Letter sent on September 19, 2026, to the Peel Regional Police Chief, the Commander of Division 11, LECA, IOP and several news outlets.
Dear Sirs,
On Friday morning, September 17, at around 11 a.m., two police officers showed up at my door again, with the clear intent of intimidation and, ultimately, harassment.
They did not use the doorbell - apparently too high-tech for their skill level - and banged on the door instead, presumably to appear more intellectual and civilized, much like officers employed by the FSB or the MSS. That is what Peel Police, Division 11, is spending taxpayers' money on.
They came to inform me that a person with a serious mental condition - bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and psychosis combined; the abuser of my minor daughter and of myself for over eleven years - together with her newly internet-acquired "boyfriend," one in a long series of the same kind, had filed a new complaint against me, keeping your salaries rolling.
The complaint was based on an illegally intercepted private communication with my daughter, in which I told her to refuse to attend a music concert in Toronto that night if the individual who makes her uncomfortable showed up, and, should she feel she had no choice but to go, not to ride in the same car as that individual - simply to refuse to get in.
They also warned me that I could be charged with "racism" for the names (or rather, accurate descriptions) I used for that individual in a private communication with my daughter. Nice.
Aside from the fact that her latest internet acquisition has no business being anywhere near my daughter, my request that she not ride in the same car as the two of them was a legitimate safety concern. The "co-complainant" - that "terrified individual, quick victim of racism" - is one more distraction for her mother's already dangerous driving habits and questionable fitness to drive. Driving while impaired, by alcohol or medication, is often the norm for her, especially on weekends. I have raised this concern before, with both the CAS and Division 11. But as reputable institutions staffed (only) by highly qualified professionals, they appear to prefer corpses to prevention - prevention being far too boring, more Bollywood than Hollywood, never a job for proud cowboys.
They also reminded me that I am under an (abusive, by the way) restriction not to be in the same place as the abuser - a restriction which, for Division 11's randomly selected clientele in their hobby of stripping (children and their) parents of their rights, apparently extends to Planet Earth and beyond - and that I should therefore "behave civilly" at the concert that night.
That restriction stemmed from an earlier, abusive arrest, made at a time when I was, once again, simply trying to keep my child safe, and when I was naïve enough to think Division 11 might be of some use.
As a side note, during that arrest, despite appearances to the contrary, the officer involved apologized for "needing" to arrest me to avoid risking losing his job - proof that he was fully aware at the time that what he was doing was entirely wrong. His body-camera footage will confirm this; there is no need to take my word for it.
The abuser's contradictory behaviour just days later - who, evidently feeling no danger whatsoever, insisted I sit beside her and take family photographs at my daughter's eighth-grade graduation - only reinforces the point, as have subsequent incidents. The diligent officers of Division 11 never bothered to read the so-called "electronic harassment communication" on which they based that spectacular arrest - deploying multiple police cars and officers at my residence - and never had the capacity to place it in context.
Malicious, deliberately false complaints should carry consequences; unfortunately, that appears to be the mandate of a different division, perhaps in a different country.
In defending the "right" of a mentally unwell individual to bring anyone she finds on the internet into the house, at the expense of my minor daughter - who has no choice but to live in fear, with no way to defend herself - you are actively and irresponsibly disregarding a child's rights, safety, and well-being.
According to the law, these interests are supposed to be paramount, yet somehow they remain optional in the minds of your "well-trained" officers, with their own particular brand of critical thinking. In the process, you disregard my rights as well. You are doing nothing short of actively facilitating child abuse. Well done. Truly honourable.
If the abuser has the right to bring anyone she wants into her house with complete disregard for the safety, well-being, and needs of a minor child, then logically her rights are no greater than anyone else's. But logic seems to be in short supply these days, doesn't it? Some, apparently unimportant, members of our society still believe that the protection of rights should not be selective, biased, or shaped by inadequate training, poor judgment, or the advice of deeply compromised lawyers (see: Andrew Mark Alexander Lawrence v. Peel Regional Police Force, et al. ) - as demonstrated by the highly trained, intellectually advanced officers of Division 11 during the COVID-19 State of Emergency, when they chose to arrest me for trying to get my sick daughter to a hospital to be seen by a doctor.
They also pointed out that my daughter's abuser has "custody" - which, in their sophisticated and one-of-a-kind reasoning, functions as an ultimate license to abuse, particularly when the abuser is a woman - and is therefore perfectly justified. Setting aside the fact that the officers involved either did not read the custody document, which contains no restrictions against me, the father, beyond the four clearly defined decision-making rights specified at the time it was issued - the custody itself was not granted on merit but on administrative grounds. And since March 1, 2021, that document holds roughly the same legal relevance as the Reinheitsgebot of April 23, 1516.
They further suggested that they had "spoken" with my daughter previously, and that she did not seem to have any issue with these individuals in her space - conveniently overlooking that this was under duress, a factor apparently irrelevant unless Tarantino-style characters are involved. Child psychologists, to them, exist only to be ignored the moment their findings could get inconvenient.
Finally, they felt it necessary to inform me that they had run a background check on the latest addition to this circle, and that he is "clean…" How reassuring. Thanks to these outstanding officers, I can now sleep soundly and stop worrying about my daughter's well-being and safety while she remains in the hands of abusers. Pleasant dreams. So were Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski - until they weren't.
They mentioned their preferred escape route: contact the CAS. CAS Mississauga is well documented as one of the most dysfunctional, gender-biased, and incompetent institutions in Canada - but by all means, after years of facilitating abuse, why not try (them) again?
Then they left, evidently proud of their achievement.
The day went on. The concert, by the way, was terrible - I would not recommend it to anyone, especially to the fine officers at Division 11. Contrary to what might have been expected, there was no incident. My daughter's abusers remain biologically intact, exactly as they were before Division 11's visit. Only my daughter was genuinely happy to see me there - relieved, and briefly feeling safe. That moment of temporary happiness for an abused child slipped past your vigilance this time. You missed it. My condolences - but nobody's perfect.
To conclude:
The abuser's right to a private life is not in question here. She is free to collect whomever she finds on the internet and do as she pleases with them - provided she does not endanger a minor child in the process, as she did two years ago when she brought a convicted criminal into the house and forced the child to accept his presence. My daughter has rights too: the right to safety, and the right to be free from emotional harm. The abuser is free to visit her collectibles elsewhere and show the child the respect of keeping such relationships outside the home - a private life is not confined to the bedroom, which happens to sit within two metres of the child's own space.
Gentlemen,
Once again, thank you for so relentlessly keeping our community safe - from terrible, loving parents. And thank you for reminding us, in the process, why we must all remain vigilant against democratic backsliding and continue to value civilization. Without people like you, the world would be a genuinely uglier place. Thank you.
Best regards,
Nick Nedelcu
P.S.
While I do enjoy your company, there is no need to deploy multiple police cars, at taxpayers' expense, to bang on my door. You are welcome to reach me by email, by phone (the correct number, please), or by text. You may also ask me to come to the station whenever you are bored and feel the need to harass a parent for the day - I will be at your disposal.
Paramount definition:
"more important than anything else; or supreme in rank, power, and importance."
- Cambridge Dictionary
Note:
Theresa Maclean is (or was) the abuser's "lawyer" — the same compromised "lawyer" who made Peel Regional Police worldwide famous, and whose advice these "highly professional" officers seem to have taken on how to properly abuse a child and a parent. Some habits never change.
(This text has been slightly modified from the original email that was sent, for formatting and clarity.)