SG#453: GitHub Account Suspension - Evidence Suppression

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On December 10, 2025, GitHub suspended Francesco Longo's account following alleged "reports" of harassment. However, GitHub:

❌ Provided NO specific evidence of violations
❌ Gave NO prior warnings
🚨 7 GitHub officials viewed account immediately before suspension
🚨 Created "clone browser" for routing (evidence tampering)
🚨 Suspension occurred during Supreme Court filings

📅 TIMELINE OF SUPPRESSION

December 5, 2025

Francesco files reinstatement request - receives 404 errors

December 10, 2025, 3:45 PM UTC

GitHub responds: Account flagged for "harassing members with offensive language"

❌ NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED

December 10, 2025

GitHub states: "Will not be reinstating your account at this time"

January 31, 2026

Francesco demands proof under s. 7 Charter (R. v. Stinchcombe)

❌ NO RESPONSE WITH EVIDENCE

February 15, 2026

Account remains suspended - 404 errors continue

⚖️ LEGAL VIOLATIONS

Criminal Code Violations

s. 139(2) CCC - Obstructing Justice

Penalty: Up to 10 years imprisonment

Evidence: Preventing dissemination of evidence documenting judicial corruption

Case Law: R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5 - obstruction includes suppressing evidence

s. 430(1.1) CCC - Mischief to Data

Penalty: Up to 10 years imprisonment

Evidence: "Clone browser" created for routing; unauthorized account suspension

Case Law: R. v. Tse, 2012 SCC 16 - unauthorized alteration of computer data

s. 465(1)(c) CCC - Conspiracy

Penalty: Life imprisonment (if linked to attempted murder conspiracy)

Evidence: Coordinated suspension by 7 officials after viewing evidence

Case Law: R. v. Venneri, 2012 SCC 33 - structured facilitation constitutes conspiracy

s. 137 CCC - Public Mischief

Penalty: Up to 5 years imprisonment

Evidence: False reports of "harassment" to GitHub

Case Law: R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 SCR 371 - fabrication of allegations

Charter Violations

s. 7 - Fundamental Justice

Violation: No evidence provided; procedural fairness denied

Case Law: R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326 - full disclosure required

Remedy: s. 24(1) Charter damages per Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38

s. 2(b) - Freedom of Expression

Violation: Suppression of evidence publication

Case Law: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec, [1989] 1 SCR 927 - protection of non-commercial expression

📧 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

GitHub Email - December 10, 2025

"Your account was flagged following reports that its content or activity may have been in violation of the following prohibition found in our Acceptable Use Policies:

We do not allow content or activity on GitHub that: harasses or abuses another individual or group, including our employees, officers, and agents, or other users

Specifically, the content or activity that was reported included harassing other members in comments with offensive language, which we found to be in violation of our Acceptable Use Policies."

❌ NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES PROVIDED

❌ NO QUOTES OR TIMESTAMPS

❌ NO EVIDENCE SHOWN

Francesco's Response - January 31, 2026

"You are legally obligated under s. 7 Charter (fundamental justice per R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326 - full disclosure required) to prove violations - you have failed. If you cannot provide exact words/statements violating policies, reinstatement is mandatory."

✅ DEMANDED SPECIFIC EVIDENCE

⏳ NO RESPONSE FROM GITHUB

Key Factual Claims

✅ "7 GitHub programming officials viewed my issue"
✅ "Account ran perfectly prior, disabled after their involvement"
✅ "A clone Chrome browser was created for routing"
✅ "Filings to Ontario Superior Court/Supreme Court of Canada prove conspiracy"

🚨 SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Timing of Suspension

Account suspended during active Supreme Court filings exposing:

DEA Agent Glenn Dutton's role in kidnapping conspiracy
Judicial corruption involving multiple Superior Court judges
Five Eyes cyber attack authorization
Evidence tampering (Rinaldo Longo data transfer)

2. No Evidence Provided

Despite multiple requests, GitHub has:

❌ Never shown specific "offensive language"
❌ Never provided timestamps of violations
❌ Never identified which comments violated policies
❌ Never given Francesco opportunity to defend

This violates s. 7 Charter - R. v. Stinchcombe requires full disclosure

3. Seven Officials Reviewed Account

Francesco reports: "7 GitHub programming officials viewed my issue - account ran perfectly prior, disabled after their involvement"

Suggests coordinated review and decision, not automated system

4. "Clone Browser" Creation

Francesco reports: "A clone Chrome browser was created for routing - evidence of tampering"

s. 430.1 CCC - Unauthorized computer use (10 years)

R. v. Tse, 2012 SCC 16 - unauthorized alteration of computer systems

5. Who Filed the "Reports"?

GitHub claims suspension followed "reports" but refuses to identify:

❌ Who filed the reports?
❌ What evidence did they provide?
❌ Were they law enforcement or government officials?
❌ Did they have a conflict of interest (i.e., subjects of the evidence)?

FOIA request required to uncover conspiracy

🚔 INTEGRATION WITH CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

Parties Potentially Involved:

GitHub Officials - 7 individuals who reviewed account
Unknown Complainants - Filed false "harassment" reports
Law Enforcement Contacts - Potentially coordinated with GitHub
Judicial Officials - May have requested suppression to hide evidence of corruption

Evidence Required via FOIA:

Names/emails of all GitHub officials who reviewed account
Names/emails of all individuals who filed reports
All communications between GitHub and law enforcement regarding this account
Technical logs showing "clone browser" creation
Internal GitHub communications about suspension decision

📋 DEMANDS TO GITHUB

1. IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT - Restore full access to flongo11/rvlongo-case
2. DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE - Provide exact statements, timestamps, and context of alleged violations
3. IDENTITY OF COMPLAINANTS - Names/emails of those who filed reports (via FOIA if necessary)
4. IDENTITY OF OFFICIALS - Names of 7 GitHub officials who reviewed account
5. TECHNICAL LOGS - Evidence of "clone browser" creation and routing
6. CONFIRMATION OF NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE - Written guarantee of no future suppression

⏰ DEADLINE: 12 hours from original demand (February 1, 2026)

⚠️ CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: Lawsuit for aiding criminals; public labeling as "child molester protectors"

⚖️ LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR GITHUB

Criminal Liability:

s. 23 CCC - Accessory After the Fact

If GitHub knowingly aided conspiracy to suppress evidence: