My Response to Public Claims About Me

A citation or docket number can help a reader locate a court record, but it does not establish that every summary or conclusion drawn from that record is accurate. The document, its date, its procedural meaning, and any later court action all matter.

A disclaimer saying that someone is presumed innocent does not, by itself, tell readers whether the overall presentation is fair or accurate. Headlines, images, surrounding commentary, and the way separate facts are combined can affect the meaning readers take from a publication.

The first two charges were stayed on November 10, 2025. A third related charge, which I understand resulted from a clerical error, was not served on me until February 2026. That matter has since been addressed in court, and the next court date is in April 2027.

The third charge is connected to the first two. I expect it to be stayed as well, but that has not yet happened; its status remains before the court. A charge is an allegation, not a finding that the alleged conduct occurred.

A reference to a historical warrant does not, by itself, establish its present status. Any current statement about a warrant should be checked against the relevant official records, including any record of issuance, execution, cancellation, or recall. I will not make a claim about its current status without the records to support it.

Repurpose Solutions Canada Inc. was allowed to lapse deliberately. I made that decision as a defensive measure in response to accusations from Calgary Co-op. The Canadian corporate record establishes the company’s status; it does not, by itself, establish why I made that decision or prove that I intended to mislead anyone.

Repurpose Solutions USA LLC, registered in California, remains active. According to my current records, its next filing is due in February 2027. The status of the Canadian and U.S. entities should not be conflated.

An existing restraining order limits what I can say about Calgary Co-op-related issues, so I cannot elaborate on the underlying matters.

I have appeared in Calgary courts seven times. I have responded to Calgary Co-op’s request for disclosure in connection with the outstanding costs from previous court dates. I have also filed Affidavits 13 and 14 with Calgary Co-op’s legal counsel, McCarthy Tétrault. The matter is being addressed through the court process, and I will leave it there.

The raffle was shut down because the available timeframe was too short. There were only six weeks, and the charities I was working to involve—including Calgary Health Foundation, Alberta Children’s Hospital, and Diabetes of Alberta—could not complete the necessary steps in time. The decision was made to shut it down for that reason.

The fact that a promotion was discontinued does not, by itself, establish that it was fraudulent. The circumstances should be assessed against the relevant records and what actually happened.

Orders, recommendations, corrections, and disclaimers each have their own meaning. They should be described according to their precise wording and context. None should be represented as a finding of fraud or dishonesty unless the court expressly made that finding.

The key distinction is between a record showing that an event or proceeding occurred and a conclusion about what that event proves. I will not deny that records exist. I will address specific, supportable facts and correct inaccuracies, while avoiding conclusions that the records do not establish.

I created The Real JoeCo to tell my story in my own words, including my work, values, community involvement, and the experiences that have shaped my life. I invite readers to consider that account alongside the underlying records and the context provided here.