# THE LECA REVIEW — Complaint E-202606011107233651, reviewed document by document
Built October 27, 2026 at Frank's direction. Sources: the LECA thread in Frank's Gmail, read in full October 27, 2026. Quotes are verbatim from the letters.

## The thread, in order
1. **June 1, 2026** — Frank files his public complaint through LECA's own e-file: PSA Complaint **E-202606011107233651** (Windsor Police Service; the May 6, 2021 arrest and the disclosure contradictions, incl. created charge #211549).
2. **June 27, 2026** — Frank sends the evidence package "CREATED CHARGE #211549 — EVIDENCE OF FABRICATION, CONCEALMENT, AND INTENT TO IMPRISON" to a recipient list including LECA.
3. **June 29, 2026** — LECA replies (leca@ontario.ca): "Please note that LECA does not accept complaints by email" + a link to the online form. No reference to the complaint already filed on June 1. No reference to any file content.
4. **July 21, 2026** — LECA Case Management Unit (unsigned, "On behalf of"): to "assist the Director in screening," Frank must answer by July 27: (1) did the judicial official address the inconsistencies "in either the final endorsement or on record (transcript) as part of the reasons for the decision?" (2) provide the disclosure portions "weighed in court as significant in the final decision rather than being administrative inconsistencies without legal significance."
5. **July 22, 2026** — Frank's eight-page response: no judicial official placed any finding on the record; the disclosure was reviewed in chambers for ~two hours, off the record, on the trial date; 17 motions filed and promised a hearing, never heard; dismissal purported September 15, 2025 at the Crown's request "with no written reasons and no record of dismissal ever provided"; motion to restore filed. "The absence of an on-record ruling is itself a documented feature of this case — not a deficiency in my complaint."
6. **September 15, 2026** — LECA's decision letter (Kirsten Dziedzic, Monitor/Investigatory Analyst, "On behalf of the Complaints Director"; the letter is signed "Kirsten, LECA Monitor"): the complaint will NOT be dealt with — PSA s.60(4), "not in the public interest."

## The decision's own words (operative passages)
- "your concerns regarding any discrepancies related to your charges or in the evidence would have been best addressed in the courtroom and in front of the presiding justice."
- "the facts presented by police to the court were considered and it appears there were no concerns raised by the courts regarding the police and their actions"
- "the outcome of prosecution was the responsibility of the Crown, not the Respondent Officer."
- "the Complaints Director has determined that your complaint is not in the public interest to send for an investigation as it is 12 months old and there is insufficient information which could not result in a finding of misconduct against the police."
- "A copy of your complaint as well as our decision not to proceed have been forwarded to the Chief of the Windsor Police Service for their record."
- The letter also disclaims authority over records preservation, internal policy, and chain of command within a police service.
- Addressee block on the decision letter reads "3820 Tecumseh Road East, Diana Motel, Windsor, ON N8W 1J2" — "Diana Motel" appears nowhere in Frank's address of record.

## Findings — the response measured against the file LECA itself held
**F-1. A false date at the heart of the refusal.** The complaint is declined "as it is 12 months old." Nothing in the file is 12 months old: the incident is May 2021 (over five years before the complaint), the complaint itself was three and a half months old when decided. The stated ground matches no date in LECA's own file.

**F-2. The decision rests on a judicial record that does not exist.** LECA's premise is that the courts "considered" the police facts and raised "no concerns." LECA's own file contained Frank's unrebutted July 22 answer: the review happened in chambers, off the record; no endorsement, no transcript, no reasons, and no record of dismissal was ever produced. The decision never engages that answer. It treats the absence of on-record concern — an absence the process was structured to produce — as if it were a judicial finding in the officers' favour.

**F-3. The investigative burden was inverted at screening.** Before deciding whether to investigate, LECA required the complainant to produce court findings about the very records in dispute (July 21 letter). Investigation is the mechanism by which a complaints body gathers facts; demanding the conclusion as the price of starting is a refusal wearing a procedure's clothes.

**F-4. Zero investigative acts.** Across the entire thread there is no record of LECA: identifying the respondent officers, requesting the disclosure or the MCMS records from Windsor Police, interviewing anyone, or testing the charge-creation entry (#211549, created May 22, 2021 — sixteen days after the incident, on a page stating "no current criminal charges") against the officers who made it. The complaint was screened out on paper supplied by the complainant alone, plus a case citation (Charlton) about reasonable grounds for arrest — a question his complaint was not limited to: the complaint concerned records created and certified AFTER the arrest, which the reasonable-grounds doctrine does not reach.

**F-5. The June 29 brush-off.** LECA answered the June 27 evidence package with "we do not accept complaints by email" — twenty-eight days after the same agency had taken his complaint through its own e-file. On its face, the left hand answered as though the right hand held nothing.

**F-6 (provenance note).** An "MCMS 38 / May 22, 2021, 2:27 PM" clarification passage circulates in Frank's dig files attributed to LECA. It appears in NONE of the LECA letters read in full on October 27, 2026. It is carried as UNPINNED unless and until the letter carrying it is produced. The findings above do not depend on it.

## Frank's characterization, recorded as his
The response was a fraudulent response: a refusal that misstated the file's age, rested on a judicial record that does not exist, demanded the complainant prove the conclusion before any investigation, and records no investigative act of any kind — while the complaint and the refusal were forwarded to the Chief of the very service complained about, "for their record."

## Doors the review identifies (for the demand that follows)
1. **LECA itself** — a reconsideration demand on the corrected premises (F-1 to F-5), addressed to the Complaints Director by name, requiring an answer on the documents.
2. **Ontario Ombudsman** — administrative-fairness investigation of LECA's handling (the Ombudsman oversees Ontario agencies' administration; LECA sits inside the Ministry of the Attorney General).
3. Both doors take this review as their enclosure.