WOW.. i had to copy and paste this, I’m NOT Derrick, but this is a MUST READ!

My name is Derrick Sweet. I am a 61 year old Canadian and earn my living as a stock market analyst. I follow money for a living. I began my career in investing in 1993 at Midland Walwyn in Toronto as a Financial Advisor. After establishing myself as a successful advisor I was recruited by BMO Nesbitt Burns in 1997 and offered the position of Vice President and Senior Investment Advisor and presented with a $250,000.00 signing bonus, which was a lot of money back then. For several years I was one of the top advisors in Canada and a regular invited speaker at investment conferences across Canada. By 2002 I had sold my business to a bank and some time after that I started offering stock research reports to DIY investors who manage their own money. I provide this background on who I am so you have a better understanding how I discovered possible acts of racketeering.

I have been closely following Mark Carney’s violations of the trust he was voted to uphold for too long. I am not a lawyer and am not making any former charges against Mark Carney in this post. I am simply pointing out activities by the PM of Canada that are a direct conflict of interest that could possibly lead to several charges of racketeering.

The Prosecution Case Against Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada (the PM)
I. The Core Allegation: "Pay-to-Play" Infrastructure

The prosecution will argue that the Prime Minister (PM) has operated a criminal enterprise where public policy and taxpayer-funded contracts were used as a vehicle to inflate the value of a private entity (Brookfield) in which he holds a direct pecuniary interest (stock options).

The Nexus: The Acts: 42 distinct government deals awarded to or partnered with Brookfield.

The Benefit: $5 billion in reported profits for the entity.

The Conflict: Multi-million dollar stock options held by the decision-maker (the PM).

II. Count 1: Breach of Trust (Criminal Code s. 122)

Under Section 122, we do not need to prove a "bribe" was paid. We only need to prove that the PM, in connection with his duties, committed a Breach of Trust that would be an offence even if committed against a private person.

The Evidence:

Duty of Office: The PM is mandated by the Conflict of Interest Act to "arrange private affairs to prevent conflicts of interest" (s. 5).

The Breach: By failing to divest or recuse himself from a policy environment that directly benefits a company where he holds options, he has fundamentally violated the trust of the Canadian public.

Legal Standard: Per R. v. Boulanger, the prosecution must show the act was a "marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused's position." Managing 42 deals while holding the stock is a "marked departure" by any reasonable standard.

III. Count 2: Frauds on the Government (Criminal Code s. 121)

This is the Canadian version of "racketeering." Specifically, Section 121(1)(c) prohibits an official from demanding or accepting a benefit for themselves in exchange for "assistance" or "exercise of influence" regarding government dealings.

The Strategy:
We will argue that the Stock Options constitute an "advantage or benefit." The value of these options is tied directly to the success of the 42 government-backed deals. Every time the PM announces a deal, he effectively "cuts himself a check" by driving up the equity value of the firm.

IV. Count 3: Organized Corruption (The "Racketeering" Element)

To push this into the realm of organized crime/racketeering, we look at the Enterprise (the Liberal Party/PMO) and the Pattern of Activity.

The Enterprise: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO)

The Pattern: A series of 42 separate transactions. In racketeering law, we look for "Continuity & Relationship."

Relationship: All deals involve the same beneficiary (Brookfield).

Continuity: The deals spanned a significant period of time & continue as long as the PM holds office V. The "Smoking Gun": Intent (Mens Rea)

The defense will claim the PM has a "Blind Trust." I have dismantled this below:

Transparency vs. Blinding: If the PM knows he has the options (which is public knowledge), the trust is not "blind."

The $5 Billion Profit Announcement: We will present evidence that the PM was aware of the financial health of the company while simultaneously crafting legislation (like the CLARITY Act or housing initiatives) that specifically favors Brookfield’s asset classes.

This is not a series of unfortunate coincidences. This is a closed-loop system of enrichment. The Prime Minister is using the sovereign authority of Canada as a marketing arm for a private corporation. He is both the 'Grantor' of the contracts and the 'Grantee' of the profits. In the private sector, this is insider trading. in the public sector, this is a Racket."

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Draft Criminal Referral – s. 121 & s. 122 Criminal Code (Canada)
TARGET: The Right Honourable Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada
NEXUS: Financial Entanglements with Brookfield Asset Management (BAM)
DATE: February 13, 2026

I. PREAMBLE & JURISDICTION

This referral outlines a prima facie case for investigation by the RCMP Sensitive and International Investigations Unit. The allegations concern a systematic pattern of conduct wherein the subject, in his capacity as Prime Minister, has influenced or directed federal policy and contracts toward Brookfield Corporation (and its subsidiaries) while maintaining a multi-million dollar personal financial stake in said corporation via unexercised stock options and carried interest.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Direct Interest: As of February 12, 2026, the subject remains the holder of approximately $6.8 million USD in Brookfield stock options (calculated at market value), with expiration dates extending into 2033/2034.

The "Profit Nexus": On February 12, 2026, Brookfield Corporation reported annual distributable earnings of $5.4 billion USD, an 11% increase. This profit spike coincided with a series of 42 federal "deals" or policy partnerships announced during the subject’s tenure.

Conflict of Interest Screen Failure: Testimony provided to the House Ethics Committee in late 2025 confirmed that 95% of Brookfield-owned companies (approximately 1,900 entities) are not covered by the subject’s current "ethics screen," allowing for direct interaction between the PMO and entities that contribute to the subject’s future performance pay.

Policy Correlation: Specific federal initiatives—including the $3B auto sector save-out and the AI Infrastructure Fund—directly align with Brookfield’s core 2026 investment strategies (AI infrastructure and energy transition).

III. APPLICABLE OFFENCES (CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA)

COUNT 1: Breach of Trust by Public Officer (s. 122)

The Theory: The subject has exercised the powers of the Prime Minister’s Office for a purpose other than the public good—specifically, the appreciation of his private equity holdings.

Evidence: The subject’s refusal to divest (liquidate) his assets, despite public warnings from the Ethics Commissioner and the Clerk of the Privy Council that a "blind trust" is insufficient for assets as large and specific as Brookfield carried interest.

COUNT 2: Frauds on the Government (s. 121(1)(c))

The Theory: The subject, being an official, has "accepted or agreed to accept" an advantage (the appreciation of stock options and carried interest) from a person/entity (Brookfield) that has active and ongoing dealings with the Government of Canada.

Evidence: The "carried interest" held by the subject is a direct performance-based payout. Every federal contract awarded to a Brookfield-managed fund (e.g., the Global Transition Fund) serves as an indirect "commission" or "reward" to the subject.

IV. INVESTIGATIVE ROADMAP

To move from "referral" to "indictment," the following evidence must be secured via production orders: