS JOLENE JOHNSON? THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR AT THE CENTRE OF MY QUESTIONS
Before I get into my personal experiences with Jolene Johnson and the extraordinary events of the past year, I think it is important for readers to understand who she is.
What follows is a summary of publicly available information about Jolene Karen Johnson, drawn from published news reports, professional and business records, court registry searches and other publicly accessible sources.
I’ll begin with what the public record tells us about her professional background and documented legal proceedings before turning to my own experiences, observations and opinions.
Readers can examine the referenced sources and draw their own conclusions. Where information remains disputed or unverified, I will make that distinction clear.
And believe me, there are some questions arising from these records that I intend to explore in considerably greater detail throughout this Black Sheep series.
I’ve updated the original Black Sheep editorial protection statement to account for the additional court records, the reported former name Dianna Leigh Holden, the criminal charge listings, Lee Hanlon, the alleged Ace Ventura misidentification, the RCMP and CRCC complaints, and your concerns about the firebombing.
This version is designed to be placed at the very end of Part One, after your sources and court-record references. It expressly reserves the right to correct information, welcomes responses from those named, and distinguishes allegations from proven facts.
EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER, PUBLIC RECORDS, FAIR COMMENT, RESPONSIBLE COMMUNICATION & RIGHT OF REPLY
A Statement from the Author — Black Sheep Whistleblower
Publication in Good Faith and the Public Interest
This article is published in good faith as part of an ongoing, independent investigative and opinion series concerning matters I believe are of legitimate public interest.
These matters include private investigative practices, allegations made to law enforcement, police accountability, the accuracy and dissemination of investigative reports, publicly accessible court proceedings, threats to personal safety, and the events preceding and following the January 22, 2026 firebombing of my family home in Castlegar, British Columbia.
My purpose is to document my experiences, examine the available evidence, express my sincerely held opinions, raise questions warranting further investigation, and seek accountability through lawful means.
SKIP TO THE END FOR A COMPLETE REFERENCE LIST:
1. Public Records, Documentary Sources and Accuracy
This article draws upon information from publicly accessible court registries, published legal decisions, professional and business records, news reporting, publicly available statements, and documents and communications in my possession.
I have made reasonable efforts to distinguish between verified facts, allegations, third-party reporting, personal recollections, opinions, suspicions and matters requiring further investigation.
The fact that information appears in a public record does not necessarily establish the truth of every allegation contained within that record.
Any reproductions or enhanced images of court records are intended to assist readers in understanding the documents. Original records remain the authoritative source. Recreated graphics are illustrative and must not be mistaken for certified court documents.
2. Civil Litigation and Court Search Results
References to civil proceedings involving Jolene Johnson, Lee Hanlon, Dianne Holden or other named individuals are based upon the court search results and other materials identified in this publication.
A court search result establishes that a proceeding matching the search criteria was recorded. It does not necessarily establish the identity of every individual named, the merits of a claim, the conduct of a party, or the outcome of the litigation.
The existence or number of civil lawsuits is not, by itself, evidence of dishonesty, misconduct, vexatious litigation or legal liability.
Where pleadings, judgments or final dispositions have not been independently obtained or verified, that limitation is acknowledged.
3. Names, Former Identities and Identity Verification
This article discusses a publicly reported claim that Jolene Karen Johnson previously used the name Dianna Leigh Holden.
That claim has not been independently confirmed through a certified name-change record or equivalent authoritative documentation.
A court entry involving Dianne Holden and Jolene Johnson does not, by itself, establish that the two names identify the same person.
I do not suggest that a lawful change of name is evidence of wrongdoing.
Any corrections or documentary evidence clarifying the identities involved will be reviewed and, where appropriate, incorporated into the published record.
4. Criminal Charges, Presumption of Innocence and Court Dispositions
This article discusses screenshots of British Columbia Provincial Court file 275928, displaying charges under sections 140(1)(c) and 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
A criminal charge is an allegation, not a conviction or a judicial finding of guilt.
The screenshots do not independently establish the present status, outcome or disposition of the proceedings, nor conclusively establish that the accused is the same person as the private investigator discussed in this article.
No individual should be presumed guilty based solely upon a charge listing, court appearance or the existence of criminal proceedings.
I will review reliable documentation concerning the identity of the accused and the disposition of the charges and publish corrections or clarifications where warranted.
5. Allegations Concerning Ace Ventura and Gangsterism Out
I expressly dispute allegations identifying me as the individual operating under the pseudonym Ace Ventura or attributing the authorship of Gangsterism Out publications to me.
My concerns regarding the alleged preparation, accuracy, circulation and consequences of a private investigation report are based on my understanding of events and information available to me.
Questions concerning the report’s authorship, commissioning party, recipients, distribution dates and possible consequences remain subjects of investigation.
I do not present an unproven causal connection between the report and the January 22, 2026 firebombing as an established fact.
6. Alleged Murder Plots, Police Conduct and the Firebombing
This publication discusses reports of an alleged murder plot, communications involving private investigators and other individuals, complaints concerning police conduct, and the attack on my family home.
Any suggestion that a named individual fabricated threats, orchestrated violence, conspired with police, deliberately endangered my family or participated in criminal activity is an allegation or suspicion unless independently established by reliable evidence.
I recognize that chronological proximity, personal relationships, professional associations and repeated appearances in communications do not, without more, establish coordination, conspiracy or causation.
The identification of those responsible for the firebombing and their motives must be determined through an appropriate investigation and reliable evidence.
7. Opinions, Commentary and Fair Comment
Opinions, interpretations, criticisms, suspicions and personal conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.
They are based upon my experiences and the information available to me at the time of publication.
I sincerely hold the opinions expressed and believe my factual account to be accurate to the best of my knowledge.
However, a sincerely held belief is not, by itself, proof that an allegation is true.
I recognize that fair comment and other protections for public-interest expression are subject to applicable Canadian and British Columbia law and depend upon the nature, factual foundation and context of the statements published.
8. Right of Reply and Opportunity to Correct the Record
I expressly invite any person or organization identified in this article to provide a factual response, clarification or correction.
This invitation extends to Jolene Johnson, West Point Investigations Corp., Lee Hanlon, other individuals mentioned, and any public institution whose conduct is discussed.
Anyone who believes a statement is inaccurate, misleading, incomplete or unfairly presented may contact the author, identify the specific passage and provide relevant supporting documentation.
I undertake to review credible corrections promptly and in good faith.
Where reliable evidence demonstrates that a material statement is inaccurate, I will correct, clarify, retract or apologize for that statement as appropriate, without unnecessary delay.
Material corrections will be clearly identified so that readers can understand what has changed.
9. No Intention to Encourage Harassment or Retaliation
This article is not intended to encourage harassment, threats, intimidation, vigilantism, interference with court proceedings, or retaliation against any individual.
Readers are encouraged to evaluate the documentary evidence independently and refrain from drawing conclusions beyond what the available records support.
Disagreements concerning this publication should be addressed through lawful communication, requests for correction or appropriate legal processes.
10. Continuing Investigation and Future Publications
This article forms Part One of an ongoing Black Sheep investigative series.
Future instalments may examine additional court documents, professional relationships, correspondence, investigative reports, police records and other evidence relevant to the matters discussed.
New information may confirm, qualify or contradict my present understanding.
I reserve the right to publish additional information, responses and corrections as the documentary record develops, subject to applicable law.
Final Statement from the Author
I stand by my right to tell my story, examine public records, question the conduct of individuals exercising professional or public influence, and seek accountability for matters affecting my family’s safety.
I also recognize my responsibility to report accurately, distinguish facts from allegations, and correct mistakes.
My objective is not harassment or retaliation.
It is to establish what happened, understand why it happened, and seek accountability wherever the evidence supports it.
If I have made a factual mistake, show me the evidence and I will address it.
If an allegation cannot be substantiated, I will not present it as proven.
If new information changes the story, I will update the record.
I believe the truth matters more than winning an argument.
And after everything my family has experienced, that is what I intend to keep pursuing.
BLACK SHEEP WHISTLEBLOWER
Following the Evidence. Asking the Uncomfortable Questions.
Published in good faith. Open to evidence. Committed to accuracy, accountability and correction.
Three additional precautions before publishing
The disclaimer helps explain your editorial standards, but it cannot prevent someone from filing a defamation lawsuit or automatically establish a legal defence. Three things in the current exposé deserve particular attention.
1. The criminal court records: Do not state that Johnson is currently facing charges, a trial or imprisonment until the accused’s identity and current case disposition are verified. The screenshots alone do not establish those facts.
2. The former-name allegation: The court entry Holden, Dianne v. Johnson, Jolene actually lists two parties. It is not proof of a name change. Any claim that Johnson formerly used Dianna Leigh Holden needs independent documentation.
3. The recreated court images: Some of the previously generated images include invented fields, dates or case statuses and resemble official government screenshots. For evidentiary publication, use the authentic screenshots you supplied, with straightforward cropping, sharpening and highlighting only. Clearly label any illustrative reconstruction.
Under Canadian defamation law, truth, fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible communication on matters of public interest may be relevant defences, depending on the circumstances. None is created simply by adding a disclaimer or calling an allegation an opinion.
My strongest recommendation: Have a British Columbia defamation lawyer review the finished article, particularly the allegations of fabricated police reports, murder plots, professional collusion and possible responsibility for the firebombing. A careful prepublication review offers substantially more protection than even a well-written disclaimer.
Now to get into it:
September 21, 2025, THE BIG DAY!! The day that got my family on track to have to deal with a fake murder plot and the firebombing of our family home!!!
On September 21, 2025, I distributed a press release to local news reporters demanding the immediate resignations of Castlegar Mayor Maria McFaddin, RCMP Staff Sergeant Monty Taylor and RCMP Chaplain James McFaddin because I was concerned they were not or had not protected my family which turned out to be true actually. See below:
The release followed months of what I had reported as criminal harassment, threats, doxxing, extortion and concerns about my family’s safety… which I believe the RCMP were behind or certainly condoned actually using their what I call RCMP shills like Danny Keith Martin and Jessica Yaniv/Simpson who at material times worked with Jolene Johnson through this period. I will come back to this.
It criticized the response of local authorities and demanded public accountability.
The release was titled:
“Urgent Demand for Accountability — Immediate Resignations of Mayor Maria McFaddin, RCMP Staff Sgt. Monty Taybr, and RCMP Chaplain James McFaddin.”
I have reproduced the historical document accompanying this article, with identifying information redacted.
Its allegations reflect what I was reporting at the time. They should not be mistaken for independent findings that the individuals named committed wrongdoing.
THE SAME DAY I FIRST ENCOUNTERED JOLENE JOHNSON
Here is what I find particularly significant.
September 21, 2025 was also the date I first encountered Jolene Johnson.
And believe me, there is quite a story behind that introduction—one I will save for the next instalment of this Black Sheep exposé.
What makes it particularly intriguing is that I believe I was introduced to Johnson under false pretences by Jessica Yaniv. That introduction subsequently brought me into contact with Michael Martinz—whom I understood to be Johnson’s client at the time—and Svetlana Dalla Lana, née Rilkoff, who had previously been engaged to Martinz.
Michael Martinz had also reportedly made claims to private investigator Jolene Johnson concerning his alleged connections to the CIA and law enforcement.
What makes this particularly intriguing is that, based on communications I have reviewed, Jolene Johnson appeared convinced that Michael Martinz was connected to the CIA and was also involved in law enforcement.
According to the account I received, Johnson had asked Martinz whether he was a “cop,” and his reported response was simply: “CIA.”
Now, that’s quite an answer to give a private investigator!
I have previously written about communications attributed to Martinz, including text messages in which he allegedly represented himself as having CIA connections.
Read my earlier Black Sheep investigation: (That was Jolene Johnson who I do no name just fyi)
Michael Martinz and the CIA: What Happens If He Challenges What I Published in Court?
What makes this particularly intriguing is the relationship between Michael Martinz and private investigator Jolene Johnson.
According to the information I received and have previously documented, Martinz was Johnson’s client during the relevant period.
Based on communications I reviewed, Johnson appeared convinced that Martinz had connections to the CIA and law enforcement. In one exchange attributed to her, she reportedly asked Martinz whether he was a “cop,” to which he allegedly responded: “CIA.”
I have not independently established that Martinz had any such intelligence or law-enforcement affiliation. What matters here is what Johnson apparently believed about her own client.
And here’s where the story takes another extraordinary turn.
It was Johnson—not me—who initially reported information concerning an alleged murder plot involving Martinz to the RCMP.
According to my understanding, Johnson obtained audio recordings while working for Martinz and subsequently provided them to police because she believed they revealed a conspiracy to murder Jessica Yaniv Simpson and me.
Those recordings became central to Langley RCMP investigation 2025-39393, which was associated with an RCMP Duty to Warn concerning my safety.
Then came January 22, 2026.
Our family home was firebombed while my daughter and I were inside.
On June 29, 2026, Inspector Loeppky of the Langley RCMP signed a letter advising that the alleged murder-conspiracy investigation had concluded. According to that letter, investigators reviewed witness statements, audio recordings and other evidence but determined there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges.
Now consider the questions this leaves unanswered.
Was the alleged murder plot genuine? Was Martinz making threats he never intended to carry out? Was Johnson accurately interpreting what she heard? Or was some of the information being presented to me and the RCMP unreliable?
I have become increasingly concerned about whether I was misled about the alleged plot and why. But the RCMP’s decision not to recommend charges does not establish that Johnson fabricated the information.
What I want is the original evidence examined and the discrepancies explained.
And there is another question I cannot ignore:
If Martinz was Johnson’s client, what was the precise nature of their professional relationship when she obtained the recordings, and what prompted her to report him to police?
Those are matters I intend to explore further in this multipart exposé.
I previously examined the RCMP investigation, Inspector Loeppky’s letter and the unanswered questions in my August 4, 2026 Black Sheep article:
THE COMMON DENOMINATOR — JOLENE JOHNSON!
The central questions remain: What did Jolene Johnson know? What did she report? What evidence did she provide? And what did the RCMP actually establish?
Now, are you beginning to see why I keep coming back to the same name?
JOLENE JOHNSON.
From the allegations of criminal harassment and the disputed identification of me as Ace Ventura, to the reported murder plot involving her own client, Michael Martinz, and the events preceding the January 22, 2026 firebombing of our family home, Johnson’s name keeps appearing in my examination of the chronology.
Am I starting to see a pattern? You bet I am! I was in fraud investigations work (secretly) for the better part of a decade and yeah this is a pattern lol
Does that establish she orchestrated these events? No. But I believe her involvement and communications raise serious questions that deserve answers.
Coincidence, connection or something more?
That is precisely what I intend to establish through the documents, communications and evidence.
And after everything my family has endured, I am not prepared to dismiss those questions simply because the answers might make someone uncomfortable.
I want the complete documentary record to answer those questions.
And I intend to keep following the evidence.
What interests me is what Johnson apparently believed, why she believed it, and whether those beliefs influenced her subsequent actions—including the information she supplied concerning the alleged murder plot against me.
And that is a subject I intend to revisit in considerable detail in the next instalment of this exposé.
Stay tuned. The text messages and their chronology deserve a closer examination.
To be absolutely clear, I have not independently verified that Martinz has any affiliation with the CIA or Canadian law enforcement. What concerns me is what Johnson apparently believed, what information led her to those conclusions, and whether those beliefs influenced her subsequent actions.
Was Johnson relying on independently verified information, or was she accepting extraordinary claims made by someone she believed to be an intelligence operative?
That distinction matters, particularly given the allegations and events that followed.
And it is another question I intend to examine in the next instalment of this exposé.
Now, here is where the connections become especially interesting.
Svetlana Dalla Lana is, to my understanding, the former sister-in-law of Castlegar Mayor Maria McFaddin. Maria’s husband, James McFaddin, served as an RCMP chaplain and had a professional association with the Castlegar RCMP detachment, previously commanded by Staff Sergeant Monty Taylor.
And who were the three individuals whose resignations I demanded in my September 21, 2025 press release?
Mayor Maria McFaddin, RCMP Chaplain James McFaddin and the Castlegar RCMP detachment commander Monty Taylor. More on this later as well.
See why that date caught my attention?
To be clear, these reported personal and professional connections do not, by themselves, establish coordination, misconduct or a conspiracy. But they explain why I consider the circumstances surrounding my introduction to Johnson worthy of further examination.
The press release, the introduction, the relationships and the timing—all converging on September 21, 2025.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But I intend to examine the communications and chronology before drawing that conclusion.
And that, readers, is where Part Two of this exposé will begin.
Stay tuned. There is considerably more to this story.
The timing is not something I can simply overlook.
On the same day I publicly demanded accountability from local political and police figures, Johnson entered the chronology of events that would dominate the next year of my family’s life.
Was that coincidence?
Was she already involved in a separate dispute?
Had someone contacted her about me?
Or was there a connection between the release and her involvement?
I do not presently have evidence establishing that the RCMP recruited Johnson, directed her activities or retained her to retaliate against me... But this is not my first rodeo and I have seen this play out before and this is how the RCMP role actually, they use shills to do their dirty work – its a classic!!
But I want to know whether any communications, instructions or professional relationships existed between Johnson, police personnel and other individuals involved in disputes concerning me.
That is an investigative question, not an established conspiracy.
THE LAWYER, THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND A LONGER HISTORY
I also have serious concerns about a lawyer with whom I have had a longstanding dispute stretching back more than a decade.
In my experience, this lawyer prefers to operate from the sidelines, making only occasional appearances when he apparently believes he has finally caught me in some compromising situation or discovered the elusive piece of evidence that will bring me down.
And every time, I get the distinct impression he thinks, “Aha! This time I’ve got him!”
LOL. Here we go again.
After watching what I regard as the same tired routine play out repeatedly over the years, I find it more predictable than intimidating. Frankly, the amount of time and energy seemingly devoted to these periodic attempts to catch me out has become almost comical.
But what is no laughing matter is whether this longstanding dispute has any documented connection to the individuals, allegations and events I am now investigating.
That is a question I intend to revisit in a future instalment—with the receipts.
I believe there may have been professional relationships involving that lawyer, Johnson and private investigator Lee Hanlon, including relationships dating back to approximately 2019.
I intend to examine those possible connections through court documents, correspondence, professional records and any other reliable evidence.
One of the court search results I have obtained identifies a proceeding involving Johnson and Hanlon.
That is a documented lead.
It does not, by itself, prove that either individual worked for the lawyer, participated in a coordinated effort against me or engaged in misconduct.
Those are questions for the next instalments of this investigation.
WHY THIS WILL BE A MULTIPART BLACK SHEEP SERIES
There is too much material to examine responsibly in a single article.
The court proceedings, disputed identification of me as Ace Ventura, police complaints, alleged murder plot, reported threats and firebombing each require their own examination.
Part One will concentrate on the documents, the chronology and the questions arising from the available evidence.
Future instalments will examine Johnson’s reported professional relationships, the role of Lee Hanlon, relevant litigation and the origins and distribution of the private investigation report that allegedly identified me as Ace Ventura.
I intend to distinguish documentary facts from my opinions and suspicions throughout.
THE CRIMINAL COURT RECORDS
You just cant make this shit up right?!?!
I have also obtained screenshots of BC Provincial Court file 275928, identifying an accused as Jolene Karen Johnson.
The screenshots list two counts under Criminal Code section 140(1)(c), concerning allegedly false reports of criminal offences, and one count under section 380(1)(a), concerning fraud over $5,000.
They also display a November 12, 2025 court appearance.
These are serious allegations, but the screenshots do not establish a conviction, the present status of the proceedings or the final disposition.
I have not yet independently verified that the accused is the same person as the private investigator discussed here.
Accordingly, I will not claim that Johnson is currently facing trial or imprisonment without confirming the current court record.
If the charges remain active, that will be reported accurately. If they were dismissed, withdrawn, stayed or otherwise resolved, that information is equally important.
DO I WANT ANOTHER LAWSUIT?
The short answer? NO.
But do I want to blow this entire matter wide open, put the evidence on the record, and finally get to the bottom of what has happened to my family over the past year?
HELL YES!
Do I believe Jolene Johnson would risk taking me to court over this exposé? Frankly, I have my doubts.
I suspect that any individuals or clients who may have been directing or influencing her activities would be reluctant to see their communications, instructions, financial arrangements and professional relationships examined under oath. Specifically a certain lawyer that I have evidence was working with Jolene back in December 2025 (a month before the firebombing of our home) to get an arrest warrant for me being Ace Ventura when I was not … yeah that happened too and I will get into this in the upcoming instalments.
As for the lawyer who has spent years operating from the shadows, I seriously doubt he’ll be eager to step into the spotlight now—or risk legal proceedings that might require Johnson to disclose communications or professional relationships involving him.
In my view, the circumstances have changed dramatically. I believe I have uncovered enough to raise serious questions about his possible involvement, and I intend to examine those questions through the documentary evidence.
Whether he has actually been caught doing anything improper remains to be established. But as far as I’m concerned, his old tactics have lost their effectiveness.
The element of surprise is gone. The questions are on the record. And the next move is his.
For now, I consider his influence over me effectively neutralized.
And after all these years? That’s quite a development. LOL.
If there are people behind the scenes whose involvement has not yet been disclosed, litigation could bring some very uncomfortable questions into the open.
Of course, whether such individuals exist, what role they played and whether any relevant records would be subject to disclosure remain unanswered questions.
But I digress. LOL.
I am well aware that Jolene Johnson’s name appears in a remarkable number of civil court search results, as documented above. Twenty results in the October 31, 2025 search alone—see below!
Now, twenty search results do not necessarily mean twenty separate lawsuits involving the same person, nor do they establish misconduct. But they certainly give me plenty of court records to examine.
And I intend to do exactly that.
Then there is the intriguing matter of Dianna Leigh Holden, a name publicly reported as having previously been used by Johnson. The court records also contain an entry involving Dianne Holden and Jolene Johnson, although the precise relationship between those identities still requires verification.
And believe me, I intend to come back to that one!
There is considerably more to investigate, including what these proceedings were actually about, who initiated them, what evidence was presented, and how they were ultimately resolved.
If Johnson chooses to initiate legal proceedings over my reporting, I will address them through the courts and consider whatever lawful defences or counterclaims the evidence supports.
But here’s the thing.
I don’t actually want another lawsuit. I want peace.
My family has endured more than enough threats, allegations, uncertainty and trauma. I would much rather spend my time rebuilding our lives than fighting another exhausting legal battle.
At the same time, I am not prepared to abandon legitimate questions simply because answering them might make someone uncomfortable.
I want the truth. I want accountability. And I want the evidence examined properly.
As for the court records, the reported former name, the professional relationships and the questions about who may have been working with whom?
I’ll save those receipts for another instalment of this Black Sheep exposé.
Stay tuned. We’re only getting started.
I also understand that publicly criticizing someone who has been involved in litigation may lead to legal proceedings.
I am prepared to defend truthful, properly documented reporting and my right to express opinions on matters of public interest.
If litigation arises, I will address it through the appropriate legal process, including considering any claims or counterclaims that the evidence and law support.
But litigation is not my objective.
What I want is peace.
And frankly, is that really too much to ask?
Having your family home firebombed while your loved ones are inside is pretty fucked up!!! Especially after months of reported threats, harassment, allegations and repeated concerns about our safety.
We just want to be left alone.
We have done nothing, to my knowledge, that could possibly justify what has happened to our family. Nobody deserves to have their home attacked, their safety threatened or their lives turned upside down.
I believe Jolene Johnson’s actions, particularly the alleged false identification of me as Ace Ventura and the circulation of that information, may have played a significant role in the chain of events leading to the firebombing of our home.
That is my sincerely held belief, based on the events and information I have examined. I recognize that the causal connection has not been established, and I hope that one day the complete evidence will be examined in court so the truth can finally be determined.
If wrongdoing is proven, I want those responsible held accountable.
Not because I want revenge.
Because I want justice. And because my family deserves to feel safe in our own home again.
My family has endured enough.
“We want our lives back. We want to be left alone. And above all, we want the truth.“
I want the threats to stop, the allegations to be accurately investigated, the facts established and the people responsible for any proven wrongdoing held accountable.
I would much rather spend my time rebuilding our lives than fighting another legal battle.
THE QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN (and there are many)
Why did Johnson enter this story on September 21, 2025?
What was the nature of her involvement?
Who retained her, if anyone, to investigate me?
What evidence supported the identification of me as Ace Ventura? I believe it was entrapment led by the RCMP actually.
Who received that identification before January 22, 2026?
What was the origin of the alleged murder-plot information?
And what, if any, connection exists between those events and the attack on our home?
I do not claim to have every answer.
But I have documents, dates and questions that deserve examination.
And I intend to continue following the evidence.
COMING NEXT: THE COURT RECORDS, THE PROFESSIONAL CONNECTIONS AND THE DISPUTED ACE VENTURA IDENTIFICATION.
BLACK SHEEP
Following the evidence. Asking the uncomfortable questions.
EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER, PUBLIC RECORDS, FAIR COMMENT, RESPONSIBLE COMMUNICATION & RIGHT OF REPLY
A Statement from the Author — Black Sheep
Publication in Good Faith and the Public Interest
This article is published in good faith as part of an ongoing, independent investigative and opinion series concerning matters I believe are of legitimate public interest.
These matters include private investigative practices, allegations made to law enforcement, police accountability, the accuracy and dissemination of investigative reports, publicly accessible court proceedings, threats to personal safety, and the events preceding and following the January 22, 2026 firebombing of my family home in Castlegar, British Columbia.
My purpose is to document my experiences, examine the available evidence, express my sincerely held opinions, raise questions warranting further investigation, and seek accountability through lawful means.
1. Public Records, Documentary Sources and Accuracy
This article draws upon information from publicly accessible court registries, published legal decisions, professional and business records, news reporting, publicly available statements, and documents and communications in my possession.
I have made reasonable efforts to distinguish between verified facts, allegations, third-party reporting, personal recollections, opinions, suspicions and matters requiring further investigation.
The fact that information appears in a public record does not necessarily establish the truth of every allegation contained within that record.
Any reproductions or enhanced images of court records are intended to assist readers in understanding the documents. Original records remain the authoritative source. Recreated graphics are illustrative and must not be mistaken for certified court documents.
2. Civil Litigation and Court Search Results
References to civil proceedings involving Jolene Johnson, Lee Hanlon, Dianne Holden or other named individuals are based upon the court search results and other materials identified in this publication. You can find all of this yourselves in BC’s Court Services Online (CSO) just like I found them and paid for them.
A court search result establishes that a proceeding matching the search criteria was recorded. It does not necessarily establish the identity of every individual named, the merits of a claim, the conduct of a party, or the outcome of the litigation.
PUBLIC RECORDS, COURT DOCUMENTS, PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION & SOURCE REFERENCES
Jolene Karen Johnson — Also Reportedly Known as Dianna Leigh Holden
Compiled by Black Sheep | October 21, 2026
ABOUT THIS PUBLIC-RECORD COMPILATION
The following references have been assembled from publicly accessible professional directories, regulatory records, business publications, news and media sources, court-registry search results, and third-party reporting.
These sources provide background on private investigator Jolene Karen Johnson, West Point Investigations Corp., reported professional affiliations, court proceedings and the reported former name Dianna Leigh Holden.
Some documents establish verifiable facts. Others contain allegations or information requiring further confirmation.
A court filing is not a finding of wrongdoing. A criminal charge is not a conviction. A name appearing in a search result does not, by itself, establish identity or misconduct.
Readers are encouraged to examine the original sources and reach their own conclusions.
1. LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA — OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION
Jolene Johnson — Innovation Sandbox Authorization
Date: October 25, 2021
The Law Society of British Columbia issued Johnson authorization to provide specified limited legal services through its Innovation Sandbox initiative.
The authorization did not make Johnson a lawyer.
Official document:
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/sandbox/Johnson-Jolene-2021-10.pdf
2. WEST POINT INVESTIGATIONS CORP. — OFFICIAL BUSINESS WEBSITE
Johnson is publicly identified as president of West Point Investigations Corp., a private investigation business advertising corporate, civil, domestic and criminal investigative services.
Company website:
https://www.westpointinvestigations.ca
Published 2025 Fee Schedule and Legal Services Disclaimer
The company’s published fee schedule includes information concerning its services and fees.
It also contains disclosures about limited legal services, including that Johnson is not a lawyer, solicitor-client privilege does not apply to those services, and the Law Society had not evaluated or verified her competence, character or fitness to provide them.
These disclosures form part of the regulatory arrangement and are not findings of professional misconduct.
Original PDF:
https://www.westpointinvestigations.ca/uploads/1/1/7/9/117987625/fee_schedule_wpi-full-2025.pdf
3. CANADIAN PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS RESOURCE CENTRE
Professional Investigator Directory
The Canadian Private Investigators Resource Centre has listed Jolene Johnson as president of West Point Investigations Corp.
The directory is relevant to establishing her publicly advertised professional identity and business activities.
Public directory:
4. ALBERTA ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
Find an Investigator — Professional Directory
A public investigator directory previously identified Johnson with National Risk Management Group Ltd.
This is a potential professional-affiliation lead. The nature and dates of any association should be verified through original business or licensing records.
Public directory:
https://www.aapionline.ca/find-an-investigator
5. NATIONAL NEWSMEDIA COUNCIL — PUBLISHED COMPLAINT DECISION
Johnson v. Cowichan Valley Citizen — Decision 2025-16
This published decision concerns a complaint made by Johnson about reporting on another private investigator’s professional licensing.
The newspaper clarified the licensing information, and the Council treated the matter as resolved.
This is a documented media-accountability proceeding, not a finding of misconduct against Johnson.
Published decision:
6. WEST POINT INVESTIGATIONS — PUBLIC BUSINESS PROFILE
Nextdoor Business Listing
A public profile describes the company’s advertised investigative services.
Business profile:
https://ca.nextdoor.com/pages/west-point-investigations-corp-burnaby-ca-bc
7. VANCOUVER TRUE CRIME — PUBLIC PODCAST DIRECTORY
Public Media Appearance
A podcast directory previously identified Johnson as a guest in connection with a Vancouver True Crime episode.
The original recording should be reviewed before attributing specific statements to her.
Podcast directory:
https://rephonic.com/podcasts/vancouver-true-crime
8. REPORTED FORMER NAME — DIANNA LEIGH HOLDEN
A March 2026 article published by MeowMix.Online identifies Dianna Leigh Holden as an earlier name allegedly used by Jolene Johnson.
This identification has not been independently confirmed through a certified name-change record or equivalent authoritative document.
The court search results also contain an entry involving Dianne Holden and Jolene Johnson. That entry names separate parties and does not itself prove a former identity.
Third-party article:
https://meowmix.online/fat-guy-vs-the-pi-the-pi-sues-jessica-jonathan-yaniv
Daughter’s Choice — Published Under the Name Dianna Leigh Holden
A book titled Daughter’s Choice was published under the author name Dianna Leigh Holden.
The bibliographic listing establishes that an author used that name, but it does not independently establish that the author is Jolene Johnson.
Book catalogue:
https://www.bol.com/be/nl/p/daughter-s-choice/9200000005122915
9. BC COURT SERVICES ONLINE — CIVIL AND SMALL-CLAIMS RECORDS
A screenshot of a BC Court Services Online search dated October 31, 2025 shows 20 results matching the name Jolene Johnson.
The results include civil and small-claims matters. They should not all be characterized as Supreme Court proceedings.
The earlier working transcription identifies entries involving:
- British Columbia Ltd.
- Director of Child, Family and Community Services
- Amanda Lack
- Amanda James — two entries
- Lucinda Haks
- Paterniece Billings Solutions Inc. — two entries
- John R. Richter Trial Lawyers Corporation
- John R. Richter Trial Lawyers
- Facebook Inc.
- Datar Sandhu
- Russell Johnson
- Tammy Kentoff
- Dianne Holden
- Lee Hanlon
- Xpera Risk Mitigation and Investigation
- Irfan Ali
- Dianne Bond
- Lesa Macpherson
These are provisional transcriptions of the screenshot. The precise party names, file numbers, court classifications and dispositions should be checked against the original registry records.
Official BC Court Services Online:
Important: The existence of numerous search results does not establish that the same person was involved in every proceeding, that Johnson initiated every case, or that any party engaged in misconduct.
10. JOHNSON AND FACEBOOK INC. — COURT-RECORD LEAD
A court-registry search result identifies a proceeding involving Johnson and Facebook Inc.
The underlying pleadings, judgment and disposition have not yet been independently verified.
The proceeding should not be described as establishing misconduct without reviewing the court’s actual findings.
BC Court Services Online:
CanLII — British Columbia:
11. JOHNSON AND LEE HANLON — COURT-RECORD LEAD
The October 31, 2025 court-search screenshot contains an entry described in the working transcription as:
Johnson, Jolene v. Hanlon, Lee
Reported file number: 2168433
The case entry provides a lead for obtaining the underlying documents and establishing the nature and outcome of the dispute.
It does not establish wrongdoing by either party.
Official court-record search:
12. DIANNE HOLDEN AND JOLENE JOHNSON — COURT-RECORD LEAD
The screenshot contains an entry transcribed as:
Holden, Dianne v. Johnson, Jolene
Reported file number: 190492
The underlying pleadings should be obtained to verify the parties’ identities, the nature of the proceeding and its disposition.
The listing does not independently establish that Dianne Holden was a former name of Jolene Johnson.
Official court-record search:
13. BC PROVINCIAL COURT — CRIMINAL FILE 275928
Screenshots supplied for this investigation identify an accused named Jolene Karen Johnson and list three charges associated with November 27, 2019.
Count 1 — Criminal Code section 140(1)(c)
Public mischief, involving an allegation of falsely reporting an offence.
Count 2 — Criminal Code section 140(1)(c)
A second public-mischief count involving an allegation of falsely reporting an offence.
Count 3 — Criminal Code section 380(1)(a)
Fraud involving a value exceeding $5,000.
The screenshots also show a November 12, 2025 appearance listing at Vancouver Provincial Court.
These are allegations recorded in a court listing, not findings of guilt.
The screenshots do not establish the final disposition or conclusively identify the accused as the private investigator discussed in this article.
Official court-record search:
Criminal Code — Section 140 (Public Mischief):
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-140.html
Criminal Code — Section 380 (Fraud):
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-380.html
14. REPORTED MARCH 2026 SUPREME COURT ACTION
Johnson and West Point Investigations Corp. v. Jessica Simpson, Miriam Yaniv and Ilana Altmann
A third-party article reports a British Columbia Supreme Court action involving these parties.
Reported registry: Abbotsford
Reported file number: S09159
Reported filing date: March 5, 2026
The reporting discusses disputed statements, professional relationships and allegations of defamation.
The original pleadings and current status have not been independently verified.
Third-party report:
https://meowmix.online/fat-guy-vs-the-pi-the-pi-sues-jessica-jonathan-yaniv
Related third-party litigation timeline:
https://meowmix.online/jessica-yaniv-simpson-legal-timeline
Official BC Court Services Online:
15. ADDITIONAL THIRD-PARTY VIDEO MATERIAL
A publicly accessible Vimeo video names Johnson and West Point Investigations and makes allegations concerning professional associations.
Those allegations have not been independently corroborated and should not be treated as established findings.
Video link:
16. CANLII — SEARCHING PUBLISHED COURT DECISIONS
CanLII provides access to many published Canadian court decisions.
However, not every civil filing, criminal charge, court appearance or procedural record is published on CanLII.
No verified CanLII judgment has yet been identified in this compilation that conclusively establishes the disposition of the specific Johnson, Holden, Facebook or Hanlon proceedings discussed above.
CanLII — British Columbia:
CanLII — Canada-wide:
BC Court Services Online:
17. BLACK SHEEP — RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
The following articles provide context concerning my own experiences, allegations, police complaints and requests for accountability. They represent my reporting and interpretations, not independent findings against Johnson or any other individual.
The RCMP Inspector Loeppky Letter — Alleged Murder Plot Investigation 2025-39393
Published August 4, 2026.
This article discusses the Langley RCMP investigation into an alleged murder conspiracy and Inspector Loeppky’s June 29, 2026 correspondence concerning insufficient evidence to support criminal charges.
Black Sheep article:
Michael Martinz and the CIA — Court Challenge and Published Communications
Published September 1, 2026.
This article discusses communications attributed to Martinz and allegations concerning claimed CIA connections. Those claims have not been independently verified.
Black Sheep article:
Michael Martinz — CIA Claims and a Tipster
Published August 31, 2026.
A follow-up concerning a tipster and allegations about Martinz’s purported intelligence connections.
Black Sheep article:
Formal RCMP Complaint, CRCC Review and Body Armour
Published September 20, 2026.
My account of the RCMP complaint process, concerns about protective measures and the body-armour decision following the January 22 firebombing.
Black Sheep article:
FINAL NOTE ON SOURCES, ACCURACY AND CORRECTIONS
This compilation is intended to identify publicly available source material and research leads, not to imply that every allegation appearing in those materials is true.
Court filings, search results, criminal charges, third-party articles and personal commentary must be assessed according to their nature and evidentiary value.
Where records remain incomplete or identities and outcomes have not been verified, those limitations are expressly acknowledged.
I welcome corrections supported by reliable documentation and will review any demonstrated material inaccuracies promptly.
Black Sheep Whistleblower
Following the Evidence. Asking the Uncomfortable Questions.
Published in good faith. Open to evidence. Committed to accuracy and correction.
Leave a Reply