Rockefeller; WEF; The Commons Project; CommonTrust Network; Health Passes

The Commons Project Foundation (CPF), and the World Economic Forum (WEF), are collaborating to run this so-called CommonTrust Network, and some other initiatives. There are many other partners as well. Now, we know (roughly) who Klaus Schwab and the WEF are. But who exactly is behind the CPF, and who finances it?

According to its own website, the Commons Project Foundation is a non-profit public trust established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation. It claims to have a mission of “build[ing] and operat[ing] digital platforms and services for the common good”. That sounds lovely, although we may have different ideas of what the common good is.

The Commons Project Foundation is accurate about having non-profit status with the IRS, EIN: 83-3933549. Its 2019 tax information is publicly available.

This is hardly an old organization. The CPF was only founded in 2019, as was its first project, CommonHealth. Later on it developed CommonPass, a data sharing structure, which is set to be used a framework for a global digital vaccine passport. And what a coincidence, 2019. It was launched just in time to save us from a global pandemic.

It’s also prominently listed on the World Economic Forum‘s site. Paul Meyer, the CEO, has quite the interesting biography.

Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, The Commons Project, a non-profit public trust, established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, to build digital services that put people first. CommonHealth is the Android platform that lets people collect and manage their personal health data and share it with the health services, organizations and apps they trust. Began career doing advance work on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Then joined the White House staff as speechwriter. Then Chief Operating Officer, Endeavor. Then joined the International Rescue Committee. Co-founded IPKO which began as a wireless internet provider serving the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. Also co-founded the IPKO Foundation. Then Senior Fellow, Markle Foundation. 2001, co-founded and served as Chief Executive Officer, Voxiva. 2016, merged Voxiva with Sense Health to form Wellpass and served as Wellpass Chief Executive Officer. 2018, Wellpass was acquired by Welltok, served as President of the Public & Community Markets. 2019, co-founded The Commons Project. Member: IPKO Foundation Board; Advisory Board, BlueStar Families. Former Member, U.S. Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. Degree in Law, Yale; BA, Pomona College; studied politics, philosophy and economics, Oxford. Young Global Leader, World Economic Forum. Henry Crown Fellow, Aspen Institute. Term Member, Council on Foreign Relations.

Meyer is very well connected politically, and associated with all of the globalist organizations to ensure that his system is the one that is used.

The Commons Project lists 4 projects that it’s currently involved with:

  • CommonHealth
  • CommonPass
  • CommonTrust Network
  • SMART Health Read Verifier

CommonHealth appears to be a platform that people can use to download their health information. It’s compatible with systems like iOS and Android. Now it’s being offered for free to individuals — isn’t that nice — but the hope is that health care providers will take it as well.

Considering that this is essentially open source software, one has to wonder how any money is being made in all of this. Perhaps there are some interested donors contributing.

CommonHealth also offers SMART Health Cards, which appear to be a paper or digital version of clinical information. That kind of sounds like the forms that a vaccine passport would take.

CommonPass works in principle much the same way that CommonHealth does. Health information can be downloaded — say to a phone — and taken with a person wherever they go.

This differs in that it’s a way to cross borders (or police checkpoints). In essence, this is “halt and show your papers”. It’s difficult to see how this could be implemented in any consistent manner, unless there was some global system to work from. Then again, this sort of thing has long be decried as a conspiracy theory.

CommonPass explains in broad strokes how these movement licenses are supposed to work. And no, this wasn’t developed recently. Even in 2020 this type of tracking was already being openly advertised.

Also, what happens when the requirements change? First, it was a single vaccine for a cure to this “deadly disease”. Then it was 2 shots to be fully immunized. Now, the discussion is on 3rd shots, boosters, and possibly pills and supplements. Talk about shifting the goalposts.

The CommonTrust Network also has a map of the countries that are already part of it. To be fair, it doesn’t explicitly state if Canada itself if part of it, or just Provinces (like B.C.) within it. So there is a bit of room for interpretation here, but it’s most likely national.

So, Canada is part of the “Common Trust Network“, which its website describes as a growing global network of testing providers, vaccination providers, and public health registries. That’s interesting. Did you know we were part of this? Do you remember voting in any election, or referendum to get involved in this? Yeah, I didn’t either.

Provinces all across Canada are rolling out vaccine passports, and a national one is in the works. Are they all collaborating with the CT Network? What data exactly will they have, and who will have access to it?

Now, the technology wouldn’t be complete without a downloadable app that can go on people’s phones. Apple and Google now have them available. Isn’t that thoughtful of them?

Interestingly, in the last question of the FAQ section, it’s admitted that this platform might eventually be used to store more data.

These are hardly the only examples of NGOs getting to close for comfort, or meddling in public affairs. Addition to the above, a lot of these same organizations keep getting involved in interrelated efforts. A few examples of this are:

  • The Rockefeller Foundation is one of the founding partners of ID2020, along with Microsoft and GAVI. This group was formed in 2016, with the goal of creating a digital identity for everyone. Also, Mastercard is both a general partner of ID2020, and the Common Trust Network.
  • The Rockefeller Foundation has also been a major donor to the University of Toronto, and help launch public health at that school. Something rarely discussed in the halls of academia is where the money comes from.
  • As previously mentioned on this site, the Vaccine Credential Initiative is working to set universal standards for vaccine passports. Microsoft is involved, as is the Ontario Ministry of Health, and many of the other partners in the Common Trust Network.
  • Back in 2019, MIT had looked into the concept of storing medical data below the skin, sort of like a tattoo.
  • Also, is it a bad time to mention that Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister, is a Trustee at the World Economic Forum? So are many prominent names

It’s mind boggling to know that the vast majority of people in the world don’t get it. They don’t realize that all of this is planned and coordinated. The The ones doing this don’t even bother to hide it — they throw it in our faces.

(1) https://thecommonsproject.org/
(2) https://thecommonsproject.org/about
(3) https://thecommonsproject.org/commonhealth
(4) https://www.weforum.org/organizations/commons-project
(5) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/paul-meyer
(6) https://www.commonhealth.org/
(7) https://www.commonhealth.org/smart-health-cards
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oAI14DOUQM&
(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJGYNvNUMJk
(10) https://thecommonsproject.org/commonpass
(11) https://www.commontrustnetwork.org/
(12) https://www.commontrustnetwork.org/network
(13) https://thecommonsproject.org/smart-health-card-verifier
(14) https://smarthealth.cards/faq.html
(15) https://id2020.org/alliance
(16) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-credential-initiative-passports-digital-health-passes-ontario-ford/
(18) https://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
(19) https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance
(20) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(21) Commons Project Foundation 2019 Taxes
(22) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/vaccinecard.html

TSCE #9(F)(2): 2021 Parliamentary Hearings On Pornhub, CSAM, Digital Fingerprinting, Databases

When the issues of internet privacy and child protection intersect, sorting things out can be fairly tricky. It was only a decade ago when “Conservative” Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, decided that having basic protections of browsing history amounted to coddling pedophiles. Nonetheless, these concerns don’t go away just because someone else is now in office.

Now, it’s the group Pornhub that is under the public spotlight. It is just one such site owned by MindGeek. The porno empire of MindGeek includes (but isn’t limited to):

  • Pornhub
  • RedTube
  • YouPorn
  • Brazzers
  • Digital Playground
  • Men.com
  • Reality Kings
  • Sean Cody
  • WhyNotBi.com

Allegations have come up that actual sexual abuse as been published on this site, as well as revenge porn, and videos featuring minors. All of that is illegal. As for the hearings:

The above videos are clipped from the this hearing. The transcript of that day’s hearing is available here.

From January to June 2021, there were Parliamentary hearings held in Ottawa based on what was happened with Pornhub. It turned out that a very large amount of their content involved non-consenting parties, or minors, or both. After an outrage in December 2020, and threatened with the loss of payment processors like Visa and Mastercard, there was some serious damage control.

To be clear, the whole pornography uploading industry is disgusting. This is especially true as it’s fairly easy to allow content of minors to be included, and non-consensual content as well. That being said, the hearings were interesting, but for additional reasons.

One notable topic was the level of software available to scan images and videos, to implement “digital fingerprinting”, and to collaborate with other social media sites. Furthermore, Mindgeek explained they knew exactly who is uploading to their site, and where it’s happening from.

(February 5, 2021, 13:05)
.
We are also working to ensure that once content is removed, it can never make its way back to our platform or to any platform. The revictimization of individuals when their content is re-uploaded causes profound injury that we are working fiercely to prevent. We are attacking this problem in two ways. First, our people are trained to remove such material upon request. Second, we digitally fingerprint any content removed from our website so that it cannot be re-uploaded to our own platform.
.
For the last two years, we have been building a tool called “SafeGuard” to help fight the distribution of non-consensual intimate images. As I sit before you today, I am pleased to report that this month we will be implementing SafeGuard for all videos uploaded to Pornhub. We will offer SafeGuard for free to our non-adult peers, including Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. We are optimistic that all major social media platforms will implement SafeGuard and contribute to its fingerprint database. Such co-operation will be a major step to limit the spread of non-consensual material on the Internet.

(February 5, 2021, 13:10)
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
How do you know?
.
Mr. Feras Antoon:
It’s because every single piece of content is viewed by our human moderators. Number two, it goes through software that we have licensed from YouTube, like CSAI Match, and from Microsoft, like PhotoDNA for pictures. It goes through a software called Vobile.
.
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
But then why, for example, do Pornhub’s terms of service say, “we sometimes review Content submitted or contributed by users”?
.
Mr. David Tassillo (Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada):
Mrs. Stubbs, I would like to add to what Feras mentioned.
I’m not too sure where it says that in the terms of service, but I can guarantee you that every piece of content, before it’s actually made available on the website, goes through several different filters, some of which my colleague made reference to.
.
Depending on whether it comes up as a photo or as a video, we go through different pieces of software that would compare it to known active cases of CSAM, so we’ll actually do a hash check. We actually don’t send the content itself over; they create a digital key per se that’s compared to a known active database. After that, it’s compared to the other piece of software that Feras mentioned, Vobile, which is a fingerprinting software by which anyone can have their content fingerprinted. Any time MindGeek would find the piece of infringing content, we’d add it to that database to prevent the re-upload.
.
Once it passes the software queue…. If anything fails at the software level, it automatically doesn’t make it up to the site. Once that piece has gone through, we move over to the human moderation section. The human moderators will watch each one of the videos, and if they deem that the video passes, it will be—

Essentially, all of the material, whether uploaded or not, will become part of a huge database. Who will have access to it, and for what reasons could content be released?

And software is used, including stuff provided by YouTube and Microsoft. Will they have access to it? Can the material be stored somewhere else?

The Adult Industry Laborers and Artists Association wrote to Parliament, essentially arguing that the porn industry was better at regulating itself than the Government. Also, it was a large sector of the economy which people relied on to provide for their families.

The Sex Workers of Winnipeg Action Coalition actually wrote to Parliament advising AGAINST mandatory identification for using and uploading onto such sites. They argue that it’s too easy to compile and save the data to be used to nefarious purposes (and cite Clearview AI). In terms of material uploaded without consent, they actually have a point.

The Free Speech Coalition wrote to the hearing and recommended working with sites like Pornhub. They claim that illicit material will just be shared elsewhere if this were shut down.

In MindGeek’s written submissions, they spelled out — at least broadly — the technical tools they had to combat illicit material and keep it from being shared:

Our human moderators are supported by a growing suite of technical tools, which fall into two broad categories: those that detect previously identified CSAM and non-consensual content using a fingerprint technology and those that use artificial intelligence to detect unreported CSAM content.

MindGeek’s fingerprinting tools rely on a unique digital fingerprint to match a video or photograph to those already identified in a database of banned content. These tools include YouTube’s CASI Match, Microsoft’s Photo DNA, Vobile’s MediaWise, and MindGeek’s own SafeGuard. All items caught by these tools as CSAM or non-consensual are immediately blocked from the website and handled by our second level review team.

That’s quite the list of electronic tools. And keep in mind, Pornhub knows exactly who the people are uploading to their site. How exactly would this artificial intelligence work, and what would it be programmed to look for?

The Parliamentary Report has also been issued on this subject. Now, this smut shouldn’t be around at all. However, if it can’t be removed, these are some decent recommendations to help the problem somewhat.

Recommendation 1 concerning liability
That the Government of Canada explore means to hold online platforms liable for any failure to prevent the upload of, or ensure the timely deletion of child sexual abuse material, content depicting non-consensual activity, and any other content uploaded without the knowledge or consent of all parties, including enacting a duty of care, along with financial penalties for non-compliance or failure to fulfil a required duty of care.

Recommendation 2 concerning the duty to verify age and consent
That the Government of Canada mandate that content-hosting platforms operating in Canada require affirmation from all persons depicted in pornographic content, before it can be uploaded, that they are 18 years old or older and that they consent to its distribution, and that it consult with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada with respect to the implementation of such obligation.

Recommendation 3 concerning consultation
That the Government of Canada consult with survivors, child advocacy centres, victim support agencies, law enforcement, web platforms and sex workers prior to enacting any legislation or regulations relating to the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms.

Recommendation 4 concerning section 3 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, amend section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to make the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre the designated law enforcement agency for the purpose of reporting under that section and that it ensure that the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre has the resources it needs to investigate the increased referrals of child sexual abuse materials

Recommendation 5 concerning reporting obligations
That the Government of Canada invest resources to ensure the compliance of access providers, content providers and Internet content hosting services with their reporting obligations under An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service through education and awareness initiatives.

Recommendation 6 concerning section 11 of the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada consider amending section 11 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to extend the period of time to commence prosecution for an offence under this Act.

Recommendation 7 regarding compliance under the Mandatory Reporting Act
That the Government of Canada call upon the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police services to ensure the compliance of Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, with their reporting obligations under that Act, and that compliance be absolute with no means for providers to opt out

Recommendation 8 concerning requirements for uploaders of content
That the Government of Canada set requirements for uploaders of content to provide proof of valid consent of all persons depicted and that the new regulations include penalties severe enough to act as an effective deterrent.

Recommendation 9 regarding pornographic content and age verification
That the Government of Canada develop clear regulations that require Internet service providers, as defined in An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, to utilize a robust process for age verification of all individuals in uploaded pornographic content, including content generated by individuals, studios or contract partners.

Recommendation 10 concerning proactive enforcement of Canadian laws
That the Government of Canada proactively enforce all Canadian laws regarding child sexual abuse material and the posting of non-consensual material and that in particular, it enforce section 3 of An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service by requiring all Internet service providers, as defined in the Act, to report child sexual abuse material directly to an officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

Recommendation 11 concerning accessible mechanisms for the removal of online content
That the Government of Canada develop accessible mechanisms that ensure that Canadians victimized by the posting of an image or video online without their consent on sites like Pornhub have the right to have that content removed immediately and to be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to the non-consensual nature of the content, and that the Government of Canada provide all the necessary resources required to put in place these accessible mechanisms.

Recommendation 12 concerning a potential new pattern of sexual violence
That the Government of Canada work with key stakeholder groups such as Canadian sexual assault centres, women’s rights organizations and representatives from LGBTQ2 communities to determine if the posting of non-consensual material depicting sexual violence on sites like Pornhub is reflective of, and contributing to, a new pattern of sexual violence, and that it report its findings, including recommendations for further action, to Parliament.

Recommendation 13 concerning the accountability of websites regarding the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content
That the Government of Canada hold accountable websites that allow the downloading and re-uploading of pornographic content that erases the identity of the source material, thereby preventing authorities from assessing those accountable for the material.

Recommendation 14 concerning a new legal framework to impose certain obligations on Internet service providers hosting pornographic content
That the Government of Canada create a legal framework that would compel Internet service providers that host pornographic content to:
• implement and use available tools to combat the flagrant and relentless re-uploading of illegal content;
• hire, train and effectively supervise staff to carry out moderation and content removal tasks at an appropriate scale;
maintain detailed records of user reports and responses that can be audited by authorities;
• be legally accountable for content moderation and removal decisions and the harm to individuals that results when efforts are inadequate; and
• build in and design features that prioritize the best interests and privacy rights of children and vulnerable adults

Admittedly, these are some good proposals. Will anything come of these hearings when the next Parliament sits? I guess we will have to wait and see in the new session.

Again, this is not defend this disgusting industry. However, even with safeguards, there are still plenty of children and non-consenting people who are victimized here. It’s not much of a consolation to say that “it will just go elsewhere” if these sites are shut down.

Even for young adults, what happens in 5 or 10 years when they grow up and realize they’ve made a serious mistake? How easy (or possible) will it be to get this information scrubbed?

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11088039
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/ETHI/meeting-19/evidence
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Reports/RP11148202/ethirp03/ethirp03-e.pdf
(4) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Adult Gender Equality LEAF
(5) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Adult Industry Labourers
(6) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Christian Legal Fellowship
(7) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Free Speech
(8) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings MindGeek
(9) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Non State Torture
(10) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Ntl Center For Exploitation
(11) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Stop Exploitation
(12) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Winnipeg Sex Workers
(13) Pornhub Parliamentary Hearings Your Brain On Porn
(14) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/10/pornhub-mastercard-visa-rape-child-abuse-images
(15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindGeek

Updated Vaccine Product Inserts STILL Show Lack Of Critical Testing: Pregnancy; New Mothers; Children

The interim authorized (not approved) so-called “vaccines” in Canada have had some updates to their product inserts. However, the same concerns remain. Even though new side effects are being listed, the emergency authorization still allows these to be distributed.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

And it’s also worth a reminder that the manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. Therefore, if this screws up or kills people, the creators are off the hook complete.

1. AstraZeneca

2. Johnson & Johnson

3. Moderna

4. Pfizer

But don’t worry, these vaccines are safe and effective. The proper one for you, is the first one you are offered…. lab-rat.

Facedrive/Microsoft Partner For TraceSCAN Distribution (Wearable Contact Tracing Equipment)

A company called Facedrive has gotten together with the University of Waterloo to create a wearable device to aid in contact tracing. Now that it appears to be operational, it’s ready to sell in collaboration with Microsoft. You remember Microsoft, they helped launched ID2020 back in 2016. Their ex-CEO, Bill Gates, wants to vaccinate the planet.

[Facedrive] is pleased to announce that its contact-tracing platform TraceSCAN has achieved co-sell ready status on the Microsoft Partner Network. Achieving ‘co-sell ready’ status will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN with a significant scaling opportunity by gaining access to Microsoft global customer and partner base. Furthermore, ‘co-sell ready’ status will enable Facedrive and Microsoft teams to collaborate globally on promoting TraceSCAN as a holistic connected health solution powered by Microsoft Azure technology stack. Specifically, Microsoft sales and consulting teams will be able to offer TraceSCAN contact-tracing to their corporate customers as an integrated feature within the enterprise business applications powered by Microsoft products. The greater choice and flexibility provided by being part of the Microsoft Partner’s Network will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN customers with a richer set of options in implementing their contact tracing programs.

It seems that a business deal with Microsoft has been in the works for a while. Considering Gates’ many ties to globalism and this “pandemic”, associations with his former company are worth careful scrutiny.

July 2020, Microsoft announced that TraceSCAN wearables would be available, but distribution would be limited to partners only, for now. This was a sort of soft launch for the product. In September, commercial distribution of the the tracking units started.

December 2020, TraceSCAN received Federal certification from Innovation, Science and Economic Development of Canada (ISED). This used to be known as Industry Canada.

Facedrive appears to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (or AI) into its platform. The company claims that this will assist in forecasting the spread of COVID-19 and predicting any further outbreaks of the virus. In a sense, this device on your wrist would be used to help drive new modelling to make predictions for further lockdowns and martial law.

The AI algorithms will help detect of infected individuals that have not been in direct contact with a positive case but might have been a 2nd or 3rd-degree contact. As with everything, the devil’s in the details, and we would have to know what assumptions and calculations are being made.

The creepiness factor keeps going from there. TraceSCAN’s contact tracing wearables are also a means to track and trace children (even very young children) in their daily movements. Of course, this is being sold as safety and security.

Facedrive itself explains in broad strokes how their technology would work. This amounts to putting a GPS tracker on your wrist, and having your movements and medical conditions tracked. At the same time, this could be done to hundreds, or thousands of other people. This isn’t quite microchipping the cattle, but it’s getting pretty close.

What can this technology be used for? Facedrive gives a list of possibilities:

  • Secure access to facilities
  • Linking to existing services
  • Time tracking
  • Attendance notification
  • Immunization passport
  • Remote monitoring of health metrics

Have to admire how blunt this company is about being able to repurpose their product for more general purposes. At least they don’t lie like the politicians claiming that these trackers will only be limited to this so-called pandemic.

Even back in July 2020, the Ontario Government announced support for this company. As with most things in politics, the magic handshake is needed to get results. From the Provincial database, we are able to see who’s been pulling Ford’s strings this time.

With a quick visit to the Ontario Lobbying Registry, we can see that Facedrive has been active in recent months, using connected lobbyists to get the Government interested in their technology. And it may have helped this company secure a $2.5 million payment from Toronto.

It’s worth a reminder that Microsoft and the Ontario Ministry of Health are both part of the Vaccine Credential Initiative.

Description
VCI is working to enable individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 to access their vaccination records in a secure, verifiable and privacy-preserving way. The Coalition is developing a standard model for organizations administering COVID-19 vaccines to make credentials available in an accessible, interoperable, digital format. empower consumers to conveniently access, store, and share digital COVID-19 vaccination records

Ontario is working towards both a contact tracing system which far expands any legitimate use, and a universal vaccine certification. Anyone remember when this was just 2 weeks to flatten the curve?

Now, who were the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings of Doug Ford? It should surprise no one that the lobbyists involved have ties to the Conservatives both in Ontario, and Federally.

Stephanie Dunlop was involved in both of Erin O’Toole’s runs for the CPC leadership (2017 and 2020). She was also the Candidate Support Lead for the PC Party in 2018. This helped install Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario.

James Lin worked in the Government of Doug Ford, before going over to Hill + Knowlton. He was in the Ministry of Transportation, as a Policy Director. Additionally, he was an Advisor in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport. He was also involved in the Toronto City Council when Rob and Doug Ford were there. February 2021, she lobbied the Manitoba Government of Brian Pallister over the same contact-tracing platform.

Laura Grossman spent 5 years working for the Government of Canada during the Harper reign.

Also worth noting, Natalie Sigalet, a Senior Account Director at the lobbying firm, Hill + Knowlton, has reached out to the Alberta Government of Jason Kenney. She worked in the Office of the Premier of Alberta when Allison Redford was in charge. Presumably, she’s still pretty connected.

Looking at the Federal Registry, Facedrive is listed there several times. Interestingly, in their 2020 registrations, they list no Government (taxpayer) funding in 2019. However, there is expected to be some coming up from Finance Canada and the Ontario Centre of Excellence. This appears to reference the $2.5 million secured from Ford.

In what should surprise no one, Facedrive has been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Makes sense, as they are very much invested in promoting the pandemic narrative.

In the Azure Marketplace, Microsoft outlines the main goals of this product:
[1] Case Investigation
[2] Contact Tracing
[3] Contact Support
[4] Self Quarantine

Now all of this may sound harmless enough, especially since the self-quarantine is recommended. However, what happens when it becomes mandatory, and wearing this device isn’t a choice? Also, who will be monitoring this system, and what teeth will there be?

This system is just a few short steps away from becoming a Government run chipping and monitoring system. While this may sound hyperbolic, consider where we were even a year ago.

From the looks of things, Microsoft will be used as a hosting platform for which Facedrive is able to launch its product on a much larger scale. However, MS is also eligible to sell units of TraceSCAN under the terms of the arrangement with Facedrive. Of course, that leads to all kinds of privacy and security issues, including who will have access to this data.

And a serious question: what happens if the hosting or management of this system (or part of it) gets sold or outsourced to someone else? What privacy considerations will there be?

Just looking at the products and services offered by Azure, it includes: AI, analytics, blockchain and mixed reality. For people who value any semblance of bodily autonomy and privacy, this needs to be seriously looked into before ever signing on.

And no, this isn’t something new. Even in April 2020, the early days of this psy-op, Microsoft had partnered with the University of Washington. How strange that tracking people was their immediate response.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_vdNM33Ug&
(2) https://id2020.org/alliance
(3) https://health.facedrive.com/
(4) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-achieves-co-sell-ready-status-with-microsoft/
(5) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-wearables-app-now-available-on-microsoft-store-for-partners/
(6) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/tracescan-starts-shipping-wearable-devices/
(7) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrive-healths-contact-tracing-technology-tracescan-secures-federal-certification-from-innovation-science-and-economic-development-of-canada-ised/
(8) https://health.facedrive.com/how-it-works/
(9) https://health.facedrive.com/tracescan-ai-platform/
(10) https://health.facedrive.com/school-industry/
(11) https://twitter.com/FacedriveHealth
(12) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-covid-19-tracescan-app-receives-support-of-ontario-government/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-credential-initiative-passports-digital-health-passes-ontario-ford/
(14) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/Default.aspx
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephdunlop/
(16) https://registry.lobbyistregistrar.mb.ca/lra/reporting/public/registrar/view.do?method=get&registrationId=414590
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslin16/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-grosman-7331a28b/
(19) Facedrive Registration Alberta Sheila Wisniewski
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/natalie-sigalet-83b5556a/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367466&regId=904875
(22) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(23) https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RWIzL5
(24) Azure Marketplace Facedrive TraceSCAN
(25) https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/
(26) https://www.geekwire.com/2020/uw-microsoft-release-contact-tracing-app-aiming-battle-covid-19-preserving-privacy/

Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

This article concerns a lawsuit from July 6, 2020, which had previously been talked about. This is the challenge from Vaccine Choice Canada and several individuals which was supposed to end all regulations and medical martial law in Canada.

Instead of that, this lawsuit is no closer to Trial than it was 14 months ago. There are still no defenses filed. In fact, other than Windsor-Essex Country and their MOH, Wajid Ahmed, no one else is even listed as having a lawyer. Rather than file an application for a default judgement, Vaccine Choice Canada has been content to let it sit forever, and just ask for donations. This is clearly designed to go nowhere, but that is never made clear to the people who get solicited for money.

And no, it’s not their only case. There is another filed on October 24, 2019, to challenge mandatory immunization of students. There has been no movement on that since March 2020, when the pleadings ended.

The shoddy work of the 2020 case had been critiqued before, however, it’s long time to take a look at the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario. Let’s see exactly why this is due to fail, assuming it were ever challenged. It’s not enough to say that a document is garbage. Instead, it must be explained “why” that is the case.

Recently, the suit from Action4Canada was critiqued, and much the same defects were noted. That will never get to Trial either.

As with the last review, the pleadings are so awful, that it’s difficult to believe this was done by accident. This doesn’t look like the work of a lawyer with 35-40 years of experience, but someone who is trying to ensure a case gets bogged down.

To be clear, this isn’t a defense of Trudeau, Ford, Tory, or any of their authoritarian operatives. That being said, it’s impossible to pretend that this lawsuit actually stands a chance in Court.

To start off, let’s look at a few parts of the Ontario Rules for Civil Procedure. This will list the specifics which are relevant here.

RULE 2.1 GENERAL POWERS TO STAY OR DISMISS IF VEXATIOUS, ETC.
STAY, DISMISSAL OF FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS, ABUSIVE PROCEEDING
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
.
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

RULE 18 TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
18.01 Except as provided in rule 18.02 or subrule 19.01 (5) (late delivery of defence) or 27.04 (2) (counterclaim against plaintiff and non-party), a statement of defence (Form 18A) shall be delivered,
.
(a) within twenty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served in Ontario;
(b) within forty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; or
(c) within sixty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served anywhere else. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.01.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND
18.02 (1) A defendant who is served with a statement of claim and intends to defend the action may deliver a notice of intent to defend (Form 18B) within the time prescribed for delivery of a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (1).
.
(2) A defendant who delivers a notice of intent to defend within the prescribed time is entitled to ten days, in addition to the time prescribed by rule 18.01, within which to deliver a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (2).
.
(3) Subrules (1) and (2) apply, with necessary modifications, to,
(a) a defendant to a counterclaim who is not already a party to the main action and who has been served with a statement of defence and counterclaim; and
(b) a third party who has been served with a third party claim. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (3).

If a Defendant doesn’t file a defence after 20 days, the Plaintiff can go seek a default judgement. This essentially means (if granted) the case would effectively be over. Note: a Defendant can still file a notice of intent, which buys them an extra 10 days. It does not stop the proceedings entirely.

RULE 19 DEFAULT PROCEEDINGS
NOTING DEFAULT
Where no Defence Delivered
.
19.01 (1) Where a defendant fails to deliver a statement of defence within the prescribed time, the plaintiff may, on filing proof of service of the statement of claim, or of deemed service under subrule 16.01 (2), require the registrar to note the defendant in default. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.01 (1); O. Reg. 113/01, s. 3.

CONSEQUENCES OF NOTING DEFAULT
19.02 (1) A defendant who has been noted in default,
.
(a) is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the statement of claim; and
(b) shall not deliver a statement of defence or take any other step in the action, other than a motion to set aside the noting of default or any judgment obtained by reason of the default, except with leave of the court or the consent of the plaintiff. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.02 (1).

According to the Rules, if a Defendant never bothers to file any sort of response, the facts are considered to be admitted. However, an application for default judgement has to actually be submitted.

RULES OF PLEADING — APPLICABLE TO ALL PLEADINGS
Material Facts
.
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (1).
.
Pleading Law
.
(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (2).

Documents or Conversations
.
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (7).

In other words, the pleadings should not contain long quotes. References or short mentions are fine, but there isn’t supposed to be entire paragraphs or pages for this. These aren’t some abstract or archaic concepts, but are pretty basic in terms of drawing up documents.

Claim for Relief
.
25.06(9) Where a pleading contains a claim for relief, the nature of the relief claimed shall be specified and, where damages are claimed,
.
(a) the amount claimed for each claimant in respect of each claim shall be stated; and
.
(b) the amounts and particulars of special damages need only be pleaded to the extent that they are known at the date of the pleading, but notice of any further amounts and particulars shall be delivered forthwith after they become known and, in any event, not less than ten days before trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (9).

This should be commonsense, but if money is going to be demanded (and there are multiple Plaintiffs), one needs to specify who gets what. This avoids confusion and arguments later on.

PARTICULARS
25.10 Where a party demands particulars of an allegation in the pleading of an opposite party, and the opposite party fails to supply them within seven days, the court may order particulars to be delivered within a specified time. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.10.

A demand for particulars is what gets served when the claim or application is convoluted to understand. This would be another option here. The Defendants could quite reasonably reply with a request that it be made clear what the other side actually wants.

STRIKING OUT A PLEADING OR OTHER DOCUMENT
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
.
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.

These Rules around pleadings are pretty similar to Rule 3-1 and 3-7 in the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure. There are minor differences, but the regulations around drafting and serving pleadings is much the same. Now, let’s get into some specific criticisms.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) states that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts. This is not at all concise. This 191 page filing is rambling, redundant, and contains bald allegations without underlying facts listed to support them.

As one example, look at page 21 and Cindy Campbell. Instead of briefly stating facts, this goes on and on about her story. These long, bloated paragraphs make it impossible for the other side to simply admit or deny allegations. This is done very poorly. It continues with Groza, Lepe, Spizzirri and Shepherd.

In fact, the bulk of the SoC doesn’t belong here, and would certainly be struck if challenged by the Defendants. More on that coming up.

2. Relief For Each Claimant Not Stated In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(9)(a) spells out that the amount for each Claimant (or person suing), must be stated clearly. On page 18, there is a request for $11 million, but it appears to be against CBC only. Moreover, it isn’t clear who exactly it’s supposed to go to.

Against the Crown and Municipal Defendants, no money is sought, only declarative and injunctive relief. That’s right, Trudeau, Tam, Ford, and co. aren’t being sued for a penny.

Apparently, brevity isn’t the name of the game here. The relief sought runs from page 4 to 18, and is incredibly repetitive and redundant.

3. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) does demand that facts be pleaded, however, it also states that evidence MUST NOT be included. From pages 82 to 103, there are many quotes are references to other experts who have differing views. While that is fine in principle, this is not the place to do it. If they have value as experts, then they need to be called to give evidence at a later time. None of that should be in a SoC.

Also, throughout the document, media articles are often cited and included in the footnotes. That may be fine in other contexts, but Court pleadings is not one of them.

4. Long Quotes Also Abundant In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(7) instructs that the “effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material”. In short, we don’t need the entire story told here. Keep it brief.

As just one example, look at page 82. What follows are lengthy quotes from various experts. This goes on for several pages, and should not be included in an SoC. If they are relevant, then the people speaking those words need to be called as expert witnesses at a later date.

5. Making Conclusions Without Supporting Facts

Rule 25.11 allows the court to strike out pleadings that:
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

Beginning at page 146, the SoC goes on to make sweeping declarations on a variety of subjects, despite having little to no foundation. While the bulk of the content is true, underlying facts haven’t been included. There are references to media articles, but again, that shouldn’t be there. The SoC is such a mess that the entire document would probably get thrown out if a motion were filed.

Despite a lot of the content being truthful, all allegations in the SoC will be open to challenge by opposing parties. Countless witnesses would have to be called to prove this, and much more. This is written up in such a way that it would be impossible to bring to trial in any reasonable amount of time — notwithstanding it just sitting for a year.

6. Issues With Denis Rancourt’s Pleadings In Statement Of Claim

Denis Rancourt’s introduction starts on page 39 of the SoC, and yes, he has quite the accomplished background as a researcher and academic.

However, it doesn’t look like any facts are pleaded that would implicate the Defendants. On page 40, it’s stated that Research Gate removed an article, and on page 41, YouTube removed his videos. But they aren’t being sued, so this is irrelevant. He also claims that CBC wouldn’t air his work, which is probably annoying, but doesn’t seem to give rise to a lawsuit.

Page 42 goes on to assert that Rancourt’s free speech and expression rights have been violated. But this appears to be making bald assertions or conclusions without pleading necessary facts.

On page 86, Rancourt is quoted as an expert, which may cause issues considering he’s a Plaintiff here. He’s also listed as a mask expert in the Police On Guard case.

7. Service Likely To Be Challenged (If It Ever Happened)

This may seem pretty basic, but the addresses for service have to be included in the SoC. All of them must be, even if multiple parties can be served at the same address. Only a handful are in this case (seen in page 2 and 3). Should the Defendants stop ignoring this case, it may become a real problem.

Then again, it’s an open question how many of these parties have been served at all. The only ones we can be sure of are Windsor-Essex County and their Doctor. The Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, replied to several inquiries that there was nothing filed beyond that notice of intent from WEC. No affidavits of service, even months later.

CBC News has obtained an unredacted copy of a lawsuit launched by an anti-vaccination advocacy group against the government response to the coronavirus crisis, the details of which can now be independently verified and publicly reported for the first time.
.
The lawsuit was filed July 6 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto by Aylmer, Ont.-based Vaccine Choice Canada and seven individuals. The legal action is a challenge under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the country’s pandemic response measures, including compulsory face masks, the closure of businesses and the enforcement of physical distancing.

In an August 2020 article, CBC claimed that they had “obtained an unredacted copy” of the lawsuit. They imply they were never served, and only got a copy of contacting the Court itself. Whether this is true or not is unclear, but pretty damning if it is. Interestingly, it’s mentioned how the case might get dismissed because it doesn’t comply with the rules, and doesn’t justify a lot of its allegations. CBC also says that Galati refused an on-the-record interview, but then threatened the network with how they cover the protests. All of this sounds surprisingly believable.

Granted, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines last year. But that ended on September 14, 2020. There’s no valid excuse for a response to have not been sent by now.

The items listed above are not minor errors, but could easily stop an action in its tracks. Hard to believe that all of this was due to sloppiness. This isn’t some rookie associate drafting the SoC.

The reality is that the vast majority of the content in the SoC doesn’t belong here. The originating document is supposed to be concise, brief, and outline the facts to be proven. The drafting was quite shoddy, and doesn’t seem like it was ever designed with a Trial in mind.

What we have is a situation where:
[1] The Government won’t try to strike defective pleadings.
[2] The Plaintiff won’t seek default judgement on a non-response.

Nothing has happened to this suit in a year. Outside of collusion or some kind of agreement, there’s no real explanation. But that hasn’t stopped Vaccine Choice Canada and their lawyer from doing a media blitz last summer. Even as donations flooded in, it was never disclosed that what the situation was. Well meaning people were led to believe that this case was being pursued diligently.

This case used to be prominently posted on the Vaccine Choice Canada website. It’s now not as easy to find, unless one knows where to look.

Now, there have been recent claims that these affidavits of evidence (in the thousands of pages) were being compiled to drop on the Government. Even if true, no Judge is going to read documents of that length. Additionally, it won’t help when the flawed SoC gets thrown out, for the reasons listed above.

If exposing Trudeau and Ford was important, just imagine what a SoC, properly drafted, could have done. Imagine all of the information and evidence that would have been flushed out during depositions and discovery. Instead, this has been a waste of time and money. In fact, it doesn’t seem like there’s any urgency to bring any of the Constitutional Rights Centre cases ahead.

Despots like Trudeau and Ford are despicable people, but at least we know they are enemies. It’s the people masquerading as allies who are harder to put up with.

To anyone still donating to these scams, think long and hard about it.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-unredacted-version.pdf
(2) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(4) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(5) https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/media/press-release-legal-challenge-to-covid-19-measures-filed-in-ontario-superior-court/
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988

Nova Scotia FOI Result: Province Refuses To Turn Over Data/Studies Justifying Masks In Schools

Thank you to a concerned Nova Scotia resident who took the time to contact the NS Department of Health and Wellness regarding masks in schools. The same person also went through the efforts to contact the Government asking for data about ICU hospitalizations and capacity going back to 2015. This earlier result is well worth a read.

Note: when scrubbing details, a few pages at the end turned out a bit wonky. Hopefully, that doesn’t detract from the overall information.

The Department of Health and Wellness received your application for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) on June 22, 2021.
.
In your application, you requested a copy of the following records:
.
All scientific data, correspondence, studies, final briefing notes, risk-benefit analysis that justify and or support the government’s actions and decision-making that masking children in schools is necessary to reduce the spread of COVID-19 that are held by Dr. Strang Chief Medical Officer of Health. (Date Range for Record Search:
From 02/29/2020 To 06/21/2021)

This is a very reasonable request. If young children are going to be forced (or coerced) into wearing masks for 4 or 6 hours per day, then we need to see some justification for this. For all the rambling about following the science, let’s see some actual science.

You are entitled to part of the records requested. However, we have removed some of the information from the records according to subsection 5(2) of the Act. The severed information is exempt from disclosure under the Act for the following reasons:
• Section 14(1): The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice, recommendations or draft regulations developed by or for a public body.
• Section 20(1): The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

The Province is redacting part of the information, claiming that it would force them to reveal regulations currently being drafted. They also allege some 3rd party invasion of privacy. It’s scant on details, so there’s really no way to verify this.

We are refusing access to a portion of the records for the following reason pursuant to subsection 4(2) of the Act:
• The Act does not apply to the following kinds of information in the custody or control of a public body: published information, material available for purchase and material that is a matter of public record.

As an additional ground, no information can be released, since apparently it’s already in the public domain. Now, there are links provided on the next page, but this doesn’t really help narrow down where exactly that information is.

Information that is not responsive to the scope of your requests has been removed from the
records package.

Dude, you haven’t provided any information. Does the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Nova Scotia not have any records related to the health of children in schools, and how masks would impact them?

Nova Scotia’s Covid -19 response actions have been based on national and international guidance from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). As the leading agencies for pandemic response nationally and internationally, both PHAC and WHO are continuously reviewing the evolving scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 and the effectiveness of various measures. These reviews are used to form their guidance, position statements, and other documents all of which are in the public domain.

This is the typical self-congratulations, that doesn’t really answer the question being asked. Now, there are another 10 pages attached, mostly redacted. The information provided is pretty useless. Now, if there truly was a scientific and medical basis for the decision to push masks on the public (and especially on kids) why not share it openly?

There has to be far more information that the pages (even the redacted ones) provided. This is a major decision, and not something that can be done on a whim. What are they really hiding?

And since we’re on FOIs, go visit Fluoride Free Peel. Amazing work done there to expose the scam of this so-called virus.

(1) Nova Scotia Masks At School FOI
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(3) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/